Dokumentumok
Nyomtatóbarát változat
Cím:
Czech Evaluation
Szerző:
Ország:
A kiadás helye:
A kiadás éve:
Kiadó:
Terjedelem:
Nyelv:
angol
Tárgyszavak:
network, community development, Central and Eastern Europe, Measuring Social Capital, Czech Republic
Állomány:
Community Development Network Building in Central and Eastern Europe, Közösségfejlesztési hálózatépítés Kelet-Közép Európában
Forditas:
Megjegyzés:
Annotáció:
Leltár:
Raktári jelzet:
E

The evaluation of the social capital research in the villages Rouské and Opatovice (Czech republic)

The aim of the research

The aim of the research was getting the information about inhabitants’ co-existence in Czech villages. The research was aimed to the neighbourhood, the feeling of safety or danger, on the peace of civic initiatives and the state of the civic involvement in the Czech countryside.
The method of the data collection and the selection of the researched sample

We chose two villages from microregion Zahoran for our research, the microregion is situated in the Olomouc region, in the central Moravia. The method of the data collection was the same as at all other states and the data was collected by a structured questionnaire. We used two interviewers who filled the questionnaire in fact and they controlled if members of chosen households answered.
The examined sample was chosen through Multilevel stratified selection, where one microregion was chosen at first, and after two villages arbitrarily – Rouske and Opatovice – were chosen from this microregion and then the last choice of respondents ensued through all descriptive numbers in villages. The threat was that some houses are uninhabited or nobody assists there. That’s why we expanded the list of chosen respondents for a half of other respondents who were alternates. We gained 65 filled questionnaires from chosen 150 respondents and it was necessary to do other choice. This way we addressed another 18 households and gained 100 filled questionnaires altogether.
The social capital research proceeded at the end of July 2004; this also influenced the choice of respondents into the examined sample. The biggest problem is surplus proportion of seniors and pensioners and on the contrary under-valuable proportion of young people, students and singles. These distortion results are caused by inhabitants’ trips or holidays. From the senior surplus proportion in the sample results even other distortions in the category of sex (there is a strong more women or men because women often live longer than men) and in the category of religion denomination (a little more percent of religious in the sample than in the real population).
However all distortions don’t come from the creating of the examined sample but also from natural evolution in the society. Data that we compared with the learned quantities come from summation of inhabitants, houses and flats from the year 2001.
The description of the village Rouske

The village Rouske is located in the region central Moravia between towns Hranice and Bystrice pod Hostynem. Here 249 inhabitants live in 70 houses which serve to permanent living and 5 houses serve to recreation. There is a feature and an urbanistic structure of origin rural buildings mostly preserved. But agriculture production, that always played dominant role here, was reduced in the past. The age average of the village is 36 years. A land register of the village Rouske of 530 ha land area is located in the Kelcska and the Podbeskydska pahorkatina (uplands) – the area of the Zapadobeskydske podhuri (the West Beskydy underhills), in the altitude of 372 m above sea level.
The bus service is secured with one bus service nr. 92728 Hranice – Vsechovice, that secures with 9 connections basic needs of citizens, as commuting of children to school or kindergartens, to physicians and to other services. The village is 30 km far from the county town and it has the nearest connection to the close village Vąechovice. Hranice is the Regional centre and the Centre of the higher civil equipment.
Centre for Community Organizing works with the whole microregion aprox. one year, but it isn’t community work in the right form, it is mostly counseling and consultation or managing of the strategic planning.
Our interviewers addressed 50 inhabitants, 12 from them weren’t caught and 7 inhabitants refused to fill this questionnaire. Altogether we have obtained 31 filled questionnaires.
According to age groups – the most numerous group is the age group from 31 to 40 years and from 51 to 60 years (seven). Higher age groups are also very numerous: from 61 – 70 years (5 respondents), 41 – 50 year and more than 74 years (4 respondents), the youngest age groups were the least numerous (under 20 years and 21-30 – two respondents).
According to sex 74 % women and 26 % men were in the sample. According to subjective measured socio-economic status most of respondents sorted their family to the middle class (75 %), the rest of 26 % sorted their family to the lower class.
The stratification of respondents according to the education mostly responded to the real layout in Rouske. We had more secondary school leavers, but differences are small:
basic education 26 %
training schools 36 %
secondary schools 36 %
university degree 3 %

According to the marital status most of respondents are married (61 %), second the most frequent status is a widower or a widow (16 %), which concerns to surlus value of older inhabitants of Rouske in the sample, than singles are (13 %) and the last divorced (10 %).
In households 2 – 3 people live together the oftenest (in 42 %), household with 4 – 5 members or with one inhabitant is similarly represented (23 % and 19 %). Households with 6 – 7 persons aren’t so often, but it is always a part of 16 %.
According to the branch of occupation pensioners are the most represented (45 %), then business, health service, accounting, crafts, maternity leave etc.
Inhabitants of the village Rouske are religious people because they highly exceed country average in religious mentality. All 90 % from them accept Roman Catholic church, 7 % are atheists and one respondent accept evangelical church.
According to the nationality most of respondents feel to be Czech (77 %), but 23 % mentioned Moravian nationality.
Salaries of our respondents are in the most cases bellow average. The biggest part of respondents (40 %) mentioned as their gross salary 6.000,- - 7.999,- CZK (see the tab). These low salaries can be caused by either insufficient work opportunities and by the influence of surplus value of pensioners in the sample.

Salary
absolutely
in %
less than 6.000 CZK
9
30
6.000 – 7.999 CZK
12
40
8.000 – 11.999 CZK
5
17
12.000 – 15.999 CZK
0
0
16.000 – 19.999 CZK
1
3
more than 20.000 CZK
3
10
Description of the village Opatovice

The village Opatovice is located as well as in the territory of microregion Zahoran, near from Hranice and Teplice nad Becvou. The village has long history (first signs are from 12th century), the biggest development was in the second half of 19th century and also in the half of 20th century. The gas is established from the year 1995. The village has its own sign and flag from the 12th April 1995. The reconstruction of the sewage disposal plant and the repair of the drainage were provided in the year 2000. After provided actions the village aims at the reconstruction of damaged local roads. In the last period the village invested to this repair cca 2 mil.CZK. In the year 2001 at census 755 inhabitants lived in the village.

CCO woks again with this village as the part of the microregion Zahoran (see the Description of the village Rouske).

Our interviewers addressed 118 inhabitants, 39 from them weren’t caught and 10 inhabitants refused to fill the questionnaire. Altogether we have obtained 69 filled questioners.

According to the age groups the most numerous group is from 61 to 70 years (14 respondents) and from 31 to 40 years (12 respondents), middle and lower age groups are other the most numerous: 41 – 50 years and 21 – 30 years (10 respondents), just behind them there is the group 71 – 80 years (9 respondents) and 51 – 60 years (8 respondents), the youngest and the oldest age groups were the least numerous (under 20 years and over 80 years by three respondents).
According to the sex 62 % of women and 38 % of men are in the sample. According to subjective measured socio-economic status most of respondents sorted their family to the middle class (75 %), 23 % sort their family to the lower class and odd 1 % of respondents has sorted themselves to the higher class.
The stratification of respondents according to the education partly responded at least to the real layout. We had more secondary school leavers at the sample, more labourers and on the contrary less with basic education and undergraduates, but differences weren’t so big:
basic education 17 %
training schools 51 %
secondary schools 29 %
university degree 3 %

According to the marital status most of respondents are married (57 %), singles are the second most frequent status (18 %), then widowed (13 %) and divorced (12 %).
In households 2 – 3 people live together the most frequent (in 49 %), households with 4 – 5 members are 29 %, then monadic households follow (15 %) and households with 6 – 7 members are small part in the sample and also households with more than 7 members (4 % and 3 %).
According to the branch of education pensioners are the most represented (45 %), then business, health service, accounting, crafts, maternity leaves, industry and manual professions, etc.

Inhabitants of the village Opatovice are religious people as well as in Rouske because they again highly exceed country average in the religious mentality, although they don’t reach so big part as in Rouske. Opatovice respondents accept in 72 % Roman Catholic church, and odd 28 % are atheists.

According to the nationality most of respondents feel to be Czech (67 %) and 33 % mentioned Moravian nationality, that is 10 % more than in the next Rouske.
Salaries of our respondents in Opatovice are mostly below average. The biggest part of respondents (48 %) answered that their gross salary is 6.000,- - 7.999,- CZK (see the tab). These low salaries can be caused also by either insufficient working opportunities and by the influence of surplus value of pensioners in the sample.


Salary
absolutely
in %
less than 6.000 CZK
13
21
6.000 – 7.999 CZK
29
48
8.000 – 11.999 CZK
9
15
12.000 – 15.999 CZK
7
12
16.000 – 19.999 CZK
1
2
more than 20.000 CZK
1
2


Tabs with percentage layout (Results of the research)


I. Active Community and Social Capital Module

1. Would you say that you know …
Rous- ké
Opa-tovi-ce
Many of the people in your neighbourhood
77,4
52,2
Some of the people in your neighbourhood
16,1
37,7
A few of the people in your neighbourhood
6,5
10,1
Or that you do not know people in your neighbourhood?
0
0
DK
0
0
2. Would you say that …
Many of the people in your neighbourhood can be trusted
16,1
14,5
Some of the people in your neighbourhood can be trusted
51,6
60,9
A few of the people in your neighbourhood can be trusted
19,4
8,7
Or that none of the people in your neighbourhood can be trusted?
0
2,9
DK
12,9
13

3. Would you say this neighbourhood is a place where neighbours look out for each other?
Yes, definitely
35,5
17,4
Yes, to some extent
51,6
59,4
No
3,2
5,8
DK
9,7
17,4

4. How often do you have friends or neighbours round to your house?
Every day
3,2
13,0
Several times a week
9,7
21,7
At least once a week
25,8
20,3
At least once a fortnight
22,6
17,4
At least once a month
19,4
10,1
Less than once a month
9,7
7,2
Never
9,7
8,7
DK
1,4

5.And how often do you go round to other people’s houses? That is friends or neighbours.
Every day
9,7
10,1
Several times a week
3,2
17,4
At least once a week
19,4
24,6
At least once a fortnight
9,7
14,5
At least once a month
22,6
11,6
Less than once a month
25,8
8,7
Never
9,7
11,6
DK
1,4
6. In the last 12 months have you done any of the things?
Contacted a local councillor
54,8
31,9
Contacted a Member of Parliament (MP)
9,7
0
Contacted a public official working for your local council
35,5
31,9
Contacted a public official working for part of Central Government
32,3
23,2
Attended a public meeting or rally
19,4
13
Taken part in a public demonstration or protest
0
0
Signed a petition
6,5
1,4
Non of these
38,7
47,8
DK
1,4
7. Do you agree or disagree that you can influence decisions affecting your local area?
Definitely agree
25,8
8,7
Tend to agree
22,6
30,4
Tend to disagree
19,4
23,2
Definitely disagree
6,5
13
DK
25,8
24,6
8. How much do you trust
The police
1. A lot
3,2
2,9
2. A fair amount
22,6
26,1
3. Not very much
45,2
40,6
4. Not at all
6,5
14,5
5. DK
22,6
15,9
8. How much do you trust
the courts
1. A lot
3,2
2,9
2. A fair amount
12,9
18,8
3. Not very much
35,5
29,0
4. Not at all
16,1
15,9
5. DK
32,3
33,3
8. How much do you trust
your employer
1. A lot
12,9
13,0
2. A fair amount
29,0
23,2
3. Not very much
6,5
14,5
4. Not at all
9,7
2,9
5. DK
41,9
46,3
8. How much do you trust
Politicians
1. A lot
0
0
2. A fair amount
0
2,9
3. Not very much
41,9
21,7
4. Not at all
48,4
58,0
5. DK
9,7
17,4

8. How much do you trust
Parliament
1. A lot
0
0
2. A fair amount
0
4,3
3. Not very much
35,5
23,2
4. Not at all
54,8
55,1
5. DK
9,7
17,4
8. How much do you trust
Your local council
1. A lot
38,7
15,9
2. A fair amount
35,5
30,4
3. Not very much
22,6
31,9
4. Not at all
0
14,5
5. DK
3,2
5,8
9. Have you been involved with (all) these groups, clubs or organisations in the last 12 months?
Children’s education/schools
16,1
7,2
Youth/children’s activities (outside school)
9,7
18,8
Education for adults
12,9
1,5
Sports/exercise (taking part, coaching or going to watch)
32,3
33,3
Religion
12,9
10,1
Politics
3,2
2,9
Health, Disability and Social welfare
3,2
1,5
The elderly
29,0
4,3
Safety, First Aid
6,5
4,3
The environment, animals
16,1
5,8
Justice and Human Rights
0
0
Local community or neighbourhood groups
6,5
5,8
Citizen’s Groups
12,9
17,4
Hobbies/Recreation/Arts/Social clubs
25,8
10,1
Trade union activity
0
2,9
None of these
32,3
34,8
10.Do you ever feel that you would like to spend any (irregular volunteers/unknown frequency: more) time helping groups, clubs or organisations, or not?
Yes
51,6
36,2
No ( move to question ± 12)
22,6
43,5
DK ( move to question ± 12)
25,8
20,3


11.There are various reasons why people don’t give unpaid help to groups, clubs or organisations, even when they feel they might like to. Why do you not give this sort of help more regularly?
The most of the answers concern with want of time and with diffidence of helping somebody.
12. Which, if any of these, might make you likely to get involved in future?
If someone asked me directly to get involved
61,3
50,7
If my friends or family got involved with me
32,3
27,5
If someone who was already involved was there to help get me started
12,9
2,9
If more information about the things I could do was available
25,8
14,5
If I knew I could get my expenses paid
12,9
2,9
If someone could provide transport when I needed it
22,6
2,9
If I could do it from home
22,6
17,4
If I knew it would help me improve my skills or get qualifications
3,2
11,6
If I knew it would benefit me in my career or improve my job prospects
6,5
7,2
Other (specify)………………………………………………………..
3,2
13,0
DK
19,4
20,3
13.In the last 12 months, have you done any of these things, unpaid, for someone who is not a relative? This might be for a friend, neighbour or someone else.
Keeping in touch with someone who has difficulty getting out and about (visiting in person, telephoning or e-mailing)
19,4
4,3
Doing shopping, collecting pension or paying bills for someone
19,4
15,9
Cooking, cleaning, laundry, gardening or other routine household jobs for someone
19,4
10,1
Decorating, or doing any kind of home or car repairs for someone
4,3
5,8
Baby sitting or caring for children
4,3
15,9
Sitting with or providing personal care (e.g. washing, dressing) for someone who is sick or frail
2,9
0
Looking after a property or a pet for someone who is away
4,3
10,1
Giving advice to someone
29,0
11,6
Writing letters or filling in forms for someone
11,6
8,7
Representing someone (for example in talking to a council official)
5,8
4,3
Transporting or escorting someone (for example to a hospital, on an outing or a school-run)
19,4
21,7
Anything else (specify)…………………………………………………….
0
4,3
No help given in last 12 months
35,5
49,3
DK
0
1,5
14.Which, if any of these, might make you likely to get involved in future?
If someone asked me directly to get involved
64,5
62,3
If I knew someone needing help
71,0
30,4
If I knew more people in my local community
0
4,3
If I knew it wouldn’t cause offence to offer help
19,4
7,2
If people looked out for each other more in this community
0
1,5
If I met people or made friends through it
16,1
7,2
If it gave me a position in the community
0
0
If my friends or family got involved with me
6,5
8,7
If I could do it from home
22,6
10,1
If I had the right skills, knowledge or experience to help
22,6
17,4
If I felt safe helping
12,9
1,5
Other (specify)
3,2
2,9
DK
3,2
8,7
Non of these
3,2
10,1
15.Have you yourself, in the last 12 months, benefited from unpaid help in any of these ways? Please exclude help from members of your family (that’s any relatives).
Keeping in touch with your (visiting in person, telephoning or e-mailing)
2,9
8,7
Doing shopping, collecting pension or paying bills for you
4,3
11,6
Cooking, cleaning, laundry, gardening or doing other routine household jobs for you
4,3
7,2
Decorating, or doing any kind of home or car repairs for you
3,2
5,8
Baby sitting or caring for your children
3,2
5,8
Sitting with or providing personal care (e.g. washing, dressing) for you
0
1,5
Looking after a property or a pet for you whilst you are away
2,9
7,2
Giving advice to you
16,1
13,0
Writing letters or filling in forms for you
3,2
2,9
Representing you (for example in talking to a council official)
3,2
4,3
Transporting or escorting you (for example to a hospital or on an outing)
2,9
10,1
Anything else (specify)………………………………………………..
0
4,3
DK
58,1
58,0
No help received in last 12 months
0
2,9

Participation of inhabitants at civil initiatives, trust in the village

The village Rouske has the country character. Although in the present most of inhabitants work in different branch than in agriculture, human relationships work in such villages unlike in towns or in bigger villages with own backround. On the contrary the village Opatovice is already bigger village (755 inhabitants), where inhabitants aren’t so depend on civil aid because they have all basic backround just in the village. It is a village, which has a character of a small town. If we compare results of both villages, we can see, that in the small village Rouske there is a little bigger trust each other and people know themselves more than it is in Opatovice. But in Opatovice people more visit themselves. In Rouske we have found from the research a bigger interest about acting around them. Respondents from Rouske rather feel, that they can influence the acting around them more than they from Opatovice. Respondents from the bigger village more confide in all-republic politicians than respondents from Rouske and they on the contrary more confide in local politicians and to local municipalities than people from Opatovice.
That concerns to the activity in various civil activities and an aid, respondents from Rouske has been shown as more active because they chose more possibilities than they from Opatovice. Rouske is the most active in senior activities, at sports, in the living environment and in hobbies and the leisure time, Opatovice are more active in children out-of-school activities, in activities of civil association and also at sports.
The bigger part of respondents from Rouske wanted to help more than they from Opatovice. At the question, that asked about that, what would provoke into more helping in the future, both villages agreed with these conditions:
if I could/ helped from home
if somebody asked me directly to engage
if my friends and family engaged with me

Other conditions of Rouske concerned rather to paying costs, securing of the transport and more information about possibilities of an aid – rather quantitative advantages of the voluntary help and conditions of Opatovice concerned rather to qualification increase and improving conditions for their profession – so that rather quantitative advantages.
If respondents helped to somebody in the last year, it was mainly with the transport and transfer (to the doctor, to the school, etc.), with shopping, cooking, babysitting or with some advice. Totally respondents from Rouske helped more because the variant “I didn’t help any time in the last year” Rouske answered no in 35,5 % and Opatovice in 49,3 %, which is nearly half of respondents.
Towards question of the future (in what conditions they would help in future?) respondents expressed in following:
Rouske
· if somebody asked me directly
· if I knew somebody who would need to help
· if I knew my offer would be accepted
· if I helped from home
· if I had corresponding abilities to this activity.

Opatovice
· if somebody asked me directly (but about one half less than in Rouske)
· if I knew somebody who would need to help
· if I helped from home (about one half less than in Rouske)
· if I had corresponding abilities to this activity. In the question if somebody helped you in the last 12 months rather respondents from Opatovice than from Rouske replied in the affirmative. Inhabitants of Rouske conceded that somebody advised them but inhabitants of Opatovice mentioned that somebody did some shopping for them, advised with transport (I mention only variants with a big frequency).
Totally villages Rouske and Opatovice are similar, although certain small differences are here. With regard to that they are both villages, they have common big rate of the participation on the acting in the village, they help each other and they count with this help thenceforth. Differences between villages mostly result from their size. The village Rouske is a little village, where nearly all know each other and so that they feel, that they can influence function and development of the village. The fact, they help each other they consider as normal. The village Opatovice is already bigger village, where people don’t know very each other and the feeling of anomie ?? is nearer to town values than typically rural areas. Nevertheless here live people, who engage themselves and help each other at least in the framework of a neighbourhood. They are used to visit themselves and communicate together.

Worked up by: Marketa Krivdova, CCO

Dokumentumok