Understanding the constraints of affordable housing supply for low-income, single-parent families in Taipei, Taiwan Li-Chen Cheng Department of Social Work, National Taiwan University, 1, Roosevelt Road, Sec. 4, Department of Social Work, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan; Phone: 886-2-23630231 ext. 3563 (office);886-2-23680532 (fax); e-mail: lccheng@ntu.edu.tw Keywords: low income, single parent families, affordable housing Background The growth of single-parent families has been one of the most significant demographic trends in Taiwan for the past two decades. In 1990, one out of sixteen families with children was headed by a single parent and two thirds of them were female-headed families (Hsieh, 1996). A longitudinal study indicated that 11.87% of all families headed by females in 1991, which was twice than it was in 1976. However, what generates public concern was the over-representation of single-parent families in poverty. Household Income Survey in 1993 indicated that the income in single parent families was 79.4% of the income in all families, and it was 67.9% of that in two parent families (Wu, 1993). According to official figure, about one fourth of low income families were headed by single parent and female headed families were more likely to live in economic hardship than their male counterparts. Lately, much academic literature has contributed to understand how low economic resources these families typically experience would have negative impact on single parents and their children in several aspects of social well-being. Very few studies have examined the unique housing needs of single-parent families after marital disruption, especially the constraints in their access to affordable residential relocation. Proportionally, families headed by single parents are twice more likely than two parent families to relocate their residence to new neighborhoods after marital disruption (Cheng, 2002). Frequent changes in residence have short- and long-term effect on single parents and their children in terms of neighborhood environment satisfaction and social network building (McLanahan and Booth, 1989). In McKarthy and Simpson s (1991) study, they found that both parents would need to change the residence eventually three years after marital disruption despite either parent was awarded the custody and stayed in the old house. Families headed by female heads were more likely to change their residence than the male heads. Lin (1992) found the similar pattern for the residence change pattern between female parents and single fathers in a survey with single parents in Taipei. Providing adequate and affordable housing for the citizens were well written in the National Social Policy since 1967. Wang (1992) depicted that the government announced the
Oracle of Civil Housing in 1975 to expand the housing supply for the citizens. Three strategies to initiate affordable housing were included In the Oracle, such as the government directly involved in building houses, the land owners developed the housing project by offering loans, and the developer invested in houses construction. However, the expansion of the housing supply during 1970 and 1980 have been limited which mainly came from the government built. In 1989, the houseless with strong support from the public organized a protest movement in Taipei, which forced the government to take an active role in expanding the housing supply. The government promised to build 110 thousand houses in two years and provided favorable loans to private investors. With the driving forces of the favorable measures, the housing supply has increased dramatically for the past ten years. Up to 2000, the housing supply exceeded the number of the households by 112% (Tasui, 2000). Although the vacant houses increased lately, the low income households did not enjoy the benefit of the oversupply of the housing. In response to the shortage of housing supply for the poor, Taipei City Government built four public housing projects between 1970 and 1979 which intended to provide 1924 house units for the low income families. According to the survey, only 30% of the low income families had home ownership, when compared to the 80% of the general population (Taipei City Government, 20000). 1n 2002, 1745 households resided in the four projects and another 900 low income families were waiting for the admittance. In expanding the house supply for the poor families in Taipei, the Government negotiated 98 vacant house units from the civil housing project to supply the needy. In 1998, the Government began the first housing subsidy program in Taiwan to expand the renting capacity of the poor families. But the strict regulation and fixed subsidy level discourage the poor families to apply. Overall, several measures were taken by Taipei City Government to expand the housing supply to the poor families in the city. However, the growth of the poor population exceeded the expansion of the housing supply for the past few years due to the economic recession. The more effective measure was called for to expand the housing supply for the poor. Huei-Hsing Housing Project was intended as an experimental program in 1999 to provide a transitional housing for single parent families, coupled with intensive social work services. Based on the investigation with the Project, this paper examined the change between the entry and exiting among the residents in order to understand the constraints that hinder low-income single parent families from relocating. Short-Term Housing Project: Huei-Hsing Apartment On June of 1999, Taipei City Government opened Huei-Hsing Apartment, a short-term housing project for female single parents with their children in the community. Huei-Hsing Apartment was a government owned and managed property which consisted of 24 three bed room units. Before 1999, the Apartment aimed to provide rental housing for single women who newly moved to the City for work. However, the City Council raised the question of injustice issue that the government owned property seemed to assist the privileged, instead of the disadvantaged. And, at the same time, the City Mayor Ma promised to expand affordable housing supply in his 1998 re-election campaign, in response to an urgent housing demand for public housing among single parent families. Therefore, the Bureau of Social Services took back the Apartment and renovated it into a family form housing project in 1999. The project was designed as a transitional housing option preparing newly formed female-headed families for a permanent residence after one year, maximum two years. Applicants were evaluated as high risk families based on the measures of five family 2
characteristics before the entry, which then were summed as a crisis weighting score. Female heads were more likely to be admitted when they became single parent less than one year, they had at least a child aged below 6 years old, they lived with at least one handicapped member, their income level below poverty line, and they were unemployed for two years. One or two families shared one three bed room unit with 60% of fair market rent adjusting to different family size. According to the Bureau, the Project expected the 24 three bed rooms would be able to house 48 families with 120 persons at a time to it maximum capacity. However, mothers with major mental diseases diagnosed or eminent risk of domestic violent partners were directly rejected from the application due to the concern for security issue in collective housing living. In addition to short-term housing provision, a social worker team with five staff was organized to station on the site, which included a supervisor, two social workers, and two clerks. Social workers provided the residents with crisis intervention, supportive family services (ex. day care), personal and group counseling, employment and housing information referrals, employment and career advice, etc. Two clerks were in charge of rent collecting and facility repairs. The team was designed to provide accessible services to help the newly move-in residents to regain their family function in properly caring for children. Living in a stable but a transitional residence, the single parents were guided by the team regularly to develop a relocation plan to find a permanent housing, either in the market or in the public housing projects, within one year, maximum two years. Data and Analysis The data used for analysis in this paper came from four sources of data collecting. First, the data from the in-depth interview with three social workers was collected to recreate the Project establishment. Second, two single parents who exited from the Project were in-depth interviewed to inquire a holistic view of participating in the Project. Third, a focus group was formed by the current residents to share their first-hand experiences of living in the Apartment and give their opinions on the Project in terms of achieving it transitional housing goal. Fourth, the analysis of service records kept by the social worker team were conducted to examine the demographic characteristics of the residents, the length of their participation, the social work service provisions, and the destination of permanent residences at exiting. The percentage distribution and bivariate analyses were provided to describe the profile of the participants and compare the change of their situations between the entry and the exiting. Findings According to service records, up to the November of 2002, one hundred sixty-one female-headed families applied for admitting housing project, as indicated in table 1. Eighty households, a total 203 persons, entered into the project and resided in a unit at least one month. Eighty-one households were not admitted into the project due to several reasons. Among the residents, fifty-seven households of them, a total 143 persons, have moved out to a permanent residence and twenty-three households, a total of 60 persons, have still lived in the Apartment. Among the non-residents, forty-four households quitted at the beginning of the application procedure and eight gave up the admittance after completing the application. Twenty-nine of them were rejected during the application due to the concern for mental problems and the risk of violence attack. 3
Table 1: The distribution of applicants and the residents Residence status Percentage Current residents 23(14.3%) Exiting residents 57(35.4%) Rejected applicants 29(18.0%) Give-up applicants 52(32.3%) total 161(100%) Based on the interviews with social workers, some single parents who decided to give up the application or the admittance were characterized as incline to share the unit with another family, not allowing extended family members living together, the location inconvenient for work and school, and too much regulations, and too high rent price. For those who were rejected to be admitted, twelve of them were suffered from mental illness, eight had a recent history of domestic violence, and another eight rejected applicants had something to do with the eligibility issues in terms of income level, accompanied children. However, if comparing the crisis weighting scores calculated by the social workers, the statistically significant difference of the scores between the residents and the rejected was not found in the data (t=.820, p=.421). It implies that the rejected were not as different as the residents in terms of their family characteristics, such as the length of forming a single parent family, the number of the younger children, the number of handicapped family member, and the distance of the income level from the poverty line. It was the concerns for mental illness and domestic violence single parents experiencing at the entry determined the admitting of applicants. Based on the data collected through in-depth interviews and focus group, it was the fair price of the Apartment attracted single mothers to place application at first. In comparing the market rent, the newly single mothers considered the rent bated by the project was affordable which equals to 60% of the market price. Appreciating with a social worker team stationed, they felt more secure to have someone watch over and more accessible to the needy services and information. Among the eighty residing mothers, forty-eight out of them were the divorced and the separate (60%), twenty-four were the unwedded (30%), and eight were the widowed (10%), as indicated in table 2. Comparing the residents to the main population of single parents, the main route to becoming a single mother in the Project group was more likely to be through divorce and out of wedlock, instead of widowhood. The social workers interviewed explained the skew distribution of the unwedded mothers in the Project group as a result of lacking sufficient shelters in Taipei to care for them. The Project was viewed by the mothers as a temporary shelter for expecting the laboring and taking care of the newly born babies. Moreover, in contrast, the divorced mothers in the group were not as resourceful as the widowed mothers, who sometime did not encounter the immediate relocation and sharp economic loss after marital disruption. Because, the widowed mothers who involuntarily became single parents were more deserving than the divorced to available informal assistances in Chinese cultural context. 4
Table 2: The distribution of the marriage status between the main population and the Project group marriage status main group Project group widow 51.8% 10% divorced or separate 36.4% 60% unwed 11.8% 30% The average age of the single mothers was 37 years old, with the age range between 23 and 55. Most mothers except nine indicated that their physical conditions were in good health. As for family composition, sixty-five percent of the residing households had at least one child below six years old which was consistently accorded with the child factor in calculating the crisis weighting score. Thirty-three percent of the households had at least one child between 6 and 12 and less than thirty percent had one child between 12 and 18. It implies that the Project group was composed of a younger cohort who just started their early stage of family cycles. Single mothers received all kinds of needy services from the social worker team during participating in the Project. According to the service records, the team provided mainly the information referrals and counseling services. The referrals included information related to public aid, day care, housing, employment, legal consulting, medical services, etc. The personal counseling service provisions dealt with emotional support, parenting effectiveness, social adjustment problems, etc. Among the residents, over seventy percent of the residents received at least four or to five kinds of services, which ranked from personal counseling, referral for public aid, referral for employment information to parental education, as indicated in table 3. It implies that the pattern of service provisions portraited the role of social workers as a counselor to heal the psychological distress, instead of a housing consultant. And the intentional merging of two families to living in the same unit did cause social workers to spend some time dealing with the disputes between households. Table 3: The service categories social workers provided Service Category Percentage of received Mediation between residents 23.8 Referral for public aid 77.5 Employment information 72.5 housing information 38.8 Personal counseling 77.5 Parental education 47.5 Day care 36.3 Medical referral 6.3 Legal services referral 21.3 It is better to inquire the situation of the residents who exited out of the Project to understand the effect of the Project as a transitional housing. It was indicated that fifty-seven households left the Project until the November of 2002. The average length of their residence was 14.8 months, ranged from one month to two years, the maximum rule. A52.5% of the households resided in the Project over one year and only ten lived up to two full years. It seemed that single mothers stayed in the Project in a short term. When comparing the employment status, 44.6% of single mothers were unemployed at the entry, but all of them were employed at the exiting. Among thirty-one employed mothers at entry, only four were 5
unemployed at the exiting. It implied the stable housing seemed to be helpful for the exiting mothers shifting from unemployment into employment. Table 4 indicated the routes of exiting out of the Project the once residents took and the destinations of their relocation. According to the service records, fourteen out of fifty-seven once residents exited out of the Project because the contract for one year or two year occupancy period was mature. Sixteen households were forced to leave the Project due to their irresolvable disputes with other residents or social workers. Both groups exited out of the Project involuntarily. But twenty-seven once residents well prepared to exit out of the Project following their own planned steps. In terms of the destinations of the relocation, thirty-one out of fifty-seven once residents rented houses in the market after exiting the Project, thirteen were admitted into public owned rental houses, eleven moved back to live their relatives, and only one resident was able to admit into a public housing unit in a long waiting list. To be surprised, one resident relocate herself into her owned house. In considering the adequate space and affordable price of a permanent relocation, social workers tended to refer the information about public owned rental house to the resident in the Project. In table 4, those who exited out of the Project by plan seemed to relocate themselves into public owned rental houses more than market rentals. But residents through involuntarily routes tended to look more for their relocation in the market or move back to live with their relatives. Table 4: The routes to exiting the Project by destinations of the relocation Routes to exiting By contract By force By plan Total Home owner 0 1 0 1 Public rental 1 0 12 13 Market rental 12 10 9 31 Public housing 0 0 1 1 Live with relatives 1 5 5 11 Total 14 16 27 57 If cross check the service provisions by social workers and the routes of relocation, the bivariate analysis indicated that referral information about housing and employment were certainly helpful in preparing the once residents into a permanent housing by planned steps. It showed that single mothers received more referral information for housing (X2=5.534, p=.019) and employment (X2=4.418, p=.036) were more likely to relocate themselves through a planned relocation. However, based on the data from in-depth interviews and focus group discussion, the current and once residents expressed a strong wish for an extended period of residence from the Project. They indicated they could not find the affordable housing with proper space in the market due to exorbitant housing price and exclusive ownership as a result of unfavorable housing policy practice. Further, they also mentioned the prepared adaptation toward permanent residence, the household planning styles, and the perceived constraints of residential relocation among single mothers affect the following permanent relocation after exiting out of the Project. Conclusion This study then discusses the implications for housing policy reform and housing programs that could remove the constraints of affordable housing supply and improve the preparedness for permanent relocation among for low-income single-parent families. 6