doing it tough in urban spaces in adelaide dr helen cameron unisa n.
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Doing it tough in Urban spaces in Adelaide ( Dr. Helen. Cameron – UniSA)

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 13

Doing it tough in Urban spaces in Adelaide ( Dr. Helen. Cameron – UniSA) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 116 Views
  • Uploaded on

Doing it tough in Urban spaces in Adelaide ( Dr. Helen. Cameron – UniSA). This paper discusses aspects of results from ARC funded Research – UniSA, Flinders Uni and Department of Human Services (DHS) Timeframe of the study – 2001 to 2003

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Doing it tough in Urban spaces in Adelaide ( Dr. Helen. Cameron – UniSA)' - alodie


Download Now An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
doing it tough in urban spaces in adelaide dr helen cameron unisa
Doing it tough in Urban spaces in Adelaide(Dr. Helen. Cameron – UniSA)
  • This paper discusses aspects of results from ARC funded Research – UniSA, Flinders Uni and Department of Human Services (DHS)
  • Timeframe of the study – 2001 to 2003
  • Study of a sample of disadvantaged residents identified according to SEIFA Index
  • Initial phase with 512 residents
  • Follow up phase with 260 of these
in this session
In this Session
  • Social Disadvantage of the Sample
  • Culture, Parenting & Housing
  • Perceptions of Trust & Safety
  • Backgrounds of Risk in the Suburbs
  • Collective Efficacy in the Neighbourhood
  • Synthesis of Issues
  • Conclusions
1 social disadvantage
1. Social Disadvantage
  • 73.1% completed only Year 11 or less [Metro Adelaide: 52.3%]
  • 47.4% were of single-parents [Metro Adelaide 16.6%] and 46.6% were parents for the first time at < 19 years [Metro Adelaide: 9.8%]
  • 6.0% were employed [Metro Adelaide 54%]
  • 73.7% main source of income was Govt. assistance
  • 36.9% no access to a car [Metro Adelaide 11%]
2 culture housing
2. Culture & Housing
  • 6.8% identified as being of ATSI origin [Metro Adelaide: 1.0%] with 10.9% of children being identified as of ATSI origin
  • Most residents were renting their homes from the SAHT (55.8%) [Metro Adelaide: 8.0%] 24.5% are in private rental accommodation [Metro Adelaide: 17.3%] – so ownership < 20%
  • Housing Mobility - 34.1%had lived at their current address < 1 year; 69.4% < 5 years [Metro Adelaide: <1 yr, 10.2% <5 yr, 26.4%]
3 perceptions of neighbourhood safety trust 2001 2002 data
3. Perceptions of Neighbourhood Safety & Trust(2001/2002 Data)

Perceptions of safety & trust (scale 1- 4)

Questions about whether others could be trusted and about how safe they felt

  • No suburb had scores indicating residents felt safe or trusted others much– 1.9 average
  • Also little variation of opinion on these variables - range 1.7 to 2.4 (SD between 0.03 and 0.9)
  • Single parents with ONE adult in house – expressed lowest levels of trust in others and general feelings of safety
social disorder in the suburbs
Social disorder in the suburbs
  • Garage and bus-stop vandalised
4 risk the stats on crime in the suburbs sapol data base 2000
4. RISK – the Stats on Crime in the Suburbs (SAPOL data base 2000)
  • Rates per 1,000 for crimes in 2000 in the suburbs studied, c.f. overall Adelaide Metro rates:
  • Property crimes 263 c.f. 131
  • Personal attacks 40 c.f. 13
  • Sexual attacks 6 c.f. 1
  • General law & order 45 c.f. 19
  • Drugs 81 c.f. 3

So low trust & perceptions of risk have a reality base in actual crime rates

5 collective efficacy as a construct
5. Collective Efficacy as a Construct

Collective efficacy is a measure of two fields of perception: (Sampson 1997)

Informal social control

  • How likely people are to take action about events in the neighbourhood

Social cohesion

  • Sense of connection and agreement with others in neighbourhood
neighbourhoods informal social control
Neighbourhoods & Informal Social Control
  • Vacant house vandalised in SA
6 synthesis
6. Synthesis
  • Low levels of trust, Informal social control, combine with risk (i.e. crime)& other factors to lower social connection
  • Other factors -Sole parents (46%), and residential mobility (74% moving several times in last 5 years) are factors that lower levels of social connection
7 conclusions
7. Conclusions
  • The combined picture of low safety&trust, high mobility and sole parenting, low collective efficacy andhighrisk from crime rates calls for targeted intervention
  • Government services need to aim to build stronger, safer communities and to provide better supports for sole parents (education pathways, parenting support)
  • Children are the nation’s future and require intelligent investment by all sectors of government