Table 2. Mean change of scores in the neighborhood cohesion before and one year after the programs.
| Estate | Baseline (mean (SD)) |
Follow-up (mean (SD)) |
Effect sizea | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Neighborhood cohesion scaleb | Intervention | 3.26 (0.57) | 3.34 (0.66) | 0.15* |
| Control | 3.36 (0.57) | 3.39 (0.62) | 0.07 | |
| Item 1: People around here are willing to help their neighbors | Intervention | 3.43 (0.86) | 3.48 (0.84) | 0.08 |
| Control | 3.58 (0.80) | 3.53 (0.80) | 0.08 | |
| Item 2: This is a close-knit neighborhood | Intervention | 3.30 (0.88) | 3.39 (0.86) | 0.15* |
| Control | 3.42 (0.85) | 3.41 (0.85) | 0.03 | |
| Item 3: People in this neighborhood can be trusted | Intervention | 3.36 (0.81) | 3.43 (0.81) | 0.11* |
| Control | 3.53 (0.75) | 3.46 (0.78) | 0.11 | |
| Item 4: People in this neighborhood generally do not get along with each other | Intervention | 3.35 (0.76) | 3.33 (0.87) | 0.03 |
| Control | 3.38 (0.86) | 3.42 (0.83) | 0.06 | |
| Item 5: People in this neighborhood do not share the same values | Intervention | 2.89 (0.74) | 3.07 (0.86) | 0.23** |
| Control | 2.90 (0.77) | 3.15 (0.85) | 0.34** |
Intervention group (n=502); Control group (n=476)
a: Cohen effect size d: small=0.20, medium=0.50, and large=0.80
b: Scores for each item ranged from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating better outcomes. Scores in the neighborhood cohesion scale were the average score of items (Items 4 and 5 were reverse coded)
*: Statistically significant at P<0.05;
**: Statistically significant at P<0.001;