1. Are services for the poor bound to be poor services? Do the poor get worse services? If so, why? Is this inevitable? / What can be done about it? -------------------------------------------------------- Housing Healthcare Education

2. Public housing – the wobbly pillar of the welfare state Market meets most of the needs of most of the people most of the time Cultural inclination and government policy both encourage owner-occupation Stats here on council occupation v owner occ Was originally meant as a service for the top end of the working class

3. Residualisation of the service As soon as governments decided to build for the masses (displaced by slum clearance), they lowered quality. E.g. Ronan Point. Concentrated poor together 50% of council house residents are on Housing Benefit

4. When Work Disappears 1960-1982: every urban area in UK loses between ¼ and ½ of its employment Public housing becomes a service only for the poor “The very rich are different from you and me.” Are the very poor? Social exclusion, concentrations of people with multiple needs

5. So poor even the poor don ’ t want it Difficult to let housing: the falcon no longer hears the falconer The residual are the most resistant. Is it just the poor’s fault? Or is bad service also to blame? Tower block elevators For want of a broom

6. Can we fix it? Lupton and Power: Need policies to limit economic and social polarisation of public housing – I.e broaden the tenure. Charles Murray: Services for the poor only create additional poverty Social policy is confused – thinks it’s “social apology”.

7. Can we fix it? If they are too work, services for the poor can’t be poor. Quite the opposite. Law of diminishing returns. New Deal 25+ - percentage of “most disadvantaged clients” – 1999: 9% – 2002: 20%

8. Can we fix it? Social Exclusion Unit argues for a client- centred approach Qualitatively different needs / services. Very high costs, with lots of vertical transfers. Will public accept?

9. Healthcare Private market can’t meet most needs most of time. V difficult to be a well-informed consumer of healthcare. Basically universal need for government service provision. Median voter is on board. This benefits the poor, who get the same service.

10. My benighted land 45 million without health insurance. Dependent on A&E rooms and Medicaid Harkening back to last week, what’s more important, economics or politics? US “solution” v expensive, with poor results for majority

11. Who ’ s happy? Poor: 45% Elderly: 61% (Medicare) Everyone else: 34% ---------------------------------------- Poverty of expectations? Being trapped in a poor market even worse than being trapped in a poor government service?

12. Will you still need me, will you still feed me, when I ’ m 84? Decent long-term care is v expensive Will long-term care follow the housing model, with residualisation for the poor? Will it be universalised, with poor thus benefiting from “middle class quality” service?

13. Education US as case study – local property taxes fund local schools Over time, poor schools end up needing more money for same results than middle class schools. Right uses this as argument that money doesn’t matter.

14. UK – school choice “Poor people shouldn’t be trapped in poor schools.” ½ of all students get at least five good GCSEs; in low income families, only 1/5 do. But who will actually choose? Bargaining power, popular schools, & the sharp elbows of the middle class.

15. Choice for whom? SEU: The socially excluded tend to be poor at negotiating the service system. Will choice cause them to lose out? Blair and Kelly: without choice, the middle class will opt out – and the service will become residual. Education as part way in between housing and healthcare.

16. De-residualising inner city state schools? Surely the Guardian, opposition MPs and teachers' leaders are completely missing the point about city academies. I thought they were meant to attract increasing numbers of local middle-class, higher-achieving children from possibly more affluent family backgrounds to engender a more representative cross-section of the community. In my experience, if a school, especially a secondary school, is completely made up of poor, deprived, low-achieving children it is impossible for pupils or the school to achieve very much, no matter how much money is thrown at the problem…. I am chair of governors of an inclusive primary school in an area of high deprivation in Tottenham, where any potentially high-achieving child becomes isolated because they have no peer group to work with, especially in years 4, 5 and 6. This because the few more affluent parents move away in key stage 2 to get a chance of a better secondary school. At our school we certainly would welcome more active, better educated, middle-class parents and children to redress the balance. Any "good" school needs a good cross-section of people if it is to improve standards and not become a "ghetto" of deprived children. That serves no one's interest, including the poorer, deprived child.

17. Half-baked conclusions Are services for the poor bound to be poor services – if they are only for the poor? – Sure Start seems popular, but will it be well-funded enough? 42% of SS Plus case workers say their loads are too heavy. – US antenatal programme. Is universalism the key? Can the high demands of the middle class work for the poor? Will the middle class’s sharp elbows usually work against the poor? Does it depend on the type of service?