Edinburgh Research Explorer
Growing Up in Scotland
Citation for published version:
Bradshaw, P, Sharp, C, Webster, C & Jamieson, L 2009, Growing Up in Scotland: Parenting and the
Neighbourhood Context Report. Scottish Government.
<http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/03/13143448/0>
Link:
Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer
Document Version:
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publisher Rights Statement:
© Bradshaw, P., Sharp, C., Webster, C., & Jamieson, L. (2009). Growing Up in Scotland: Parenting and the
Neighbourhood Context Report. The Scottish Government.
General rights
Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s)
and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and
abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.
Take down policy
The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer
content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please
contact openaccess@ed.ac.uk providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and
investigate your claim.
Download date: 24. Nov. 2021
GROWING UP IN SCOTLAND:
Parenting and the Neighbourhood
Context Report
GROWING UP IN SCOTLAND:
Parenting and the Neighbourhood
Context Report
The Scottish Government, Edinburgh 2009
© Crown copyright 2009
ISBN (web only): 978-0-7559-1970-3
The Scottish Government
St Andrew’s House
Edinburgh
EH1 3DG
Produced for the Scottish Government by RR Donnelley B59453 03/09
Published by the Scottish Government, March 2009
GROWING UP IN SCOTLAND:
Parenting and the
Neighbourhood Context Report
Paul Bradshaw*, Clare Sharp*, Catriona Webster* and ^Lynn Jamieson
*Scottish Centre for Social Research
^Centre for Research on Families and Relationships
Prepared for The Scottish Government: Children, Young People and Social Care
Directorate by the Scottish Centre for Social Research
i
ii
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
v
1
INTRODUCTION
1
2
AREA SATISFACTION AND USE AND PERCEPTIONS OF LOCAL SERVICES
AND FACILITIES
5
3
4
2.1
Key findings
5
2.2
Overall satisfaction with area
6
2.3
Availability and use of local facilities and services
10
2.4
Assessment of local facilities
13
2.5
Satisfaction with facilities overall
18
2.6
Service/issue most in need of improvement
19
2.7
Perceptions of safety in local area
21
SOCIAL NETWORKS
25
3.1
Key findings
26
3.2
Variations in social networks
3.2.1 Variation by selected individual or household characteristics
3.2.2 Variation by area deprivation and urban-rural characteristics
3.2.3 Variation by length of residence and neighbourhood satisfaction
27
27
29
31
3.3
The relative effects of area and individual characteristics on having
satisfactory networks
32
CHILD-FRIENDLINESS OF LOCAL AREA
35
4.1
Key findings
36
4.2
Responses to the individual statements
36
4.3
Variations in perceived child-friendliness
4.3.1 Variations by area deprivation and urban-rural characteristics
4.3.2 Variation by length of residence, neighbourhood satisfaction and
rating of local facilities
37
37
39
Factors independently associated with perceived levels of
child-friendliness
40
What makes an area ‘child-friendly’?
40
4.4
4.5
iii
GROWING UP IN SCOTLAND:
Parenting and the Neighbourhood Context Report
5
6
ARE AREA CHARACTERISTICS RELATED TO PARENTING BEHAVIOUR?
43
5.1
Key findings
44
5.2
Variety of parent-child activities
44
5.3
Attendance at parent-baby/parent-toddler groups
45
5.4
Attitudes towards seeking help and advice
46
5.5
Number of sources used for information and advice on child health
47
CONCLUSION
49
REFERENCES
51
APPENDIX A: REGRESSION TABLES
iv
52
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
This report uses data from the Growing Up in Scotland study (GUS) to explore families’
experiences of living in Scotland’s neighbourhoods, to examine parents’ views on
different aspects of their local area and to consider the relationship between area
characteristics and parenting behaviours. The findings in this report are drawn mainly
from data collected in the neighbourhood module which was run in the third wave of
fieldwork (undertaken between April 2007 and May 2008) - when children in the birth
cohort were aged just under 3 years old and those in the child cohort were just under
5 years old – although information from the first two waves of GUS is also used.
Satisfaction with local area and facilities
• Eighty-onepercentofparentsareveryorfairlysatisfiedwiththeareawheretheylive.
• Satisfactionlevelsvariedaccordingtoareacharacteristicsbeinghigheramongstthose
parents living in areas of lower deprivation and those in rural areas, and lower amongst
those living in areas of high deprivation and in urban locales.
• ThefacilitiesusedmostoftenbyparentswereGPs,communityhealthservicesand
playgrounds and parks.
• Amajority(88%)ofparentsinbothcohortsreportedhavingapublicparkorplayground
within 10 minutes walk of their home. This varied significantly by area urban-rural
characteristicsfrom95%insmallaccessibletownstoonly57%inremoteruralareas.
• Parentswereaskedwhethertheyhadaccesstoalistofservicesandfacilities.People
living in rural areas were less likely to have access to other services including childcare,
health and leisure facilities than were those in urban areas.
• Areasofhigherdeprivationalsosufferedfromalackofchildcare,healthandleisure
facilities. This was most striking in relation to childcare services. However, these areas
were more likely to benefit from other services such as Credit Unions and advice centres
• Satisfactionwithlocalfacilitieswasgenerallyhigh.Overall,31%ofrespondentswere
highlysatisfied,26%reportedmediumsatisfactionand44%ofrespondentshadlow
satisfaction. Parents living in deprived areas, and those in social housing were most likely
to report low area satisfaction.
• Localhealthandeducationserviceswereratedhighestbyparents,whereasfacilitiesfor
children and young people were rated lowest.
• Accordingly,facilitiesforyoungchildrenwerethoseseenasbeingmostinneedof
improvement - selected by one-fifth of respondents. Housing and levels of crime were also
identified as key local issues which required attention.
v
GROWING UP IN SCOTLAND:
Parenting and the Neighbourhood Context Report
Social networks
• Three-quartersofparentsinbothcohortshadasatisfactoryfriendshipnetworkwitha
similarproportionhavingasatisfactoryfamilynetwork.Alittleoverhalf(57%)hadboth
satisfactorynetworksandonly10%inthebirthcohortand8%inthechildcohorthad
neither.
• Oldermotherswerelesslikelytohavesatisfactoryfamilynetworksthanwereyounger
mothers. Some of this difference may be accounted for by differences in the number of,
and frequency of contact with, the child’s grandparents amongst the older group.
• Generallyspeaking,moredisadvantagedcircumstanceswereassociatedwithless
satisfactory networks. Parents in lower-income households, those in socially-rented
accommodation, and those living in area of high deprivation were less likely to have
satisfactory networks than were parents in higher income households, owner-occupied
accommodation or living in less deprived areas.
• Individualratherthanareacharacteristicsappearedtobemoreimportant.Maternalage,
household income, and tenure were all significantly and independently associated with
having a satisfactory friendship network.
• Maternalagewasalsosignificantlyassociatedwithhavingasatisfactoryfamilynetwork,as
was tenure.
Area child-friendliness
• Overall,mostparentssaidtheirlocalareawasmoderatelyorverychild-friendly.Only20%
of parents in the birth cohort perceived their neighbourhood to have low child-friendliness
• Moredeprivedareasweregenerallyperceivedbyparentstobelesschild-friendly;43%of
parents living in the most deprived areas said their area had low child-friendliness
comparedwith5%intheleastdeprivedareas.
• Parentsinruralareasratedtheirneighbourhoodsmorehighlyintermsofchild-friendliness
thandidparentsinurbanareas;38%ofparentsinremoteruralareassaidtheirareahad
highchild-friendlinesscomparedwith14%inlargeurbanareas.
• Ratingsofneighbourhoodsatisfactionandoflocalfacilitiesmatchedthoseofchildfriendliness. Thus parents who were dissatisfied with their neighbourhood and who gave
local facilities a poor rating were also negative about the area’s child-friendliness.
• Themultivariateanalysisrevealedthatlivinginaruralarea,higherlevelsofneighbourhood
satisfaction, a positive rating of local facilities, having a satisfactory friendship network, and
residing longer at the current address were all significantly and independently related to a
higher perceived notion of area child-friendliness.
vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Area characteristics and parenting behaviours
• Areaurban-ruralcharacteristicsweresignificantlyassociatedwithdifferencesinparents’
engagement in most of these behaviours. Rurality or remoteness was positively associated
with a greater variety of parent-child activities, attendance at a parent-child group and
willingness to seek help and support.
• Theexistenceornot,ofsocialnetworksisalsokey.Parentswhoreportedmore
satisfactory networks engaged in more activities with their child, and were more open to
seeking help and support as well as being more likely to do so than were parents with
fewer satisfactory networks.
• Parents’perceptionsoftheirlocalareaintermsofneighbourhoodsatisfaction,ratingsof
local facilities and child-friendliness were generally not associated with variations in
parenting behaviour. However, higher perceptions of the quality of local facilities were
weakly related to a greater participation in parent-child activities and a willingness to seek
parenting advice and support.
Conclusion
There is clear evidence that the differences and similarities between services in different
types of neighbourhoods matter to parents. Parents in different neighbourhoods have
very different objective conditions which impact on how they see their area. This is
reflected in overall satisfaction with the area, and, in urban areas, parents’ perceptions
and use of services as well as their sense of its child-friendliness.
The findings here suggest that improvements to facilities for children and young people,
particularly in more deprived areas, would seem to not only have benefits for child health
through increased opportunity for outdoor play, but also for parents’ satisfaction with
their local area and it’s child-friendliness. Furthermore, the consistently significant, and
generally positive, impact of having satisfactory networks on parenting behaviours and
perceptions of the local community would suggest that measures which seek to improve
parents’ informal networks through area-based programmes or interventions would have
wider benefits on child outcomes.
vii
chapter
InTROducTIOn
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Creating communities that provide a supportive environment for children and families is a
key aim of the Scottish Government Early Years Framework. In order to build stronger
communities through improving the physical and social environment in which children
and families live it is essential to understand how different groups of people in Scotland
feel about the area they live in, and how they perceive and make use of the facilities and
resources in their local area. Furthermore, in the context of the Early Years Framework, it
is important to explore and understand the possible positive or negative impacts that
living in communities with particular characteristics may have on children as they grow up.
This report uses data from the Growing Up in Scotland study (GUS) to explore families’
experiences of living in Scotland’s neighbourhoods, to examine parents’ views on
different aspects of their local area and to consider the relationship between area
characteristics and parenting behaviours.
GUS is an important longitudinal research project aimed at tracking the lives of a cohort
of Scottish children from the early years, through childhood and beyond. Its principal aim
is to provide information to support policy-making, but it is also intended to be a broader
resource that can be drawn on by academics, voluntary sector organisations and other
interested parties. Focusing initially on a cohort of 5,217 children aged 0-1 years old (the
birth cohort) and a cohort of 2,859 children aged 2-3 years old (the child cohort), the first
wave of fieldwork began in April 2005 and annual data collection from both cohorts has
been undertaken since that time.1
The findings in this report are drawn mainly from data collected in the neighbourhood
module which was run in the third sweep of fieldwork (undertaken between April 2007
and May 2008) – when children in the birth cohort were aged just under 3 years old and
those in the child cohort were just under 5 years old – although information from the first
two sweeps of GUS is also used. The main source of data is a face-to-face computerassisted personal interview (CAPI) with the cohort child’s main carer, usually the child’s
mother.
This report starts by discussing the availability and use of local facilities amongst parents
in the study and their perceptions of the quality of these services. The report will then go
to explore respondent’s general perceptions of the area where they live, in order to gauge
how satisfied they are with their area. Perceptions of safety in their local area will also be
discussed within this section. The availability of informal social networks and social
support is also explored as are parental perceptions of how ‘child-friendly’ their local area
is. Each of these domains allows a picture to be painted of local issues which are
1
Further information on the design, development and future of the project is available from the study
website: www.growingupinscotland.org.uk
1
GROWING UP IN SCOTLAND:
Parenting and the Neighbourhood Context Report
important to, and significant for, parents of young children in Scotland. The findings can
contribute to the measurement of a number of the Scottish Government’s national
outcomes, as outlined in the Spending Review 2007 (Scottish Government, 2007),
specifically in relation to families and children, namely:
• We live in well designed, sustainable places where we are able to access the
amenities and services we need
• We have strong, resilient and supportive communities where people take responsibility
for their own actions and how they support others
• Our public services are high quality, continually improving, efficient and responsive to
local people’s needs
Each domain is explored in relation to a number of key area and neighbourhood
characteristics including, and in particular, area deprivation2, urban-rural classification and
tenure. Social housing has become concentrated in the most deprived areas since the
introduction of the Right to Buy legislation in the UK in 1980 (Jones & Murie, 1999, 2006,
Scottish Executive, 2006). Patterns of residential mobility and family formation are also
related to housing tenure. The work of Boyle et al. suggests a pattern of would-be
parents moving to owner occupied housing in areas beyond city centres in anticipation of
having children. However, this is not a strategy available to all and since the
residualisation of council housing there has been a strong association between high rates
of social renting and relatively high rates of fertility (Boyle, Graham and Feng, 2007).
Whilst data from GUS does not support analysis at the local authority level, much of what
is contained in this report, and collected elsewhere in the study, is of much relevance to
local authorities and health boards.3
2
2
Area deprivation is measured using the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD). SIMD is based on
37 indicators across seven domains of Current Income, Employment, Health, Education Skills and
Training, Geographic Access to Services, Housing and Crime. Further details on SIMD can be found on
the Scottish Government website: www.scotland.gov.uk/topics/statistics/SIMD/overview
3
A paper outlining how GUS findings can be used to inform policy development and service planning at
the local level is available from the study website: www.crfr.ac.uk/gus/guide%20for%20Loc%20Auths.pdf
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
The majority of text, figures and tables in this report are based on the birth cohort as
some questions were asked of the birth cohort only and, unless otherwise stated, trends
found in the birth cohort were also apparent in the child cohort. Analysis in this report,
drawing mostly on data from a single wave of the study, refers to a single point in time.
However, a repeat of the neighbourhood module in a future wave of GUS will allow
examination of area-level change, for example in relation to reduced deprivation or
improved local services, as well as consideration of the longer-term effects of area
characteristics and changes in them on individual-level outcomes for children and
families.
3
chapter
AREASATISfAcTIOnAnduSEAndPERcEPTIOnS
OfLOcALSERvIcESAndfAcILITIES
CHAPTER 2
Area satisfaction and use and perceptions of local services and facilities
2.1
Key findings
• Eighty-one percent of parents are very or fairly satisfied with the area in which
they live.
• Satisfaction levels varied according to area characteristics being higher
amongst those parents living in areas of lower deprivation and those in rural
areas, and lower amongst those living in areas of high deprivation and in
urban locales.
• The facilities used most often by parents were GPs, community health services
and playgrounds and parks.
• Amajority(88%)ofparentsinbothcohortsreportedhavingapublicparkor
playground within 10 minutes walk of their home. This varied significantly by
areaurban-ruralcharacteristicsfrom95%insmallaccessibletownstoonly
57%inremoteruralareas.
• People living in rural areas were also less likely to have access to other
services including childcare, health and leisure facilities than were those in
urban areas.
• Areas of higher deprivation also suffered from a lack of childcare, health and
leisure facilities. This was most striking in relation to childcare services.
However, these areas were more likely to benefit from other services such as
Credit Unions and advice centres
• Satisfactionwithlocalfacilitieswasgenerallyhigh.Overall,31%of
respondentswerehighlysatisfied,26%reportedmediumsatisfactionand44%
of respondents had low satisfaction. Parents living in deprived areas, and
those in social housing were most likely to report low area satisfaction.
• Local health and education services were rated highest by parents, whereas
facilities for children and young people were rated lowest.
• Accordingly, facilities for young children were those seen as being most in
need of improvement - selected by one-fifth of respondents. Housing and
levels of crime were also identified as key local issues which required attention.
5
GROWING UP IN SCOTLAND:
Parenting and the Neighbourhood Context Report
2.2
Overall satisfaction with area
A number of measures were used to gauge how satisfied parents are with the area in
which they live:
• Whether satisfied with the area in which they live
• Whether the neighbourhood has a good community spirit
• Whether the area has a good reputation
• Whether the area is going downhill
• Whether they would live in another area if they could
Overallthemajorityofparentsappeartobesatisfiedwiththeareawheretheylive,with
around8in10(81%)sayingtheyareveryorfairlysatisfied;morethanhalf(56%)
agreeingthattheirneighbourhoodhasagoodcommunityspirit;andaround6in10
(61%)agreeingthattheirareahasagoodreputation.Onlyaminority(16%)felttheirarea
was‘goingdownhill’,andathird(33%)indicatedthattheywouldliveinanotherareaif
they were able to. A neighbourhood satisfaction scale variable4 was created to measure
overalllevelsofsatisfactionwitharea.Thisshowsthatlessthan3in10(29%)
respondents gave their neighbourhoods a low overall satisfaction score (Figure 2-A).
Figure 2-A Overall levels of satisfaction with area – birth cohort
Satisfied with area
81
Good community spirit
56
Good reputation
61
Going downhill
16
Would live in another area
33
Low score on neighbourhood scale
29
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
%
Unweighted base: 4146
4
6
This was constructed using the 4 agree/disagree statements: The neighbourhood has a good community
spirit;Thisareahasagoodreputation;Thisareaisgoingdownhill;IfIwasabletoI’dliveinanother
neighbourhood. Answers to each of these were converted into scores, and respondents were divided
intothreegroupsdependingontheircombinedscores(1to7=lowsatisfaction;8to9=medium
satisfaction;10to16=highsatisfaction).
CHAPTER 2
Area satisfaction and use and perceptions of local services and facilities
Although this provides a fairly positive overall view, it is important to look at perceptions
of different sub-groups of the population, in order to identify those areas or groups where
perceptions are particularly positive or negative.
Not surprisingly, level of satisfaction varied by area deprivation. Parents living in the most
deprived areas tend to report lower levels of area satisfaction on all the measures. For
example,justoverathirdsaidtheirareawasgoingdownhill,comparedwithonly3%of
those in the least deprived areas. Looking at the overall neighbourhood satisfaction scale,
two-thirds(66%)ofthoseinthemostdeprivedareasfellintothe‘lowsatisfaction’group;
theequivalentfigureforthoselivingintheleastdeprivedareasis14%.
Perceptions of local area are also significantly associated with whether people live in
urban or rural locales. Parents in rural areas were, on the whole, more positive about the
area they live in. For example, good community spirit is perceived to be more common in
rural neighbourhoods, as indicated by three-quarters of people living in these areas,
compared with around half of those in urban areas (Table 2.1). Within both urban and
rural areas, considerable variation in neighbourhood satisfaction was noted by household
income. Respondents with higher incomes were significantly more positive about their
neighbourhood irrespective of whether they lived in an urban or rural area. The
differences were starker amongst those in urban areas.
7
GROWING UP IN SCOTLAND:
Parenting and the Neighbourhood Context Report
Table 2.1
Satisfaction with area by area deprivation and urban-rural
classification – birth cohort
Area deprivation (%)
Least
deprived
Most
deprived
Urban-rural classification (%)
All (%)
Urban
Rural
Satisfied with area
96
61
79
89
81
Agree that
neighbourhood has
good community
spirit
67
39
52
74
56
Agree that area has
a good reputation
91
25
56
81
61
3
35
18
8
16
Agree that would live
in another area if was
able
13
59
37
18
33
Low score on overall
neighbourhood scale
14
66
42
19
38
Base (weighted)
784
1019
3352
839
4192
Base unweighted)
905
833
3242
950
4192
Agree that area is
going downhill
Note: base numbers differ slightly with each variable. Base numbers presented in this table are for the variable
‘How satisfied are you with the area’.
Given the patterns found by area deprivation, it is perhaps not surprising that people
living in social rented accommodation are less likely to be satisfied with their area than
owner-occupiers or those living in private rented accommodation, given that social rented
housingismorecommoninmoredeprivedareas(64%comparedwithonly2%inthe
leastdeprivedareas).Morethanhalf(54%)ofthoseinsocialrentedhousingsaidthat
theywouldliveinanotherareaiftheywereableto,comparedwithaquarter(24%)of
owner occupiers. (Table 2.2)
8
CHAPTER 2
Area satisfaction and use and perceptions of local services and facilities
Table 2.2
Satisfaction with area by housing tenure – birth cohort
Owner
occupied
Social
rented
Private
rented
Other5
All
Satisfied with area
89
63
81
83
81
Agree that neighbourhood has
good community spirit
63
42
58
57
56
Agree that area has a good
reputation
73
32
67
71
61
8
34
14
19
16
Agree that would live in another
area if was able
24
54
31
27
33
Low score on overall
neighbourhood scale
27
62
35
32
38
Base (weighted)
2637
1185
255
112
4192
Base (unweighted)
2902
982
212
95
4102
Agree that area is going
downhill
Note: base numbers differ slightly with each variable. Base numbers presented in this table are for the variable
‘How satisfied are you with the area’.5
Levels of satisfaction with the local area amongst GUS respondents, and the trends by
key sub-groups, are similar to those reported in the report of the Scottish Household
Survey 2007 (SHS). Whilst the specific measures used are slightly different, SHS found
overallratingsofneighbourhoodstobehighwith93%sayingthattheirneighbourhoodis
a ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ good place to live (Scottish Government, 2008). As with GUS data,
SHS respondents in rural areas and those in areas of low deprivation rated their
neighbourhoods more highly than those in urban or more deprived areas.
5
The ‘other’ category includes those renting from an employer, those renting with a non-specified
arrangement, and those living rent-free (usually with the respondent’s own parents/the child’s
grandparents)
9
GROWING UP IN SCOTLAND:
Parenting and the Neighbourhood Context Report
2.3
Availability and use of local facilities and services
Respondents were asked about the availability of formal services, such as childcare,
health services and leisure facilities, in their local area and whether they used them.
The debate surrounding the importance of play in a child’s development has led to
concerns about the provision of accessible play space in communities. Encouragingly, a
majority(88%)ofparentsreportedhavingapublicparkorplaygroundwithin10minutes
walk(figureswereidenticalinchildcohort).However,aroundoneinten(12%)didnot
have access to these kinds of play facilities, with those living in private rented
accommodationleastlikelytohaveaccesstoaparkorplayground(79%comparedwith
88%ofthosewhoownedtheirownhomeand89%ofthoseinsocialrented
accommodation). Whilst there was little significant difference between play facilities in
deprived and non deprived areas, the proportion having access to a playground or public
park did vary with whether the respondent lived in an urban or rural area, ranging from
95%insmallaccessibletownstoonly57%inremoteruralareas(figure2-B).However,
this is perhaps of little concern given that rural areas will usually present better
opportunities for outdoor play than do urban areas.
Figure 2-B Public park or playpark within 10 mins walk, by urban/rural – birth
cohort
Public park or playpark within 10 mins walk
Large urban
89
Other urban
92
Small accessible towns
95
Small remote towns
92
Accessible rural
79
Remote rural
57
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
10 0
%
unweightedbases:Largeurban1527;Otherurban1341;Small,accessibletowns426;Smallremotetowns
111;Accessiblerural499;Remoterural225;
10
CHAPTER 2
Area satisfaction and use and perceptions of local services and facilities
In fact, when parents were asked whether or not certain services or facilities were
available in their area, people living in rural areas were less likely overall to have access to
childcare, health and leisure facilities in their local area than were those in urban areas.
Twenty four percent of parents living in rural areas did not have access to a playgroup,
50%hadnopublicswimmingpoolorleisurecentrethatcateredforyoungchildrenand
almostoneinfive(18%)hadnocommunityhealthservicessuchashealthvisitorsor
local clinics. In contrast, the figures for those living in urban areas were much smaller:
15%hadnoplaygroup,28%hadnoaccesstoaswimmingpoolorleisurecentreand
onlyoneintenhadnocommunityhealthservices(Table2.3).Whilst70%ofthoseliving
inurbanareasdidnothaveacreditunion,thisfigureroseto94%inruralareas.Similarly
the proportion in rural areas that did not have access to an advice centre such as a
citizensAdviceBureauwas71%comparedwith52%inurbanareas.
The facilities used most often by parents were GPs, community health services and
playgrounds and parks. Patterns of usage did not differ much by urban or rural area.
However, parents in rural areas were more likely to make use of parent and toddler
groups and playgroups than were parents in urban areas.
11
GROWING UP IN SCOTLAND:
Parenting and the Neighbourhood Context Report
Table 2.3
Local availability and use of facilities by area urban rural classification –
birth cohort
Availability, use and urban-rural classification
(%)
None in area
In area but
not used
Urban Rural Urban Rural
In area used
sometimes/often
Urban
Rural
Bases
(all who moved house
in last year)
Weighted Unweighted
Parent &
toddler group
10
9
57
41
34
50
510
482
Registered
childminder
14
12
76
73
10
14
404
381
Playgroup
15
24
72
58
13
18
500
469
Nursery
5
14
69
63
26
23
559
524
GP
9
17
11
6
80
78
563
530
Community
health services
9
18
23
16
68
65
544
512
Library
11
11
34
39
55
49
559
524
Public
swimming pool/
leisure centre
28
50
16
10
56
41
557
524
7
7
10
9
83
84
569
534
Credit Union
69
94
26
6
5
1
372
349
Advice centre
52
71
40
26
8
3
476
444
Playground or
park
The level of deprivation in an area had a similar effect on the local availability of childcare,
health and leisure facilities. This was most striking in relation to childcare services with
aroundoneinfive(21%)ofthoselivinginthemostdeprivedareasinScotlandnothaving
aplaygroup,comparedwithonly10%ofthoselivinginthemostaffluentareas.Similarly,
28%ofparentsinthemostdeprivedareasdidnothaveaccesstoaregistered
childminder,incontrastto5%ofthoseintheleastdeprivedareas.However,some
services were more prevalent in deprived areas than affluent areas. For example, a higher
proportion of parents in the most deprived areas reported having access to a Credit
Union or advice centre than parents in the least deprived areas. Area deprivation also
affected use of selected services by parents. For example, parents living in the most
deprived areas were significantly less likely to use nurseries, and playgrounds or parks.
12
CHAPTER 2
Area satisfaction and use and perceptions of local services and facilities
Table 2.4
Local availability and use of facilities by area deprivation – birth
cohort
Availability, use and deprivation (%)
None in area
In area but
not used
In area used
sometimes/often
Bases
(all who moved house
in last year)
Least
Most
Least
Most
Least
Parent &
toddler group
4
16
52
59
44
25
510
482
Registered
childminder
5
28
81
66
14
6
404
381
10
21
73
66
18
12
500
469
Nursery
6
6
63
73
31
21
559
524
GP
8
13
9
12
83
75
563
530
Community
health services
9
12
24
22
68
66
544
512
Library
10
14
31
37
59
49
559
524
Public
swimming pool/
leisure centre
27
34
17
16
56
50
557
524
4
10
5
17
91
73
569
534
Credit Union
89
52
10
39
1
9
372
349
Advice centre
66
42
32
46
2
12
476
444
Playgroup
Playground or
park
2.4
Most
Weighted Unweighted
Assessment of local facilities
Parents were also asked to rate the services that were available in their area.
Encouragingly, as many parents had an overall positive view of their local area, so did
many have a positive view of the basic facilities available to them. Three-quarters of
respondents in the birth cohort thought that local health services were either good or
verygood,risingto83%forlocalschools,collegesandadulteducation(figure2-c).
figuresinthechildcohortwereverysimilarat76%and86%respectively.Evaluationsof
localtransportfacilitieswerealsohigh;overthree-quartersofparentsineachcohort
(77%birthcohort,78%childcohort)agreedthatthepublictransportintheirareawas
good.
13
GROWING UP IN SCOTLAND:
Parenting and the Neighbourhood Context Report
Figure 2-C
Perceptions of local services – birth cohort
Very good
Good
Average
Poor
Very poor
58
60
56
50
40
40
33
30
25
19
20
19
14
12
10
10
5
4
2
2
1
0
Local childcare services
Local health services
Local schools, colleges and
adult education
Unweighted base: 3711
Figure 2-D
Perceptions of local services – birth cohort
Very good
Good
Average
Poor
Very poor
50
45
40
29
30
31
30
28
23
22
21
23
20
11
11
9
10
8
7
2
0
Facilities for adults
Facilities for young children
Facilities for teenagers
Unweighted base: 3711
However,onlyhalfofrespondents(child–52%)thoughtthatchildcareservicesinthe
local area were good or very good, and assessments of social and leisure facilities were
less positive still, particularly those for children and teenagers. Just under a third of
14
CHAPTER 2
Area satisfaction and use and perceptions of local services and facilities
parentsinthebirthcohort(31%)thoughtthatsocialandleisurefacilitiesforchildrenupto
theageof12weregoodorverygood,fallingdramaticallytoonly9%(10%inthechild
cohort)forservicesforteenagers(figure2-d).Incontrast,69%ratedfacilitiesfor
teenagers as poor or very poor. Findings from the child cohort were very similar, with the
exception that those with children aged 4-5 years had a more negative view of social and
leisure facilities for children aged under 12 than those with children aged 2-3 years (only
26%ofparentsinthechildcohortratedthesefacilitiesasgoodorverygoodcompared
with31%inthebirthcohort).
Comparison of GUS data with findings from the Scottish Household Survey 2007 shows
some differences between the two surveys both in questions asked and results obtained.
Whereas GUS asked respondents how good they thought local services were, SHS
asked respondents how satisfied they were specifically with local health and transport
services and local schools. SHS data shows that respondents were most satisfied with
healthservices(82%veryorfairlysatisfied),followedbyschools(79%)andtransport
(70%).Incontrast,GuSrespondentsratedlocaleducationserviceshighest(83%good
orverygood),followedbytransport(78%)andthenhealth(75%).
Ratings of community services varied significantly by a number of socio-demographic
factors. Similar to the patterns already discussed in relation to levels of satisfaction with
their local area, respondents living in the most deprived areas of Scotland were much
less likely to have a positive perception of the facilities in their area. This was especially
true in relation to childcare services and facilities for children aged 12 and under. Almost
half(47%,child–53%)ofthoselivinginthemostaffluentareasthoughtthatservicesfor
under12sweregoodorverygood,comparedwithonly19%ofthoselivinginthemost
deprived areas (Figure 2-E). These negative perceptions are likely to reflect the lack of
facilities in deprived areas (as discussed above) as well as the quality of facilities
provided.
Perhaps surprisingly, this pattern was reversed when respondents were asked whether
theirlocalareahadgoodtransportfacilities.Whilstjustoverthree-quarters(76%child–
77%)ofrespondentsinaffluentareasrepliedyestothisquestion,thisroseto84%(child
–87%)inthemostdeprivedareas.Thisislikelytoreflectadivergenceinuse,withlower
rates of car ownership in deprived areas necessitating in greater use of public transport
facilities(97%ofrespondentslivingintheleastdeprivedareashadaccesstoacar,
comparedwithonly54%inthemostdeprivedareas).
15
GROWING UP IN SCOTLAND:
Parenting and the Neighbourhood Context Report
Figure 2-E Percentage rating services as good or very good, by deprivation –
birth cohort
Most deprived
Least deprived
9
Facilities for teenagers
15
19
Facilities for under 12s
47
39
Childcare
63
69
Health services
82
77
School services
89
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
%
unweightedbases:Leastdeprived818;Mostdeprived733
Figure 2-F Percentage rating services as good or very good, by housing tenure –
birth cohort
Owner occupied
Private rented
Social rented
7
Facilities for teenagers
9
10
20
Facilities for under 12s
31
36
39
Childcare
44
55
67
Health services
79
78
79
School services
83
84
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
%
unweightedbases:Owneroccupied2578;Socialrented863;Privaterented180
16
70
80
90
100
CHAPTER 2
Area satisfaction and use and perceptions of local services and facilities
Housing tenure was similarly related to perceptions of local facilities, with those living in
social rented housing less likely to rate their community services highly than those who
either rented privately or owned their property. Again this was most striking in ratings of
childcareandfacilitiesforunder12s.Inthebirthcohort,only39%ofthoselivinginsocial
rented housing thought that childcare facilities in their area were good or very good,
compared with over half of those who owned their house (Figure 2-F).
The length of time a respondent had lived in the area also appeared to be a significant
factor related to viewing local services positively. Those who had lived in the area for 10
years or more were less likely to rate certain services highly than those who had lived in
theareafor9yearsorless.Inthebirthcohort,overhalf(53%)ofthosewhohadlivedin
the area for 5-9 years thought that childcare services were good or very good, compared
with43%ofthosewhohadlivedintheareafortenyearsorlonger(figure2-G).
Whether an area was urban or rural appeared to only have an effect for ratings of
childcareandtransportservices.Overhalf(52%,child–55%)ofparentslivinginurban
areas of Scotland thought that childcare services were good or very good, compared
with42%(child–41%)ofparentsinruralareas.Perhapsunsurprisinglyratingsofpublic
transport were even more divided. The number of respondents in remote rural areas who
said that public transport facilities in their area were good or very good was less than half
thatofrespondentsinlargeurbanareas(43%and88%respectively,child–46%and
88%).
Figure 2-G Percentage rating services as good or very good, by length of
residence in area – birth cohort
10 years or more
5-9 years
1-4 years
Less than 1 year
9
9
Facilities for teenagers
10
10
32
31
32
Facilities for under 12s
25
51
49
53
Childcare
43
76
75
77
72
Health services
84
83
84
84
School services
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
%
unweightedbases:Lessthan1year403;1-4years1747;5-9years1352;10yearsormore208;
17
GROWING UP IN SCOTLAND:
Parenting and the Neighbourhood Context Report
2.5
Satisfaction with facilities overall
In order to gain an overall picture of the level of satisfaction with facilities across different
groups in Scotland a scale was created by averaging respondent answers across the six
questions. Respondents were grouped into high, medium or low satisfaction groups
basedontheiraveragescore.Overall44%ofrespondentshadlowsatisfactionwiththe
facilitiesintheirlocalarea,26%hadmediumsatisfactionand31%werehighlysatisfied.
Despite the variations across services described above, parents living in the most
deprived areas of Scotland and those in social rented housing were significantly more
likely to have low overall satisfaction with local facilities, compared with those in the least
deprived areas and those who owned their house. Fifty nine percent of parents living in
themostdeprivedareashadalowoverallsatisfactionscore,comparedwithonly23%of
those in the most affluent areas (Figure 2-H). Respondents living in rural areas were only
slightly more likely to have a low satisfaction score than were respondents in urban areas.
However, within both urban and rural areas, levels of satisfaction varied with household
income. In the birth cohort, for example, amongst only those parents living in rural areas,
just15%inthelowestincomegroupwerehighlysatisfiedcomparedwith43%inthe
highest income group. The length of a respondent’s tenure in the area also had an effect.
The proportion of parents with a low satisfaction score who had lived in the area for 5
years or less was lower than that for parents who had lived in the area for 10 years or
longer(45%comparedwith49%).
Figure 2-H Percentage with low satisfaction with facilities score – birth cohort
% with low satisfaction score
Least deprived
23
Most deprived
59
Owner occupied housing
36
Social rented housing
59
Urban
43
Rural
48
Lived in area 1-5 years
45
Lived in area 10 years or more
49
0
10
20
30
%
40
50
60
unweightedbases:Leastdeprived614;Mostdeprived650;Owneroccupied2065;Socialrented799;urban2356;
Rural727;1-5years1422;10yearsormore190
18
CHAPTER 2
Area satisfaction and use and perceptions of local services and facilities
2.6
Service/issue most in need of improvement
Parents were also asked to select which community related service or issue they felt was
most in need of improvement in their local area. Whilst facilities for teenagers were rated
the lowest overall, it was facilities for young children that were seen as being most in
needofimprovementbyone-fifth(20%)ofrespondents,perhapsreflectingthe
immediacy of need for parents in the birth cohort (Table 2.5). Whilst facilities for young
children were a priority for all parents this was particularly true for parents in the most
deprivedareas.Almostaquarter(24%)livinginthemostdeprivedareashighlighted
facilitiesforunder12sastheirmainconcern,comparedwith16%livinginthemost
affluent areas. The second key area identified for improvement by almost all groups
across Scotland was the development of good quality affordable housing. Fifteen percent
of those living in rural areas highlighted housing as a key area for improvement. The
exception was in deprived areas, where concern about the level of crime took
precedence.nineteenpercentofparentsinthemostdeprivedareasand12%ofparents
in urban areas highlighted the level of crime as in need of improvement, compared with
only4%ofparentsinaffluentareasand3%livinginruralareas.Thoselivinginaffluent
areas were more likely to be worried about the amount of traffic and dangerous drivers
than the level of crime in their area. Another clear divergence was in the need for access
togoodpublictransport,whichwasatoppriorityfor10%ofthoselivinginruralareas,
comparedwithonly3%inurbanareas.
19
GROWING UP IN SCOTLAND:
Parenting and the Neighbourhood Context Report
Table 2.5
Services and issues most in need of improvement in local area by area
urban rural and deprivation classification – birth
Area Urban Rural
Classification (%)
Area Deprivation
Service or issue
Urban
Rural
Least
deprived
Most
deprived
All
Access to GPs and local health
services
3
5
3
3
3
Good quality affordable housing
14
15
11
15
14
Good shopping facilities nearby
8
9
9
7
8
Access to good public transport
3
10
6
2
4
Quality of schools
5
3
5
4
4
Level of crime
12
2
4
19
10
Quality of jobs
2
2
1
2
2
Facilities for young children
20
21
16
24
20
Sense of community spirit
2
2
3
1
2
Cleanliness of local environment
5
1
2
6
4
Condition of public spaces
7
5
9
5
6
Family and friends close by
3
3
5
1
3
Facilities for older children
7
9
10
5
8
Access to good quality affordable
childcare
2
3
3
1
2
Amount of traffic/dangerous
drivers
6
7
10
4
6
Otheranswer
*
1
*
*
*
Improve nothing
1
3
3
1
2
Weighted
3353
840
784
1018
4193
Unweighted
3243
950
905
833
4193
Bases
20
CHAPTER 2
Area satisfaction and use and perceptions of local services and facilities
2.7
Perceptions of safety in local area
Respondents were also asked about their perceptions of safety in the local area,
specifically:
• Whether they feel safe when out alone in their neighbourhood during the day
• Whether they feel safe when out alone in their neighbourhood after dark
Overall,most(94%)respondentssaidtheyfeltsafewhenoutaloneintheir
neighbourhoodduringtheday,and61%feltsafeoutaloneafterdark.However,the
figures vary significantly according to level of area deprivation, housing tenure and urban
rural classification. People living in the most deprived areas, those living in social rented
housing, those in urban area and those resident in their current address for under five
years are least likely to feel safe when out alone in their neighbourhoods.
Again, amongst those living in urban areas, responses varied according to level of
household income, particularly in relation to perceived safety after dark, with parents in
lower income households living in urban areas less likely to feel safe than those in higher
incomehouseholds(46%inthelowestincomequintilecomparedwith69%inthehighest
income quintile). These variations were not evident amongst parents living in rural areas.
The Scottish Household Survey also asks respondents how safe they feel when out
aloneintheirneighbourhoodafterdark.Overall,SHSrespondentsreportedhigher
perceivedsafetythandidGuSrespondents;72%ofSHSrespondentssaidtheyfeelsafe
orverysafecomparedwith61%inGuS(ScottishGovernment,2008).Thedifferences
are most likely a result of the quite different samples used in either survey. Whilst the
individual proportions differ, trends in these data are very much the same. Both surveys
found that perceptions of safety decrease as levels of deprivation increase.
21
GROWING UP IN SCOTLAND:
Parenting and the Neighbourhood Context Report
Table 2.6
Perceptions of safety in local neighbourhood – birth cohort
Feel safe when
out alone in
neighbourhood
during the day
Feel safe when
out alone in
neighbourhood
after dark
Base
(weighted)
Base
(unweighted)
Area deprivation:
Least deprived
Most deprived
99
85
72
42
784
1017
905
832
Housing tenure:
Owneroccupied
Social rented
Private rented
Other
97
85
95
94
66
49
62
61
2637
1183
255
112
2902
981
212
95
Urban rural classification:
Urban
Rural
92
98
56
81
3351
839
3241
950
Length of time at current
address:
Less than 5 years
5 to 9 years
10 years or longer
93
95
94
59
63
65
2522
1424
244
2433
1,516
241
All
94
61
4190
4191
Note: base numbers differ slightly with each variable. Base numbers presented in this table are for the variable ‘Feel safe
when out alone during the day’.
22
CHAPTER 2
Area satisfaction and use and perceptions of local services and facilities
23
chapter
SOcIALnETWORkS
CHAPTER 3
Social networks
Social networks have been examined extensively as an area of research in their own
right, particularly in relation to health. They are defined as the personal relationships
which are accumulated when people interact with each other in families, neighbourhoods
and elsewhere.
A range of questions have been asked at various waves of GUS which allow the
exploration of the variation in access to, strength and characteristics of social networks
and social support across parents in the study. Some of these questions have a specific
focus on the networks and support that are most relevant to parents with young children
and include frequency of visits to or visits from friends or family members who also have
children, attendance at parent and baby or parent and toddler groups, involvement in
local groups set-up for the benefit of children and parents, contact with and support from
the child’s grandparents, the ease at which parents could organise short-notice childcare
and who they would most likely use in those circumstances. Many of these questions are
repeated at each sweep. A second group of questions, asked at sweep 2, explored the
respondent’s perceptions of their broader informal social network including how many
close relationships they had, their closeness to family and friends, and their perceived
level of support from family and friends.
Descriptive analysis of the differences in much of this social network and social support
data according to key sample characteristics such as maternal age, household income,
family type and maternal education has already been explored in previous GUS
publications (Anderson et al, 2007;Bradshawet al, 2008;Bradshaw,2008).furthermore,
analysis in the main report on sweep 2 data examined the relationship between strength
of informal social networks and emotional wellbeing suggesting a link between weaker
informal networks and negative emotional wellbeing (see Bradshaw et al, 2008, chapter
8). However, to date no systematic consideration has been given to variation in social
networks by area characteristics.
To explore variations in social networks three summary indicators were created – one
focused on satisfactory friendship networks, one focused on satisfactory family networks
and the final one identified those people who had neither a satisfactory friendship nor
family network. The constituent variables used to create the summaries are detailed in
Table 3.1. These variables are drawn from the sweep 2 and sweep 3 datasets.
25
GROWING UP IN SCOTLAND:
Parenting and the Neighbourhood Context Report
Table 3.1
Constituent variables indicating satisfactory friendship and family
networks
Satisfactory friendship network
Satisfactory family network
The respondent’s friendship network was
considered to be satisfactory if:
The respondent’s family network was
considered to be satisfactory if:
• They agreed with the statement “My friends
take notice of my opinions”
• They agreed with the statement “I feel
close to my family”
• And, they reported any one of the following:
• And, they reported any one of the
following:
• Visited by friends with children once a
fortnight or more often
• Visits friends with children once a
fortnight or more often
• Attends a parent and toddler group
• Uses friends for childcare support in the
first instance
• Any set of the child’s grandparents see
the child at least once a week
• Uses a relative for childcare support in
the first instance
By including agreement to the attitudinal variable as mandatory to meet the ‘satisfactory’
criteria we hope to capture some measure of the quality of relationships that respondents
have with their family and friends as well as simply the frequency and nature of contact
with them. The criterion for inclusion in the category was set at a fairly low level. This
means that, at the lowest extreme, someone only needed to agree (strongly or otherwise)
with the attitudinal statement and attend a parent and toddler group and they would be
described as having a ‘satisfactory friendship network’.
3.1
Key findings
• Three-quarters of parents in both cohorts had a satisfactory friendship
network with a similar proportion having a satisfactory family network. A little
overhalf(57%)hadbothsatisfactorynetworksandonly10%inthebirth
cohortand8%inthechildcohorthadneither.
• Oldermotherswerelesslikelytohavesatisfactoryfamilynetworksthanwere
younger mothers. Some of this difference may be accounted for by differences
in the number of, and frequency of contact with, the child’s grandparents
amongst the older group.
• Generally speaking, more disadvantaged circumstances were associated with
less satisfactory networks. Parents in lower-income households, those in
socially-rented accommodation, and those living in area of high deprivation
were less likely to have satisfactory networks than were parents in higher
income households, owner-occupied accommodation or living in less deprived
areas.
26
CHAPTER 3
Social networks
• Individual rather than area characteristics appeared to be more important.
Maternal age and household income were both significantly and independently
associated with having a satisfactory friendship network.
• Maternal age was also significantly associated with having a satisfactory family
network, as was income, family type and tenure.
3.2
Variations in social networks
Around three-quarters of parents in each cohort had a satisfactory friendship network
and similar proportions also reported a satisfactory family network. There were no
statistically significant differences by cohort in prevalence of either network. Nine out of
tenparentsreportedhavingatleastonesatisfactorynetwork,including57%forwhom
bothnetworksweresatisfactory.Onein6hadonlyasatisfactoryfriendshipnetwork
(14%birthcohort,17%inthechildcohort),andaroundoneinfivehadonlyasatisfactory
familynetwork(19%inthebirthcohort,17%inthechildcohort).Only10%ofparentsin
thebirthcohort,and8%inthechildcohorthadneither.
3.2.1 Variation by selected individual or household characteristics
Before moving onto examination of social networks by area characteristics, differences
by key individual and household factors were considered.
Table 3.2 details the variation in social networks by maternal age at the child’s birth,
family type and household income.
There was little significant variation in social networks by family type. However, some
notable differences were evident by maternal age, household income and tenure.
Mothers who were aged 40 or older at the time of the child’s birth are less likely to have
satisfactory social networks than are mothers who were younger. Fifty-five percent of
mothersintheoldestagegrouphadsatisfactoryfamilynetworkscomparedwith74%
and79%intheyoungeragegroups,and14%ofmothersaged40orolderhadno
satisfactorynetworkscomparedwith8%to10%intheotheragegroups.Thedifference
infamilynetworksisnotunexpected;contactwiththechild’sgrandparentsisa
constituent variable of this measure and previous analysis of GUS data has indicated that
children with older mothers have older grandparents or fewer alive and thus have less
frequent, or no contact with them which will explain much of this variance.
27
GROWING UP IN SCOTLAND:
Parenting and the Neighbourhood Context Report
Table 3.2
Variation in social networks by selected individual and household
characteristics – birth cohort
% with
satisfactory
friendship
network
% with
Bases
% with no
satisfactory
satisfactory
family
network
Weighted Unweighted
network
Maternal age at
cohort child’s birth
NS
***
***
Under 20
74
79
7
337
262
20 to 29
75
79
10
1839
1723
30 to 39
76
74
8
2126
2304
40 or older
70
55
12
149
162
Annual household
income
***
NS
**
Up to £14,999 per year
69
75
12
1184
1020
From £15,000 to
£25,999 per year
74
74
10
975
967
From £26,000 to
£43,999
79
78
7
1196
1278
£44,000 and above
82
77
5
891
996
Family type
NS
NS
**
Lone parent
72
77
10
895
747
Couple family
76
75
9
3616
3764
Tenure
***
**
**
Owneroccupied
79
78
7
2822
3033
Social rented
69
72
14
1258
1092
Private rented
70
74
14
292
262
Other
74
58
11
136
122
***Differences significant at less than .001
** Differences significant at less than .01
NS Not significant
28
variationsbyhouseholdincomeareslightlydifferent;heretheprincipledifferenceisin
friendship networks, where parents from lower income households are less likely to have
satisfactory friendship networks than are parents in higher income households.
Differences in prevalence of satisfactory family networks are not statistically significant.
However, parents in lower income households are more likely to have no satisfactory
networks than those in higher income households.
CHAPTER 3
Social networks
Tenure was the only attribute where variations were statistically significant across each of
the network variables. Parents in owner-occupied accommodation were more likely to
have satisfactory friendship and family networks than were those in other tenure types.
Those in the ‘other’ category were least likely to have a satisfactory family network
whereas social and private renters were least likely to have satisfactory friendship
networks and most likely to have no satisfactory networks.
3.2.2 Variation by area deprivation and urban-rural characteristics
Social network data was further analysed to identify any notable variations by area
deprivation and area urban-rural characteristics. Generally speaking, parents living in all
area types reported satisfactory friendship and family networks, a finding which is
consistent with research elsewhere indicating that deprived areas are not necessarily
deprived of social capital and strong social networks (Fitzpatrick, 2005). However,
respondents living in areas with lower deprivation were slightly more likely to have
satisfactoryfriendshipnetworksthanwerethoselivinginareasofhighdeprivation(79%
intheleastdeprivedquintilecomparedwith70%inthemostdeprivedquintile).Parents
living in more deprived areas were also more likely to have no satisfactory networks than
were those in less deprived areas (Table 3.3).
Much of this variation is accounted for by differences in the specific behaviours included
in the measure of friendship networks, particularly attendance at parent and child groups
which is significantly lower in more deprived areas than in less deprived areas (Bradshaw
et al, 2008).Whereasintheleastdeprivedareas59%ofparentsreportedattendingsuch
agroupinthelastyear,thesamewastrueofonly37%ofparentsinthemostdeprived
areas. Notably, the ‘quality’ of friendships, as measured by response to the attitudinal
measures, does not vary significantly by area deprivation.
29
GROWING UP IN SCOTLAND:
Parenting and the Neighbourhood Context Report
Table 3.3
Variation in social networks by area deprivation and urban-rural
classification – birth cohort
% with
satisfactory
friendship
network
% with
satisfactory
family
network
% with no
satisfactory
network
Bases
Weighted
Unweighted
Area
deprivation
***
NS
**
Least deprived
79
77
6
809
916
2
81
75
7
873
946
3
76
73
9
862
915
5
72
78
10
814
759
Most deprived
70
76
11
1116
937
Area
urban-rural
classification
NS
**
***
Large urban
74
76
9
1721
1625
Otherurban
74
77
10
1412
1382
Small,
accessible
towns
77
76
7
435
444
Small remote
towns
82
74
7
126
138
Accessible rural
79
75
8
610
683
Remote rural
75
65
11
193
224
***Differences significant at less than .001
** Differences significant at less than .01
NS Not significant
The data suggest that a remote location does not necessarily equate with a lack of
satisfactorysocialnetworks.Onlydifferencesintheprevalenceofsatisfactoryfamily
networks were statistically significant and notable, being lower in remote rural areas than
in other area types. Differences in prevalence of no networks, whilst statistically
significant, are only small.
Onlyprevalenceofsatisfactoryfriendshipnetworksdifferedsignificantlybyhousehold
income within urban and rural areas. In each area type, parents in higher income
households were more likely to report satisfactory friendship networks than were those in
30
CHAPTER 3
Social networks
lowerincomehouseholds.Inruralareas,forexample,65%ofrespondentsinthelowest
incomegrouphadasatisfactoryfriendshipnetworkcomparedwith78%inthehighest
income group.
3.2.3 Variation by length of residence and neighbourhood satisfaction
The nature of the relationship between length of residence in an area and social networks
is perhaps unexpected. Whilst we may expect those people who have lived longer in an
area to have stronger social networks, the data in Table 3.4 suggest something closer to
the opposite. Parents who had lived in an area for 10 years or more were less likely to
have satisfactory friendship networks than were those who had lived at their current
address for less than 10 years. This group is fairly small, and unusual as a result – the
vast majority of parents in the birth cohort have lived at their current address for less than
five years. There may, therefore, be some specific characteristics about those
respondents which are also related to decreased likelihood of having a satisfactory
friendship network. For example, initial brief analysis indicates that those in the 10 years
or more group are disproportionately aged 40 or older a factor which was shown to be
related to lack of satisfactory friendship network in section 3.2.1.
Table 3.4
Variation in social networks by levels of neighbourhood satisfaction
and length of residence in area – birth cohort
% with
satisfactory
friendship
network
% with
satisfactory
family
network
% with no
satisfactory
network
Neighbourhood
satisfaction
NS
*
NS
Low
77
75
8
1196
1211
Medium
75
78
9
2156
2174
High
75
77
9
724
692
*
NS
NS
Less than 5 years
76
75
9
3423
3389
5 to 9 years
76
77
8
789
831
10 years or more
68
77
11
298
290
Length of
residence in
area
Bases
Weighted
Unweighted
***Differences significant at less than .001
* Differences significant at less than .05
NS Not significant
Level of neighbourhood satisfaction is only significantly related to having a satisfactory family networks, but
the differences are too small to be notable.
31
GROWING UP IN SCOTLAND:
Parenting and the Neighbourhood Context Report
3.3
The relative effects of area and individual characteristics on having
satisfactory networks
Logistic regression was undertaken to explore the independent effects of each of the
variables considered on having a satisfactory friendship network, and, separately, a
satisfactory family network.
In relation to satisfactory friendship networks, maternal age was found to have the
strongest independent association with having a satisfactory friendship network6 although
household income had very similar results. The odds of mothers aged 40 or older at the
child’s birth having a satisfactory friendship network were half of those for mothers aged
under 20. Whilst the odds increased as maternal age decreased only mothers in the
oldest age group appeared distinctly different from those in the youngest group.
Household income was also statistically significant. Parents in higher income households
had greater odds of having satisfactory friendship networks than did those in lower
income households. Indeed, the odds of parents in the highest income group having a
satisfactory friendship network were twice those of parents in the lowest income group.
fewofthearea-relatedvariablesremainedsignificantinthemodel;bothareadeprivation
and urban-rural classification are shown to have no independent association along with
neighbourhood satisfaction and length of residence. Similarly, tenure does not remain
significant after the various individual factors have been taken into account.
Maternal age also has the strongest independent association with having a satisfactory
family network7. In this case, the effect of age is much larger than the effect of household
income, as initially suggested by the bivariate analysis above. Mothers in the youngest
age group had odds of having a satisfactory family network which were five times higher
than those in the oldest age group. Tenure also remained significant in this model with
social and private renting, and other arrangements being negatively associated with
having satisfactory family networks. In contrast to the model for friendship networks,
familytypewassignificant;theoddsofparentsincouplefamilieshavingasatisfactory
family network were lower than those of lone parents. Again, many of the key area
variables such as area deprivation were not significant, including neighbourhood
satisfaction. Length of residence did remain significant however – those parents who had
lived in an area longer were more likely to have satisfactory family networks than those
with shorter periods of residence.
The quite different results in each of the models suggest that whether a parent has a
satisfactory friendship network and whether they have a satisfactory family network is
dependent on complex combinations of individual characteristics and situations reflecting
the different needs of, and informal resources available to, different parents.
32
6
Table A.1, Appendix A
7
Table A.2, Appendix A
CHAPTER 3
Social networks
33
chapter
cHILd-fRIEndLInESSOfLOcALAREA
CHAPTER 4
Child-friendliness of local area
Thus far the report has considered a range of factors which contribute to making a local
community a good place in which to live such as having access to a range of good
quality services and facilities. Respondents’ general perceptions of their local area have
also been considered along with broader social aspects of parenting through the
exploration of the prevalence of satisfactory social networks. In order to combine these
two spheres of community and social parenting, respondents were asked a series of
attitudinal questions which explored their perceptions of the extent to which supporting
parents was a local priority or, in other words, how ‘child-friendly’ they believed their local
area to be.
The questions employed were originally designed for and used as part of the
independent evaluation of the Starting Well Health Demonstration Project (Mackenzie et
al, 2004). Starting Well was focussed on child health and ran in several deprived areas in
Glasgow between 2000 and 2003. A key aim of the project was to demonstrate that
child health could be improved by, amongst other things, enhancing community-based
resources for parents and their children. Part of the evaluation was concerned with
providing a contextual description of the study areas and exploring the social context in
which study children were being raised, aspects of which could be hypothesised to
influence child well-being directly or indirectly (e.g. by impacting on parents or carers).
The questions, which are listed below, formed a measure of this social context.
• “People around here look out for each other’s children”
• “Most people around here can be trusted with children”
• “People around here hold shop doors open for parents with pushchairs”
• “Bringing up children well is a priority for people in this area”
• “This is a good area to bring children up in”
Each item was scored 0-4 on a five-point Likert-type strength of agreement scale
(‘strongly disagree’ = 0 to ‘strongly agree = 4’ with ‘neither agree nor disagree as ‘2)
resulting in a measure with a possible range of 0 to 20.
35
GROWING UP IN SCOTLAND:
Parenting and the Neighbourhood Context Report
4.1
Key findings
• Overall,mostparentssaidtheirlocalareawasmoderatelyorverychild-friendly.
Only20%ofparentsinthebirthcohortperceivedtheirneighbourhoodtohave
low child-friendliness.
• Moredeprivedareasweregenerallyperceivedbyparentstobelesschild-friendly;
43%ofparentslivinginthemostdeprivedareassaidtheirareahadlowchildfriendlinesscomparedwith5%intheleastdeprivedareas.
• Parents in rural areas rated their neighbourhoods more highly in terms of
child-friendlinessthandidparentsinurbanareas;38%ofparentsinremote
ruralareassaidtheirareahadhighchild-friendlinesscomparedwith14%in
large urban areas.
• Ratings of neighbourhood satisfaction and of local facilities matched those of
child-friendliness. Thus parents who were dissatisfied with their neighbourhood
and who gave local facilities a poor rating were also negative about the area’s
child-friendliness.
• The multivariate analysis revealed that living in a rural area, higher levels of
neighbourhood satisfaction, a positive rating of local facilities, having a
satisfactory friendship network, and residing longer at the current address
were all significantly and independently related to a higher perceived notion of
area child-friendliness.
4.2
Responses to the individual statements
The data in Table 4.1 provide an initial illustration of responses to each of the statements
across all parents in the birth cohort. There is little variation in levels of agreement and
disagreement between the various statements. Parents were most likely to agree that
their area was a good place to bring children up, and least likely to agree with how
trustworthy local people were towards children although there was a high amount of
indecision attached to this statement.
36
CHAPTER 4
4
Child-friendliness of local area
Table 4.1
Responses to area child-friendly statements – birth cohort
Agree/
strongly
agree
(%)
Neither
(%)
Disagree/
strongly
disagree
(%)
Bases
Weighted Unweighted
People around here look
out for each other’s
children
63
22
15
4098
4099
Most people around here
can be trusted with
children
57
32
11
3974
3978
People around here hold
shop doors open for
parents with pushchairs
66
20
14
4138
4136
Bringing up children well
is a priority for people in
this area
64
26
10
4089
4092
This is a good area to
bring children up in
70
16
13
4184
4183
4.3
Variations in perceived child-friendliness
To allow easier comparisons of child-friendliness by various area characteristics,
responses on the scale were grouped into three categories indicating a perceived high,
medium and low-level of child-friendliness. Twenty percent of parents in the birth cohort
wereinthelowgroup,63%inthemediumgroupand17%inthehighgroup.
4.3.1 Variations by area deprivation and urban-rural characteristics
Perceptions of child-friendliness were compared initially according to area deprivation and
urban-rural characteristics. Figure 4-A illustrates very clearly the variance in perceived
child-friendliness by area deprivation. As deprivation increases, levels of child-friendliness
decrease. Forty-three percent of parents living in areas in the most deprived quintile fell
intothelowchild-friendlygroupcomparedwithjust5%ofparentslivinginareasinthe
least deprived quintile.
Rurality appeared to be strongly related to parental perceptions of child-friendliness.
Parents living in rural areas were significantly more likely than those living in urban areas
or small towns to fall into the high child-friendliness category with those in remote rural
areas most likely to be in this group (Figure 4-B). Thirty-eight percent of respondents
livinginruralareaswereinthehighgroupcomparedwith14%inlargeurbanareas.In
contrast,25%ofparentsinlargeurbanareasfellintothelowgroupcomparedjust6%in
37
GROWING UP IN SCOTLAND:
Parenting and the Neighbourhood Context Report
accessibleruralareasand4%inremoteruralareas.nostatisticallysignificantvariationin
perceived child-friendliness by household income existed within urban or rural areas.
Figure 4-A Variation in perceived child-friendliness by area deprivation – birth
cohort
Medium
Low
High
80
70
% in each group
69
69
67
64
60
50
49
43
40
30
20
26
24
19
25
12
12
10
8
5
7
0
Least deprived
2
3
4
Most deprived
Area deprivation – quintiles
unweightedbases:Leastdeprived827;2nd820;3rd810;4th645;Mostdeprived774
Figure 4-B Variation in perceived child-friendliness by urban-rural characteristics –
birth cohort
Low
Medium
High
80
% in each group
70
74
61
65
64
62
60
58
50
40
30
20
38
25
14
21
19
17
13
19
10
10
30
6
4
0
Large urban
Other urban
Small,
accessible
towns
Small,
remote
towns
Accessible
rural
Remote
rural
unweightedbases:Largeurban1351;Otherurban1228;Small,accessibletowns411;Small,remotetowns113;
Accessiblerural526;Remoterural247
38
CHAPTER 4
Child-friendliness of local area
4.3.2 Variation by length of residence, neighbourhood satisfaction and
rating of local facilities
As may be expected, levels of perceived child-friendliness and ratings of local facilities
variedinlinewithlevelsofneighbourhoodsatisfaction;parentswhowerehighlysatisfied
with their local area and who were more positive about local facilities were more likely to
fall into the high child-friendliness group than were those who were less satisfied or who
ratedlocalfacilitiesnegatively(Table4.2).forexample,52%ofrespondentswhowere
highly satisfied with their neighbourhood also categorised it as highly child-friendly. In
contrast,only4%ofthoseinthelowchild-friendlinessgroupreportedbeinghighly
satisfied with their neighbourhood generally.
Patterns by length of residence are less clear-cut. Respondents who had lived at their
current address for 10 years or more were most likely to perceive their area as having
low child-friendliness, although their responses were similar to those amongst parents
whohadlivedattheircurrentaddressforlessthan5years(25%comparedwith21%).
Table 4.2
Variation in social networks by levels of neighbourhood satisfaction
and length of residence in area – birth cohort
Level of area child-friendliness
Low
(%)
Medium
(%)
High
(%)
Bases
Weighted Unweighted
Neighbourhood satisfaction
Low
43
54
4
1446
1315
Medium
9
80
12
1586
1636
High
1
47
52
824
902
Low
32
56
12
Medium
16
68
16
8
66
26
Less than 5 years
21
64
15
2298
2211
5 to 9 years
16
63
21
1356
1443
10 years or more
25
58
18
225
221
Rating of local facilities
High
Length of residence in area
***Differences significant at less than .001
* Differences significant at less than .05
NS Not significant
39
GROWING UP IN SCOTLAND:
Parenting and the Neighbourhood Context Report
4.4
Factors independently associated with perceived levels of
child-friendliness
Regression analysis was undertaken to explore the independent associations of key area
variables with the respondent’s perception of the child-friendliness of the local area whilst
controlling for the effect of other factors8. Living in a rural area, a positive rating of local
facilities and higher levels of neighbourhood satisfaction were each significantly and
positively related to a higher perceived notion of area child-friendliness with rurality
having,byfar,thestrongestassociation.Ontheotherhand,higherdeprivation,alackof
social networks and living in social rented accommodation were associated with lower
perceived child-friendliness. Explanatory power of was good – the R square value of the
model was 0.29 indicating that the variables included in the model explained a little over
one-quarter of the variance in perceived child-friendliness.
4.5
What makes an area ‘child-friendly’?
Respondents were asked what they thought made an area a good place in which to
bring up children. Responses were chosen from a list of 15 items and parents were
asked to nominate first and second choice. The most important issue by far was
consideredtobegoodschoolswhich38%ofparentsselectedastheirfirstchoiceand
15%selectedastheirsecondchoice–overallaroundhalfofparentsbelievedthistobe
important. A low level of crime was also principal in parents’ minds with around a third
(32%)choosingthisaswerefacilitiesforyoungchildren,afeaturewhichisobviously
particularly relevant to the GUS sample. Social aspects of the community were also
consideredimportant–16%ofparentsselecteda‘strongsenseofcommunityspirit’as
something which made an area a good place in which to bring up children, and similarly,
16%suggesteditwasimportanttohavefriendsandfamilycloseby.Accesstoservices
such as childcare, health services and housing were deemed less important, as were
public transport and shopping facilities. Low levels of traffic and a clean local environment
howeverweremoreprominent,eachbeingselectedbyaround10%ofrespondents.
8
40
Table A.3, Appendix A
CHAPTER 4
Child-friendliness of local area
Table 4.3
What do you think makes somewhere a good place to bring up
children? – birth cohort
Either
choice
(%)
1st choice
(%)
2nd choice
(%)
Access to GPs and local health services
4.7
3.1
7.8
Good quality affordable family housing
5.0
3.9
8.9
Good shopping facilities nearby
0.8
1.6
2.4
Access to good public transport
0.6
0.7
1.3
Good schools
37.9
14.7
52.6
Low level of crime
17.5
14.9
32.4
0.4
1.5
1.9
11.4
16.4
27.8
Strong sense of community spirit
5.6
10.5
16.1
Clean local environment
3.1
6.8
9.9
Public spaces in good condition (e.g. pavements,
parks, roads)
2.3
5.5
7.8
Family and friends close by
6.2
9.6
15.8
Facilities for older children
0.6
2.8
3.4
Not much traffic or dangerous driving
3.0
6.2
9.2
Good quality affordable childcare
0.4
1.2
1.6
Otheranswer
0.3
0.3
0.6
(None of these)
0.2
0.1
0.3
Weighted
4193
4193
4193
Unweighted
4191
4191
4191
Feature
Good jobs
Facilities for young children
Bases
41
chapter
AREAREAcHARAcTERISTIcSRELATEdTO
PAREnTInGBEHAvIOuR?
CHAPTER 5
Areareacharacteristicsrelatedtoparentingbehaviour?
The previous sections of this report have explored the variable characteristics of the
neighbourhoods in which children in Scotland are being raised, and how parental
perceptions of, and social networks within, these neighbourhoods vary according to
those characteristics. But why is it important to have an understanding of how families’
neighbourhoodsituationsvary?Researchacrossarangeofdisciplinesinsocialscience
has claimed or demonstrated the independent effects of area characteristics on the
quality of life and the life chances of individuals and households living in different areas.
These effects are often attributed to differences in the objective conditions – standard of
housing, quality of services, physical environment or distance from employment
opportunities. More controversially, area effects are sometimes attributed to ‘local
cultures’, the suggested transmission of distinctive social norms and values, ambitions
and expectations (Fitzpatrick, 2004). While the social relationships within the area may
not always generate a distinctive culture, it is the combination of the quality of a
neighbourhood’s physical and social environment which determine its housing values and
status. This in turn affects who can afford to live there and their quality of life (Power,
2004).
A number of authors have documented how difficult it is to statistically demonstrate area
or neighbourhood effects (Lupton, 2003) even those vividly demonstrated by qualitative
research (Fitzpatrick, 2004). There is also considerable debate about when and if
neighbourhood are the most appropriate level for policy interventions (Burrows,
Bradshaw, 2001). In the context of parenting, we assume that key objective
neighbourhood conditions and parental perceptions of their local area may have some
association with key parenting behaviours such as the types and frequency of parentchild activities and levels of attendance at groups aimed at parents and children. Such a
conjecture is supported in recent findings from the National Evaluation of Sure Start
which examined the impact of local Sure Start programmes on three-year olds and their
families (National Evaluation of Sure Start Team, 2008). This research found that living in
a Sure Start Local Programme (SSLP) area had a variety of beneficial effects for children
and families when compared with groups in non-SSLP areas, including more positive
social behaviour amongst the children, and less negative parenting amongst the parents.
Importantly, the research suggests that the beneficial parenting effects appeared to be
responsible for the higher level of positive social behaviour in children.
To explore this relationship in relation to GUS data, analysis was undertaken to determine
the independent association between key objective and subjective area characteristics
and a number of parenting behaviours whilst controlling for individual and household-level
measures. The parenting behaviours considered were:
• The number of different activities in which parents engaged with the cohort child at
age 2-3 (birth cohort) or 4-5 year (child cohort)
43
GROWING UP IN SCOTLAND:
Parenting and the Neighbourhood Context Report
• The extent to which the respondent had attended a group aimed at parents and
children (i.e. a parent and toddler group)
• The total number of sources used by the respondent to obtain information or advice
on child health issues between ages 0-3 (birth cohort) and 2-5 (child cohort)
• An attitudinal scale measuring the extent to which the respondent was comfortable
seeking help and support, and felt they knew who to ask.
5.1
Key findings
• Area urban-rural characteristics were significantly associated with differences in
parents’ engagement in most of these behaviours. Rurality or remoteness was
positively associated with a greater variety of parent-child activities, attendance at a
parent-child group and willingness to seek help and support.
• The existence or not, of social networks is also key. Parents who reported more
satisfactory networks engaged in more activities with their child, and were more open
to seeking help and support as well as being more likely to do so than were parents
with fewer satisfactory networks.
• Parents’ perceptions of their local area in terms of neighbourhood satisfaction, ratings
of local facilities and child-friendliness were generally not associated with variations in
parenting behaviour. However, higher perceptions of the quality of local facilities were
weakly related to a greater participation in parent-child activities and a willingness to
seek parenting advice and support.
5.2
Variety of parent-child activities
To explore the association between area characteristics and parent-child activities, a
scale was constructed using data from sweep 3 which indicated how many of the
following activities the cohort child had participated in with a parent in the previous week:
• Looked at books or read stories
• Painting or drawing
• Recited nursery rhymes or sung songs
• Played at recognising letters, words, numbers or shapes
• Used a computer or games console to play games, draw or look for information (child
cohort only).
In the birth cohort, the analysis found that the number of activities varied according to
area urban-rural characteristics, rating of local facilities and the existence of satisfactory
social networks as well as tenure, household income and the respondent’s level of
44
CHAPTER 5
Areareacharacteristicsrelatedtoparentingbehaviour?
education9. When compared with parents in large urban areas, those living in areas
classed as small, remote towns or remote rural were more likely to have engaged in a
higher number of parent-child activities in the last week. Lacking social networks had a
negative effect on activities with those parents having only a satisfactory family network
and those with no satisfactory networks likely to report lower levels of parent-child
activities. Whilst only weak, there was a negative relationship between parents’
perceptions of the quality of local facilities and the variety of activities in which they
participated in the last week. Having higher educational qualifications and higher income
were each also related to a greater variety of activities.
Overallfewervariablesremainedsignificantinthechildcohortmodel10 including area
urban-rural classification and household income. Social networks, and respondent
education both affected the variety of activities in the same manner as with the birth
cohort. None of the subjective assessments of the local area – child-friendliness,
neighbourhood satisfaction, or rating of local facilities were significantly related to variety
of parent-child activities11.
5.3
Attendance at parent-baby/parent-toddler groups
At each sweep of fieldwork, until the child reaches age 4, respondents are asked
whether in the last year they have attended any parent and child groups with the cohort
child. Information from across all three sweeps was combined to create a variable
indicating whether or not the respondent had ever attended any such group. The analysis
explored the relationship between the selected variables and attendance12.
Urban-rural classification and the respondent’s level of education were the only factors
statistically significantly associated with attendance at parent and child groups amongst
parents in the birth cohort13. Compared with parents living in large urban areas, those
living in other area types, particularly remote towns and remote rural areas, had greater
odds of having attended a parent and child group. The odds of parents in small remote
towns having attended such a group were almost 6 times higher than for those in large
urban areas. For parents in remote rural areas the odds were 4 times higher. Parents
9
Table A.4, Appendix A
10 Table A.5, Appendix A
11 Regression models for the child cohort in each of the four domains being considered in this section tend
to produce fewer statistically significant variables compared with the models for the birth cohort. This is
likely due, at least in part, to the smaller sample size of the child cohort. The number of cases included in
each model is detailed alongside the regression tables in Appendix A.
12 The existence of social networks was excluded from this analysis as attendance at a parent-child group
is used as one of the constituent measures of a satisfactory friendship network.
13 Table A.6, Appendix A
45
GROWING UP IN SCOTLAND:
Parenting and the Neighbourhood Context Report
whose highest qualification was at vocational level or standard grade and those who had
no qualifications were less likely to have attended a group compared with parents with
degrees. Income was also significant although higher income did not necessarily denote
a higher likelihood of attendance. Those parents in households in the second income
quintile had the highest odds ratio.
Level of deprivation was significantly associated with attendance in the child cohort14;
parents in more deprived areas were less likely to have attended. Like the birth cohort,
urban-rural classification and household income were also significant, with similar trends
in the results, whereas level of education was not.
5.4
Attitudes towards seeking help and advice
At sweep 1, parents in both cohorts were asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed
(on a five-point scale) with two statements measuring their attitudes towards seeking
advice and support with parenting:
• “It’s difficult to ask people for help or advice about parenting unless you know them
really well”
• “It’s hard to know who to ask for help or advice about parenting”.
Responses to both questions were combined to create a scale indicating to extent to
which the respondent was comfortable seeking parenting advice. The analysis explored
factors associated with a higher or lower score on the scale.
Urban-rural classification and existence of networks again proved important for parents in
the birth cohort15;areadeprivationwasalsosignificant.Livinginaremoteorruralarea
was associated with a higher score on the scale when compared with living in a large
urban area. Whilst the effect is small, this does suggest that parents in the former areas
are more comfortable with asking for help. As may be expected, a lack of satisfactory
family and/or friendship networks was associated with lower scores on the scale. Higher
area deprivation was associated with less comfort in seeking help and advice amongst
parents. The respondent’s perception of the quality of local facilities was positively
associated with their attitudes towards help-seeking, although only very weakly. The
association between help-seeking and household income was also positive but weak.
Having no qualifications was associated with lower scores on the scale.
14 Table A.7, Appendix A
15 Table A.8, Appendix A
46
CHAPTER 5
Areareacharacteristicsrelatedtoparentingbehaviour?
Whilst urban-rural classification was not significant for the child cohort, the existence of
social networks, and the respondent’s perceptions of their local areas were16. Indeed,
higher perceived child-friendliness of the local neighbourhood and a higher opinion of the
quality of local facilities were each associated with being at greater ease when looking for
parenting help or advice. As with the birth cohort, amongst parents in the child cohort a
lack of social networks suggested more difficulty with seeking support. Household
income and respondent education level also had results similar to the birth cohort.
5.5
Number of sources used for information and advice on child health
Assessing use of formal services amongst parents alongside the extent to which they
draw on informal support is a key intention of GUS. At each sweep, parents are asked
where they have gone or who they have consulted for help or advice when they have
had concerns about the cohort child’s health. The options presented include both formal
and informal sources of support and encompass personal contact as well as information
supplied via paper literature or the internet. The number of sources consulted by parents
over the period 0-3 years for the birth cohort, and 2-5 years for the child cohort was
calculated using this data. The analysis explored associations between the selected
variables and use of a higher or lower number of sources.
In the birth cohort, the respondent’s perception of area child-friendliness was negatively
associated with the number of sources they had used, although the relationship is fairly
weak17. That is, high child-friendliness was associated with use of fewer sources of
advice. Having neither a satisfactory friendship nor family network was also associated
with using fewer sources, a finding which mirrors the less positive help-seeking attitudes
of parents in these groups seen above. Similarly, being a mother aged 40 or older, having
a lower household income and having qualifications below degree level were all
associated with use of fewer sources. Level of education was more strongly associated
with number of sources used than was perceived area child-friendliness or lack of social
networks.
Again, fewer variables remained significant in the child cohort model18.Onlybeinga
mother aged 30 or older and having an equivalised household income above £25,000
peryearweresignificantlyassociatedwiththenumberofsourcesused.Oldermothers
used fewer sources than younger mothers and those with higher incomes used more
than those with lower incomes.
16 Table A.9, Appendix A
17 Table A.10, Appendix A
18 Table A.11, Appendix A
47
chapter
Conclusion
CHAPTER 6
Conclusion
There is clear evidence that the differences and similarities between services in different
types of neighbourhoods matter to parents. In general, parents in rural areas are more
satisfied than those in urban areas despite less access to some services. Parents in the
most and least deprived urban and rural neighbourhoods have very different objective
conditions, and these impact on how they see their area. This is reflected in overall
satisfaction with the area, and, in urban areas, parents’ perceptions and use of services
aswellastheirsenseofitschild-friendliness.Ofparticularnotearethefindingsaround
parents’ poor ratings of local facilities for children and young people and their
identification of these facilities as foremost for improvement. Indeed, the lower use of
parks and playgrounds by parents and children in deprived areas may reflect the poorer
condition of these areas rather than a general reluctance to use them by local parents.
Findings from other studies support this conclusion. Research by the Child Poverty
Action Group of some of the most and least deprived areas in London and York
highlighted the poor condition of local affordable facilities as a reason for not using them
(Hooper et al, 2007). Furthermore, a recent YouGov survey of parents in England (James
and Gibson, 2007) found a clear decline in access to ‘a green space that is well
maintained and pleasant’ by household income. They recommended that access to
well-maintained green spaces be increased for poorer families, a finding which may mean
exploring ways of keeping space safe and free from vandalism. Such improvements
would seem to not only have benefits for child health through increased opportunity for
outdoor play, but also for parents’ satisfaction with their local area and it’s childfriendliness.
The different levels of concern about crime between rural and urban areas, and between
least and most deprived areas, reflect both different objective conditions and associated
different perceptions which will in turn impact on parenting. The strategies that parents
and, as they grow, children themselves adopt for keeping children safe are necessarily
shaped by the perceived dangers of the place in which they grow up (Hill et al, 2004,
Turner et al, 2006). Areas with high levels of crime are also areas with high levels of drug
and alcohol abuse and violence. While these problems are not wholly absent from rural
areas, they are not how such areas are known or stigmatised and are not the top safety
concerns of parents of young children.
Whether parents feel very satisfied with their area and whether they see their area as
child-friendly or not is likely to be of significance to them in their parenting, even if this not
alwayseasytomeasure.Onemeasurableconstituentofthedifferentenvironments
provided by different types of neighbourhood is the social networks that parents can
draw on for support. While the majority of parents across all types of areas have
satisfactory friendship and family networks, we have shown that those living in the most
deprived areas are most likely to lack satisfactory friendship networks and those living in
remote rural areas are the most likely to lack satisfactory networks overall. In urban areas,
49
GROWING UP IN SCOTLAND:
Parenting and the Neighbourhood Context Report
those who lack satisfactory social networks are generally both less positive about their
area, its child-friendliness and, on the measures used here, less actively engaged as
parents. The relationship may be less clear in remote rural areas because sparse
population is a feature of these areas. The lower rate of satisfactory friendship networks
in areas of high deprivation are consistent with some long standing findings in the
literature on friendship suggesting lack of resources inhibits friendship networks (Allan,
2005). While places of poverty can become densely connected communities, this takes
particular circumstances and a sense of loyalty so that poor neighbourhoods do not
always reflect extensive networks of relationships (Crow, 2002). The consistently
significant, and generally positive, impact of having satisfactory networks on parenting
behaviours and perceptions of the local community would suggest that measures which
seek to improve parents’ informal networks through area-based programmes or
interventions would have wider benefits on child outcomes. The positive effects of
encouraging positive parenting behaviours on child outcomes have been aptly
demonstrated recently through the results of the Sure Start programme evaluation
referenced above (National Evaluation of Sure Start, 2008).
It was noted that greater length of residence in an area is not automatically associated
with greater satisfaction or with more likelihood of satisfactory friendships. Within most
deprived areas, the former is not surprising because a higher proportion of people regard
themselves as trapped in a place that is not where they wish to be. The concentration of
social housing in the most deprived areas has contributed the stigmatisation of both and
the difficulty of moving out of stigmatised areas within this housing sector. A persistent
proportion of parents with low satisfaction can be expected in the most deprived areas,
even if those who are moderately satisfied may become more satisfied overtime. This is
indeed what the data show. The data are also consistent with the possibility that
circumstances which inhibit satisfactory networks persist over time. This is the case for
remote rural areas where it is the remoteness itself that inhibits satisfactory social
networks. All but a very small proportion of those who live in remote rural areas have a
sense of choosing to live there. A much higher proportion of those who live in deprived
urban areas have a sense of entrapment. If lack of resources are what inhibit satisfactory
friendship relationships in the most deprived areas, then this is likely to be felt most
acutely by those who are also the most likely to feel trapped.
50
CHAPTER 6
Conclusion
References
Allan, G. 2005. ‘Boundaries of Friendship’ in McKie, L. and Cunningham-Burley, S. (eds.)
Families in Society: Boundaries and Relationships. : Policy Press.
Bradshaw,P.,cunningham-Burley,S.,dobbie,f.,MacGregor,A.,Marryat,L.,Ormston,
R. and Wasoff, F. (2008) Growing Up in Scotland: Year 2 Overview Report, Edinburgh:
Scottish Government.
Burrows, R. and Bradshaw J. (2001) ‘Evidence-based policy and practice’ Environment
and Planning A, 33, 1345-1348.
Crow, G. 2002. Social Solidarities.Buckingham:OpenuniversityPress.
Fitzpatrick, S. (2005) “Poverty of Place”, Centre for Housing Policy Working Paper, York:
Centre for Housing Policy, University of York.
Hooper, C., Gorin, S., Cabral, C. and Dyson, C. (2007) ‘Poverty and “place”: does locality
makeadifference?’Poverty,128,childPovertyActionGroup.
James, C. and Gibson, S. (2007) Families and neighbourhoods, London: Family and
Parenting Institute http://www.familyandparenting.org/Filestore/Documents/publications/
families_neighbourhoods.pdf
Lupton,R.(2003)‘‘neighbourhoodEffects’canwemeasurethemanddoesitmatter?’
Case Paper 73, London: Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE.
Mackenzie, M., Shute, J., Berzins, K. and Judge, K. (2004) The independent evaluation
of ‘Starting Well’: Final Report, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.
Power, A. (2004) ‘Neighbourhood Management and the Future of Urban Areas’ Case
Paper 77, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE.
Scottish Government (2007) Scottish Budget Spending Review 2007, Edinburgh:
Scottish Government.
Scottish Government (2008) “Scotland’s People, Annual report” Results from 2007
Scottish Household Survey, Edinburgh: Scottish Government.
Turner, K., Hill, M., Stafford, A. and Walker M. (2006) ‘How children from disadvantaged
areas keep safe’ Health Education 106, 405-464.
National Evaluation of SureStart Team (2008) The Impact of Sure Start Local
Programmes on Three Year Olds and Their Families, London: Department for Children,
School and Families.
51
GROWING UP IN SCOTLAND:
Parenting and the Neighbourhood Context Report
Appendix A Regression Tables
Table A.1
Logistic regression detailing factors associated with having a
satisfactory friendship network – birth cohort
95% C.I.
Variable
Category
Odds Ratio
Significance
20 to 29
0.84
0.34
0.59
1.20
30 to 39
0.71
0.06
0.50
1.02
40 or older
0.48
0.01
0.27
0.82
(Under 20)
Mother’s age at
child’s birth
Testparm19
0.03
(Bottom quintile
(< £11,250)
Equivalised annual
household income
2nd quintile
(>=£11,250 < £17,916)
1.27
0.09
0.96
1.67
3rd quintile
(>=£17,916 < £25,000)
1.66
< 0.01
1.24
2.22
4th quintile
(>=£25,000 < £37,500)
1.87
< 0.01
1.29
2.69
5th quintile (>=£37,500)
1.98
< 0.01
1.42
2.76
0.59
1.06
Testparm
< 0.01
(Lone parent)
Family type
Couple family
0.79
Testparm
0.12
0.12
(Owner-occupied)
Tenure
Social rented
0.78
0.07
0.59
1.02
Private rented
0.69
0.09
0.45
1.05
Other
0.91
0.69
0.55
1.48
Testparm
0.19
(Least deprived)
Area deprivation
2nd quintile
1.22
0.23
0.88
1.70
3rd quintile
1.08
0.61
0.80
1.45
4th quintile
0.93
0.67
0.67
1.30
Most deprived
0.94
0.72
0.67
1.32
Testparm
52
0.39
APPENDIX A
95% C.I.
Variable
Category
Odds Ratio
Significance
Otherurban
1.00
0.97
0.82
1.21
Small, accessible towns
1.12
0.51
0.79
1.59
Small remote towns
1.71
0.09
0.92
3.16
Accessible rural
1.19
0.21
0.90
1.56
Remote rural
1.07
0.74
0.71
1.61
(Large urban)
Urban-rural
classification
Testparm
0.37
(High)
Neighbourhood
satisfaction
Medium
0.88
0.17
0.73
1.06
Low
1.04
0.72
0.84
1.29
Testparm
0.17
(Less than 5 years)
Length of
residence at
address
5 to 9 years
1.08
0.47
0.87
1.35
10 years or more
0.75
0.09
0.54
1.05
Testparm
0.18
Dependent variable: 1 = satisfactory friendship network, 0 = no satisfactory friendship network
Number of cases included = 3786
1
19 The testparm command tests the association of the overall categorical variable with the outcome
measure. It tests the deviation from the null hypothesis, i.e. how much all the differences deviate from 0 in
a single test. If p<0.05 then we can say the predictor variable is significantly associated with the outcome
variable
53
GROWING UP IN SCOTLAND:
Parenting and the Neighbourhood Context Report
Table A.2
Logistic regression detailing factors associated with having a
satisfactory family network – birth cohort
95% C.I.
Variable
Category
Odds Ratio
Significance
20 to 29
0.78
0.17
0.55
1.12
30 to 39
0.49
< 0.01
0.33
0.72
40 or older
0.18
< 0.01
0.11
0.31
(Under 20)
Mother’s age at
child’s birth
Testparm
< 0.01
(Bottom quintile
(< £11,250)
Annual equivalised
household income
2nd quintile
(>=£11,250 < £17,916)
1.17
0.26
0.89
1.54
3rd quintile
(>=£17,916 < £25,000)
1.52
0.01
1.11
2.09
4th quintile
(>=£25,000 < £37,500)
1.31
0.10
0.95
1.80
5th quintile (>=£37,500)
1.63
0.00
1.18
2.26
0.49
0.93
Testparm
0.05
(Lone parent)
Family type
Couple family
0.67
Testparm
0.02
0.02
(Owner-occupied)
Tenure
Social rented
0.61
0.00
0.45
0.82
Private rented
0.64
0.03
0.43
0.96
Other
0.36
0.00
0.20
0.65
Testparm
< 0.01
(Least deprived)
Area deprivation
2nd quintile
1.01
0.96
0.75
1.36
3rd quintile
0.93
0.60
0.70
1.23
4th quintile
1.17
0.35
0.84
1.63
Most deprived
1.04
0.80
0.75
1.44
Testparm
54
< 0.63
APPENDIX A
95% C.I.
Variable
Category
Odds Ratio
Significance
Otherurban
1.12
0.36
0.87
1.44
Small, accessible towns
0.97
0.83
0.73
1.29
Small remote towns
0.83
0.57
0.43
1.61
Accessible rural
1.03
0.87
0.74
1.42
Remote rural
0.67
0.07
0.44
1.03
(Large urban)
Urban-rural
classification
Testparm
0.21
(High)
Neighbourhood
satisfaction
Medium
1.06
0.64
0.83
1.35
Low
1.06
0.70
0.78
1.43
Testparm
0.89
(Less than 5 years)
Length of
residence at
address
5 to 9 years
1.20
0.14
0.94
1.52
10 years or more
1.49
0.03
1.04
2.15
Testparm
0.04
Dependent variable: 1 = satisfactory family network, 0 = no satisfactory family network
Number of cases included = 3786
55
GROWING UP IN SCOTLAND:
Parenting and the Neighbourhood Context Report
Table A.3
Linear regression model exploring the association between selected
area and individual characteristics and perceived level of area
child-friendliness – birth cohort
95% C.I.
Variable
Category
Co-efficient Significance
(Least deprived)
Area deprivation
2nd quintile
-0.14
0.41
-0.49
0.20
3rd quintile
-0.49
0.02
-0.88
-0.10
4th quintile
-0.90
< 0.01
-1.30
-0.49
Most deprived
-1.74
< 0.01
-2.24
-1.24
Testparm
< 0.01
(Large urban)
Urban-rural
classification
Otherurban
0.00
0.99
-0.36
0.36
Small accessible town
0.51
0.02
0.07
0.94
Small remote town
0.63
0.24
-0.43
1.69
Accessible rural
1.72
< 0.01
1.24
2.20
Remote rural
2.62
< 0.01
1.91
3.34
Testparm
< 0.01
Neighbourhood satisfaction (Scale)
0.10
0.01
0.02
0.19
Rating of local facilities (Scale)
0.21
< 0.01
0.18
0.25
Onlysatisfactory
friendship
-0.40
0.02
-0.74
-0.06
Onlysatisfactoryfamily
-0.70
< 0.01
-1.04
-0.36
Neither satisfactory
network
-1.10
< 0.01
-1.61
-0.59
(Both satisfactory
networks)
Social networks
Testparm
< 0.01
(Owner-occupied)
Tenure
Social housing
-0.98
< 0.01
-1.41
-0.55
Rent private
-0.33
0.27
-0.93
0.27
Other
-1.03
0.02
-1.87
-0.20
Testparm
56
< 0.01
APPENDIX A
95% C.I.
Variable
Category
Co-efficient Significance
(Less than 1 year)
Length of
residence
1 to 5 years
-0.05
0.85
-0.52
0.43
5 to 10 years
0.04
0.87
-0.45
0.53
10 years or more
0.15
0.68
-0.56
0.86
Testparm
0.89
(Under 20 yrs)
Mother’s age at
child’s birth
20 to 29
-0.16
0.64
-0.84
0.52
30 to 39
0.04
0.91
-0.67
0.76
40 or older
0.23
0.59
-0.61
1.07
Testparm
0.38
(Bottom quintile
(< £11,250)
Annual equivalised
household income
2nd quintile
(>=£11,250 < £17,916)
0.05
0.82
-0.36
0.45
3rd quintile
(>=£17,916 < £25,000)
-0.22
0.31
-0.64
0.20
4th quintile
(>=£25,000 < £37,500)
-0.17
0.40
-0.56
0.23
5th quintile (>=£37,500)
0.22
0.41
-0.31
0.75
Testparm
0.10
(Degree or equivalent)
Respondent –
Highest educational
qualification
Vocational
-0.29
0.06
-0.58
0.01
Higher grade
-0.17
0.49
-0.66
0.32
Standard grad
-0.22
0.30
-0.65
0.20
0.98
0.01
0.23
1.73
R square
0.29
No qualifications
Testparm
0.03
Number of cases included = 2789
57
GROWING UP IN SCOTLAND:
Parenting and the Neighbourhood Context Report
Table A.4
Linear regression model exploring the association between
selected area and individual characteristics and variety of
parent-child activities – birth cohort
95% C.I.
Variable
Category
Co-efficient Significance
(Least deprived)
Area deprivation
2nd quintile
0.00
0.95
-0.12
0.11
3rd quintile
-0.14
0.03
-0.25
-0.02
4th quintile
-0.11
0.11
-0.24
0.02
Most deprived
-0.11
0.17
-0.26
0.05
Testparm
0.04
(Large urban)
Urban-rural
classification
Otherurban
0.03
0.54
-0.08
0.14
Small accessible town
0.05
0.54
-0.12
0.22
Small remote town
0.40
0.00
0.27
0.53
-0.06
0.43
-0.20
0.08
0.16
0.02
0.02
0.30
Accessible rural
Remote rural
Testparm
< 0.01
Area child-friendliness (Scale)
0.00
0.79
-0.01
0.02
Neighbourhood satisfaction (Scale)
0.01
0.71
-0.02
0.03
-0.01
0.04
-0.02
0.00
Onlysatisfactory
friendship
-0.03
0.61
-0.15
0.09
Onlysatisfactoryfamily
-0.14
0.01
-0.25
-0.03
Neither satisfactory
network
-0.32
< 0.01
-0.51
-0.12
Rating of local facilities (Scale)
(Both satisfactory
networks)
Social networks
Testparm
< 0.01
(Owner-occupied)
Social housing
Tenure
-0.07
0.32
-0.20
0.07
Rent private
0.06
0.54
-0.14
0.27
Other
0.33
0.01
0.09
0.57
Testparm
58
0.01
APPENDIX A
95% C.I.
Variable
Category
Co-efficient Significance
(Less than 1 year)
Length of
residence
1 to 5 years
-0.03
0.75
-0.18
0.13
5 to 10 years
-0.02
0.84
-0.16
0.13
10 years or more
-0.22
0.06
-0.46
0.01
Testparm
0.22
(Under 20 yrs)
Mother’s age at
child’s birth
20 to 29
-0.15
0.11
-0.34
0.04
30 to 39
-0.19
0.05
-0.38
0.00
0.02
0.88
-0.23
0.26
40 or older
Testparm
0.09
(Bottom quintile
(< £11,250)
Annual equivalised
household income
2nd quintile
(>=£11,250 < £17,916)
0.14
0.02
0.02
0.26
3rd quintile
(>=£17,916 < £25,000)
0.18
< 0.01
0.06
0.31
4th quintile
(>=£25,000 < £37,500)
0.27
< 0.01
0.13
0.42
5th quintile (>=£37,500)
0.35
< 0.01
0.19
0.51
Testparm
< 0.01
(Degree or equivalent)
Respondent –
Highest educational
qualification
Vocational
-0.11
0.03
-0.21
-0.01
Higher grade
-0.11
0.19
-0.26
0.05
Standard grad
-0.24
< 0.01
-0.37
-0.11
No qualifications
-0.40
0.48
-1.52
0.72
R square
0.08
Testparm
< 0.01
Number of cases included = 2686
59
GROWING UP IN SCOTLAND:
Parenting and the Neighbourhood Context Report
Table A.5
Linear regression model exploring the association between selected
area and individual characteristics and variety of parent-child activities
– child cohort
95% C.I.
Variable
Category
Co-efficient Significance
(Least deprived)
Area deprivation
2nd quintile
0.05
0.50
-0.11
0.22
3rd quintile
0.02
0.79
-0.15
0.19
4th quintile
-0.07
0.51
-0.30
0.15
Most deprived
-0.09
0.46
-0.35
0.16
Testparm
0.57
(Large urban)
Urban-rural
classification
Otherurban
-0.09
0.27
-0.26
0.07
Small accessible town
-0.04
0.69
-0.24
0.16
0.14
0.50
-0.27
0.54
Accessible rural
-0.03
0.76
-0.20
0.15
Remote rural
-0.06
0.60
-0.28
0.16
Small remote town
Testparm
Area child-friendliness (Scale)
0.79
-0.01
0.46
-0.03
0.01
Neighbourhood satisfaction (Scale)
0.02
0.28
-0.02
0.07
Rating of local facilities (Scale)
0.01
0.34
-0.01
0.03
Onlysatisfactory
friendship
-0.07
0.38
-0.22
0.08
Onlysatisfactoryfamily
-0.36
< 0.01
-0.56
-0.15
Neither satisfactory
network
-0.21
0.13
-0.49
0.06
(Both satisfactory
networks)
Social networks
Testparm
< 0.01
(Owner-occupied)
Tenure
Social housing
-0.20
0.10
-0.44
0.04
Rent private
-0.05
0.66
-0.28
0.18
0.20
0.30
-0.18
0.59
Other
Testparm
60
0.23
APPENDIX A
95% C.I.
Variable
Category
Co-efficient Significance
(Less than 1 year)
Length of
residence
1 to 5 years
-0.16
0.27
-0.44
0.13
5 to 10 years
-0.12
0.42
-0.43
0.18
10 years or more
-0.14
0.46
-0.50
0.23
Testparm
0.74
(Under 20 yrs)
Mother’s age at
child’s birth
20 to 29
-0.15
0.34
-0.45
0.16
30 to 39
-0.13
0.42
-0.46
0.19
40 or older
-0.32
0.17
-0.80
0.15
Testparm
0.56
(Bottom quintile
(< £11,250)
Annual equivalised
household income
2nd quintile
(>=£11,250 < £17,916)
0.03
0.80
-0.18
0.23
3rd quintile
(>=£17,916 < £25,000)
0.14
0.25
-0.10
0.37
4th quintile
(>=£25,000 < £37,500)
0.18
0.13
-0.05
0.40
5th quintile (>=£37,500)
0.27
0.02
0.04
0.49
Testparm
0.19
(Degree or equivalent)
Respondent –
Highest educational
qualification
Vocational
-0.03
0.72
-0.16
0.11
Higher grade
-0.08
0.58
-0.35
0.20
Standard grad
-0.23
0.03
-0.43
-0.02
No qualifications
-0.54
< 0.01
-0.82
-0.25
Testparm
< 0.01
R square
Number of cases included = 1484
61
GROWING UP IN SCOTLAND:
Parenting and the Neighbourhood Context Report
Table A.6
Logistic regression model exploring the association between selected
area and individual characteristics and attendance at parent-child
groups – birth cohort
95% C.I.
Variable
Category
Odds ratio
Significance
2nd quintile
0.91
0.57
0.64
1.27
3rd quintile
1.02
0.88
0.77
1.36
4th quintile
0.72
0.06
0.51
1.01
Most deprived
0.88
0.50
0.61
1.27
(Least deprived)
Area deprivation
Testparm
0.10
(Large urban)
Urban-rural
classification
Otherurban
1.30
0.03
1.03
1.63
Small accessible town
1.75
< 0.01
1.35
2.27
Small remote town
6.28
< 0.01
2.92
13.54
Accessible rural
2.32
< 0.01
1.68
3.19
Remote rural
4.05
< 0.01
2.33
7.04
Testparm
< 0.01
Area child-friendliness (Scale)
1.02
0.24
0.99
1.05
Neighbourhood satisfaction (Scale)
0.99
0.78
0.92
1.06
Rating of local facilities (Scale)
1.02
0.09
1.00
1.05
Social housing
0.81
0.20
0.59
1.12
Rent private
0.81
0.33
0.53
1.25
Other
0.64
0.16
0.34
1.20
(Owner-occupied)
Tenure
Testparm
0.37
(Less than 1 year)
Length of
residence
1 to 5 years
0.95
0.76
0.69
1.31
5 to 10 years
1.03
0.88
0.73
1.45
10 years or more
0.77
0.31
0.47
1.28
Testparm
0.59
(Under 20 yrs)
Mother’s age at
child’s birth
20 to 29
0.86
0.47
0.57
1.30
30 to 39
0.91
0.67
0.60
1.39
40 or older
0.99
0.97
0.52
1.87
Testparm
62
0.86
APPENDIX A
95% C.I.
Variable
Category
Odds ratio
Significance
2nd quintile
(>=£11,250 < £17,916)
1.17
0.28
0.88
1.56
3rd quintile
(>=£17,916 < £25,000)
1.60
< 0.01
1.22
2.08
4th quintile
(>=£25,000 < £37,500)
1.23
0.21
0.89
1.71
5th quintile (>=£37,500)
1.45
0.05
1.01
2.09
(Bottom quintile
(< £11,250)
Annual equivalised
household income
Testparm
0.02
(Degree or equivalent)
Respondent –
Highest educational
qualification
Vocational
0.75
0.01
0.60
0.93
Higher grade
0.85
0.43
0.56
1.28
Standard grad
0.60
< 0.01
0.45
0.78
No qualifications
0.51
< 0.01
0.35
0.74
Testparm
< 0.01
Dependent variable: 1 = attended a parent/child group with cohort child between sweeps 1 and 3, 0 = did not attend
Number of cases included = 2687
63
GROWING UP IN SCOTLAND:
Parenting and the Neighbourhood Context Report
Table A.7
Logistic regression model exploring the association between selected
area and individual characteristics, and attendance at parent-child
groups – child cohort
95% C.I.
Variable
Category
Odds ratio
Significance
2nd quintile
0.82
0.29
0.57
1.19
3rd quintile
0.78
0.16
0.55
1.11
4th quintile
0.64
0.03
0.43
0.95
Most deprived
0.44
< 0.01
0.31
0.65
(Least deprived)
Area deprivation
Testparm
< 0.01
(Large urban)
Urban-rural
classification
Otherurban
1.21
0.16
0.93
1.59
Small accessible town
1.09
0.62
0.77
1.55
Small remote town
2.67
0.01
1.23
5.77
Accessible rural
1.15
0.49
0.77
1.73
Remote rural
2.32
< 0.01
1.37
3.92
Testparm
0.03
Area child-friendliness (Scale)
1.03
0.20
0.98
1.08
Neighbourhood satisfaction (Scale)
1.00
0.99
0.93
1.08
Rating of local facilities (Scale)
1.01
0.56
0.98
1.04
Social housing
0.82
0.31
0.56
1.20
Rent private
0.72
0.22
0.42
1.22
Other
0.66
0.41
0.25
1.77
1 to 5 years
1.22
0.37
0.78
1.89
5 to 10 years
1.20
0.44
0.75
1.91
10 years or more
1.34
0.33
0.74
2.43
(Owner-occupied)
Tenure
Testparm
(Less than 1 year)
Length of
residence
Testparm
64
0.8
APPENDIX A
95% C.I.
Variable
Category
Odds ratio
Significance
20 to 29
1.49
0.12
0.90
2.45
30 to 39
1.54
0.11
0.90
2.65
40 or older
1.13
0.78
0.46
2.76
(Under 20 yrs)
Mother’s age at
child’s birth
Testparm
0.35
(Bottom quintile
(< £11,250)
Annual equivalised
household income
2nd quintile
(>=£11,250 < £17,916)
1.14
0.52
0.75
1.73
3rd quintile
(>=£17,916 < £25,000)
0.99
0.98
0.65
1.53
4th quintile
(>=£25,000 < £37,500)
0.85
0.48
0.55
1.33
5th quintile (>=£37,500)
0.58
0.04
0.35
0.98
Vocational
0.81
0.11
0.62
1.05
Higher grade
1.03
0.92
0.60
1.75
Standard grad
0.66
0.02
0.47
0.92
No qualifications
0.60
0.04
0.37
0.97
Testparm
(Degree or equivalent)
Respondent –
Highest educational
qualification
Testparm
0.11
Dependent variable: 1 = attended a parent/child group with cohort child between sweeps 1 and 3, 0 = did not attend
Number of cases included = 1482
65
GROWING UP IN SCOTLAND:
Parenting and the Neighbourhood Context Report
Table A.8
Linear regression model exploring the association between selected
area and individual characteristics and attitudes towards help-seeking
– birth cohort
95% C.I.
Variable
Category
Co-efficient Significance
(Least deprived)
Area deprivation
2nd quintile
-0.09
0.33
-0.28
0.09
3rd quintile
-0.04
0.68
-0.25
0.16
4th quintile
-0.30
0.01
-0.52
-0.07
Most deprived
-0.21
0.07
-0.44
0.01
Testparm
0.05
(Large urban)
Urban-rural
classification
Otherurban
0.19
0.03
0.02
0.36
Small accessible town
0.16
0.19
-0.08
0.39
Small remote town
0.26
0.09
-0.04
0.56
Accessible rural
0.26
0.01
0.06
0.46
Remote rural
0.32
< 0.01
0.10
0.54
Testparm
0.05
Area child-friendliness (Scale)
0.01
0.29
-0.01
0.04
Neighbourhood satisfaction (Scale)
0.04
0.13
-0.01
0.08
Rating of local facilities (Scale)
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.04
Onlysatisfactory
friendship
-0.29
0.01
-0.48
-0.09
Onlysatisfactoryfamily
-0.36
< 0.01
-0.53
-0.18
Neither satisfactory
network
-0.48
< 0.01
-0.78
-0.19
(Both satisfactory
networks)
Social networks
Testparm
< 0.01
(Owner-occupied)
Tenure
Social housing
-0.02
0.87
-0.23
0.19
Rent private
-0.16
0.30
-0.47
0.14
0.01
0.95
-0.35
0.37
Other
Testparm
66
0.74
APPENDIX A
95% C.I.
Variable
Category
Co-efficient Significance
(Less than 1 year)
Length of
residence
1 to 5 years
0.06
0.58
-0.15
0.27
5 to 10 years
0.01
0.93
-0.23
0.25
10 years or more
0.10
0.46
-0.17
0.38
Testparm
0.78
(Under 20 yrs)
Mother’s age at
child’s birth
20 to 29
0.03
0.87
-0.28
0.33
30 to 39
0.17
0.32
-0.17
0.52
-0.05
0.83
-0.55
0.45
40 or older
Testparm
0.17
(Bottom quintile
(< £11,250)
Annual equivalised
household income
2nd quintile
(>=£11,250 < £17,916)
0.28
0.02
0.05
0.50
3rd quintile
(>=£17,916 < £25,000)
0.44
< 0.01
0.17
0.71
4th quintile
(>=£25,000 < £37,500)
0.50
< 0.01
0.23
0.78
5th quintile (>=£37,500)
0.72
< 0.01
0.42
1.01
Testparm
< 0.01
(Degree or equivalent)
Vocational
Respondent –
Highest educational
qualification
-0.05
0.52
-0.22
0.11
0.18
0.08
-0.02
0.37
Standard grad
-0.19
0.13
-0.44
0.06
No qualifications
-0.42
0.01
-0.72
-0.12
R square
0.12
Higher grade
Testparm
0.02
Number of cases included = 2586
67
GROWING UP IN SCOTLAND:
Parenting and the Neighbourhood Context Report
Table A.9
Linear regression model exploring the association between selected
area and individual characteristics and attitudes towards help-seeking
– child cohort
95% C.I.
Variable
Category
Co-efficient Significance
(Least deprived)
2nd quintile
0.04
0.74
-0.21
0.29
3rd quintile
0.11
0.38
-0.13
0.35
4th quintile
-0.04
0.83
-0.38
0.31
Most deprived
0.19
0.18
-0.09
0.48
Area deprivation
Testparm
0.44
(Large urban)
Urban-rural
classification
Otherurban
0.07
0.49
-0.13
0.26
Small accessible town
0.13
0.40
-0.18
0.44
Small remote town
-0.20
0.17
-0.49
0.09
Accessible rural
0.14
0.21
-0.08
0.35
Remote rural
0.19
0.20
-0.10
0.48
Testparm
Area child-friendliness (Scale)
0.04
0.03
0.05
0.00
0.06
-0.02
0.51
-0.08
0.04
0.04
0.00
0.01
0.06
Onlysatisfactory
friendship
-0.26
0.03
-0.50
-0.02
Onlysatisfactoryfamily
-0.18
0.13
-0.42
0.05
Neither satisfactory
network
-0.77
< 0.01
-1.09
-0.46
Neighbourhood satisfaction (Scale)
Rating of local facilities (Scale)
(Both satisfactory
networks)
Social networks
Testparm
< 0.01
(Owner-occupied)
Tenure
Social housing
-0.20
0.13
-0.46
0.06
Rent private
-0.01
0.97
-0.35
0.33
0.26
0.39
-0.34
0.87
Other
Testparm
68
0.37
APPENDIX A
95% C.I.
Variable
Category
Co-efficient Significance
(Less than 1 year)
Length of
residence
1 to 5 years
0.10
0.50
-0.19
0.39
5 to 10 years
-0.09
0.57
-0.38
0.21
0.01
0.95
-0.38
0.40
10 years or more
Testparm
0.15
(Under 20 yrs)
Mother’s age at
child’s birth
20 to 29
-0.02
0.91
-0.45
0.40
30 to 39
-0.03
0.89
-0.41
0.36
40 or older
-0.30
0.37
-0.96
0.36
Testparm
0.83
(Bottom quintile
(< £11,250)
Annual equivalised
household income
2nd quintile
(>=£11,250 < £17,916)
0.38
0.02
0.07
0.68
3rd quintile
(>=£17,916 < £25,000)
0.37
0.04
0.03
0.72
4th quintile
(>=£25,000 < £37,500)
0.34
0.07
-0.02
0.71
5th quintile (>=£37,500)
0.60
< 0.01
0.21
0.99
Testparm
0.03
(Degree or equivalent)
Vocational
Respondent –
Highest educational
qualification
-0.25
0.02
-0.46
-0.04
0.03
0.84
-0.31
0.38
Standard grad
-0.21
0.15
-0.49
0.07
No qualifications
-0.65
0.01
-1.10
-0.19
R square
0.11
Higher grade
Testparm
0.04
Number of cases included = 1452
69
GROWING UP IN SCOTLAND:
Parenting and the Neighbourhood Context Report
Table A.10 Linear regression model exploring the association between selected
area and individual characteristics and number of sources used for
information and advice on child health concerns – birth cohort
95% C.I.
Variable
Category
Co-efficient Significance
(Least deprived)
Area deprivation
2nd quintile
-0.33
0.19
-0.82
0.17
3rd quintile
-0.31
0.28
-0.89
0.26
4th quintile
-0.30
0.20
-0.77
0.16
Most deprived
-0.49
0.09
-1.05
0.07
Testparm
0.51
(Large urban)
Urban-rural
classification
Otherurban
-0.33
0.11
-0.74
0.07
Small accessible town
-0.36
0.17
-0.89
0.16
Small remote town
-0.58
0.35
-1.81
0.65
Accessible rural
0.03
0.92
-0.69
0.76
Remote rural
0.02
0.96
-0.72
0.76
Testparm
Area child-friendliness (Scale)
0.49
-0.06
0.03
-0.12
-0.01
Neighbourhood satisfaction (Scale)
0.02
0.71
-0.08
0.12
Rating of local facilities (Scale)
0.01
0.45
-0.02
0.05
Onlysatisfactory
friendship
-0.04
0.84
-0.45
0.37
Onlysatisfactoryfamily
-0.43
0.06
-0.87
0.02
Neither satisfactory
network
-0.79
< 0.01
-1.26
-0.32
(Both satisfactory
networks)
Social networks
Testparm
0.07
(Owner-occupied)
Social housing
Tenure
Rent private
Other
Testparm
70
-0.48
0.05
-0.95
-0.01
0.44
0.16
-0.17
1.05
-0.41
0.49
-1.60
0.77
0.08
APPENDIX A
95% C.I.
Variable
Category
Co-efficient Significance
(Less than 1 year)
Length of
residence
1 to 5 years
-0.17
0.57
-0.76
0.42
5 to 10 years
-0.48
0.13
-1.10
0.15
10 years or more
-0.83
0.05
-1.65
-0.01
Testparm
0.01
(Under 20 yrs)
Mother’s age at
child’s birth
20 to 29
0.19
0.46
-0.32
0.71
30 to 39
-0.23
0.43
-0.81
0.35
40 or older
-1.02
0.03
-1.94
-0.11
Testparm
< 0.01
(Bottom quintile
(< £11,250)
Annual equivalised
household income
2nd quintile
(>=£11,250 < £17,916)
0.85
< 0.01
0.48
1.22
3rd quintile
(>=£17,916 < £25,000)
0.95
< 0.01
0.46
1.45
4th quintile
(>=£25,000 < £37,500)
0.65
0.01
0.18
1.12
5th quintile (>=£37,500)
1.63
< 0.01
0.97
2.30
Testparm
< 0.01
(Degree or equivalent)
Respondent –
Highest educational
qualification
Vocational
-0.90
< 0.01
-1.34
-0.46
Higher grade
-0.86
< 0.01
-1.50
-0.23
Standard grad
-1.36
< 0.01
-1.93
-0.80
No qualifications
-2.17
< 0.01
-2.81
-1.52
R square
0.09
Testparm
< 0.01
Number of cases included = 2686
71
GROWING UP IN SCOTLAND:
Parenting and the Neighbourhood Context Report
Table A.11 Linear regression model exploring the association between selected
area and individual characteristics and number of sources used for
information and advice on child health concerns – child cohort
95% C.I.
Variable
Category
Co-efficient Significance
(Least deprived)
Area deprivation
2nd quintile
-0.22
0.51
-0.90
0.45
3rd quintile
-0.63
0.06
-1.30
0.03
4th quintile
-0.54
0.14
-1.25
0.17
Most deprived
-0.13
0.73
-0.90
0.64
Testparm
0.22
(Large urban)
Otherurban
-0.45
0.06
-0.92
0.02
0.12
0.73
-0.59
0.84
Small remote town
-0.47
0.50
-1.85
0.91
Accessible rural
-0.37
0.30
-1.09
0.34
Remote rural
-0.21
0.62
-1.07
0.65
Small accessible town
Urban-rural
classification
Testparm
0.48
Area child-friendliness (Scale)
0.05
0.11
-0.01
0.12
Neighbourhood satisfaction (Scale)
0.06
0.34
-0.06
0.18
Rating of local facilities (Scale)
0.02
0.53
-0.04
0.07
Onlysatisfactory
friendship
0.12
0.65
-0.39
0.62
Onlysatisfactoryfamily
0.07
0.81
-0.52
0.66
-0.16
0.66
-0.87
0.55
(Both satisfactory
networks)
Social networks
Neither satisfactory
network
Testparm
0.91
(Owner-occupied)
Tenure
Social housing
0.42
0.14
-0.14
0.99
Rent private
0.48
0.30
-0.43
1.39
Other
0.41
0.54
-0.91
1.72
Testparm
72
0.48
APPENDIX A
95% C.I.
Variable
Category
Co-efficient Significance
(Less than 1 year)
Length of
residence
1 to 5 years
-0.15
0.69
-0.89
0.59
5 to 10 years
-0.19
0.64
-0.99
0.61
10 years or more
-0.60
0.21
-1.54
0.35
Testparm
0.62
(Under 20 yrs)
Mother’s age at
child’s birth
20 to 29
-0.79
0.09
-1.71
0.12
30 to 39
-1.13
0.02
-2.09
-0.17
40 or older
-2.17
0.00
-3.46
-0.89
Testparm
0.01
(Bottom quintile
(< £11,250)
Annual equivalised
household income
2nd quintile
(>=£11,250 < £17,916)
0.24
0.34
-0.26
0.74
3rd quintile
(>=£17,916 < £25,000)
0.52
0.11
-0.12
1.16
4th quintile
(>=£25,000 < £37,500)
0.88
0.02
0.15
1.62
5th quintile (>=£37,500)
1.24
< 0.01
0.41
2.07
Testparm
0.05
(Degree or equivalent)
Respondent –
Highest educational
qualification
Vocational
0.03
0.92
-0.50
0.56
Higher grade
0.26
0.53
-0.57
1.09
Standard grad
-0.18
0.58
-0.81
0.46
No qualifications
-0.54
0.20
-1.35
0.28
R square
0.05
Testparm
0.01
Number of cases included = 1483
73
© Crown copyright 2009
ISBN (web only): 978-0-7559-1970-3
This document is also available on the Scottish Government website:
www.scotland.gov.uk
RR Donnelley B59453 3/09
w
w
w
.
s
c
o
t
l
a
n
d
.
g
o
v
.
u
k
Lynn Jamieson