'Only a footstep away' - Skills for Care - Think Local Act Personal

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2.9 A helpful conceptual framework isproposed by Abrams, who makes thefollowing distinctions (Bulmer 1986, 21):• neighbours are simply people wholive near one another• neighbourhood is an effectivelydefined terrain inhabited byneighbours• neighbouring is the actual pattern ofinteraction observed within any givenneighbourhood• neighbourliness is a positive andcommitted relationship constructedbetween neighbours as a form offriendship.2.10 The latter concept is critical to muchcurrent policy and political discourse, andrequires an answer to the question, ‘Whatare the determinants of neighbourliness?’This is the focus of the following section.3 what do we knowabout neighbourliness?3.1 There is a substantial researchliterature going back over at least eightyyears that has attempted to identify thefactors that shape the neighbourhoodexperience. Several themes recur.proximity3.2 Although sounding like a truism,proximity is a key factor in shapingneighbourhood experiences. The studiesundertaken as part of the Abrams research(Bulmer 1986) found that the mostfrequently mentioned influence on whetheror not neighbourly relations developed wasproximity – being next door to someone isdifferent from living in the next street tothem. Proximity is also related to thepreviously noted importance of the ‘watchand ward’ function in times of crisis andemergency. Blackman (remarks that whilstthe neighbourhood unequivocally starts aswe leave our front door, where it ends willvary according to many spatial andtemporal factors, but the concept of a‘walkable zone’ remains important. Henotes that:“People endow a neighbourhood withorganisation through their walking patternsfrom the nodal points of their homes—walking children to school, walking to thebus stop or local shops, and walking to callon neighbours... but the extent to which aneighbourhood emerges empiricallydepends on whether local interactionscreate common attributes bounded bygroup properties.” (Blackman 2006, 33)timeliness3.3 Speed of response is a furtherspecial province of neighbours, rangingfrom the quick convenience of ad hocborrowing and lending, to help in anemergency when time is of the essence.However, the availability of time toparticipate in neighbouring is one of thefactors associated with the ‘loss ofcommunity’. Even in the researchundertaken in the 1980s, Abrams (Bulmer1986) found the observation by people that‘neighbouring is not what it used to be’being explained in terms of the availabilityof time. The increase in femaleemployment was an especially notedfactor. In his examination of semi-formalGood Neighbour schemes, he found thatthe crucial attribute that determinedinvolvement was whether or not peoplehad time to spare.physical environment3.4 Inside the home – whether it isdamp, cold, noisy or overcrowded – sitswithin the wider neighbourhood context ofwhich it is a part. As Blackman puts it,“housing is experienced as the dwellingand its residential setting, the‘Only a footstep away’? 6
neighbourhood.” (Blackman 2006, 25) Theofficial definition of a ‘poor neighbourhood’is that used in the English House ConditionSurvey which is based on a neighbourhoodhaving over 10% of its dwellings assessedas seriously defective. Using this measure,around 10% of the national housing stockwas classed in ‘poor neighbourhoods’ in2001.3.5 There is also some evidence tosuggest that the physical layout of both thehouse and the neighbourhood can shapelevels of neighbourly activity. Brown andBurton (1998), for example, demonstrated(in the USA) the significance of the frontporch as a semi-public space in whichnon-threatening and non-intrusiveneighbourly relations could be initiated andreproduced. And the Abrams studies(Bulmer 1986) found that the segregationof elderly people in bungalows and flats cutthem off from neighbours other thanpeople of their own age, and that thisaccentuated social isolation.length of residence3.6 The Abrams studies concluded thatthe most obvious factor accounting forvariations in neighbouring was the longevityof the settlement and the length ofresidence there of particular households.Clear differences were observed betweenlong-time residents and newcomers interms of contact with neighbours and thesort of help exchanged. This is partlyexplicable in terms of exchange theory. Inthe modern neighbourhood milieu,exchange relations will typically evolve as aslow process, starting with minortransactions in which little trust is requiredbecause little risk is involved. Only whenmutual trust is more firmly established willthere be a gradual expansion of mutualsupport.3.7 This picture is supported by moreextensive longitudinal studies. Wenger andher colleagues analysed data on lonelinessamong older people from the BangorLongitudinal Study of Ageing. (Wenger1996). They reported that the mostsuccessful network in terms of avoidingloneliness and isolation was the ‘locallyintegrated support network’, which wasusually based upon long-term residence. Inanother paper based upon the same datathe authors further noted that people insuch networks were less likely to needstatutory services to help with personalcare. (Wenger 2001)social polarisation‘Only a footstep away’? 73.8 Reciprocal care between neighboursgrows where information and trust arehigh, and where resources for satisfyingneeds in other ways are low. This is mostlikely to occur in relatively isolated,relatively closed and relatively threatenedsocial milieu with highly homogeneouspopulations. This could be part of a viciouscircle of decline as qualitatively better jobsand homes elsewhere will be in reach of atleast some of the residents, and theirdeparture further deepens themarginalisation of those remaining. Dorlingand Rees (2003) note that with continuingsocio-spatial polarisation, areas are nowmore easily typified as being old andyoung, settled and migrant, black andwhite or rich and poor. Indeed, in theirstudy of young people growing up indepressed parts of Teesside, Macdonaldand Marsh (2005) found that most choseto remain living in very deprivedneighbourhoods, seeing these as ‘normal’.Local social divisions were perceivedinstead at a very fine-grained scale such asstreets or parts of an estate withtroublesome residents.personal circumstances3.9 Abrams found that apart fromproximity, the most salient influencesmentioned as promoting neighbourliness
Page 1 and 2: we identifynew andinnovativeways of
Page 3 and 4: acknowledgementsThis paper was comm
Page 5 and 6: executive summary1. This paper is a
Page 7 and 8: 1 introduction1.1 This report is a
Page 9 and 10: LD 2010). The agreement was intende
Page 11: Abrams notes that the placing of re
Page 15 and 16: describe certain disadvantaged area
Page 17 and 18: 3.21 In this context, White (2002)
Page 19 and 20: “social responsibility, volunteer
Page 21 and 22: neighbourhood policing (HO 2010) wh
Page 23 and 24: collective (‘I pledge to do X if
Page 25 and 26: the province of the community rathe
Page 27 and 28: Deficit ApproachStarts with deficie
Page 30 and 31: communities may have different leve
Page 32 and 33: and disorder, under-performing heal
Page 34 and 35: 6 conclusions and nextsteps6.1 It i
Page 36 and 37: any attempt to link these elements
Page 38 and 39: eferencesADASS 2010Bartnick, E and
Page 40 and 41: LD 2010Liberal Democrats (2010), Li

'Only a footstep away' - Skills for Care - Think Local Act Personal

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?