BEST PRACTICE - Teesside University

SOCIAL

FUTURES INSTITUTE

www.tees.ac.uk/socialfutures [email protected] 01642 342321

A Better Place to Live: Social and Community Cohesion in Middlesbrough

Colin Webster, Tim Blackman, Roger Sapsford, Barbara Neil and Tony Chapman

A research and policy report commissioned by Middlesbrough Council December 2004

Social and Community Cohesion in Middlesbrough

SOCIAL FUTURES INSTITUTE

Contents Executive Summary 1 Introduction

3 9

2 The policy background

10

3 The local background

11

4 The concepts of social exclusion, social cohesion and community cohesion

13

5 Factors limiting community and social cohesion: some lessons from Oldham, Bradford and Burnley

19

6 Factors that enhance community and social cohesion

21

7 Past and present: community cohesion in Middlesbrough

22

8 Young people and community cohesion in Middlesbrough

25

9 Measuring social cohesion in Middlesbrough

27

10 Quantitative indicators: survey data

33

11 Quantitative indicators: change and continuity

40

12 Quantitative measures of community cohesion: recommendations

54

13 Qualitative indicators of cohesion: focus groups

57

14 Evaluation of phase I action plan community cohesion projects 80 15 Evaluation of phase II action plan community cohesion projects 16 Discussion and summary of evaluation References Appendix: Recorded Crime Rates in Middlesbrough

86 91 100

1



List of Tables Table 3.1 Table 4.1:

Table 4.2: Table 9.1

Table 9.2 Table 10.1: Table 10.2: Table 10.3: Table 10.4: Table 11.1:

Table 11.2:

Table 11.3: Table 11.4:

Table 11.5: Table 11.6: Table 11.7: Table 13:1:

Ethnic structure of Middlesbrough 1991 – 2001 The Domains of Community Cohesion and Appropriate Neighbourhood Policies to Support Them The Domains of Social Cohesion Unemployment benefit claimants and joblessness: Middlesbrough wards May 2003 Minority ethnic population and car ownership by ward 1991-2001 Indices of Deprivation for Wards in Middlesbrough, 2000 Poverty, ethnicity and education (percentage of respondents in each neighbourhood) Population movement (percentage respondents in each neighbourhood) Neighbourhood conditions and safety (percentage respondents by neighbourhood) Respondents participating in different types of further education living in deprived and non-deprived wards (percentages) Declared weekly income by whether respondent lived in a non-deprived or deprived ward. Neighbourhood concerns: change over time and by type of ward (percentages) Neighbourhood change in the last year comparing 2001 and 2003 by deprived and non-deprived wards (percentages) Problem behaviours by deprived and nondeprived wards (percentages) Fear of crime (percentages) Been a victim of crime in the last 12 months? (percentages) Asylum seeker and refugee attitudes about living in Middlesbrough

12 16

17

31 33 35 36 37 38

39

42 45

46 47 49 51

2



Executive Summary Background 1.

In January 2003, Middlesbrough Council commissioned a team from the University of Teesside to undertake a study of community cohesion to inform the work of the Middlesbrough Community Cohesion Pathfinder Project. The Pathfinder, which has identified young people as a priority group, is being funded by the Government in response to issues arising out of a series of reports that were published following outbreaks of serious disorder in Bradford, Burnley and Oldham in 2001. The report presents findings from the study, based on a literature review, analysis of survey and census data, focus groups and project evaluations.

2.

Community cohesion is about more than tackling social exclusion and involves sustaining relationships of trust and neighbourly interaction. It can be fostered through measures that involve and empower local people, and build feelings of trust, safety and belonging that can form a basis for shared common values and norms of behaviour.

3.

Cohesive communities that support individuals are particularly important when facing adversity such as poverty or discrimination. However, deprivation can have the effect of eroding cohesion and heightening risks of violence, crime and racist harassment. In these circumstances, common values, civil relations and civic engagement can meet with disillusionment and disengagement among local people.

4.

Despite this, many deprived communities are cohesive and supportive. This can be both positive, such as sources of friendship or coping with crime, and negative, such as ‘defended neighbourhoods’ in conflict with one another. Regeneration initiatives have sometimes been blamed for fuelling the latter as communities compete for resources, especially if this occurs along ethnic lines.

5.

Middlesbrough has experienced cumulative and long-standing residential segregation along social class lines. The town grew rapidly in the nineteenth century to serve new industries, and became divided between a northern working-class area and southern middle-class suburbs. Deindustrialisation subsequently ghettoised many of its working-class neighbourhoods, some of which had received major new council housing investment after the Second World War. Migration out of the town centre continues today, including first-time buyers moving to more settled communities in the outer suburbs, escaping poor environments and relatively high levels of crime.

6.

More recently, an ethnic dimension has developed to the town’s social geography. Middlesbrough’s minority ethnic population is recorded as 8,500 people in the 2001 census, representing 6.3 per cent of the total

3



population, and largely concentrated in a few wards. It is growing in size due to a young demography, and is mostly of Pakistani origin. 7.

Many young people in Middlesbrough face risks associated with the availability of drugs and level of criminal activity, but few want to leave the town or their neighbourhood, where they generally feel connected and included. It is also a challenge for many young people to find a job, especially one with decent pay and security, making it difficult to leave home and form a family.

8.

Middlesbrough has an exceptionally high concentration of deprivation and a high level of joblessness. Although minority ethnic residents tend to be concentrated in some of the most deprived wards, there is no overall correlation between ward deprivation and the proportion of residents from minority ethnic groups, because so many wards in Middlesbrough with low proportions of minority ethnic residents experience high levels of deprivation. Minority ethnic residents are also more likely to be owner occupiers than other residents.

9.

Neighbourhood deprivation tends to be associated with a relatively high turnover of residents. Residents living in areas of social housing in Middlesbrough are more likely to want to move than other residents, especially if they feel the neighbourhood has deteriorated and is unsafe. The 2001 neighbourhood survey revealed a very uneven geography of safety, with high levels of concern about personal safety in some areas. Just over 40 per cent of minority ethnic residents reported that they were worried about being a victim of a racist attack, although actual victimisation was much lower. When asked what makes a good neighbourhood, the most common responses among all ethnic groups related to a low level of crime and safe, drug-free neighbourhoods.

10.

There is a range of indicators available from sources such as the Census, the Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit, housing needs, household and neighbourhood surveys which can be monitored as contextual measures of community cohesion. Community cohesion can also be measured directly using survey questions, such as the Audit Commission’s proposed standard question; do you feel that your local area is a place where people from different backgrounds and communities can live together harmoniously? There are also various indexes that can be used to measure aspects of cohesion, such as the Index of Dissimilarity. This index indicates that the extent of residential separation of minority ethnic residents in Middlesbrough has not changed between 1991 and 2001.

Findings 11.

Focus groups with young Asian men and women, young white men and asylum seekers/refugees were carried out to gain a qualitative picture of community cohesion. All of the focus groups except for the

4



asylum seekers/refugees regarded quite large and coherent central areas of the town as ‘their neighbourhood’, and generally felt safe there. Among both the Asian groups, Victoria Road and its surrounding streets formed a ‘heartland’ which can be regarded as ‘the Asian community’, although it is quite mixed, and for some they did not feel comfortable outside this area. The Asian women interviewed had a different perspective on this heartland area, as it was associated with cultural expectations that could be experienced as oppressive. 12.

The group of young white men also felt ‘connected’ to the town centre area in a similar way to the male Asian group, but considered that they were ‘looked down on’ by people from more affluent areas of the town. They also felt that while the town was improving in many ways, their own area remained largely unaffected. There was no evidence of hostility towards Black and minority ethnic residents, with the exception of asylum seekers.

13.

The group of asylum seekers/refugees described very different experiences, with a high level of harassment and intimidation, and little faith in the police. For them, living in Middlesbrough was largely about humiliation and powerlessness. Their stories contrasted strongly with the general message of the other groups that Middlesbrough is a place to be valued, where they cannot easily imagine leaving, and a place that is improving. On the positive side, the majority of asylum seekers and refugees do intend to remain in Middlesbrough and they have praised the efforts of the Asylum Team in Middlesbrough Council for helping them manage a difficult life transition.

14.

Overall, our study presents a picture of a town where there are no serious racial tensions, but a range of issues associated with deepseated and extensive deprivation, with 70 per cent of the town’s population living in deprived wards. The exception to a generally harmonious racial situation is the harassment and humiliation that appears to be a common experience for asylum seekers. There is evidence that young people feel attached to their neighbourhoods and like Middlesbrough, especially given a perception of change for the better, but the job situation for many is still bleak. There is a common aspiration among all residents for safe, drug-free neighbourhoods with low crime levels.

15.

The 2003 Neighbourhood Survey revealed considerable change since the first survey was administered in 2001. Change between 2001 and 2003 in some indicators was striking, particularly in respect of community safety. The overall picture was one of significant improvement. Fewer residents living in Middlesbrough planned to move and of those who did their reason was less likely to be because of fear of crime. Social housing declined and owner occupation increased. Parents were more satisfied with schools had felt that educational standards had increased. Although deprivation and

5



poverty persists, unemployment and poverty had declined and health had improved. 16.

Over the period, residents felt that their neighbourhoods had either improved or had stayed the same. Much fewer than in 2001 said that their neighbourhoods had got worse. Feelings of being involved in community life had grown and residents felt their areas to be safer. Fear of crime and victim rates had declined. There were large reductions in crime rates and reductions in the rate of increase of crime compared to other places in Cleveland and nationally.

17.

Middlesbrough Council, with its partners, initiated a series of diverse and often innovative projects to tackle community cohesion. Our evaluation found that most projects eventually achieved their aims and engaged a large number of participants. As is the case in many short-term initiatives, the time-span for the projects was too tight to plan properly, employ staff and implement new procedures. There were difficulties in appointing a Community Cohesion Officer to the Pathfinder which led to a lack of coherence and co-ordination in aims and activity across the programmes.

18.

Most projects successfully met their objectives although there was lack of communication and coordination between project managers, suggesting that good practice remained isolated to individual interventions rather than being embedded throughout the pathfinder. Where projects did not meet their aims (and most did) they met other valuable aims. Some of the most successful projects were those that involved setting up meeting or events such as the launch of the BME Network and various cultural events. Overall, projects are to be commended for their innovation and enthusiasm, and most of the projects appear to have made a contribution to the lives of those who took part in them.

19.

While it has been possible to gauge the outputs of individual projects it remains difficult to measure their outcomes in terms of specific impact on community cohesion. This is partly due to the interplay of many other factors. For example, community cohesion in Middlesbrough has been affected to a large extent by a general improvement in attitudes towards the town, which have been underpinned by, for example, reductions in crime rates and greater feelings of community safety. Their wider impact on the town as a whole cannot be judged from the kind of information presented here. While there is little evidence of real synergy between projects, even in Phase II, there may still be room for learning how to combine practices for future community cohesion events run by partnerships of agencies for people across the whole of the community.

6



Conclusion 20.

From the individual projects outlined above, it is clear that the main lesson learned from Middlesbrough’s Community Cohesion Pathfinder is that face-to-face contact between groups of people who rarely meet is the best way of breaking down cultural barriers. While face-to-face encounters are not a panacea and may not necessarily eradicate ‘cultural myths’ surrounding prejudice entirely, such encounters may challenge cultural myths and encourage people to ‘think first’ before they make assertions about people who they perceive to be ‘different’ from them. Expressions of commonality of experience in response to face-to-face contact (while still recognising the importance and legitimacy of difference) was, we feel, one of the most positive aspects of this programme of interventions and we suspect it will be the most enduring outcome.

Recommendations 20.

It is evident that a shared definition of what constituted community cohesion has yet to be achieved. We recommend that in future programmes, more strict definitional guidelines are established at the outset on objectives, outputs and outcomes to ensure that achievements can be measured. Similarly, project managers need to commit, as a whole group, to the idea of regular communication of their achievements and difficulties so that the collective group could benefit from individual efforts.

22.

We recommend that future investment in community cohesion should require partnership involvement in initiatives. From our analysis, those interventions which drew together different agencies were amongst the most effective because they highlighted the point that 'professionals' or 'practitioners' are involved in the community and do not just operate to manage or control aspects of community life. Breaking down the 'us' and 'them' relationship between figures of authority – whether they be police officers, street wardens, teachers, youth workers or drug workers – and members of the community is essential across the range of social groups in the community.

23.

Sustaining the impetus of this community cohesion initiative will rely on continued funding from mainstream sources, but need not, we argue, be overly burdensome in economic terms. We recommend that activities should be focused upon those community locations where local people feel safe to become involved and thereby strengthen the importance of community focal points. Schools, in particular, have been shown to sit at the heart of the community and

7



can play an enormously important role in building bridges between communities through cooperative ventures and events. 23.

Young people who have left school or are seriously disengaged from schools are harder to engage in community activities. The evidence we have collected suggests that when the community invests in them, socially disengaged young people respond positively to the ‘discovery’ that they have potential to build practical skills and can enhance their social understanding and relationships with others. Such work is more costly and intensive, but the benefits to the young people and their communities can be significant. We recommend that significant mainstream investment is focused upon disengaged young people to build confidence and raise aspirations.

24.

Our study points to a need for local politicians, professionals and practitioners in the field of community cohesion to learn from each other. Practitioners, in particular, need to learn 'how to learn' from others' experiences. While co-ordinating officers can do much to encourage such interchanges of ideas, the onus must be placed on practitioners themselves to embrace ideas which can be learned from similar practice rather than to spend too much time developing innovate practice from scratch. We recommend that the development of a learning plan based upon best practice needs to be built into future community cohesion work as a requirement of project funding.

25.

The lingering worry we have as evaluators is that the projects we have studied may have attracted participation disproportionately from those children and young people (or their parents/carers) who were either waiting and ready and willing to take part in new activities; or were, at least open to persuasion to become involved. This may mean that the most ‘difficult to reach’ groups of children and young people have remained excluded (perhaps by their own or their parents' choice) from these activities. Our suspicion is that the 'discourse' of community cohesion does not fully articulate with the perceived needs of some people in the community. While we recognise that these assertions clearly require further research, we make the observation that it is important to remain alert to the range of people involved in future initiatives and to ensure that patterns of participation are monitored carefully. We recommend that future interventions should be planned to ensure that patterns of 'sustained involvement' is maintained across the range of people who take part in their projects to ensure that the dynamics of community engagement do not discourage the groups with the greatest need.

8



1.

Introduction

1.1

In January 2003, Middlesbrough Council commissioned a team from the Social Futures Institute at the University of Teesside to undertake a study of community cohesion. The purpose of the study is to inform the council’s Community Cohesion Action Plan, which is one of fifteen national Community Cohesion Pathfinder Projects. We were asked to report by November 2004.

1.2

The study had three objectives: • •

•

1.3

To review statistical information about community cohesion and propose indicators with which to measure cohesion over time; To provide qualitative ‘baseline’ data about community cohesion in Middlesbrough by undertaking focus groups with young men and women from BME communities, young white men, and asylum seekers and refugees. To evaluate the Action Plan projects based on the University’s and Council’s monitoring data from the projects.

This report summarises and integrates local neighbourhood statistics from the 2001 and 2003 Middlesbrough Neighbourhood Surveys with 2001 Census data, Home Office statistics on recorded and selfreported crime and fear of crime, qualitative indicators from focus groups and evaluation data from the Action Plan projects.

9


2. 2.1


The policy background ‘Middlesbrough is ill-balanced, lacks cohesion and suffers from social and geographical segmentation’ (Glass 1946: 20-21). This early assertion by the sociologist Ruth Glass in the 1946 Structure Plan for Middlesbrough shows that a concern about community cohesion in Middlesbrough is neither recent nor novel. It is a concern that has particular resonance in periods of rapid social and economic change, and Middlesbrough is once again facing such changes.

2.2

The current policy focus in local government on community cohesion has its origins in a recent series of reports that were published following outbreaks of serious public disorder in the spring and summer of 2001 in Bradford, Burnley and Oldham. The immediate events leading to these disorders appeared to be a confused series of well-publicised violent ‘racist’ clashes and attacks against people and property involving Asian and white young people. The context was a climate of fear and rumour within Asian communities that the British National Party and/or the National Front were going to march into Asian areas, despite banning orders authorised by the Home Secretary. The National Front had visited Oldham from all parts of the country to demonstrate their ‘support of the white population against racist attacks’, and the relative electoral success of the British National Party in Oldham and Burnley seemed to affirm significant support for ideological racism (OMBC and GMP 2001; Clarke 2001). The overall effect was to alert Asian and white young people to the possibility of being attacked and to the need to defend themselves and, in some cases, to attack others.

2.3

The official response implied that the ‘multiculturalist settlement’, which has dominated race relations thinking in Britain for two decades, is no longer working. It was thought that a revised strategy was needed to address a racially and ethnically divided society as ‘multiculturalism’ did in an earlier time. The old ‘multiculturalist’ formula of ‘celebrating difference’ – itself a response to the riots of the early 1980s – is to be replaced by a new strategy of ‘community cohesion’, which complements multiculturalism with a commitment to common values, and the Cantle Report is its blueprint (CARF 66, February/March 2002).

10



3.

The local background

3.1

Middlesbrough, like other industrial towns in the Tees Valley and elsewhere, has experienced cumulative and long-standing residential segregation and separation along social class lines. More recently, these patterns have acquired an ethnic dimension. The 2001 census records Middlesbrough’s minority ethnic population as 6.3 per cent of the total population, compared with 4.4 per cent in 1991 (see table 3.1). This population is mostly of Pakistani origin. Table 3.1 Ethnic structure of Middlesbrough 1991 – 2001 Resident population in ethnic groups:

1991 No.

White Mixed Asian or Asian British Black or Black British Chinese or Other Total BME

2001 %

134,652

95.6

4,648 563 986 6,197

No.

%

3.3 0.4 0.7

126,359 1,214 6,203 405 539

93.7 0.9 4.6 0.3 0.4

4.4

8,361

6.3

Source: 2001, 1991 Census

3.2

The 1991 and 2001 ward census data can be analysed using the Index of Dissimilarity, which calculates the percentage of one population that would have to move ward of residence to replicate the ward distribution of a comparison population. It is a measure of ‘residential social segregation’ (Peach, 1975), although we prefer the term ‘separation’ for reasons discussed below. In 1991, 48 per cent of the minority ethnic population would have needed to move ward to replicate the residential distribution of the ‘white British’ population. In 2001, this proportion remained exactly the same, indicating no change over these ten years in the extent of ethnic separation by residence in Middlesbrough.

3.3

Ethnic separation can be compared with the degree of residential separation by social class. Housing tenure can be used as a surrogate measure of social class, although in a town like Middlesbrough it is a fairly crude measure because of the extent of low-income owner occupation, including among the Asian population. Nevertheless, tenure is a broad indicator of social class as levels of employment, income and education are generally higher among owner occupiers than tenants (1991, 2001 Census). In 1991, 54 per cent of households who rented their home would have needed to move ward to replicate the residential distribution of owner-occupiers, indicating that the extent of geographical separation by tenure was greater than by ethnic group. In 2001, however, this proportion fell to 41 per cent, suggesting that Middlesbrough has become somewhat less divided by social class (there was no change in the rate of owner-occupation over this period).

11



3.4

We repeated the index of dissimilarity calculation using households with/without access to a car, another surrogate measure of social class, although with similar strengths and weaknesses as an indicator of social class as tenure. The index for car ownership fell from 39 per cent to 35 per cent between 1991 and 2001, supporting the evidence that there has been some reduction in the extent of social separation by residence. The proportion of households without access to a car fell over this period from 48 per cent to 41 per cent, suggesting that there has also been some reduction in the level of deprivation (as an increase in car ownership is likely to be associated with a rise in household income).

3.5

Terms such as social exclusion, community cohesion and segregation are especially linked as ways of describing Middlesbrough because of a combination of factors in the historical formation and current situation in the town, factors that both inhibit and facilitate cohesion. Currently the list of inhibiting factors is longer than the list of facilitating factors, but this legacy has to be recognised and overcome in Middlesbrough as elsewhere.

3.6

While area, residential, status and ethnic separation in themselves are not inimical to community cohesion, when separation becomes segregation then community cohesion is undermined. Thus an important issue that this report begins to address is whether or not people ‘choose’ to, or are constrained to live in, segregated communities, and the factors and conditions that may inform these choices and constraints.

3.7

The next section of the report provides a review of the important conceptual and policy literature on these issues. This is followed by considering factors that may encourage or discourage social cohesion within localities. Next, using historical and contemporary data, we provide a context for the more specific analysis presented later in the report, and outline the methodology used. Our research focuses on young people in Middlesbrough because the future cohesiveness of the town’s communities depends on them, and they are recognised as a priority in the Middlesbrough Pathfinder and the brief for this study.

12



4.

The concepts of social exclusion, social cohesion and community cohesion

4.1

According to the Cantle Report into the Oldham, Bradford and Burnley disturbances, ‘community cohesion’ as a term has been the focus of a number of policies and initiatives aimed principally at reducing social exclusion and integrating ethnic minority and majority communities. Policy makers and community practitioners have tended to use terms such as social exclusion, community cohesion and social cohesion without being precise about what they mean. These terms require further elaboration and clarification before moving on to how they might apply to Middlesbrough.

Social exclusion 4.2

Since coming to power in 1997, the present government has made combating social exclusion the prime aspect of its domestic policy. There is a whole swathe of area-based programmes and labour market initiatives that focus upon this, and all are represented in Middlesbrough (MacDonald and Marsh 2001).

4.3

The government’s Social Exclusion Unit (SEU, 1998) states that: ‘Social exclusion is a shorthand label for what can happen when individuals or areas suffer from a combination of linked problems such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime environments, bad health and family breakdown’.

4.3

For many, social exclusion seems to have become a ‘catch-all’ phrase, meaning all things to all people (Atkinson, 1998). It has not been without criticism: it has tended to regard excluded people as a homogeneous group and to underplay gender, ethnicity and other factors that shape identities and activities (McDonald and Marsh, 2002). The concept also denies the complexity of experiences, motivations and behaviours that may be shared across groups of people. Nevertheless, social exclusion does capture the diverse and interconnected problems that some Middlesbrough residents face: problems that cannot be solely reduced to unemployment or income poverty, and relate to processes of exclusion caused by, for example, the operation of housing markets, the implementation of area-based initiatives, or behaviours such as racial or social prejudice.

13



Community cohesion 4.4

Like social exclusion, an issue with the term ‘community cohesion’ is what it means in practical terms. Table 4.1 shows how the concept can be operationalised in terms of neighbourhood policy action (adapted from Forrest and Kearns, 2000). It breaks down the concept of community cohesion into its constituent domains in order to move from abstraction to implementation, and eventually to a set of measures which can be monitored and, where appropriate, quantified. Our own attempts to begin this process for Middlesbrough are presented later in the report.

4.5

Community cohesion is essentially about trust in social relationships, where dependence on others is recognised and cherished. A lack of dependence and trust in others leads to damage and insecurity. By denying the importance of trust and neighbourly dependence, we separate private experience from public values, denying what we learn in the family, or from friendship. At the most mundane level, community cohesion requires that people connect to one another in the same street and that local social interaction, and the familiar landmarks of our neighbourhoods, take on significance and meaning. There would therefore seem to be some requirement for stability of residence rather than transient populations moving in and out of the area, leaving in their wake fleeting, episodic encounters between strangers.

4.6

Residents are likely to experience many competing and diverse sources of social identity and place attachments. Basic building blocks of community cohesion, however, are neighbourhood or residentiallybased social networks, through which we learn tolerance and cooperation, acquire a sense of order and belonging, and acquire feelings of well being and social worth.

4.7

Forrest and Kearns (2000) argue that the quality of neighbourhood social networks is more important in disadvantaged areas because they are part of people’s ability to cope with concentrated deprivation and environmental problems. In contrast, in affluent areas people ‘buy in’ to neighbourhoods because of amenity and physical attractiveness, rather than with any expectation of a great degree of local social interaction. Similarly, social networks have greater importance for the poor, the young and the elderly, precisely because of their marginalisation relative to other, especially suburban, populations who develop new and more spatially diffuse networks (Baumgartner, 1988). Overall, though, the strongest predictor of individual local friendships is not surprisingly length of residence. Despite the importance of social networks, many residents in deprived areas do not rate ‘community spirit’ highly, and it is rated more highly in mature and wealthy home owning areas (see below). The situation is probably more complicated than this type of survey data suggest, and relates to people’s feelings of being in control and able to act as and when required on local issues.

14


Table 4.1:


The Domains of Community Cohesion and Appropriate Neighbourhood Policies to Support Them

Domain

Description

Local Policies

Empowerment

That people feel they have a voice which is listened to; are involved in processes that affect them; can themselves take action to initiate changes.

Providing support to community groups, giving local people ’voice’, helping to provide solutions to problems, giving local people a role in policy processes.

Participation

That people take part in social and community activities. Local events occur and are well attended.

Establishing and/or supporting local activities and local organisations, publicising local events.

Associational activity and common purpose

That people co-operate with one another through the formation of formal and informal groups to further their interests.

Developing and supporting networks between organisations in the area.

Supporting networks and reciprocity

That individuals and organisations co-operate to support one another for either mutual or one-sided gain. An expectation that help would be given to or received from other when needed.

Creating, developing and/or supporting an ethos of cooperation between individuals and organisations which develop ideas of community support.

Collective norms and values

That people share common values and norms of behaviour.

Developing and promulgating an ethos which residents recognise and accept; securing harmonious social relations; promoting community interests.

Trust

That people feel they can trust their co-residents and local organisations responsible for governing or serving their area.

Encouraging trust in residents in their relationships with each other. Delivering on policy promises. Bringing conflicting groups together.

Safety

That people feel safe in their neighbourhood, and are not restricted in their use of public space by fear.

Encouraging a sense of safety in residents. Involvement in local crime prevention. Providing visible evidence of security measures.

Belonging

That people feel connected to their co-residents, their home area, have a sense of belonging to the place and its people.

Creating, developing and/or supporting a sense of belonging in residents. Boosting the identity of a place via design, street furnishings, naming.

Good neighbourhood award schemes.

Source: Adapted from Forrest and Kearns 2000: 21

15


4.8


The context of policy debates that underpin discussions about community cohesion is clearly concern about the prevalence of ‘weak ties’ and the production and maintenance of social order in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. This focus on neighbourhoods perceived to have problems does raise the important issue of what are ‘cohesive’ neighbourhoods. An influential perspective (Putnam 1995) is that neighbourhood decline sets in train a cumulative decline in community and social cohesion. Social networks are disrupted and weakened, population turnover erodes familiarity and trust, and policies and initiatives aimed at reversing the decline are implemented in a context of community disengagement and disillusionment (cited in Forrest and Kearns 2000: 13). The next section discusses some of these debates and arguments in relation to the wider concept of social cohesion.

Social cohesion 4.9

Community cohesion is allied to social cohesion, although both are somewhat amorphous, slippery and contested concepts. Nevertheless, social cohesion at the societal level is likely to be derived from the forms and quality of social interaction at the local level, so that social cohesion can be viewed as a bottom up rather than a top down process. Table 4.2 shows the domains of social cohesion and how they might be operationalised as policy objectives.

Table 4.2:

The Domains of Social Cohesion

Domain

Description

Common values and a civic culture

Common moral principles and codes of behaviour. Support for political institutions and participation in politics.

Social order and social control

Absence of incivility, general conflict, threats to the existing order. Effective informal social control. Tolerance; respect for differences; inter-group co-operation.

Social solidarity and reductions in wealth disparities

Harmonious economic and social development and common standards. Redistribution of public [private?] finances and of opportunities. Equal access to services and welfare benefits. Acknowledgement of social obligations and willingness to assist others.

Social Networks and Social Capital

High degree of social interaction within communities and families. Civic engagement and associational activity. Early resolution of collective problems.

Place Attachment and identity

Strong attachment to place. Inter-twining of personal and place identity.

Source: Adapted from Forrest and Kearns 2000: 17z

16



4.10

Here individuals find their social identity through group associations, social networks and connections. Societies that lack social cohesion find that their individual members are disconnected from social values, whereas cohesive societies are characterised as being based on values of solidarity, individual and collective rights, and responsibilities and active citizenship. Cohesive societies privilege social values and social justice over private and economic interests and values, yet see social cohesion as a key factor for economic progress.

4.11

There is a common belief that social cohesion is in crisis or at least problematic, especially in poor neighbourhoods. It is claimed that disadvantaged areas disproportionately suffer in this respect, but the relationship between disadvantage and dislocation is by no means clear (see Johnston et al., 2000; Forrest and Kearns, 2000; Girling et al 2000; Turner, 1991; Taylor et al 1995;).

4.12

Both local research in Middlesbrough (Johnston et al., 2000; MacDonald et al. 2001), and the previously mentioned locality studies, suggest that the ways in which disadvantaged areas may be perceived as ‘socially excluded’, and lacking in social and community cohesion, by those not living there may contradict the lived experiences and sense of place among local residents. Much importance is placed on local knowledge and social networks within these communities, and these are relied upon for socialising and support, childcare and friendship, in searching for jobs, decent training schemes and suitable accommodation, and in coping with crime. Residents often feel deeply connected to their areas and do not want to leave, despite problems associated with drugs and crime. The lived experience of everyday life within closely bounded neighbourhoods means that it does not necessarily follow that individuals and groups living in these areas experience their neighbourhoods as excluded, disorderly or lacking in social cohesion.

4.13

Table 4.2 above implies that a society lacking cohesion would be one with endemic social disorder and conflict at certain times in certain places, disparate moral values, a lack of trust and high levels of felt insecurity, a degree of social inequality that lacks legitimacy or justification, a low level of social interaction between and within communities, and low levels of place attachment. The last factor is particularly important because you can have high levels of cohesion within communities, particularly disadvantaged communities, but built on the basis of hostility or conflict between communities. Strong, cohesive communities can be in conflict with one another, contributing to a divided and fragmented society of ‘defended neighbourhoods’ (Suttles, 1967; 1968).

4.14

Equally, place attachment and loyalty, whether at the level of the neighbourhood or the city, could conflict with any sense of common national or even international purpose. In these senses, cohesion may

17



not always or everywhere necessarily be a virtuous and a positive attribute. 4.15

In policy terms, achieving social cohesion is about strengthening the social fabric where it has frayed under the combined effects of economic decline, depopulation and the concentration of poverty (all of which have profoundly affected Middlesbrough). Social cohesion is seen as engendered through reinventing the public sphere, civil society and citizenship, reinvigorating democratic local structures against overcentralisation and both market-driven and policy-driven inequalities. It is about reaffirming and re-establishing ‘the local’, while recognising that the relationship between ‘the neighbourhood’, ‘the region’ and ‘the global’ is much more fluid than in the past.

4.16

In the recent past, in Britain generally and Middlesbrough in particular, social and community cohesion were defined largely in economic terms, especially access to work and a good income. It is now accepted that to achieve social cohesion it is necessary to address a far broader range of issues, including good quality education, training and employment, social and cultural diversity, and access to communication and information technologies.

4.17

In Middlesbrough and elsewhere there are pockets of relatively cohesive communities, often in the least expected places, such as poor estates, alongside or contiguous with pockets of poor community cohesion (see Johnston 2000; MacDonald and Marsh 2002, Webster et al 2004). Nevertheless, community cohesion is not the same as social cohesion. Social cohesion requires that participation extends across the confines of area, class and ethnically based local communities, ‘knitting them together into a wider whole’ (Ferlander and Timmes 1999: 9). This is important given that it is possible to find community cohesion within neighbourhoods and communities that can be divided one against another. Individuals may be well integrated into their local area, class and ethnically based communities, which then creates divisions between these communities and others, especially among young people.

18



5.

Factors limiting community and social cohesion: some lessons from Oldham, Bradford and Burnley

5.1

According to Cantle, ‘Community cohesion is about helping microcommunities to gel or mesh into an integrated whole’ (2002: 70). Yet there are high levels of area, class and ethnic based residential segregation in many English towns and cities (see for example Taylor et al., 1995; Loader et al., 2000). These divided communities would need to develop common goals, a shared vision and a common sense of place to meet Cantle’s description. Here we can perhaps learn from what went wrong in the Northern textile towns whose disorders in the spring and summer 2001 occasioned the community cohesion debate and subsequent policy initiatives.

5.2

Webster’s (2003) study of the disturbances in these towns concludes that: ‘Increasing spatial concentration and segregation among Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities in the North of England creates a concentration and combination of risks associated with relative deprivation, racist violence, crime and disorder. This development has generated a specific siege or fortress mentality and geography of fear within these communities.’ However, these fears are to an extent imagined, in the sense that poor minority and majority ethnic groups share far more than what separates them: a common and disproportionate experience of the risks associated with crime, violence and relative deprivation.

5.3

The structural condition in which enmity and violence between communities can become heightened is the existence of contiguous, multiply deprived areas that concentrate and segregate Asian and white populations by ethnicity and social class. Regeneration programmes can reinforce enmity as communities compete in the deprivation stakes with poor whites crying ethnic favouritism and accusing Asian community leaders of separatism. But this is as much about social class as it is about ethnicity.

5.4

In situations of cumulative relative deprivation, all risks are heightened, whether of racist harassment, violence or crime. But racist hostility joins with other factors, such as the availability and affordability of suitable housing, in trapping ethnic and social groups within a new form of poverty, that of geographical immobility. Among young people at certain times and under certain conditions this can lead to alienation, rage and public disorder.

5.5

Of course, there are particular aspects of this that need emphasising in relation to factors that inhibit community and social cohesion. For example, there is little doubt that residential segregation in these

19



towns, in Oldham for example, resulted from segregationist housing policies. But there is more to it than this. British Pakistani and Bangladeshi populations in these towns are historically constrained by housing choices that lock them into low value inner city housing. They ‘choose’ to avoid certain areas for the same reasons as other groups – they value safety and seek trusting relationships for themselves and their children – but in avoiding white working-class housing estates they are also avoiding racial hostility. Meanwhile, middle-class white flight or fright from urban areas, both chosen and encouraged and exploited by estate agents, continues unabated. Although it is true that particularly older South Asians desire to be close to family and friends, and others from their own ethnic background, it is also true that they would be quite willing to exchange their unsuitable and run down residences for suitable and affordable housing in white middle-class areas. And as housing has become segregated, schools too have done so, as well as youth facilities and other leisure outlets. 5.6

It is these kinds of conundrums that must be addressed before attempts at community and social cohesion can begin. One thing is clear, however. We cannot continue with rhetoric of multiculturalism as we have done in the past, when the reality may be biculturalism, i.e. cultural, social and economic segregation. Ignoring biculturalism poses dangers in terms of Far Right racist agendas propagated by the BNP and NF of ‘independent and separate development’.

5.7

As Modood (1997: 359) argues, equality and social cohesion cannot be built on emphasising ‘difference’ in a one-sided way based solely on ethnic difference. We need common values, rights and responsibilities, and a form of citizenship that encompasses sensitivity to ethnic difference, but also respect for individuals and for the groups to which people have a sense of belonging. Our common humanity should both transcend class and ethnic divides and be a guarantor against such divides. The evidence from Cantle and the Oldham, Burnley and Bradford inquiries suggests that most ordinary Asians and whites wish to live among ‘decent people’ who can be trusted, to work and be productive, to have partners, and to have a decent standard of living, without being faced with social and racist prejudice on the basis of where they live or their ethnicity.

20



6.

Factors that enhance community and social cohesion

6.1

Social cohesion depends on the ‘amount’ of ‘social capital’ in a community, where social capital is defined as: ‘…connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them …’ (Putnam, 2000: 19). Where social capital exists, it is said that such communities are likely to benefit from lower crime rates, better health, higher educational achievement and improved economic development.

6.2

Local neighbourhood policies to enhance social capital might include the following: • • • • • • • •

Providing support and opportunities for participation to community groups, giving local people a genuine voice and helping provide collective solutions to collective problems. Establishing and supporting local activities and organisations. Developing and supporting networks between organisations in the area. Creating an ethos of cooperation between individuals and organisations within a community. Developing and advocating a community ethos and community interests which community residents recognise and accept. Encouraging trust among residents in their relationships with each other, especially in terms of delivering policy promises and resolving conflicts. Encouraging and delivering a sense of safety among residents. Creating and encouraging a sense of belonging among residents.

21



7.

Past and present: community cohesion in Middlesbrough

7.1

Here we want to consider two contrasting views of aspects of Middlesbrough, one historical the other contemporary. The first is by Ruth Glass, a sociologist who contributed to the 1946 Structure Plan for Middlesbrough, and which envisaged the complete redesign, reconstruction and rebuilding of Central Middlesbrough. Ruth Glass said of the town: ‘To those who think of beauty and romance in terms of things rustic and antique, this place is indeed very ugly. But others differ. It is true that it lacks diversity and has no tradition, yet its very bleakness and impetuousness has a vigorous beauty of its own’ (Glass, 1948:18). The second perspective is that of Dawn, aged 14, who says of her neighbourhood: ‘Yeah, Grove Hill’s a shit hole. But it’s a mint shit hole’. We will be returning to Dawn a little later.

7.2

Historically Middlesbrough can be characterised as one of the oldest new towns in Britain. Its existence and development was originally based on late Victorian and first half of the twentieth century white migration from other parts of Britain, and subsequently to a much smaller extent migration from the Indian sub-continent. It was essentially a manufacturing ‘gold rush’ town of working-class economic migrants, wherein lies some of its peculiarities (Albery, 1946; Briggs, 1963, Leonard, 1996; Beynon et al, 1989, 1994). These include: • • • •

•

Its communal solidarities have traditionally been based on a search for work and the centrality of work values; Its housing development was ad hoc and driven by the needs of manufacturing capital for the rapid assembly of workforces at particular times; Because of this, Middlesbrough is characterised by high degrees of social class, area and now ethnic separation and localism; Traditionally dominated by male employment and exclusion of women from the labour force, the relative employment positions of men and women are in the process of being reversed, with as yet unforeseen consequences for social cohesion and family life; Middlesbrough possesses a high degree of vulnerability and susceptibility to the business cycle and international competition in manufacturing (due to its legacy of predominance of manufacturing and lack of economic diversity, and only very recent growth in the service sector, which hinders its ability to adapt to new conditions).

22



7.3

What have these characteristics and historical legacy got to do with building cohesive communities today? From very early on, the interests of private capital (from ironworks to steel and chemicals) drove housing development according to the functional requirements of providing manufacturing industries with workers. This was characterised by extremely rapid growth, without consideration of the attributes desirable in a town.

7.4

The town became divided between the parts of the original older area and industrial centre in the north (‘over the border’), and the suburban estates in the south. Despite onlookers and residents alike describing the northern area as a closely-knit community with a strong sense of group loyalty and neighbourliness (it had ‘community cohesion’), more prosperous families moved out away from the original part of the town to south Middlesbrough, escaping ‘contamination’ by industrial pollution, urban squalor or the ‘lower orders’, and seeking status, seclusion and isolation.

7.5

As this middle and upper-class flight took place, the town sprawled southwards through its developing suburbs. By its nature, the suburb is a segregated community, set apart from the town, not merely by space but by class. A new house in the suburbs not only promised improved standards of health and an absence of urban stress, it also represented superiority and social standing, and challenged the very close relationship of industry and community that characterised Middlesbrough. This late nineteenth and early twentieth century process of internal migration was to form the spatial dynamics of the town for some considerable period afterwards.

7.6

Although dependent upon the town, the southern suburbs and places such as Grove Hill never fused with it. To the north, the town was primarily designed for the working classes, while the southern suburban development was designed for the upper and middle classes. These developments did not intend to draw people together but rather divide them from each other. The northern decay and southern expansion of Middlesbrough were like ‘two sides of the same coin’. But unfortunately for their inhabitants and their aspirations, these exclusive suburbs were later to become engulfed as the town extended southwards. Their very popularity ultimately undermined their benefits of privacy, solitude and exclusivity.

7.7

After the Second World War, with continued growth in fixed capital investment, output and employment (especially in chemicals and steel), the local authorities took on the main responsibility for housing the workforce. Council housing investment, that could have redeveloped the slum areas to the north of the town, was initially used to house the influx of industrial workers, as well as migrants from the northern slums. As people from St Hilda’s in the north were moved into two southern housing estates, Grove Hill and Whinny Banks, divisions were created within these estates between ‘established’ residents and

23



‘outsiders’ (Scotson and Elias 1995). These types of division continue today on estates in Middlesbrough, with outsiders increasingly perceived as problem families and individuals. Migration out of the town centre also continues, with an increase in empty homes, and first time buyers moving to more settled communities in the outer suburbs, escaping a poor environment, high levels of crime and problems caused by an increasing amount of privately rented accommodation in some areas. The increase in empty homes in Middlesbrough has become a prominent policy issue, and an increase in demolitions is planned, which will need sensitive community planning (Middlesbrough Council, 2002). 7.8

Given the town’s weak economy, dominated by a few big employers and high unemployment, social polarisation became increasingly more apparent, particularly with young males. High levels of out-migration have left in their wake some of the most deprived wards in the country.

7.9

The purpose of this brief historical description is to show that social cohesion has a context and history that influences the present. Still today, in 2003, many inhabitants have exclusive concepts of being local, and industry (or the lack of it) still decisively orders the political and social fabric of the town.

7.10

The most deprived wards in Central Middlesbrough, such as St Hilda’s and Grove Hill, have outlived their purpose of providing workers for local industry. For example, Grove Hill underwent a transformation from being in the 1920s and 1930s the most prestigious suburban neighbourhood in Middlesbrough, to an early 21st century epitome of English industrial decline, recession, job loss and long-term structural unemployment (Polley 1993, 1996). It is an area perceived as notorious for its delinquency, crime, disorder, social dislocation, and physical decay, problems that are often said to reside with young people living on the estate.

24



8.

Young people and community cohesion in Middlesbrough

8.1

Dawn, who we quoted above, remains positive about living in her neighbourhood, like many young people in Middlesbrough. Despite the challenges young people face with drugs, crime, safety and transitions to adulthood, when asked about their future lives most say that they do not want to leave their neighbourhood or the town (Johnston et al., 2000). Despite the hardships that they have encountered, and the constraints that staying in a deprived area can place on career opportunities, local loyalty also brings advantages - expressed in terms of the value placed upon local networks and knowledge. They feel connected and, if they moved to another part of town or another town or city, they would become disconnected from the local networks that they have learned to rely upon for socialising and support, in searching for jobs, decent training schemes and suitable accommodation, and in coping with crime

8.2

Local research has found an important paradox in the relationship of social exclusion, social cohesion and segregation that is ignored or glossed over in Cantle and other reports. This is that the very separateness or segregation of localities, and therefore their supposed ‘exclusion’, puts a premium on local knowledge and networks that actually serves to socially include residents within the locality. Thus, while localities possess all the official, objective indicators of social exclusion, the subjective experience of many young people growing up in these places is often paradoxically one of local ‘social inclusion’.

8.3

However, young people have been particularly hard hit by economic change. In 1974, over half of Teesside’s school-leavers gained jobs or apprenticeships. By 2001, only 4 per cent moved into employment, while almost 90 per cent continued in education or training. Educational achievement, however, is low: in 2002, only 36 per cent of Middlesbrough school students achieved 5 or more GCSE at grades A*-C, compared with 52 per cent nationally (DfES, 2003). Achievement has been improving since 1997, but the gap between Middlesbrough’s performance and the national average has only narrowed by 1 per cent.

8.4

Educational under-achievement, however, is not just an issue for young people. Data from the Council’s 2001 Neighbourhood Survey show that 56 per cent of adults had no qualification, with older age groups and minority ethnic respondents more likely to lack qualifications, although the latter difference was not statistically significant. 20 per cent of minority ethnic respondents stated that members of their household had difficulty reading or writing, compared to only 4 per cent of white respondents.

8.5

Low skilled and low paid jobs, and vulnerability to unemployment, await many of Middlesbrough’s young people leaving education or training. A

25



third of unemployed people in the town are aged less than 25 years old, compared with just over a quarter nationally (TVJSU, 2003). The persistence of unemployment for school-leavers and young adults has been linked to youth crime and disorder (Audit Commission, 1996). Some young people reach what Williamson (1997) describes as ‘status zero’: around 15 per cent of Middlesbrough school-leavers are estimated to move from school into a situation where they are not in education, employment or training, and not entitled to benefits (Future Steps, 1998). 8.6

These conditions have made it a challenge for many young people in Middlesbrough to find a job, leave home and form a family. In a town with high levels of crime and availability of drugs, many risks confront young people who may find themselves caught up with the criminal justice system, compounding the disadvantages they face.

26



9.

Measuring social cohesion in Middlesbrough

9.1

The following sources and methods of analysis allowed us to obtain data about community cohesion in Middlesbrough and to generate indicators whereby community cohesion can be measured over time: • • • • • • • • •

9.2

2001 Middlesbrough Neighbourhood Survey (n=5,708); 2003 Middlesbrough Neighbourhood Survey (n=7,350); 2001 Census; National and local recorded crime statistics; 2000 British Crime Survey; Home Office and Local Government guidance on implementing and measuring community cohesion initiatives; Structured focus Groups of white young men, white young women, Asian young men, Asian young women and Asylum Seekers living in Middlesbrough; Evaluation of phase I Middlesbrough community cohesion projects; Evaluation of phase II Middlesbrough community cohesion projects.

We surmised that individual’s membership of social class, age, ethnic and gender groups, and in which neighbourhood they lived – whether deprived or not – would influence their perceptions and experiences of community and social cohesion within Middlesbrough. We analysed indicators of community cohesion such as multiple deprivation, neighbourhood perceptions of educational aspirations, standards and schools, intentions to move home within and without neighbourhoods and the reasons for moving, neighbourhood perceptions of safety and improvement, criminal and racial victimisation, feelings of community spirit and involvement and so on. Crucially, we also asked about ethnic segregation and integration and perceptions of neighbourhood improvement and Council Services. Other indicators included: • • • • • •

Whether educational and other community facilities are easy to access and get to. Issues of employment status, travel to work, whether work was available, barriers to finding work and acceptable wage levels. Whether neighbourhood members were in good health or suffered long-term illness, the nearness and accessibility of local health facilities, and what was wanted from health services. Identifying the major behavioural, crime and other local problems and issues and how they might be solved. An assessment of the closeness, availability and accessibility of important local amenities such as shops, youth clubs, play areas and GP surgeries. Whether residents liked where they lived, whether they got on with neighbours – especially those from a different background to themselves.

27


• •

9.3

Whether residents used community facilities, were involved in community life, whether neighbours helped each other, and whether they were satisfied with their neighbourhood as a place to live. Whether they’d had a problem with a neighbour, how safe their neighbourhood was, how worried they were about various forms of crime, and being a victim of crime, whether they had been a victim of crime, and whether they had reported this, and what would be most effective in reducing crime and anti social behaviour.

Our study was informed by Home Office guidance for Local Authorities for measuring community cohesion contained in Building a picture of community cohesion (Home Office, 2003) and Guidance on community cohesion (Home Office, 2002). Also of help was the Local Government Association’s (2004) Community Cohesion – and action guide. This guidance emphasises the importance of understanding the local context in which community cohesion programmes and projects are inserted, and that measures and activities be tailored to prevailing local conditions, issues and problems. The Home Office envisages that Local Authorities and their partners devise both quantitative and qualitative measures of community cohesion using neighbourhood/ resident surveys and structured consultation with different groups of residents. Wherever possible we have used our various data sources to establish answers to standardised national indicators of social and community cohesion, including the suggested ‘headline indicator’ of community cohesion: ‘the proportion of people who feel that their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds can get on well together.’ The Home Office (2003) and other indicators can be used to see whether: • • • •

9.4


There is common vision and sense of belonging The diversity of people’s backgrounds and circumstances are appreciated and positively valued Those from different backgrounds have similar life opportunities Strong and positive relationships are being developed between people from different backgrounds in the workplace, schools and neighbourhoods

Middlesbrough’s population was enumerated as 134,855 by the 2001 census, a 5 per cent decline compared with the 1991 census. Middlesbrough Council estimates that the inter-censual decline has been exaggerated by under-enumeration, and that the actual population is around 5,000 higher than the 2001 census figure. Despite a declining population, Middlesbrough is densely populated, with seven times England’s average population density. The number of older people aged 65 years and over is expected to remain relatively stable over the next few years, and by 2020 the over 65 age group is predicted to reach 34 per cent of the town’s total population. Middlesbrough’s Asian communities are also accounting for a growing proportion of the town’s population, and are relatively young communities. The Council’s 2001 neighbourhood survey recorded 27

28



per cent of minority ethnic household members as aged 16-24 (compared with 15 per cent of the white population), 55 per cent aged 25-44 (compared with 40 per cent), and 12 per cent aged 45 plus (compared with 24 per cent). 9.5

According to the Government’s Index of Multiple Deprivation, Middlesbrough is the 9th poorest local authority district in the country (DETR, 2000). The town has the highest concentration of multiply deprived wards of all English districts, measured in terms of wards ranked in the worst 10 per cent nationally, with 16 out of its 25 wards in this category (old ward boundaries; see table 10.1). Three wards – Pallister, St Hilda’s and Thorntree - are ranked among the worst ten wards in the country. Overall, Middlesbrough is very dependent on benefit income, with 40 per cent of households claiming some kind of benefit. There is a strong relationship between the distribution of social rented housing and deprivation; there is also a higher proportion of private rented housing in deprived wards, associated with higher levels of overcrowding and no central heating.

9.6

The reasons for these social conditions are not difficult to discern. Johnston et al. (2000) describe a situation in which: ‘As recently as the mid-1960s, near full male employment in relatively well-paid, long-term and skilled jobs in Teesside’s chemical, steel and heavy engineering industries provided the economic security which underpinned social cohesion and stability. The restructuring and mass redundancies which affected this regional economy in the 1970s and 80s were severe. Between 1975 and 1986 one-quarter of all jobs and one-half of all manufacturing jobs were lost in Teesside and the area still suffers from high rates of unemployment and joblessness.’

9.7

The consequence today is that Middlesbrough’s unemployment rate remains high at 5.8 per cent, compared with 3.7 per cent for the North East region and 2.7 per cent nationally (based on unemployment claimants, April 2003). The rate of joblessness, or people of working age not in employment, is far higher at 33.9 per cent, compared with 26.7 per cent nationally. Both rates vary significantly at ward level, with between a third and a half of the working age population jobless in 15 wards (see table 9.1). Only 6 wards have more than the national average proportion of people of working age in employment. The overall picture is of a very polarised town. However, this polarisation is much more evident by ward than by ethnicity. The Council’s 2001 neighbourhood survey found that 55 per cent of minority ethnic respondents were unemployed, compared with 48 per cent of white respondents. Similar proportions of minority ethnic and white respondents were living below the official poverty line (28 per cent and 25 per cent respectively) and on very low incomes (15 per cent and 12 per cent respectively).

29



Table 9.1

Unemployment benefit claimants and joblessness: Middlesbrough wards May 2003 Unemployment claimants (% working age population)

Ward : Q Ayresome Beckfields Beechwood Berwick Hills Brookfield Easterside Gresham Grove Hill Hemlington Kader Kirby Linthorpe Marton Newham North Ormesby Nunthorpe Pallister Park Park End St Hilda's Southfield Stainton & Thornton Thorntree Westbourne

People of working age not in employment

No . 70 220 264 228 162 87 158 303 235 206 64 74 141 49 257 214 49 180 145 223 311 261 168 368

%

No

%

2.6 6.3 9.4 10.0 7.1 2.4 7.2 9.9 8.0 7.6 2.0 2.6 4.8 1.8 2.9 7.2 1.7 7.8 6.2 8.4 12.6 9.8 6.4 8.8

590 1335 1023 1061 884 777 829 1070 1129 1048 662 649 815 608 2142 1078 800 1020 679 1157 1163 1170 954 2016

22.3 38.3 36.3 46.6 38.7 21.5 37.7 35.0 38.5 38.7 21.2 22.9 27.9 22.6 23.8 36.3 27.9 44.1 29.1 43.7 47.3 44.1 36.5 48.4

287

9.

1400

44.3

Source: Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit

9.8

Middlesbrough’s economy is dominated by the service sector, about half of which is public services. Unlike many other areas, this sector has not been a source of job growth and actually contracted during the 1990s. Its dominance largely explains the relatively high proportion of women who work full-time, against a background of declining male fulltime employment.

9.9

1991 Census data show that Middlesbrough’s minority ethnic population was concentrated in certain wards, notably Westbourne (56 per cent), Southfield (18 per cent), Gresham (14 per cent), Linthorpe (10 per cent) and North Ormesby (8 per cent). All except for Linthorpe have high unemployment levels. Direct comparison with 2001 is difficult because of ward boundary changes, but the proportion of minority ethnic residents increased generally across the town, although still with concentrations in certain wards: University (36 per cent), Middlehaven (23 per cent), Gresham (16 per cent), Park (11 per cent) and Linthorpe (11 per cent). Again, with the exception of Linthorpe and Park, these are wards with high levels of deprivation (see table 9.2). Thus, while 31

30



per cent of the general population of Middlesbrough live in ‘nondeprived’ wards, only 25 per cent of minority ethnic residents live in these wards. However, there is no overall correlation between ward deprivation (measured by households with no access to a car) and the proportion of residents from minority ethnic groups because so many wards in Middlesbrough with low proportions of minority ethnic residents experience high levels of deprivation. 9.10

The North East Consortium for Asylum Support Services facilitates the provision of accommodation and support to asylum seekers housed in the region through the Home Office dispersal programme. Asylum seekers and refugees are legally distinct groups, but integration should start from the time an asylum seeker is housed. Middlesbrough is a member of the consortium of ten North East local authorities contracted to the Home Office for the dispersal of people seeking asylum. Dedicated services have been established, including accommodation and a one-stop shop ‘drop in’ centre. A ‘move on’ policy allows asylum seekers living in social housing to stay as ordinary tenants if they are granted refugee status, with the explicit aim of integrating them into the local community.

31


Table 9.2


Minority ethnic population and car ownership by ward 1991-2001

Ward

Acklam Ayresome Beckfields Beechwood Berwick Hills (Pallister 2001) Brookfield Easterside (Ladgate 2001) Gresham Grove Hill (Clairville 2001) Hemlington Kader Kirby (Linthorpe 2001) Linthorpe Marton Newham (Coulby Newham 01) North Ormesby (N Ormesby & Berwick Hills 2001) Nunthorpe Pallister Park Park End St Hilda's (Middlehaven 2001) Southfield (University 2001) Stainton & Thornton Thorntree Westbourne (University 2001)

% minority ethnic 1991

2.7 2.3 0.5 1.7 0.4 1.8 1.0 12.2 4.4 0.8 3.8 2.9 9.5 1.6 1.5

% minority ethnic 2001

4.6 4.9 1.4 4.1 1.4 2.1 2.0 15.6 2.7 1.0 5.5 10.5 10.5 3.1

% no car 1991

% no car 2001

21 59 62 69 68 15 61 54 59 50 19 18 36 14 27

2.2 7.6

1.8 0.5 4.0 0.4 5.5

63 15 36 59 52 42 20 24 24 14 31

62 2.5 3.5 1.4 10.5 1.3

7 74 42 65 69

22.6 4.5 0.8 0.8 35.8

18 46 53 57

58 8 63 38 59 71

75 36.4 1.1 1.2 36.4

45 77 56

55 22 64 55

Source: 1991, 2001 census

32



10.

Quantitative indicators: survey data

10.1

The Middlesbrough Neighbourhood Surveys were undertaken in 2001 and 2003. There are plans for the survey to continue on a biennial basis so it is potentially a useful vehicle for measuring community cohesion. For this reason, we have undertaken an analysis of the data, both to investigate what they reveal about community cohesion, and to identify questions which it would be useful to repeat in future surveys. We follow this discussion with a consideration of additional, more specific, questions about community cohesion that could be included in a survey of this nature, and data available from secondary sources such as the census which could complement survey data. To aid clarity of presentation this section presents ward level data from the 2001 Survey and other sources. Findings from the 2003 Survey are presented in the next section to illustrate change and continuity in community cohesion.

10.2

The 2001 neighbourhood survey interviewed individuals aged 16 years and above in each of 16 deprived wards, and individuals in the remaining 9 more affluent ‘non-deprived’ wards. The survey data were analysed by area, tenure, age, ethnicity, SES and gender to explore factors likely to shed light on issues of community and social cohesion.

Neighbourhood deprivation 10.3

Table 10.1 below provides an overview for all wards in Middlesbrough ranking them by indices of deprivation according to their position nationally. In the presentation of the data here, relatively affluent wards are aggregated as ‘Rest of Middlesbrough’ so as to better contrast the deprived and more affluent wards. The table reveals the striking extent of deprivation across so many of Middlesbrough’s wards, and a highly polarised social geography.

10.4

Table 10.2, below, presents data from the neighbourhood survey, this time classified by neighbourhood, and with the ‘non-deprived’ areas of the town classified as ‘Rest of Middlesbrough’. In England and Wales at the time of the survey, 17 per cent of adults lived below the official poverty line and 5 per cent lived on ‘very low incomes’ (Social Trends 33, London: HMSO; see Gordon, 2000; Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2002). Against these national averages, virtually all of the deprived neighbourhoods covered by the survey contained much higher levels of poverty and at least twice as many people on very low incomes. In the most deprived areas at least a third lived in income poverty, rising to nearly half in North Ormesby.

33



Table 10.1: Indices of Deprivation for Wards in Middlesbrough, 2000 Wards ranked from the most deprived to the least deprived (of 8,414 wards in England) ) Ward

Indicators of deprivation by domain Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD)

Income

Employment

Health

Education

Housing

Position (national ranking) IMD

Deprived Wards

Thorntree 3 St Hilda’s 7 Pallister 5 Park End 32 Beckfield 90 Beechwood 91 Berwick Hills 120 N. Ormesby 167 Westbourne 180 Grove Hill 250 Easterside 267 Southfield 276 Ayresome 304 Gresham 442 Stainton & 475 Thornton Hemlington 507 Non-deprived Wards Park 1,860 Linthorpe 2,143 Newham 3,448 Kader 3,870 Acklam 4,164 Kirby 4,261 Brookfield 4,578 Marton 5,116 Nunthorpe 6,646

10.5

6 37 11 77 306 30 219 277 269 211 245 506 162 650 472

11 9 31 72 59 89 127 234 185 221 167 266 246 394 414

64 17 116 188 115 245 185 378 1,034 166 212 1,377 450 1,467 601

34 64 42 75 63 810 86 123 161 965 750 54 1,672 248 869

813 1,278 491 640 2,896 1,101 2,109 461 152 1,418 3,513 378 1,129 377 1,499

538

320

477

1,797

2,802

1,952 1,796 3,205 4,193 5,237 4,193 5,496 5,426 6,716

1,156 1,782 2,804 2,774 2,677 2,774 2,875 3,321 4,517

1,257 2,310 2,063 2,167 2,565 2,167 2,600 3,247 5,070

2,427 2,764 4,916 6,278 3,749 6,278 6,527 7,819 7,898

4,367 1,984 6,410 6,430 8,151 6,430 6,933 6,832 8,185

Top 1%

Top 2%

Top 3% Top 4%

Top 10%

Bottom 80%

Bottom 50% Bottom 25%

A correlation analysis of the data in Table 10.2 revealed some interesting inter-relationships, although this analysis needs to be treated with caution given low numbers in some of the categories. Unsurprisingly, income below the poverty line, very low income and no car are closely related across the neighbourhoods, although these variables were not significantly correlated with either the extent of joblessness or social housing, suggesting that the geography of poverty in Middlesbrough extends beyond the geography of either joblessness or social housing. Joblessness and social housing, however, are associated with each other (0.52 p < 0.05). The proportion of respondents who were in a minority ethnic group does not correlate with any of the deprivation measures, except for a significant

34



negative correlation with social housing (-0.52 p < 0.05). Overall, the survey shows that 78 per cent of minority ethnic residents are owner occupiers, compared with 59 per cent of other residents. Table 10.2: Poverty, ethnicity and education (percentage of respondents in each neighbourhood) Area

% below official poverty line (% v. low incomes)**

W M’brough Beckfield Beechwood Grove Hill Berwick Hills Park End Easterside Town West Town East Hemlington Brambles Fm N Ormesby Town Centre Pallister Thorntree Rest M’bro

JoblessNess*

40 (18) 17 (5) 31 (18) 33 (13) 30 (9) 35 (15) 32 (11) 46 (22) 23 (7) 23 (9) 26 (8) 49 (18) 29 (12) 36 (9) 32 (12) 18 (9)

Ethnic Minority

51 54 60 55 53 58 54 46 54 55 56 49 63 55 60 39

1.3 1.4 0.5 1.7 0 1.4 0 7.2 26.0 0 0.6 3.5 7.8 0.6 1.2 3.2

Lone Parent H’hold

Social Housing

2 13 14 10 9 5 5 7 4 3 7 4 7 7 7 11

54 38 58 49 46 58 52 8 22 91 72 30 55 67 0 0

No Qualifications

71 62 68 58 59 60 63 56 50 76 75 80 56 66 68 46

Difficulty reading/ writing

No car

2.3 0 0.5 7 8 12 6 9 11 4 2 2 10 10 0 0

52 32 45 44 48 49 51 53 52 52 50 55 54 57 58 28

** The official poverty line is below 60 per cent median income in England and Wales; those on very low incomes receive less than 40 per cent median income. All percentages should be treated with caution as around 15 per cent of respondents refused to state their net income, rising to 36 per cent in Beckfield, 28 per cent in Brambles Farm and 39 per cent in the Rest of Middlesbrough. *Percentage of working age population not in work.

Moving house 10.6

Table 10.3 shows intentions to move by neighbourhood. Around one in ten respondents planned to move in West Middlesbrough, North Ormesby and Town Centre. An intention to move was significantly correlated with living in areas with a high percentage of low income residents (0.52 p < 0.05), lone parents (0.62 p < 0.05) and social housing (0.84 p < 0.01). Strong correlations were also found between wanting to move and feeling that the neighbourhood had deteriorated (0.80 p < 0.05) and that it was unsafe (0.72 p < 0.01). While in West Middlesbrough 44 per cent wanted to stay in the neighbourhood, very few expressed this preference in North Ormesby or Town Centre, with two-thirds wanting to leave Teesside altogether. Respondents living in social housing tended to have lived in the neighbourhood for significantly less time compared with owner-occupiers. They were more likely to state as a reason for moving that they disliked the neighbourhood, and much more likely to state that this was because they didn’t get on with local people (63 per cent compared to only 25 per cent of owner occupiers), although they reported less barriers to

35



moving than owner-occupiers. A third compared to only a fifth of owneroccupiers stated fear of crime as a reason for moving. Table 10.3: Population movement (percentage respondents in each neighbourhood) Area

Length of residence at address (more than 10 years)

W M’brough Beckfield Beechwood Grove Hill Berwick Hills Park End Easterside Town West Town East Hemlington Brambles Fm N Ormesby Town Centre Pallister Thorntree Rest of M’bro

51 71 50 47 67 57 60 49 47 36 64 57 50 55 48 55

Plan to move house in next 12 months

9 3 0.5 3 4 4 5 8 6 5 0.6 10 11 7 7 2

Where to? (stay in n’hood)

44 17 0 13 25 13 0 20 17 12 100 11 0 15 18 21

Don’t like area

Reasons for moving Don’t get on Fear of with local crime people

33 20 50 38 25 56 14 37 47 72 0 70 79 31 36 16

7 0 0 0 13 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 15 18 0

29 20 50 13 13 33 0 56 22 11 0 0 7 33 18 2

Safety 10.7

Over 30 per cent of respondents across Middlesbrough thought their neighbourhood had deteriorated over the previous year, rising to over half in Easterside, Town West and Hemlington, and around two-thirds in West Middlesbrough and North Ormesby (see table 10.4). The survey results also reveal a town with a very uneven geography of perceived safety, so that while 80 per cent of respondents in the more affluent areas of Middlesbrough considered their neighbourhood to be safe, less than half did so in Town West, North Ormesby and Thorntree. About a third of respondents felt unsafe at home when alone at night in West Middlesbrough, Town West and Thorntree, compared to less than 10 per cent in the Rest of Middlesbrough. Of particular concern is that a majority of respondents in Grove Hill, Pallister Park, Town West and Town East were worried about being attacked by strangers.

10.8

Overall, retired people felt less safe than the other age groups, and were more likely to have been burgled. Young people were more likely to report being threatened. Unemployed respondents were also more likely to have been burgled (27 per cent compared with 21 per cent), yet much less likely than employed respondents to report the crime to the police. Minority ethnic respondents were more likely to say that their neighbourhood was safe or fairly safe (76 per cent compared to 68 per cent of whites) but were more worried about being harassed in the street or a public place (38 per cent compared to 31 per cent of

36



whites). Much more strikingly, 42 per cent of minority ethnic residents were worried about physical attack because of skin colour, ethnic origin or race. However, rates of actual victimisation were much lower, although still with a marked ethnic difference. 8 per cent of minority ethnic respondents compared to 5 per cent of whites had been threatened, and 14 per cent had been harassed or abused because of race or ethnicity compared to 2 per cent of whites. Minority ethnic respondents were also much less likely to report the crime to the police. Other types of victimisation such as burglary were experienced at similar levels to whites. Table 10.4: Neighbourhood conditions and safety (percentage respondents by neighbourhood) Area

Neighbourhood as a place to live: change in past 12 months

W M’brough Beckfield Beechwood Grove Hill Berwick Hills Park End Easterside Town West Town East Hemlington Brambles Fm N Ormesby Town Centre Pallister Thorntree Rest of M’bro

10.9

Improved

Deteriorated

Same

6 3 15 8 7 13 4 13 7 4 15 6 5 13 10 9

64 32 43 36 40 34 54 53 43 52 27 66 48 44 45 31

30 65 42 56 53 54 43 35 50 44 58 28 47 44 45 60

Is neighbourhood safe? (very/fairly safe)

Safe at home alone at night? (very/ fairly safe)

Safe walking in neighbour hood at night? (very/fairly safe)

Worried about being attacked by strangers? (not/not v. worried)

Worried about being harassed in street/ public (not/not v. worried)

56 75 76 55 72 62 71 46 52 74 81 49 63 56 46 80

66 86 79 82 82 82 79 67 75 70 88 73 70 74 68 91

40 57 44 60 59 68 63 39 62 67 74 37 48 46 41 69

56 55 88 45 53 52 68 41 45 81 81 58 53 38 60 74

73 64 90 55 60 57 76 55 51 83 88 71 61 44 64 72

40 per cent of social housing respondents compared to only 11 per cent of owner-occupiers regarded their neighbourhood as ‘very unsafe’, and this was reflected in their feelings about being alone at home and walking alone in their neighbourhood at night. However, in terms of actual victimisation, rates of burglary and threats were similar by tenure.

10.10 Women were more likely than men to state that their neighbourhood had deteriorated, and more worried about being physically attacked by strangers or harassed. Their actual victimisation rates, however, were similar to men’s.

37



Community involvement 10.11 Table 10.5 presents a mixed picture of community involvement and perceived quality of life across Middlesbrough’s neighbourhoods. The extent of involvement varies markedly between deprived neighbourhoods, but the quality of life in these neighbourhoods was generally perceived as much worse than the Rest of Middlesbrough, with the main exceptions of Beckfield and Beechwood. Perceptions of a higher quality of life tend to be associated with having enough say about local services as well. Hemlington stands out as a neighbourhood where respondents felt involved in community life, possibly because of its relative geographical isolation. 10.12 Overall, 64 per cent of minority ethnic respondents were users of places of worship, compared with 19 per cent of whites. Although none in the survey sample were members of a tenants or residents group, half said they felt involved in community life compared to only 35 per cent of whites. Only 27 per cent of social housing respondents felt involved in community life, compared to 47 per cent of owneroccupiers, and twice as many described the quality of life in their neighbourhood as poor.

Table 10.5: Community involvement (by percentage respondents in each neighbourhood) Neighbourhood

Use Church/ Mosque/ Temple

Tenant/ Resident Group Member

Not Member of any community Association*

Involved in Community Life?

Quality of Life in Neighbourhood?

Good

W Middlesbrough Beckfield Beechwood Grove Hill Berwick Hills Park End Easterside Town West Town East Hemlington Brambles Farm North Ormesby Town Centre Pallister Thorntree Rest of M’brough

11 22 49 22 16 10 12 25 48 6 9 15 23 15 10 23

4 3 0.5 5 2 0.5 2 1 7 1 2 2 3 2 2 2

68 55 84 45 63 61 65 60 49 68 71 61 60 48 70 52

33 38 35 26 21 23 43 31 46 68 32 28 30 32 28 43

24 60 63 37 55 44 55 27 45 47 42 26 43 35 36 68

Fair

50 37 32 56 42 50 36 48 41 39 54 50 39 50 45 29

Enough Say About Services?

Poor

23 4 5 7 3 6 9 24 12 14 2 22 16 15 18 3

35 59 57 39 37 43 37 50 36 64 49 46 40 41 42 50

*including trade union, social club/voluntary group, neighbourhood watch, etc.

38



What makes a neighbourhood a good place to live? 10.13 Respondents were asked to identify the three most important factors that make a neighbourhood a good place to live. In general, these did not differ significantly across neighbourhoods, although there were exceptions, such as facilities and leisure activities for young people, which varied by area and reached 10 per cent in the Town Centre neighbourhood. Overall, a low level of crime was most important, followed by safe roads, and low levels of drug dealing and drug use in the area. Good quality local schools were also important, particularly among respondents living in more affluent areas. Other factors were local facilities and leisure activities for young people, clean streets and pavements and local jobs and employment. 10.14 Achieving a low level of crime and safe, drug-free neighbourhoods represent a key common value across the town, and one that the town’s varied communities strongly identify with. 10.15 Respondents were also asked what was most needed to improve their neighbourhood. There were some important differences between areas that reflected particular local conditions, but levels of crime and antisocial behaviour, followed by drug dealing and drug use, were by far the most needed improvements, cited by 20-40 per cent of respondents across the deprived neighbourhoods. This, however, fell to 14 per cent in affluent areas, where over a third of respondents were concerned instead about improving the cleanliness of streets, levels of pollution and road safety. Minority ethnic respondents were particularly concerned about tackling levels of drug dealing and use, employment, cleanliness of streets and levels of pollution.

39



11.

Quantitative indicators: change and continuity

11.1

The 2003 Middlesbrough Neighbourhood Survey findings are presented differently to the 2001 findings found in the previous section. Here we have simplified the presentation to comparison between deprived and non-deprived wards. We have sought to compare the 2001 and 2003 findings, where this has been possible1 in a focussed manner, to identify continuity and change – whether improvement or deterioration in community cohesion. Over such a relatively short time of two years we did not expect a lot of change. Where changes have occurred we have highlighted these and their implication. Finally, it is worth noting that the design of the 2003 Survey benefited from our earlier experiences with the 2001 Survey which led to the inclusion of some more focussed questionnaire items in the 2003 Survey.

Moving house 11.2

Moving intentions from the 2001 Survey are found above (see Table 10.3). In 2003 3 per cent of respondents said that they planned to move house in the next 12 months compared to 4 per cent in 2001. Although twice as many people living in deprived compared to nondeprived wards planned to move, this was a much lower proportion than was found in 2001. Consistent with the earlier findings intention to move was twice as likely among individuals renting compared to owners. In 2003 respondents were more likely to want to move outside the neighbourhood and 30 per cent said they wanted to move outside of Middlesbrough or the Tees Valley and 22 per cent wanted to stay in their neighbourhoods. Over a third said they wanted to move to upgrade their house, over a third to live in a better area, but only 16 per cent mentioned fear of crime as their reason for wanting to move. In 2003 less people planned to move and of those who did there reason was less likely because of fear of crime compared to 2001.

11.3

The proportions of people residing at the same address for 10 years or more decreased from 54 per cent to 49 per cent between 2001 and 2003. More respondents were staying a shorter time at their address. In 2003 58 per cent of respondents stated that their house had increased in value with 78 per cent of those living in non-deprived areas stating this compared to 43 per cent in deprived areas. Overall, 93 per cent of the sample said there were no barriers to them moving. Members of ethnic minorities were over twice as likely as whites to stay at the same address for less than a year and only a third compared to half of whites stayed for more than 10 years. It is likely that respondents from ethnic minority will move house more often because they disproportionately own rather than rent compared to whites. Those who privately rented resided at the same address for relatively short periods and private renting was disproportionately found in deprived

1

Some questionnaire items were subtracted and some added to the 2003 Survey compared to the 2001 Survey.

40



areas. Homeowners in non-deprived areas were more likely than homeowners in deprived areas to have lived at the same address for 10 years or more. Respondents in social housing living in deprived areas had longer residency than those in social hosing living in nondeprived areas. Increased residential mobility over the period reflects ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ housing choice. Middlesbrough continues to be characterised by high levels of social housing. Social housing is overwhelmingly found in deprived wards (38 per cent) compared to only 9 per cent social housing in non-deprived wards, mirrored by the predominance of owned housing in non-deprived wards (88 per cent) compared to deprived wards (55 per cent). Over the period however, among respondents, social housing declined from 36 per cent to 26 per cent and owner occupation increased from 60 per cent to 69 per cent. A buoyant housing market frees home ownership; social housing is freed by it being plentiful in places like Middlesbrough. Although facilitating independent living among the young, movement to and between social housing seems most to involve staying in the same deprived area (Webster et al 2004).

Educational participation, aspiration, standards and improvement 11.4

60 per cent of respondents had taken part in further education at some point, and 13 per cent were currently in some form of further education. As seen in Table 11.1 below, 28 per cent (n=100) of respondents participating in further education from deprived wards compared to only 17 per cent (n=49) living in non-deprived wards attended University. The apparently low University participation within non-deprived wards can be explained by the likelihood that University students from these wards will not be available to a local survey whereas those in deprived wards would because they are more likely to attend the local University.

Table 11.1: Respondents participating in different types of further education living in deprived and non-deprived wards (percentages)

College Adult education Community training Work based training Distance learning University of Teesside Other universities

11.5

Living in non-deprived wards (%)

Living in deprived wards (%)

21 14 4 37 7 10 7

16 18 2 30 6 23 5

In 2003 respondents were asked to state their ‘capabilities’ from a composite of skills – working with numbers, reading, spoken and written English and using a personal computer. The mean score was

41



then calculated from this composite of different skills to arrive at a score for ‘total capabilities’. 45 per cent of respondents had ability scores below the mean and 55 per cent had ability scores above the mean. A third of respondents who lived in non-deprived wards had capability scores below the mean and half those living in deprived wards had capability scores below the mean. White and ethnic minority respondents scored similarly and more men than women scored below the mean. 11.6

Parents of school age children were asked about their aspirations for their children when they left school. 79 per cent stated that their children go to college. There were no significant differences between respondents living in deprived and non-deprived wards, or between ethnic groups.

11.7

Parents of infant and junior school aged children were asked about their satisfaction with the school their child or children attended. 76 per cent said that the standard of the school was excellent or good. There was little difference in satisfaction levels between parents living in deprived and non-deprived wards – satisfaction levels were consistently very high. There was lower satisfaction with secondary schools. 64 per cent of respondents with secondary school aged children thought the standard of the school their child attended was excellent or good and 6 per cent thought the standard was poor or very poor. Parents living in deprived wards were more likely to evaluate secondary school standards as lower compared to those living in nondeprived wards.

11.8

Parents were asked whether school standards had improved, stayed the same or gotten worse. 42 per cent living in both deprived and nondeprived thought the infant or junior school had improved with only 6-7 per cent stating the school had gotten worse. A fifth didn’t know. A third of parents in both deprived and non-deprived wards stated that secondary school standards had improved, a third stated that standards had stayed the same and 7-6 per cent thought standards were worse with little difference between parents living in deprived and non-deprived wards. Generally, schools in Middlesbrough are perceived to have excellent or good standards, and to have improved.

Income, work and employment 11.9

68 per cent of the sample was permanently employed and 18 per cent were retired. This is a marked improvement from 2001 when only 52 per cent were employed and 48 per cent were for various reasons unemployed. As expected unemployment continued to be concentrated in deprived wards. In non-deprived wards 77 per cent of respondents were employed and 23 per cent unemployed compared to 63 per cent employed and 37 per cent unemployed in deprived wards. 68 per cent of whites were employed and 31 per cent were unemployed compared to ethnic minority respondents of who 71 per cent were employed and

42



29 per cent unemployed. This striking finding compared to high levels of ethnic minority unemployment elsewhere in Britain – especially as Middlesbrough’s ethnic minority population is mostly of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin – as already mentioned, by the high proportion of both whites and Asians living in deprived wards compared to other places in Britain. The kind of severe ethnic stratification by employment found in other places doesn’t occur in Middlesbrough. 11.10 86 per cent of those employed worked in Middlesbrough (69 per cent) or the Tees Valley. Of those looking for work, asked what the barriers to finding work were, the majority cited lack of work, followed by age, lack of experience, low wages and the cost of childcare. More ethnic minority than white respondents, and more men than women were looking for work. White men and women between 25 and 44 years cited lack of work and lack of qualifications as particular barriers to finding work. 11.11 In 2003 the National Minimum Wage was £4.20 an hour or £168 for a forty-hour week, for those aged over 22. Income below or around 60 per cent of median income (£112), which for the population as a whole was £187 per week before housing costs in 2002 (DWP, 2002), is equated with poverty. Table 11.2 below shows that 43 per cent of respondents living in deprived wards declared a weekly income of less than £150 and the majority received an income below national median income with a quarter living in poverty. 40 per cent of ethnic minority respondents received a weekly income below median income compared to a third of whites, but were more likely than whites to receive income in the £200-299 range. 39 per cent of respondents in deprived wards stated that after other expenses they were left with a weekly total of £20 or less to spend on leisure. 74 per cent of respondents stated the minimum weekly wage that they would accept as £201 and above. The differences between respondents living in deprived and non-deprived and between whites and ethnic minorities were insignificant. Many more men than women however, were willing to accept lower wages. Although continuing, poverty has reduced in Middlesbrough since 2001.

43



Table 11.2: Declared weekly income by whether respondent lived in a non-deprived or deprived ward. Income

Ward type Non-deprived

Deprived

Under £100 £100-149 £150-199

283 (14%) 224 (11%) 262 (13%)

545 (21%) 567 (22%) 427 (17%)

£200-249 £250-299 £300+

308 (16%) 259 (13%) 631 (32%)

407 (16%) 256 (10%) 348 (14%)

Health 11.12 Compared to 2001 there was some improvement in respondent’s health. In 2003 69 per cent stating they were in good health and 9 per cent in poor health compared with respective figures of 64 per cent and 13 per cent in 2001, but poor health remained significantly higher in deprived wards with 19 per cent stating long-term illness, although ethnic minorities reported a better health status than whites generally, and as would be expected a quarter of people aged 65 and over reported poor health. The relatively better health of ethnic minorities will almost certainly be explained by their younger population profile. A third of respondents living in deprived areas smoked compared to only 18 per cent in non-deprived wards. This relationship between social class and health is well established.

Neighbourhood facilities, concerns, improvement and participation 11.13 Asked about whether various amenities are near enough to where respondents live there were very high levels of agreement that they were except in respect of youth clubs with only 57 per cent of respondents in non-deprived areas and 66 per cent in deprived areas stating they though this amenity was near enough. In 2003 the large majority felt that they lived close enough to, and were in easy reach of the various educational facilities although more of those living in deprived wards felt that their local secondary school, further education, adult education and the University were not close enough. Similar findings were found in respect of medical and dental facilities. 11.14 The pattern and ranking of neighbourhood concerns did not change between 2001 and 2003. Table 11.3 below ranks concerns according to things people were concerned or very concerned about in 2003 compared to 2001 by deprived and non-deprived wards. A greater proportion of individuals had concerns in 2003 compared to 2001.

44



Concerns were greater in deprived wards. This was particularly true in respect of empty and derelict houses and buildings, derelict land, stray dogs, drug litter and fly tipping. 7 per cent of respondents in nondeprived wards and 10 per cent in deprived wards were highly concerned about neighbourhood issues. This suggests quite low levels of neighbourhood concerns across the sample. Table 11.3: Neighbourhood concerns: change over time and by type of ward (percentages) Concern

2003 Survey

2001 Survey

Non-deprived

Deprived

Volume and speed of traffic Litter Dog mess Drug litter left around

42 42 30 21

33 32 25 23

44 38 29 17

41 45 31 25

Fly tipping Noise from traffic Derelict land /buildings Empty houses Take away litter Vermin Air quality out house Stray dogs Pub noise Air quality in house Noise from building work

19 18 18 17 12 10 5 8 5 5 3

n/a 16 12 n/a 14 8 4 10 3 4 1

14 16 12 10 15* 8 8 6 5 4 2

22 20 23 24 12* 12 10 12 6 5 4

*Noise from takeaways

11.15 Following these concerns respondents were asked what was required to improve things. Of those respondents who stated that improvements were needed a lot the most frequently mentioned improvements needed were in respect of more play areas for children, repair to roads and paths, more litter bins and traffic calming – consistent with what survey respondents had told the survey about their neighbourhood concerns. The biggest concerns are with environmental improvement and safety. Respondents living in deprived wards particularly mentioned improvements to play areas and housing. Other measures of neighbourhood and more general satisfaction were bus services about which 47 per cent stated they were very satisfied or quite satisfied (although a third didn’t know). Other improvements mentioned that were significant were more trees and bushes, and more parking. 11.16 Table 10.4 above presents the 2001 data about neighbourhood change. In 2003 4 per cent said their neighbourhood was better, 10 per cent that it had got worse and 84 per cent said their neighbourhood had not changed. The comparable figures in 2001 were 9 per cent, 40 per cent and 51 per cent, respectively. Over the period, perceptions of neighbourhood change were that although things had not got better a lot less people in 2003 than 2001 felt that things had got worse and most felt that things had not changed. This was a finding consistent

45



across deprived and non-deprived wards as shown in Table 11.4 below. Table 11.4: Neighbourhood change in the last year comparing 2001 and 2003 by deprived and non-deprived wards (percentages) Improvement level Ward type

Year

Non-deprived

2001 2003

Deprived

2001 2003

Better

Worse

Stayed the same

9 2

31 7

60 90

6 5

46 13

45 79

11.17 The same number of respondents said that residents were responsible for their area (41 per cent) as said that the council were responsible (41 per cent). Over a third thought that no one had ‘done the most’ for their area and a quarter said the Council had done most, and 6 per cent thought Street Wardens had done the most. In 2003 97 per cent compared with 83 per cent in 2001 said that they liked living in their neighbourhood. 30 respondents living in non-deprived wards compared to 235 (5 per cent) in deprived wards stated that they didn’t like living in their neighbourhood. 11.18 Asked about their civic participation – whether they were members of any groups, about their involvement in community life, and whether neighbours helped each other – three quarters of the sample did not belong to any groups rising to 80 per cent in deprived wards. Of those who did by far the most likely membership was belonging to a trade union (70 per cent), then a sports club (10 per cent). Feelings of being involved in community life had grown since 2001 with 40 per cent in 2003 compared to 36 per cent in 2001 stating they felt involved although this was lower among ethnic minorities (28 per cent) who also stated they felt less of a sense of community belonging compared to whites (28 per cent compared to 41 per cent among whites). 78 per cent of respondents agreed that neighbours helped each other although this was felt less in deprived areas and particularly among ethnic minorities of whom only 56 per cent agreed. Levels of neighbourhood satisfaction were high with 85 per cent stating satisfaction, but lower among respondents in deprived wards and ethnic minorities. There were no differences across age and gender in satisfaction levels. Very few respondents across all groups had experienced problems with their neighbour.

46



Neighbourliness: getting on with ‘difference’ 11.19 The key ‘headline’ indicator of community cohesion is whether neighbours and people living in the locality – particularly those from ‘different backgrounds’ – feel that they get on well together. 72 per cent definitively agreed or tended to agree that people from different backgrounds got on well together and 13 per cent tended to disagree or definitely disagreed. 79 per cent from non-deprived and two thirds from deprived wards agreed, and 8 per cent from non-deprived compared to 15 per cent from deprived wards disagreed. 72 per cent of both white and ethnic minority respondents agreed that neighbours and people living in the locality from ‘different backgrounds’ got on well together. Among those who disagreed however, nearly a quarter was ethnic minority respondents compared to only 12 per cent of whites. As in 2001 we found that this like other responses depended on whether the person owned or rented. Three quarters of owners compared to two thirds of renters agreed that people got on well together and 11 per cent of owners compared to 15 per cent of renters disagreed. White respondents living in non-deprived wards owning their home have higher levels of agreement about good neighbourliness in terms of people from different backgrounds getting on well together in their locality. Whites, and especially members of ethnic minorities, living in deprived areas had significantly lower levels of agreement. Although the differences are not very large, and the majority of ethnic minority respondents felt that they did get on with people from different backgrounds, the differences are large enough to be a cause for concern.

Community safety, crime and victimisation 11.20 The other key indicator of community cohesion is whether residents feel safe in their neighbourhood. Respondents felt their area to be safer in 2003 than when we asked them in 2001. 79 per cent compared to 68 per cent in 2001 stated that their area was very or fairly safe. Respondents living in deprived wards, ethnic minorities, women and the young felt somewhat less safe but not significantly so. The very large majority felt safe in their home at night although the same groups felt slightly less safe except young people who felt safest of all. On the other hand only half of respondents felt safe walking alone at night. Young people and women felt least safe and ethnic minorities most safe by a small margin. Only a third of women felt safe walking alone at night. 11.21 Respondents were asked to identify problem behaviours in their neighbourhood and whether they had experienced being a victim of crime. Problem behaviour was felt to be less of a problem in 2003 than it was in 2001. Nevertheless, across every type of behaviour, people in deprived wards were much more likely than those in non-deprived wards to identify behaviours as a problem or a big problem. Deprived

47



wards experience a much greater concentration of perceived problem behaviours compared to non-deprived wards. Just under a third of the sample had reported these incidents, mostly to the police, the council and community wardens. Table 11.5 below compares what respondents felt to be a ‘slight’ or ‘quite’ a problem in 2001 with what they stated in 2003. Table 11.5: Problem behaviours by deprived and non-deprived wards (percentages) Ward Type This behaviour is a problem

Deprived

Non-deprived

Dangerous driving Hanging around Anti social behaviour Drug dealers Drug taking activities Vandalism Drinking in public Children playing on streets Prostitution Noisy neighbours Racial attacks Begging Sleeping rough

40 35 33 33 33 29 27 18 12 10 6 5 2

29 25 19 15 16 18 18 10 6 6 2 2 1

The following problem behaviours were felt to be a ‘big problem’ by a minority of respondents. They are ranked by the frequency with which they were mentioned in 2001 and 2003. The percentage of respondents mentioning them in 2003 and 2001 is in brackets: • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Dangerous driving (17/21) Hanging around (14/19) Drug dealers (13/18) Drug taking activities (13/20) Drinking in public (12/10) Vandalism (10/16) Anti social behaviour (9/NA) Children playing on streets (5/6) Prostitution (5/8) Noisy neighbours (4/5) Begging (2/NA) Racial attacks (1/4) Sleeping rough (