Skip to main content

Table 3 Perceptions of formal and informal social control across districts over time

From: Understanding the impact of area-based interventions on area safety in deprived areas: realist evaluation of a neighbour nuisance intervention in Arnhem, the Netherlands

  Formal social control (%yes)a Informal social control (0 = low;10 = high)b
Districtsc 2005 2007 2009 2011 2005 2007 2009 2011
Target district 1 22 36 57 52 5.4 4.5 5.0 5.0
Target district 2    63 65    5.6 5.8
Target district 3a    61 49    5.3 5.3
Target district 3b    59 58    5.2 5.3
Target district 3c    60 53    5.2 5.2
Target district 4    52 48    5.1 4.8
City average 21 25 50 50 5.9 5.7 5.8 5.8
  1. aPercentage agreeing with the item ‘municipality pays (a lot of) attention to liveability- and safety problems in my neighbourhood’. The question was rephrased from ‘a lot of attention’ in 2005/2007 to ‘attention’ in 2009/2011
  2. bMean score on the items ‘the people in this neighbourhood interact well’, ‘I feel at home with the people living in my neighbourhood’, ‘I live in a nice neighbourhood where there is a lot of solidarity’ and ‘the people in this neighbourhood barely know each other’
  3. cMCN was introduced in 2006 in target district 1, and in 2010 in target districts 2 to 4