Search results

In this chapter, I focus on stigmatization exercised and experienced by local residents, comparing two socially-diverse areas in very different contexts: the Cabrini Green-Near North area in Chicago and the La Loma-La Florida area in Santiago de Chile.

Data for this study were drawn from 1 year of qualitative research, using interviews with residents and institutional actors, field notes from observation sessions of several inter-group spaces, and “spatial inventories” in which I located the traces of the symbolic presence of each group.

Despite contextual differences of type of social differentiation, type of social mix, type of housing tenure for the poor, and public visibility, I argue that there are important common problems: first, symbolic differences are stressed by identity changes; second, distrust against “the other” is spatially crystallized in any type and scale of social housing; third, stigmatization changes in form and scale; and fourth, there are persisting prejudiced depictions and patterns of avoidance.

Socially-mixed neighborhoods, as areas where at least two different social groups live in proximity, offer an interesting context for observing territorial stigmatization. They are strange creatures of urban development, due to the powerful symbolism of desegregation in contexts of growing inequalities.

The chapter contributes to a cross-national perspective with a comparison of global-north and global-south cities. And it also springs from a study of socially-mixed areas, in which the debate on concentrated/deconcentrated poverty is central, and in which the problem of “clearing places” appears in both material (e.g., displacement) and symbolic (e.g., stigmatization) terms.

In March 2014, the minister responsible for public housing in the state of New South Wales in Australia announced that all 600 public housing tenants living in the historic heritage-listed adjacent inner-city neighbourhoods of Millers Point and The Rocks in Sydney were to be moved and the homes sold to the highest bidder on the open market. There were to be no exceptions, and the last public housing resident was moved from the area in July 2018. A common view is that public housing areas in countries with a residualised welfare system are characterised by attenuated social ties, anomie and bleakness. This chapter examines neighbouring, social ties, mutual assistance and sense of community among public housing tenants in Millers Point and demonstrates that this is not always the case. Drawing on 48 in-depth interviews with residents, plus observation, I show that the social connections among public housing tenants in the area were unusually strong and enduring. I argue that in order to understand why this was so, we need to look at the physical and social features of the area. Following on from the seminal work of Jane Jacobs, the New Urbanism movement argues that compactness, mixed land use and walkability are crucial enablers of social interaction and neighbourliness. These physical features were present in Millers Point. There is now a recognition by New Urbanism scholars that physical elements in themselves rarely create community and that the social features of neighbourhoods also have to be taken into account. In the case of the public housing tenants in inner Sydney, the key social features were longevity of residence and homogeneity. Another crucial aspect was a strong sense of social obligation. This was partially due to the presence of strong trade unionism in the area historically and the intermittent nature of employment at certain periods, which ensured neighbours rallied round to help those who were less fortunate.

The purpose of this chapter is to analyze the evolution in the provision of public services’ delivery, with a specific focus on housing policies. New practices are being implemented, thanks to the cooperation of the public sector, private, and nonprofit actors. Rather than just providing assistance to households with income levels falling below specific thresholds, social housing addresses the broader and more complex areas of vulnerability that affect several categories, such as single parents, young students and professionals, and temporarily unemployed people. Co-production also comes into the picture, since many social housing projects require that beneficiaries contribute to the implementation of the project itself, for example by managing the buildings and common areas or by creating communities.

The chapter will start from considerations on the emergence of new housing needs. It will then review the literature on the concept of co-production of public services and provide a definition of social housing. Then, examples of social housing will be analyzed based on specific criteria derived from the literature and the theoretical framework. The methodology is qualitative and based on descriptive case analysis.

The chapter analyzes the evolution of public housing policies by taking into account the social and economic changes that have determined greater and more complex areas for public intervention, adopting a twofold approach of partnership and collaboration between the three sectors, and of co-production of public services by directly engaging the users.

This article evaluates the role that social housing tenure plays in crime reduction through the work of Churchwood's Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP). It provides evidence of offender and victim populations concentrated in social housing neighbourhoods (estates), and argues for social housing providers to take a more active role within community safety in this borough. Anti‐social behaviour, it is argued, has primacy over crime in the arena of social housing.

This paper is an account of the discussions and recommendations by the exper t advisory panel on potential metrics and ‘sentinel indicators’ for improved outcomes in housing and mental health, as par t of an inter‐agency seminar called to advise on the development of metrics and measures for community mental health, for Fair Society, Healthy Lives: The Marmot Review (Marmot, 2010). The seminar covered all aspects of mental health in both its broadest and narrower senses.Much of the background material for these discussions, therefore, cuts across familiar knowledge silos between the fields of health and housing. Where it is necessary to elucidate the text, references are included to relevant research and policy frameworks that may be unfamiliar to the general reader. This paper is not, however, intended as a general literature review nor is it an evaluation of the available research. A paper on this subject will feature in a future issue of the Journal.1The conclusions from the panel discussion are presented in four main areas, reflecting the need to specify metrics across the wide‐ranging interface between housing and mental health, while still keeping the task manageable. Five current or potential health service metrics were proposed as having par ticular value as signal indicators. Two of these (relating to primary care prevention and public health) have no precision as yet, par tly as new services and approaches are still evolving. Among existing health datasets, the Mental Health Minimum Dataset (MHMDS) (NHS Information Centre, 2009a), SITuation REPor ts (SITREPS) (Department of Health, 2003), and the Summary Care Record data were singled out, though each is thought to need more work to improve the current data categories as well as data collection.One rather more fundamental point made was that the identifying, assessing and encouraging of effective inter‐sector par tnership work will be the key to tackling health inequalities. The use of other, non‐health services data therefore holds great potential for a better recognition both of needs and of outcomes in successful par tnership work, especially where this can be interpreted at local level. These wider comments are elaborated in the context of housing, but may be applicable to all effor ts to evidence and work with the social determinants and the social outcomes of mental health. For the future, a combination of well‐crafted nationally sanctioned metrics and the ‘soft intelligence’ of locally identified meaning may be most effective.Subsequent developments confirm the potential in cross‐sector development work, and indicate the potential for fur ther collaboration via the local performance framework. As policy frameworks continue to evolve rapidly, the ar ticle ends with a Codex, updating the relevant policy frameworks context since the seminar (in Spring 2009) and especially in the context of a new coalition government with aspirations to ar ticulate and promote public health in the context of the local performance framework and the ‘new localism’ agenda. This final section and comments therein are therefore entirely the responsibility of the author.

Housing affordability in New Zealand is placing significant pressure on the country’s social housing sector with increased demand for public sector accommodation. A common belief suggests that social housing has a negative effect on nearby residential property values. This study aims to develop proximity and concentration measures of social housing to determine if their spatial distribution affects property values.

Using over 32,000 residential sales transactions from Auckland (New Zealand) during a three-year period (2014–2016), this study applies standard hedonic OLS framework with the addition of spatial autoregressive model and spatiotemporal autoregressive model to test if proximity and concentration of social housing influence residential property values.

The research found that private houses that share boundaries with public housing are discounted by 1.7%–3.3% depending on the socio-economic status of the submarket. The authors find that wealthier submarkets are better equipped to absorbing negative externalities attached to social housing. Proximity measures tend to peak at 250 m, with houses discounted up to 5% within that distance. Concentration levels of social housing had a greater influence on the private residential market. At low levels of concentration, houses in areas of high and low socio-economic levels were discounted by approximately 6.5%. The discount does not remain uniform and the gap between the two areas is apparent at medium and high concentration levels. The negative effect was the highest − 23% – in the neighbourhoods that were socially and economically deprived.

The study’s findings can assist policymakers in informing strategies on the future social housing initiatives. The findings suggest that a dispersed development strategy that incorporates a balanced mix of tenure and socio-economic groups should be preferred over a high-density social housing concentrated in already deprived neighbourhoods.

The Retrofit State of the Nation Survey has tracked the perceptions of social housing sector professionals’ views of retrofit since 2010. It has taken the form of three surveys conducted in 2010, 2013 and 2015. Here, the authors bring together the three surveys to specifically address the adoption and perceived effectiveness of retrofit technology in social housing projects. The purpose of this paper is to identify the changing perceptions of social housing professionals over a period of significant policy change within in the sector.

The research takes the form of a cross-sectional attitudinal, self-completion survey, covering sections considering the adoption levels and perceived effectiveness of different retrofit technologies. The target sample was medium to larger scale registered social housing providers. The surveys were conducted in 2010, 2013 and 2015.

In terms of effectiveness, the reliance on tried and tested technologies is apparent. Emerging or more complex technologies have declined in perceived effectiveness over the period. It is clear that social housing has adopted a wide range of technologies, and the larger providers, with whom this survey is undertaken, potentially represent a significant pool of UK retrofit experience.

The survey provides a record of the changing attitudes of social housing providers to specific technologies over the period of 2010-2015, which has seen significant changes in the energy and social housing policy. The findings show the link between policy instruments and adoption, with policy instruments mapping to adoption in the sector. Perceived effectiveness reflects a preference for more established technologies, an issue that is highlighted in the recent Bonfield Review.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of enforcement action on individuals and families living in social housing as a mode of intervention for dealing with anti‐social behaviour.

Relevant housing legislation and policy documents are reviewed. The paper then draws on empirical data from Shelter Cymru's case file records of households in social housing who have been subject to enforcement action following an allegation of anti‐social behaviour. Evidence obtained from other studies on housing intervention projects is used to contrast the position of the households studied with those in similar situations who have been provided with support as an alternative to enforcement action.

The legislative framework favours enforcement as a means of dealing with anti‐social behaviour. A number of remedies utilise the management role of social landlords, and the framework of housing tenure, to introduce the concept of “conditionality” into housing entitlement. This approach to the management of anti‐social behaviour compounds the social disadvantage of already vulnerable households by undermining long‐term security of tenure and thereby increasing the risk of homelessness and social exclusion. These outcomes contrast with those from studies of similar households in receipt of support within housing intervention projects which have been shown to deliver reductions in anti‐social behaviour and sustainable outcomes for families, communities, and landlords.

The findings provide important lessons for the future direction of anti‐social behaviour policy throughout the UK and beyond. In the context of devolved polity in the UK the paper argues for the Welsh Assembly Government to take a lead in developing policies and legal responses which recognize the housing rights of marginalised groups, and for the introduction of support into social housing to counter the trend toward punitive treatment of social tenants as a response to anti‐social behaviour.

The unique nature of the empirical data set from Shelter Cymru's case file records provides an important insight into the social impact of anti‐social behaviour law and policy on some of the most vulnerable members of society.