Sinks of social exclusion or springboards for social mobility? Analysing the roles of disadvantaged places in urban Australia

Hal Pawson & Shanaka Herath, City Futures Research Centre, University of New South Wales Paper to: Australasian Housing Researchers Conference, Hobart 18-20 February 2015

Presentation overview 1. Theoretical and policy context 2. Survey fieldwork locations and methodology 3. Poverty and economic exclusion 4. Views about the local area 5. Housing market dynamics 6. Conclusions

1. FRAMING THE SURVEY

Theoretical and policy context Growing socio-spatial polarisation in Australia’s major cities Dominant narrative: spatial concentrations of disadvantage inherently

detrimental to local residents due to ‘neighbourhood effects’ – i.e: ‘…living in a neighbourhood which is predominantly poor is itself a source of disadvantage’ (Atkinson & Kintrea, 2001)

Contrary idea that ‘low status suburbs’ may: • feature substantial social capital • play vital role in urban systems – e.g. migrant gateway function

Questions for the research How applicable to the Australian context are US-

sourced ideas on neighbourhood effects? How comparable is the depth of spatially

concentrated disadvantage in urban Australia? To what extent are residents subject to measureable

‘social exclusion’? What is the stock of social capital in such areas? Do lower status neighbourhoods perform a useful

role as a housing market entry point for aspirational homebuyers?

Survey context Survey incorporated within larger 3-year study

on disadvantaged places in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane Followed on from, and informed by:

Large scale secondary data analysis to identify and classify disadvantaged suburbs

Qualitative fieldwork to investigate the experience of living in disadvantaged places from perspective of residents and other local stakeholders

Series of research reports already published by AHURI on the above

Profile of ‘disadvantaged suburb’ cohort • Disadvantaged suburbs defined

in relation to SEIFA lowest quintile (Australia-wide)

• 177 in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane

• 10% of all suburbs, 16% of combined city population

• Disproportionate no of renters but owners still in the majority

• Social housing overrepresented but still only small fraction

• Map follows

31

26

36

28

25

27

4

13

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90100

Rest ofSydney

Disadvantaged suburbs

% of all households

2011 housing tenure profile of Sydney disadvantaged suburbs

Owners PurchasersPrivate renters Social renters

2. SURVEY METHODOLOGY

Survey methodology Fieldwork in four contrasting ‘disadvantaged

suburbs’ in Sydney 801 doorstep interviews by professional

fieldwork firm (approx 200 per area) Sample split equally between

a. recent movers b. longer-established residents

Fieldwork locations and profiles

• Chosen to ‘represent’ each of 4 socio-economically distinct types of disadv. Suburb

• But all in lowest decile of SEIFA distribution – not lowest quintile

• Fieldwork locations: 20-60 km from Sydney CBD

• Incomes relatively low and unemployment high

• Ethnic and tenure profiles quite diverse

Housing tenure and property condition

External condition of…

Owned Being purchased

Private rental

Public rental

All tenures

Dwelling 1 2 18 7 10

Landscape/ garden 2 4 25 13 15

Street 6 4 16 9 11

% in each tenure rated as having ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’ external condition/ surroundings:

3. POVERTY AND ECONOMIC EXCLUSION

Gauging the depth of deprivation

5

6

8

6

8

11

22

2

2

4

3

6

7

15

0 5 10 15 20 25

Went without meals

Pawned or sold item

Sought help from welfareorg

Unable to heat home

Trouble paying carreg/insurance

Sought financial help fromfamily/friends

Trouble paying utility billson time

% of all respondents

Bray’s deprivation indicators

Greater Sydney

Study area average

Responses to question: ‘Over the past year have any of the following happened to you because of a shortage of money?’

• 33% of study area residents affected by specified ‘deprivation’ in past year

• Two thirds higher than Sydney norm (20%)

• Differential greater for ‘more serious’ problems – e.g:

• ‘pawned or sold item’ • ‘unable to heat home’ • ‘went without meals’

• But only a minority demonstrably ‘doing it tough’

Respondent views on their locality

37

40

41

53

62

68

69

0 20 40 60 80

I would get out of thisneighbourhood if I could

Drugs are a problemhere

Crime is a problem here

Car hooning is aproblem here

There is a strong senseof community

I feel I belong in thisneighbourhood

My local area is a safeplace to live

% agreeing with statement • Place attachment and positive sentiments appear high

• Balance of respondents believed their areas recently improving

• Certainly not classic sink neighbourhoods

• But problem issues also quite widely perceived

• Purchasers esp. disaffected – e.g: • ‘I belong in this neighbourhood’: 49% • ‘I would get out of this neighbourhood

if I could’: 49%

4. DIMENSIONS OF EXCLUSION

Constructing synthetic indicators for ‘dimensions of exclusion’

Exclusion dimension Survey questions Access There are good local facilities and activities for young children*

The area is well served by public transport* The area has good access to primary schools* The area has good access to health services*

Civic engagement I visit my neighbours in their homes* Attendance at local events Membership of local groups

Community identity There is a strong sense of community in this neighbourhood* I feel I belong in this neighbourhood*

Economic Monthly household income Difficulty in paying for essentials

Neighbourhood My local area is a safe place to live* Car hooning is a problem here*

*Question asked in form of a statement with which respondents were asked to agree or disagree

Dimensions of exclusion by household type

Exclusion dimension

Household contains… Study area avg

Chdn under 16

Age pens

Wkg age adults only

Access 29 31 29 33

Civic engagement

21 19 19 14

Community identity

21 18 27 21

Economic 27 16 24 28

Neighbourhood 16 20 25 20

• Limited differentiation by household type but:

• Families most exposed to economic exclusion

• Working age adults most likely to be excluded on neighbourhood & community identity

• Two thirds of households ‘excluded’ on at least 1 dimension

Dimensions of exclusion by tenure • More differentiation of exclusion

dimensions by tenure • V high incidence of economic

exclusion for renters – only slightly higher in public housing

• Polarisation of owner occupied sector on: • Civic engagement • Neighbourhood • Access

Exclusion dimension Owner Pur-chaser

Private renter

Social renter

Access 26 48 26 29

Civic engagement 26 6 15 20

Community identity 24 23 21 24

Economic 5 5 36 40

Neighbourhood 26 6 23 20

Share of total excluded households located in each tenure

• What is the composition of the ‘excluded population’ in disadvantaged suburbs?

• Need to factor in: • Incidence of exclusion in

each tenure (last slide) • tenure profile of all

disadvantaged suburbs • On economic exclusion vast

majority are renters but mostly private not public

• On 3 of other 4 dimensions homeowners in the majority

56

26

23

27

36

29

14

12

17

15

0 50 100

Economic

Communityidentity

Access

Civicengagement

Neighbourhood

Owner PurchaserPrivate renter Public renter

5. HOUSING MARKET DYNAMICS

Mobility dynamics: inter-tenure moves • Vast majority of owner

occupier moves involve FHBs

• Vast majority of private renter moves within private rental

72

78

0 20 40 60 80 100

Publicrenter

Privaterenter

Owner

% of all recent movers

Recent movers: breakdown by tenure of former home

Within tenure From another tenure

Mobility dynamics: inter-area moves • More than two thirds of recently

moved homeowners from elsewhere

• PRS moves mostly local • But need to factor in v high

mobility incidence in PRS • Thus, a quarter of all current

private tenants moved into current area within last 5 years

• A relatively high % of ‘possible mover’ homeowners aspire to leave the area in future

66

69

0 20 40 60 80 100

Publicrenter

Privaterenter

Owner

% of recent movers

Recent movers: breakdown by location of former home

Moved within the 'local area'Moved from outside the 'local area'

6. CONCLUSIONS

Conclusions Depth of spatially concentrated disadvantage in urban Australia

moderate rather than extreme Place attachment and community activity high but local social

problems also quite widely perceived Economic exclusion largely concentrated in rental housing – private

renters account for substantial majority within overall ‘excluded population’

Disadvantaged areas appear to play an important ‘home ownership gateway’ function

Much greater self-containment of private rental markets implies restraints on onward mobility for private renters