2. Residential diversity?
Projections for residential diversity
Growth in mixed ethnic group bet. 2001 -2011 census
1/8 households multiple ethnic groups
Geographic spread of ethnic groups
Diversity assoc. better mental & self-reported health among
adults after controlling for area SES (Becares et al. 2012)
Low SES associated with diverse neighbourhoods
3. Proposed contribution
Disentangle the compositional effects of neighbourhood
Use of a hybrid definition of diversity.
Policy and public health debate given diversity is increasing.
Current studies on the effect of neighbourhood diversity -
outcomes for children & adolescents
4. Questions?
Are there differences in the mental health of children/
adolescents due to the level of residential diversity?
What is the effect of neighbourhood socioeconomic status
and neighbourhood perceptions on this outcome?
Does neighbourhood perceptions explain the differences
in the outcomes of children/adolescents living in
disadvantaged compared to advantaged neighbourhoods?
5. Model
Figure 1. Model of neighbourhood characteristics on young people’s mental health
(Based on Roosa et al.,2003)
6. Data & Analysis
Geocoded data from Wave 1 & 3 of UKHLS
Diversity scores derived from 2011 Census Data, merged
to UKHLS with neighbourhood codes
The final sample 6 444 individuals across 2,567
neighbourhood
MSOAs=neighbourhood
Fractionalisation=diversity (59)
Total difficulties(SDQ)=Mental health
Statistical Analysis =Multilevel modelling
7. Individual level Variables
Outcome variable: Based on the Strengths &
Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) which tap into
five distinct dimensions of young peoples mental
health: Conduct Problems, Hyperactivity-
Inattention, Emotional Symptoms, Peer Problems,
& Prosocial Behavior. Each dimension measured
on a 3-point Likert scale: “Not true”, “Somewhat
true”, and “Certainly true”. Each adding 0, 1, or 2
to a subscore for each subcategory. However,
some of the items are reversed score, meaning
that “Certainly true” would add 0 to the subscore.
All subscores, but the prosocial, can then be
summarized to create the Total Difficulty Score
(TDS).
Young people demographic factors: ethnicity,
age & gender
Family demographic factors: 1 or more
parents born abroad; at least one parent in the
household working; maternal education; single
parent household & household income.
Maternal perception of neighbourhood
facilities (6 items): asking parents to rate the
standard of their local services: primary schools,
secondary schools, medical, shopping, leisure
and transport. Coded from poor to excellent.
Maternal perception of neighbourhood social
relationships (6 items): belong to
neighbourhood; local friends mean a lot; advice
obtainable locally; can borrow things from
neighbours; I am similar to others in
neighbourhood; & talk regularly to neighbours.
Coded from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
8. Neighbourhood level Variables
Neighbourhood socio-economic status
was measured by the Income domain of the
index of deprivation. This variable is coded so
that lower scores indicate less deprivation and
more advantage, thus higher score indicate
the reverse.
Proportion of economically actively adults
aged 16-74 was extracted from administrative
data.
middle super output layer (MSOAs):residential size of
5,000 individuals & 3,000 households, with an average
population size of 7,500
Neighbourhood residential diversity was
measured using a hybrid measure of two
dimensions of individual level identity, ethnicity
and religion (ethno-religious diversity). Only
groups deemed to have a large presence were
used, that is groups that were greater than
30,000. Ethnoreligious composition of each
neighbourhood was measured by the index of
fractionalisation (ELF) & this represents the
proportion of each ethno-religious group
residing in each MSOA.
The index of fractionalization: produces a single score
based on the relative sizes of all the different groups within
a given area and this ranges from 0 to 1. A high score
means that there is a high probability that two people
drawn randomly from the area will belong to different
groups & therefore that the area is highly diverse.
9.
10.
11. Conclusions
Neighbourhood diversity explains some of the differences in
young peoples mental health
Socioeconomic status does not seem to mediate the negative
mental impact of diversity
Maternal perceptions of neighbourhood facilities &
neighbourhood social relationships was important for mental
health , both related to significantly better estimated health
Inclusion of maternal perceptions is assoc. with stronger
negative mental health among young people residing in more
diverse neighbourhood environments
