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: Housing Studies Association Conference, York, 8-10 April 2015

Presentation overview1. 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’? Can lower status neighbourhoods perform a

springboard function?

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 (43%) but owners still in majority

• Social housing overrepresented but still only small fraction

• Map follows

Greater Sydney

Disadvantaged suburbs

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90100

31

27

36

30

26

29

6

14

2011 housing tenure profile of Sydney disadvantaged suburbs

Owners Purchasers Private renters

Social renters

% of all households

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

Sydney fieldwork locations and profiles

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

• 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

Went without meals

Pawned or sold item

Sought help from welfare org

Unable to heat home

Trouble paying car reg/insurance

Sought financial help from family/friends

Trouble paying utility bills on time

0 5 10 15 20 25

5

6

8

6

8

11

22

2

2

4

3

6

7

15

Bray’s deprivation indicators

Greater Sydney

Study area average% of all respondents

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

I would get out of this neighbourhood if I could

Drugs are a problem here

Crime is a problem here

Car hooning is a problem here

There is a strong sense of community

I feel I belong in this neighbourhood

My local area is a safe place to live

0 20 40 60 80

37

40

41

53

62

68

69

% 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 tenure• Two thirds of households

‘excluded’ on at least 1 dimension

• Strong differentiation of exclusion dimensions by tenure

• V high incidence of economic exclusion for renters – only slightly higher in public housing

• Polarisation within 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

Economic

Community identity

Access

Civic engagement

Neighbourhood

0 50 100

56

26

23

27

36

29

14

12

17

15

Owner PurchaserPrivate renter Public renter

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

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

Public renter

Private renter

Owner

0 20 40 60 80 100

72

78

Recent movers: breakdown by tenure of former home

Within tenure From another tenure

% of all recent movers

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

Public renter

Private renter

Owner

0 20 40 60 80 100

66

69

Recent movers: breakdown by location of former home

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

% of recent movers

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