Wednesday, 14 August 2013

Intolerant neighbours ‘a major barrier’ to children’s play

Street playThe latest Playday survey was published last week, with some insistent messages about play in the neighbourhood:

More than a quarter of adults (28 per cent) cited intolerant neighbours as a major barrier stopping children playing out where they live. The same proportion of parents fear being judged by neighbours if they let their children play unsupervised outdoors.

Almost a third (32 per cent) believe allowing their children to play ball games or make noise outdoors would cause problems with other residents.

‘It is hardly surprising that a quarter of adults (25 per cent) felt that a more friendly community and better relationships with neighbours would encourage young people to play outside more often.’ 

Some 40 per cent of adults said that children playing out where they live improves community spirit; and 45 per cent said that it helps families to get to know each other. It’s clear that reticence is self-reinforcing: 60 per cent of parents said they would feel confident to let their kids play out if others were playing too. 

Play England and their partners are doing their best to crank up the action, but this is not a new issue and these figures illustrate the perversity of the British attitude towards young people. In interview on the Today programme this morning Cath Prisk, Director of Play England, alluded to the social costs of children not playing out. It needs a cultural shift in attitudes, which in turn requires a bit more effort from policy makers than we’ve yet seen.

14 Aug 2013 08:46:13 | Neighbourhood relations, Space and place

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
Social benefits of buses Margaret Thatcher infamously announced that anyone over 30 who travelled by bus was a failure. Curiously, the government that believes in her eternal reverence has just released three documents constituting a study of the social benefits of bus travel (the reports are dated March but published today). ‘Social benefit’ is defined in narrow terms as follows - ‘...the value bus users enjoy from accessing particular services that they would not otherwise have had easy access to’. Further, the value arrived at only applies to travellers ‘who would choose to not make the trip if bus was not available,’ so again it’s rather limited. But it’s a start, and the significance of the study is clearly that it acknowledges that society has a place for a service that is ‘public’. It doesn't have to be about measuring the value of a chummy chat about the weather with a complete stranger as you're bumping along. But it might be handy to work out a way of assessing the value of being among fellow citizens in the public realm - and the costs that might be associated with the absence of that experience in certain lifestyles - because that seems to be dangerously under-valued at present. Previously: On the buses
PREVIOUS POST
Blueprint for New York neighbourhoods New York has many neighbourhoods and a great diversity across them all. There’s a mayoral election coming up which, along with the ongoing context of recession, sharpens the acoustics for debate about social policy. United Neighborhood Houses is an umbrella agency for settlements and has just published its detailed and pragmatic Blueprint for neighborhoods. Recommendations are set out under these main headings: A. Support Quality Educational Investments That Prepare All Young People for a Productive Future B. Enhance New Yorkers’ Ability to Enter and Succeed in the Workforce C. Build, Support, and Sustain Healthy, Livable and Inclusive Communities D. Making Government Work for Neighborhoods. There are plenty of curious insights and factoids along the way. I was particularly struck by this one: 'By improving their English one level, immigrants can increase their annual wages by 35%.' Source: Akbulut-Yuksel et al, 'The effects of English proficiency among childhood immigrants,' 2011.

Kevin Harris

Search

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments