1. 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

2. 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

3. 1. FRAMING THE SURVEY

4. 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

5. 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?

6. 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

7. 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

8. 2. SURVEY METHODOLOGY

9. 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

10. 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

11. Housing tenure and property condition External condition of… OwnedBeing purchased Private rental Public rental All tenures Dwelling1218710 Landscape/ garden24251315 Street6416911 % in each tenure rated as having ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’ external condition/ surroundings:

12. 3. POVERTY AND ECONOMIC EXCLUSION

13. Gauging the depth of deprivation 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’

14. Respondent views on their locality 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%

15. 4. DIMENSIONS OF EXCLUSION

16. Constructing synthetic indicators for ‘dimensions of exclusion’ Exclusion dimensionSurvey questions AccessThere 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 engagementI visit my neighbours in their homes* Attendance at local events Membership of local groups Community identityThere is a strong sense of community in this neighbourhood* I feel I belong in this neighbourhood* EconomicMonthly household income Difficulty in paying for essentials NeighbourhoodMy 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

17. 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 dimensionOwnerPur- chaser Private renter Social renter Access26482629 Civic engagement2661520 Community identity24232124 Economic553640 Neighbourhood2662320

18. 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

19. 5. HOUSING MARKET DYNAMICS

20. Mobility dynamics: inter- tenure moves Vast majority of owner occupier moves involve FHBs Vast majority of private renter moves within private rental

21. 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

22. 6. CONCLUSIONS

23. 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