It took us thirteen years to achieve this... Social Mobility and Wellbeing in the Long-term Regeneration of Hoogvliet, Rotterdam 06-03-2014 Dr. Reinout Kleinhans Delft University of Technology Challenge the future
How it all started in 1998 2
Regeneration approach & stakeholders An integrated approach with an interconnected vision on physical, social and economic problems and strategies (see background doc) Planned regeneration period: 1999-2015 Research complexity = defining the interventions (mostly before 2010) (Usually) a constructive co-operation between the main actors in the long-term renewal; authorities, HAs, tenant associations Message Ade: landlord-tenant relationships and involvement matters! Strong involvement of and attention for residents in Hoogvliet Residents fuelled the starting up of the restructuring in 1999 Relatively high levels of participation in various planning forms (e.g. CPC) Right to return /stay in Hoogvliet 3
4
Context changes since 2007 Economic crisis: severe budget cuts require the main actors to change focus and reconsider the renewal horizon From 2010: welfare state retrenchment, budget cuts and decentralization (especially from 2015 onwards) In Rotterdam (and elsewhere) the policy discourse is quickly changing from giving support when asked to providing support only in cases in which clients own social networks and abilities fall short to deal with a certain support or care need On-going discussion on the effects of area-based approaches SCP 2013: no observable effects of investments and interventions in the target neighbourhoods (40 Vogelaarwijken ) 5
Quasi-experimental design (a mess ) Second-way survey (following on baseline survey from 2007) Retracing 2007 survey respondents and adding new baseline Control area sample and survey Analysis of the Social Statistics Database Register data of all residents, 1999-2011 Qualitative component: in-depth-interviews with ±50 participants in small-scale support trajectories ±20 professionals, complemented by expert meeting Secondary analyses of neighbourhood data (Social Index etc.) Building on our 2007 study with a bigger qualitative component 6
Change by Regeneration To what extent are regeneration benefits (on aggregate level) rooted in residential mobility versus in situ change? Many previous studies cannot distinguish between these two main types of change Cross-sectional, lack of longitudinal data No analytical distinction between mobility-related and in situ change Useful distinction between groups which are differentially affected by regeneration: Stayers Movers within Hoogvliet / control area In-movers (newcomers) Outmovers 7
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Social Statistics Database results (1) Lead by Wenda Doff 0,30 0,50 0,25 0,45 0,40 0,35 Hoogvliet Noord 0,20 0,15 Hoogvliet Noord Hoogvliet Zuid Lombardijen Groot-IJsselmonde 0,30 0,25 0,20 Hoogvliet Zuid Lombardijen Groot-IJsselmonde Lage Land 0,10 0,05 Lage Land Kleinpolder Rotterdam 0,15 0,10 Kleinpolder Rotterdam 0,00 0,05 0,00 34000 32000 30000 28000 26000 24000 22000 20000 18000 16000 14000 Hoogvliet Noord Hoogvliet Zuid Lombardijen Groot-IJsselmonde Lage Land Kleinpolder Rotterdam 8
Social Statistics Database results (2) Available SSD social mobility indicators 1999-2011 1. Owner-occupation 2. Dependency on social benefits 3. (Household) income Key outcomes for owner-occupation (general increase): Initially highly selective migration: net outflow of owner-occupiers Gradually increasing share of owner-occupiers among in-movers Strongly increasing share of occupiers among movers within Hoogvliet Slight increase among stayers (i.e. renters who bought their dwelling) All dynamics stronger in northern part of Hoogvliet 9
Social Statistics Database Results (3) Key outcomes for dependency on social benefits: Until 2002 selective migration: net inflow of benefit recipients Gradually decreasing share of recipients among in-movers Gradually increasing share of recipients among out-movers Slight decrease among movers within Hoogvliet, no change for stayers! All areas and groups: slight increase since 2009 (crisis effect) Key outcomes for average household income: Until 2004 selectivity: income of out-movers exceeds in-movers income From 2004: reversal income in-movers exceeds out-movers income Income increase movers within Hoogvliet stronger than among stayers Both groups: income increase stronger than in control area All dynamics stronger in northern part of Hoogvliet 10
Survey Results Hoogvliet ( treatment area) versus control area Comparable original housing environments (woonmilieus), lay-out, age Distinction between groups differentially affected by regeneration: Stayers Movers within Hoogvliet / control area In-movers (newcomers) Outmovers Main themes for comparison between HV and control area: Residential mobility and changes in the housing situation Perceived neighbourhood change Socioeconomic position and social mobility Social impacts of regeneration 11
Survey results: Housing situation Hoogvliet higher shares of perceived HS improvement, with significantly more respondents (40% of improved ) ascribing their progress to the regeneration measures (30% in control area) Demolition much more often the primary reason for moving in Hoogvliet (13%) than in the control area (5%) Allmost all forced relocatees already lived in Hoogvliet and were rehoused within Hoogvliet Movers: current neighbourhood compared to the previous one Perceived progress in Hoogvliet 44% versus 6% in control area Perceived setback in Hoogvliet 11% versus 40% in control area; applies primarily to in-movers 12
Survey results: Neighbourhood Change Perceived neighbourhood change in respondents current areas: Hoogvliet: progress (24%) or stability (53%) reveal much higher shares than in control area: 14% vs. 40% In-movers and movers within Hoogvliet much more positive than stayers (35% - 29% - 18% improvement) Those who perceived positive neighbourhood change (or stability) ascribe this more often to regeneration than in the control area Scoring on 10 physical and social disorder items (e.g. vandalism, drug use, scolding, assault, robbery, burglary, etc.) Control area higher shares of respondents saying that the problem became worse 13
Survey results: Social mobility Perceived disposable income changes in the last six years More HV people reporting increase (32%) than in control area (26%) Fewer HV people reporting decrease (24%) than control area (39%) Especially in-movers do well However, more people find it more difficult to get by 44% in Hoogvliet versus 55% in control area Hoogvliet: less unemployment and more retirement and salary raises than in the control area Higher shares of allowance recipients (child care, rent, health care) in control area, and also lower savings No differences with regard to participation in (in-service) training courses or other competence building trajectories (see PPT Anton Kunst) 14
Survey results: Other social impacts Hoogvliet scores much higher than control area with regard to: Perceived external reputation (improved): 65% versus 24% Living together/(peaceful) co-existence (improved): 30% versus 16% General appearance (improved): 65% versus 47% Fuzzy outcomes with regard to perceived changes in education / job opportunities, quality of schools and availability of social support and services for people who are in trouble Two thirds of respondents report I don t know, especially in Hoogvliet Visibility of connections with renewal is much lower than for physical measures in the housing stock, public space, etc. Perceived individual progress due to urban regeneration Confirmed by 28% in Hoogvliet versus 11% in control area Especially movers within Hoogvliet (44%) and newcomers (37%) 15
Evaluation of social programs Four small-scale studies of trajectories aimed at specific target groups: lead by Lex Veldboer, UvA (work in progress) Study on long-term unemployed people who are volunteering in Hoogvliet Transition of OK-Bank (Underused Talent Bank) to a Full Engagement programme in which benefit recipients are required to do something in return for their benefit No emphasis on building skills for re-integration on labour market Huge political and societal discussion on mandatory reciprocity In-depth interviews with former OK-bank volunteers We expected strong resistance against new policy principles Surprisingly, respondents revealed support, as the new programme is perceived to confirm contributions to society 16
Comparison with 2007 findings Positive long-term regeneration area effects on liveability, safety and perceived neighbourhood change remain and even seem to gain in strength slightly; no evidence for negative crisis effect We still will include a number of well-being scales (proxies for MH?) Soc mobility is more connected to residential moves than in situ change Largely induced by restructuring of the housing stock Indications for regeneration-induced social mobility over and beyond residential moves and general economic development We are still studying transitions, i.e. the order of events that affect multiple dimensions of social mobility, e.g. getting a job, changing tenure Our findings differ from recent studies (SCP) of area-based regeneration and neighbourhood policies Too early to discard area-based approaches as such 17