Social and Communities Opportunities Profile

1

• Social and Communities Opportunities Profile
• SCOPE v1
• Peter Huxley PhD
• Kings College London
• Institute of Psychiatry
• Social Care Workforce Research Unit

2
SCOPE v1

• Social inclusion the extent to which people
  are able to participate fully in the institutions
  of society by choice
• Quality of life domains Subjective and
  objective
• Work open employment
• Housing independent living, suitable
  accommodation
• Finances high income, maximum benefit
• Family relationships level of contact
• Social relationships choice of friends
• Leisure activity community participation
• Safety not at risk
• Physical and mental health access to care, met
  need

3
SCOPE v1

• Aspects of social inclusion NOT covered in SCOPE
• Empowerment and psychological aspects
• (self-esteem, mastery)
• Information and consultation about care
• Participation in design and review of services
  delivered to self and others
• Users employed in the service

4
SCOPE v1

• Why use objective social indicators?
• Objective - independently verifiable
• Valued social goals
• Compare with the general population
• (locality comparisons control for available
  opportunity structures)
• Demonstrate inclusion of groups
• Change in rates over time
• Reflecting altered opportunity structures
• Assess service performance
• Support funding arguments

5
SCOPE v1

• Issues
• Existing investment in data sets
• Re-inventing the wheel
• Multiple surveys

6
SCOPE v1Sources

• General Household Survey
• GHS Social Capital Module
• British Crime Survey
• Home Office Citizenship Survey
• Labour Force Survey
• British Social Attitudes Survey
• British Household Panel Study
• inc Living in Wales/Scotland
• Health Survey for England
• Psychiatric Morbidity Survey
• National Adult Learning Survey
• Census

7
SCOPE v1
Issues (continued) Existing data sets cover
all ages (age code) Use different questions and
codes (employment status) Some permit access to
data others do not Disaggregation may be given at
not useful levels ( postcodes/ SHA/ LA/ Wards)
Catchment of service
8
SCOPE v1

• Issues (continued)
• Clarity of instructions
• Cognitive appraisal/follow-up probing
• Mode of application (self / interview)
• Missing data, incomplete data sets
• Gender, ethnicity, rurality
• Personal goals are more idiosyncratic
• Often low prevalence of participation
• Group profile vs individuals

9
SCOPE v1

• Issues (continued)
• Therefore.
• We need to influence the national or mega-surveys
  to include the exact data and questions we need,
  together with sensible and sensitive identifiers,
  such as locality, gender, age etc.
• Or buy into them???? But only one-off

10
SCOPE v1

• Question design and harmonisation
• Income question
• In search of an income question for the 2001
  Census
• Debbie Collins and Amanda White (ONS Social
  Survey Division)(1996?)
• Conclusions
• 1. The sources of income question is acceptable
  to the public.
• 2. A question on amount of income has the
  potential to affect response to the whole Census
  as some people find the topic of income intrusive
  and unacceptable.
• 3. The individual income question is less
  intrusive than the household income question,
  particularly in households containing unrelated
  adults.

11
SCOPE v1

• Question design and harmonisation
• Social capital
• the full or main set which takes around 20
  minutes to complete and the core question set
  which takes about 5 minutes to complete. The
  question set was run on the General Household
  Survey in Great Britain in 2004/05. It is also
  being adopted on other household surveys within
  the UK, including the Citizenship Survey and the
  Survey of English Housing. The GHS 2004 data will
  be analysed probably in early 2006 when the
  data become available to describe the national
  picture of social capital and provide a baseline
  for comparisons into the future and against local
  studies.

12
SCOPE v1

• Question design and harmonisation
• The efforts to achieve standardisation are
  already underway. For example the European Union
  Survey of Income and Living Conditions has
  included indicators of social participation, such
  as contact with relatives and friends, and
  informal volunteering. While there was some
  debate over the appropriate phrasing, a version
  of these questions will be included when the
  questionnaire is adopted. It will be some years
  before the data will be obtained, when we will
  have an opportunity to be able to make the first
  comparisons. However, this is a useful experience
  and can help inform our further efforts to
  achieve comparability.

13
SCOPE v1

• Question design and harmonisation
• Modelling work is currently underway using the
  Family Resources Survey to produce estimates of
  caring both giving and receiving care.
• We hope to include these estimates on our web
  site showing neighbourhood statistics across the
  UK.

14
SCOPE v1

• civic participation the propensity to vote,
  to take action on local or national issues
• social networks and support such as contact
  with friends and relatives
• social participation involvement in groups
  and voluntary activities
• reciprocity and trust which include giving
  and receiving favours, as well as trusting other
  people and institutions such as the government
  and the police
• views about the area although not strictly a
  measure of social capital, it is required for the
  analysis and interpretation of the social capital
  measures, and includes satisfaction with living
  in the area, problems in the area.
• Penny Babb ONS 2005

15
SCOPE v1
Safety Domain How safe do you feel walking in
this area at night?

16
SCOPE v1Suggested targets for the SI
Programme (selected examples)

17
SCOPE v1Achieving NVQ2 or equivalentNational
figure 70
18
SCOPE v1In adult learning National figure
76
19
SCOPE v1Social and leisure activities
20
SCOPE v1Care work
21
SCOPE v1
Care work (continued) None in the last
year 36.6 Informal volunteering Once a week
15 lt1 week gt 1 a month 19 lt1 a
month 29 None 37
22
SCOPE v1Participation

• Political parties 1.4
• Trade unions (including student unions) 3.8
• Environmental groups 1.9
• Parent-teacher association or school
  association 6.2
• Tenants' or residents' group or neighbourhood
  watch 4.8
• Education, arts, music or singing group
  (including evening classes) 11.8
• Religious group or church organisation
  10.6
• Charity, voluntary or community group 9.7
• Group for elderly or older people (eg lunch
  club) 1.3
• Youth group (eg scouts, guides, youth
  club) 4.6
• Women's institute or Townswomen's Guild or
  Women's group 1.0
• Social club (including working men's club, Rotary
  club) 6.5
• Sports club, gym, exercise or dance group 35.7
• Other group or organisation 8.3
• None 38.9

23
SCOPE v1

• Participation 100 service users compared to the
  local population
• feel leisure opportunities are restricted (cf 64)
• 83 want a more active social life (cf 62)
• 47 want to participate more fully in family
  activities (cf 28)
• 56 not a member of community groups ( cf 47)
• Satisfaction with leisure activity 3.7 (cf 4.3)
  (plt0.001)

24
SCOPE v1

• Service users in South Manchester
• compared to the local population
• 5 employed compared to.. 61
• Average working week 24 hours compared to.. 38
  hours
• 53 seen a friend in the last week compared to.
  80
• 57 have a close friend compared to 95
• 16 contact with relatives less than monthly.3

25
SCOPE v1
The Question Bank http//qb.soc.surrey.ac.uk The
UK Data Archive http//www.data-archive.ac.uk Na
tional Statistics Online http//www.statistics.gov
.uk Peter.huxley_at_kcl.ac.uk p.huxley_at_iop.kcl.a.cuk