1. Social Return on Investment of Mutual Support Based Housing Projects: Potential for Socio-Economic Cost Savings and Higher Living Quality Sarah Borgloh · Peter Westerheide European Real Estate Society Meeting Milano June 25, 2010

2. Outline  Motivation  Characteristics of the projects  Research question  Methodology/Data  Main results  Interpretation

3. Motivation  Growing share of elder people with need for assistance and long term care  Increasing costs of social security systems  Need for reforms in health insurance and long term care insurance  Rising importance for subsidiary support from - Families - Informal networks - Neighborhoods

4. Motivation  To what extent can professional care and support be substituted by informal help from neighbors?  Can substitution produce significant cost advantages?  Analysis of four housing projects with very different character, …but some common features - Propagation of neighbourly life and support - Architectural features and infrastructural characteristics to create opportunities for frequent contact between neighbors (accessibility for handicapped, open contact spaces, meeting rooms) - Coordination and encouragement by social workers

5. „Lebensräume für Jung und Alt“ (Living Spaces for Young and Old), Liebenau Foundation, Lake Constance Area  5 locations with 39 to 84 apartments  Multigenerational approach: younger and elder residents as owners and renters in households of different size  Provision of professional care services by external service provider  Social workers consult and motivate residents Characteristics of the projects

6. „Haus im Viertel“ (House in the quarter), Bremer Home Foundation, Bremen  Housing complex with 92 apartments (incl. restaurant, meeting center, living community for dementia patients)  Focus: elder residents with/without need for assistance  External professional care provider in direct vicinity  Social work with focus on neigbourhood support provided by manager Characteristics of the projects

7. „Residence Heinrichstraße“, Protestant Johanneswerk, Bielefeld  Complex with 42 accessible apartments  Elder and younger residents (partly handicapped)  Continuous care approach: residents can stay even if need for support is increasing  Support by professional service provider available  Joint activities are supported by social workers and service staff Characteristics of the projects

8. Multigenerational house, Catholic Caritas holding company CBT, Wipperfuerth (near Cologne)  2 dwellings with 35 accessible apartments  Apartment size between 35 und 96 sqm  Resident of different age and family status  Professional support not an element of the project  Social work on a case-by-case basis Characteristics of the projects

9.  Calculation of the total effect of „social investments“ in mutual support based housing projects  Focus: Cost or assistance of elder residents  Measurement of costs and yields for all involved parties: - Residents - Non-profit organizations running the housing projects - Social Insurance - Municipalities Research question/target of the analysis

10.  Survey among residents und business level analysis of project costs  Survey among residents in control group, living in conventional settings  Comparison by propensity score matching (comparing individuals with similar propensity to live in one of the housing projects) Methodology

11. Comparison of housing projects with conventionaln housing and assistance settings Need for Assistance Control groupTreatment group Costs Propensity score matching Qualitative Aspects Methodology

12.  Variables in the PS estimations  Age  Sex  Number of children under age ten in household  Household size  Education  Income  Number of physical diseases  Care level  Handicapped  Voluntary engagement before moving in  Information on current/preferred alternative housing situation Methodology

13.  222 interviews / 313 persons in the treatment group  268 interviews / 428 persons in the control group Data Treatment GroupControl Group Age 57.78 (26.09) 56.64 (26.30) Female 0.69 (0.46) 0.61 (0.49) Living in Single Household 0.52 (0.50) 0.40 (0.49) (Very) Good Health 0.51 (0.50) 0.60 (0.49) Care Level (Yes) 0.11 (0.32) 0.17 (0.37) Disabled 0.22 (0.42) 0.22 (0.41) Table displays variable means. Standard deviation in parentheses.

14. Basic results  Lower average costs for assistance - Lower costs on individual (private household) level - lower costs for social insurance and municipalities  Evidence for positive spillover effects in the quarter/urban district  Better assessment in terms of living quality

15. Some results in more detail Variable DimensionTreatment group Control group DifferenceSignificance All DiseasesNumber1,031,40-0,37** Need for careDummy0,130,22-0,08** Care levelScale 0-30,190,28-0,09(*) Elder than 50 DiseasesNumber1,362,13-0,77*** Need for careDummy0,160,33-0,17*** Care levelScale 0-30,230,41-0,18** Health status/need for care

16. Some results in more detail  Health status > Better development of health status: Health status and need for care differ when survey was conducted although it was not different when people moved in > Has to be treated cautiously!

17. Some results in more detail  Health status/need for care: two scenarios (different composition of compared groups) > Version 1: health status and need for care equal when moving in: positive effects in health development are attributed to housing projects > Version 2: health status and need for care equal at survey time: positive effects in health development are treated as exogenous (robustness check)

18. Some results in more detail  Costs > Version 1: significantly lower total cost > Version 2: lower cost differences; significant differences only for group 50+ Version 1Version 2 total sample50+total sample50+ -30.9%-50.1%-20.6%-36.0% Source: Authors calculations, bold values significant at least at 90 per cent level. Total costs, partly imputed.

19. Some results in more detail  Costs Source: Authors calculations, bold values significant. Total costs, partly imputed. Version 1Version 2 total sample 50+ total sample 50+ Lower bound-205.49-394.48-160.74-259.06 Upper bound-13.43- 144.2133.56-44.75 90%-confidence intervals for difference between treatment and control group (total costs), in Euro per month

20. Some results in more detail  Reasons for cost differences: > Better health development/lower need for care (differences between version 1 and 2) > Inclusion of inpatient care individuals > Lower need for assistance due to better infrastructure (construction) > Higher incidence of unpaid and voluntary support by neighbours in the treatment group

21. Some results in more detail  Need for regular daily help > In treatment group lower on average > significantly different for the elderly > but inspite of lower need: more help from neighbours Treatment group Control group DifferenceSignificance Daily assist., 50+0,500,71-0,21*** Daily assistance received from neighbors, 50+0,070,030,04* Results for version 1

22. Some results in more detail  Mutual neighborly help in a wider sense > More frequently in treatment group than in control group given (for all and 50+) and received (by 50+) > Focus on practical help (z.B. shopping, crafting, housekeeping) Dimension Treatment Group Control Group Diff.Significance Support received from neighbors Dummy0.430.260.17*** Support given to neighborsDummy0.510.360.15** Results for version 1, sample 50+

23. Some results in more detail  Time use and activities outside > Respondents in treatment group spend significantly less time alone at home and take more often part in activities with their neighbors > Residents of the four housing projects use services offered in the district/urban quarter more often than the control group does

24. Some results in more detail  Housing quality, social life, life satisfaction >Better assessment of  housing and living conditions in treatment group  social life within the quarter/urban district >Differences increase with age >No significant differences with respect to overall life satisfaction

25. Conclusion/Interpretation > Decreasing need for assistance and care > More support from neighbours > Potential for savings in public budgets > Savings potential for residents – increase of disposable income > Positive spillover effects to urban district/quarter > Not limited to small groups, substantial effects of similar projects on a broader scale possible

26. Thank you for your attention!!! Contact: Dr. Peter Westerheide Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung Centre for European Economic Research L7 1 68161 Mannheim, Germany Tel: ++49 621 1235 146 westerheide@zew.de

27. not quantifiable appraisable not appraisable Indivdual Society Costs / Yields Level of analysis Organization Guideline: The concept of Social Return on Investment

28.  Housing preferences of elderly: > High preference for independent living (as long as possible), housing quality becomes less important > Higher living quality in senior cohousing projects  Mutual support among acquainted persons: > Needs frequent contact to emerge  Costs of support: > Some indirect evidence of cost savings potential in CCRC > No systematic analysis of relative costs of mutual support based housing projects (compared to conventional models) Literature Review

29. Methodology: The concept of Social Return on Investment Social Return on Investment (SROI): levels of analysis  Economic Value: economic yield, conventionally defined and quantified in monetary terms, on individual and project level  Socio-Economic Value: value added on societal level, quantified in monetary terms  Social Value: value added, not quantifiable in monetary terms