Presentation on theme: "Place-Based Policy for Marginalized Populations: Research Questions from the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Region (GTAH) James R. Dunn, Ph.D. CIHR-PHAC."— Presentation transcript:
1Place-Based Policy for Marginalized Populations: Research Questions from the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Region (GTAH)James R. Dunn, Ph.D.CIHR-PHAC Chair in Applied Public HealthAssociate Professor, of Health, Aging & Society, McMaster UniversityScientist, Centre for Research on Inner City Health, St. Michael’s HospitalFellow, Successful Societies Program, Canadian Institute for Advanced Research
2Place-Based Policy: An Overview Place-based policy popular over last 15+ years in US, UK, Australia…now CanadaUK most active with ‘area-based initiatives’:E.g., New Deal for Communities, Health Action ZonesInvolves targeting defined areas for additional investment / programs to reduce inequalitiesCanadian examples: Action for Neighbourhood Change (ANC); Priority Neighbourhoods Strategy (Toronto); Vancouver AgreementRecommended by OECD Cities Report; McMurtry Report on Youth Violence, etc.
3Rationale for Place-Based Policy Identifiable geographical areas have high levels of social problemsMainstream programs operate less effectivelyIndividual disadvantage is exacerbated by area disadvantage – magnifies problemsImportant for social and political reasons to address disparities between areas‘hard to reach’ populations? i.e. number of disadvantaged people touched by policy?
4Rationale for Place-Based Policy Area targeted programs often have ‘bottom up’ approach – unlike mainstreamDepends on partnerships and capacityMore effective problem identification and solution delivery?Local programs can lead to confidence & capacity to participate in the communitySuccessful area-based programs may act as pilots to change delivery of mainstream(from Smith, G.R. (1999) Area-Based Initiatives: The Rationale and Options for Area Targeting
5Rationale Against Area-Based Policy Most deprived people don’t live in deprived areas (other forms of marginalization?)Area-based policies unfair to people not living in targeted areasArea-based policies displace, disperse or dilute problems (e.g., unemployment)Area-based policies may reduce the urgency to do things at other levels(from Smith, G.R. (1999) Area-Based Initiatives: The Rationale and Options for Area Targeting
6‘Place Effects’ & Health Scholarly resurgence of interest in how places shapes health & well-being since early 1990sheavy emphasis on ‘compositional effects’ – places shape health because of who lives thereMacintyre began studying direct effects of local social and physical env’ts that may shape healthdebate over ‘contextual’ vs. ‘compositional’ effectscan these be separated? can compositional features be emergent as contextual effects?now appears that there is no single ‘universal’ effect of area on healthi.e., ‘do n’hoods affect health?’ is unanswerablethere are some area effects on some population groups in some places – a complex pictureall agree that better theory is needed - complexity
9Do Urban Neighbourhoods Matter? human life is intrinsically territorialneighbourhoods initially envisioned as re-creating the dynamics of small-town lifedespite romanticism, many people also like the anonymity of big city lifeWellman and Leighton (1979) argued the territorial basis of community life had been overtaken by networked social relationsbut neighbourhoods appear to have had a re-birth – why do they matter?Wellman, B. and Leighton, B Networks, neighborhoods, and communities: Approaches to thestudy of the community question. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 14(3):
10Neighbourhoods, Health and Human Development: Theory
11The Importance of Residential Neighbourhoods centre of the residential neighbourhood is someone’s home. The home is a site for:wealth storage / accumulation‘social reproduction’the investment of meaningthe exercise of controlthe centre point of purposeful activities outside the home – work, recreation, service need, etc.=> its relative location matters
12In what ways are place and n’hood effects unimportant? examples of questions to pose:health behaviours – is residential proximity to fast food, for instance, important?does the importance of n’hood for shaping life chances differ from place to place?depending on residential differentiation patterns, geography of the labour market, public transit, the public school system, the structure of local government, etc.?will n’hoods matter to some people more than others?e.g., seniors, young children, youth, low SES, immigrants, etc.
16Toronto Action for Neighbourhood Change Strengthened influence of local residentsEmpowering belief residents can make a differenceEmergence of capable community leadersDependable support from politicians, police, schoolsEnhanced quality of neighbourhood lifeEnable residents to connect with & depend on each otherShared public spaces that are well-maintained & usedActivities for children & youth, supports for seniors, welcoming to immigrantsIncreased access to resourcesNew services & infrastructure for under-serviced areasNeighbourhoods offer range of responsive services
17Toronto ANC as a Place-Based Policy Toronto Action for Neighbourhood Change is arguably about:Changing local opportunity structuresIncreasing access to resources for marginalizes groups, especially immigrantsCan use the Bernard model to evaluate the scope of ANC with a checklist:Physical Domain (Proximity) Economic Domain (Price)Institutional Domain (Rights)Community Organizations Domain (Informal Reciprocity) Local Sociability Domain (Informal Reciprocity)
18Regent Park Redevelopment home to 2,178 households & 7,500 people b/f demolitionPhase 1 will grow from 418 to 800+ householdsone of Canada’s oldest and largest public housing developmentsbuilt in late 1940s / early 1950s based on ‘Garden City’ design principles$400M+ demolition & redevelopment over next years in 6 phases. New community will:be mixed income: owners & subsidized renters 60-40use modern principles of urban design (new urbanism)develop participatory governance institutions
23Regent Park as a Place-Based Policy Intervention suspected mechanisms for building a healthy community:social mix (mixed tenure / income)urban design (through streets, mixed land use)social development (e.g., job training / hiring)community participation (in governance)Bernard model checklist:Physical Domain (Proximity) Economic Domain (Price)Institutional Domain (Rights)Community Organizations Domain (Informal Reciprocity) Local Sociability Domain (Informal Reciprocity)
24Research & Evaluation Strategies Longitudinal data on individuals ‘exposed’ to the intervention and comparison groups are essentialUnintended consequence of area-based policy: it changes the incentive structure for residential moving (and staying)Also known as ‘demographic churn’New Deal for Communities (UK) is exemplary for its evaluationLead organization is Joseph Rowntree FoundationWithout rigorous evaluation => trapped in perpetual pilot project / experimentation
25Conclusions Great potential for place-based policy Canada is a relatively late-adopter, so can learn from elsewhereNeed to be concerned about both the ‘how’ (governance’ and the ‘what’ (content)Bernard model focusing on areas as opportunity structures very helpfulNeed to consider domains of activity and rules that govern access to resources in a complete mannerNeed rigorous research & evaluation and a vehicle for learning from experience