Presentation on theme: "The housing pathways of income support recipients Presentation to 2nd Australasian Housing Researchers’ Conference: Reshaping Australasian Housing Research."— Presentation transcript:
The housing pathways of income support recipients Presentation to 2nd Australasian Housing Researchers’ Conference: Reshaping Australasian Housing Research Dr Tim Seelig University of Queensland Social Research Centre 20 June 2007
2 Concepts of housing consumption patterns over time Historically, tenures seen as being rungs of a hierarchical housing ladder, and housing career patterns involving progression to home ownership are under challenge. Household mobility suggests less uniformity and certainty in the housing system - there is a growing separation or “disconnectedness” between housing careers and other life course events (Winter and Stone 1999) “Housing careers and tenure arrangements are becoming more complex at the same time as the life cycle sequence of household structure is less predictable” Maher (1997: 5) Concept of ‘housing pathways’ (Clapham 2002) more helpful in describing how people act upon their changing needs and circumstances over time through changes in housing options and tenure transitions (shaped by choices and constraints). The housing consumption patterns of income support recipients (ISRs) over time has received little research attention
3 Background to the study Study for AHURI based on analysis of Australian Govt ‘Longitudinal Data Set’, one percent Sample (1995-2003) Study has examined income support recipients over time in relation to: –tenures and tenure changes –relationships between tenure changes and changes in income –tenure changes in and other changes in characteristics or circumstances –How the relationships and arrangements between tenure and other factors vary by discrete groups of income support recipients.
4 Methods and data Nature and design of the data have provided both important opportunities and constraints on analysis and outcomes Broader study uses a range of cross-sectional and descriptive longitudinal analysis, and more complex longitudinal methodologies: Event History Analysis, Survival Analysis (Cox’s Proportional Hazard Model), Linear Mixed Model (Random Intercepts, IRSs) Housing pathways analysis has been informed by: –Descriptive tenure analyses, which examine case-based point in time, aggregated time and summary transitions; –Tenure Origin and Destination analyses, which are event-based; and –Longitudinal tenure history analyses, which map the case-continuous patterns of tenure consumption
5 Operational Tenure Classification Tenure NameNew Code Description LDS CategoriesClassification process Home OwnerH Outright home owners not renting and not in aged care HOM, JNT, PAR, LIF, SRH, OTH (home_own_cd) Where rent type is ‘_’ Home Purchaser P Purchasers not renting and not in aged care POH, DEEWhere rent type is ‘_’ Aged CareA Aged care or nursing home GFH, GFN, NHH, NHNOverrides rent type Private RentalR Private renters not in aged care PRIWhere not in (A) Public RentalG Government renters not in aged care GOVWhere not in (A) BoardingB Boarders and lodgers not in aged care BOA, LODWhere not in (A) Rent FreeF Rent free not in aged care NRP, FBD, FBL, FLDWhere not in (A) OtherO Other rent not in aged care OTH (rent_typ_cd) MOO, SIT, MNT Where not in (A) Non homeowner N Cases identifying as 'non- homeowners', but also not identifying rental type NHO, SRN, PLTSRN or PLT or NHO in home_own_cd and ‘_’ in rent_typ_cd Seelig et al (forthcoming)
6 Operational Income Support Classifications New IS nameNew codes Description LDS codesNotes AgedA Age pension and related income support AGE, MAA DisabilityD Disability pension and related income support DSP, REH, RHB, DWS, SWS UnemploymentU Newstart, youth allowance and other unemployment related income support NSA, YAL, YTAYAL and YTA apply where activity type code is not ‘FTS’ or ‘ED’ Single parentP Sole parent and related income support SPP, PPS, WID, PGA StudentS Austudy, youth allowance (students) and study related income support AUS, YAL, YTAYAL and YTA coded S where activity type code is ‘FTS’ or ‘ED’ Partner allowance W Income support for partners of others on income support WFA, WFD, MPA, PGN, PGY, PTA, PA, PGL OtherO Not captured elsewhere All other IS types Seelig et al (forthcoming)
7 Analysing housing consumption patterns among income support recipients The patterns of general housing consumption and transitions by tenure over time (including tenure moves and non-moves) have been tracked, analysed and mapped Almost 7,000 separate pathways could be identified; including 32 ‘typical’ housing pathways. Among income support recipients (ISRs) studied: –57% did not change tenure at all while on IS –22% underwent only one tenure change while on IS –21% had been in multiple (often quite complex) tenure transitions Longest housing pathways consist of 34 tenure transitions!
8 Tenure of ISRs at last observation Tenure type (code)Last observation FrequencyPercent Home owners(H)28,60732.1 Purchasers(P)4,1764.7 Private renters(R)22,29425.0 Public renters(G)5,1665.8 Aged care(A)3,2443.6 Boarders/lodgers(B)7,5658.5 Rent free(F)11,01212.4 Other rent(O)1,2911.5 Non-home owner(N)5,8266.5 Total89,181100
9 breakdown of IS types within discrete tenures IS type / tenure Unem- ployment % Age pension %Disability % Partner % Sole parent % Student % Other % TOTAL % Home owner 12.456.09.7184.108.40.206.7100 Purchasers 36.74.26.028.220.127.116.1100 Private renters 47.88.68.09.718.104.22.16800 Public renters 16.029.423.17.417.30.86.0100 Aged care 0.096.23.30.1 0.00.3100 Boarder/lodger 53.314.722.214.171.124.34.4100 Rent free 126.96.36.199.188.8.131.5200 Other rent 18.060.011.24.184.108.40.20600 Non-Home Owner 220.127.116.11.11.841.11.8100 Total 32.029.99.28.77.8 4.6100
18 Public housing pathways Median duration in public housing among ISRs about 3.5 years. Over the full span of the data (8.7 years), 36% of public housing tenants (excluding left censored) remained in public housing. Private rental sector plays significant role as an origin and destination tenure for ISRs in public housing. Other rental tenures also important Clear tendency for ISRs to return to their previous tenure type after exiting public housing, and this is apparent for every tenure type excepting aged care 30% of all cases who exited PH but remained on IS subsequently re-entered PH
20 Most common housing pathways associated with public housing (Unemployment ISRs) Tenure transitionsRankFrequencyPercent CategoryCumulativeCategoryCumulative G 1 305 16.78 RG 2 1014065.5622.34 GR 3 694753.8026.14 NG4 285031.5427.68 RGR5 275301.4929.17
21 Most common housing pathways associated with public housing (Disability ISRs) Tenure transitionsRankFrequencyPercent CategoryCumulativeCategoryCumulative G 1 474 30.19 RG 2 1526269.6839.87 GR 3 336592.1041.97 BG4 316901.9743.94 RGR5 217111.3445.28
22 Most common housing pathways associated with public housing (Single parent ISRs ) Tenure transitionsRankFrequencyPercent CategoryCumulativeCategoryCumulative G 1 390 21.76 RG 2 1415317.8729.63 GR 3 906215.0234.65 RGR4 476682.6237.27 GRG5 226901.2338.5
23 Summary of ISR transitions into and out of public housing Private Rental (54.6%) Boarding (16.9%) ‘Non-home owner‘ (14.5%) Rent-free (9.6%) Owner/Purchaser (2.0%) Private Rental (45.4%) Owner/Purchaser (5.8%) Rent-free (11%) Boarding (15.7%) ‘Non-home owner‘ (15.8%) Movements from Movements to Public Housing (G)
24 Mapping individual longitudinal housing pathways: origins of public housing entries
25 Mapping individual longitudinal housing pathways: destinations of public housing exits
26 Drivers, influences, factors The housing pathways identified in the study raise questions about why tenure movements occur, and how they may be linked to influential factors: –How are tenure movements associated with changes in incomes? –How are they linked to changes in other circumstances (social, economic, personal)? –What are the drivers behind the housing pathways of income support recipients? Are they about tenure ‘choices’, constraints or other decisions?
27 Commentary and conclusions Discourses about traditional ‘housing careers’ and related assumptions about linear tenure movements (up) giving way to more nuanced appreciation of the diversity of ‘housing pathways’ Housing consumption patterns of Income Support Recipients illustrate diversity of housing pathways Income support recipients not a homogenous population in terms of housing pathways
28 Commentary and conclusions Static tenure breakdown of ISRs suggest some characteristics at last observation have similarities with those of broader population, while others differ significantly from broader population: –Private rental and home ownership rates among ISRs actually very close to whole of population –Home purchase among ISRs much lower –Informal rental and other arrangements much higher More dynamic, time based analyses indicate high rates of stability on the one hand, to a complex history of multiple transitions on the other Most IRSs do not change tenures, or undergoing limited movements, whilst on income support Now, the more elaborate set of tenure changes that some ISRs undergo can also been seen
29 Commentary and conclusions Importance of home ownership among IRSs Importance of the private rental market in the broader housing system: –As a tenure of significance for ISRs –As a gateway tenure in the housing system, at least as far as ISRs are concerned Familiarity with previous housing option influence future tenure decisions? Revolving door into and out of public housing for some SHA clients
30 Commentary and conclusions Further research and analysis implications? Seelig T, Han JH, O’Flaherty M, Short P, Haynes M, Baum S, Western M, Jones A (2005) Housing consumption patterns & earnings behaviour of income support recipients over time, AHURI Positioning Paper Seelig T, Han JH, O’Flaherty M, Haynes (forthcoming) Housing consumption patterns & earnings behaviour of income support recipients over time, AHURI Final Report