Kathy Arthurson

Challenging the Stigma of Public Housing: Preliminary Findings from a Qualitative Study in South Australia

Many poor suburbs in Australia with higher than average numbers of public housing tenants do not simply suffer material disadvantage but also suffer from poor reputations that are reinforced though stigmatising assumptions that portray their residents negatively. Preliminary findings from qualitative research undertaken in Adelaide, South Australia paint a somewhat different picture of some residents in public housing which counters such stereotypes and assumptions and suggests that the picture is not as bleak as the stigmatised accounts suggest. This article examines the ways in which residents in stigmatised suburbs and housing actively resist and challenge the negative image ascribed to them and concludes by considering the public policy implications that come from the research.

Redevelopment of public housing estates : the Australian experience

This paper provides an overview of some key aspects of the different contemporary approaches being utilised across the Australian States to redevelop public housing estates. Questions are raised about the effects of the projects on existing and future tenants, both in terms of the strategies used to address particular concentrations of disadvantage on the estates and the success in maintaining the current and future supply of public housing stock. In addition, the study points to the need for further evaluation of the approaches used in redevelopment, as currently little is known about the success or otherwise of the projects.

Enabling pathways to health equity: developing a framework for implementing social capital in practice

BackgroundMounting evidence linking aspects of social capital to health and wellbeing outcomes, in particular to reducing health inequities, has led to intense interest in social capital theory within public health in recent decades. As a result, governments internationally are designing interventions to improve health and wellbeing by addressing levels of social capital in communities. The application of theory to practice is uneven, however, reflecting differing views on the pathways between social capital and health, and divergent theories about social capital itself. Unreliable implementation may restrict the potential to contribute to health equity by this means, yet to date there has been limited investigation of how the theory is interpreted at the level of policy and then translated into practice.MethodsThe paper outlines a collaborative research project designed to address this knowledge deficit in order to inform more effective implementation. Undertaken in partnership with government departments, the study explored the application of social capital theory in programs designed to promote health and wellbeing in Adelaide, South Australia. It comprised three case studies of community-based practice, employing qualitative interviews and focus groups with community participants, practitioners, program managers and policy makers, to examine the ways in which the concept was interpreted and operationalized and identify the factors influencing success. These key lessons informed the development of practical resources comprising a guide for practitioners and briefing for policy makers.ResultsOverall the study showed that effective community projects can contribute to population health and wellbeing and reducing health inequities. Of specific relevance to this paper, however, is the finding that community projects rely for their effectiveness on a broader commitment expressed through policies and frameworks at the highest level of government decision making. In particular this relationship requires long term vision, endorsement for cross-sectoral work, well-developed relationships and theoretical and practical knowledge.ConclusionsAttention to the practical application of social capital theory shows that community projects require structural support in their efforts to improve health and wellbeing and reduce health inequities. Sound community development techniques are essential but do not operate independently from frameworks and policies at the highest levels of government. Recognition of the interdependence of policy and practice will enable government to achieve these goals more effectively.

Social Mix, Reputation and Stigma: Exploring Residents’ Perspectives of Neighbourhood Effects

By exploring the debates about poor reputations and stigmatisation of neighbourhoods in which social housing is concentrated, this chapter argues that living in a neighbourhood with a poor reputation can have a negative effect on individual outcomes. Neighbourhood reputation is not necessarily based on current neighbourhood attributes, but can be rooted in the history of a place. Neighbourhood regeneration programs often aim to change the reputation of a neighbourhood. Despite the belief that living in a neighbourhood with a poor reputation can lead to potentially harmful effects, in-depth knowledge about the dynamics of stigma and whether the situations are improved post-neighbourhood regeneration are limited. This chapter investigates how neighbourhood residents see their neighbourhood and how they think others see their neighbourhood. Using data collected from three neighbourhoods across the city of Adelaide, Australia, it is shown that respondents’ own ratings were more favourable than their judgements of how they felt that people from outside the area would view the neighbourhoods. It is hypothesised that this negative external perception might influence the behaviour of neighbourhood residents. The findings also suggest that introducing homeowners into social housing estates to some extent improves the external reputation of the neighbourhoods.

Practice review: Social mix and disadvantaged communities: policy, practice, and the evidence base

Over the next decades, hundreds of millions of dollars of public and private funds will be spent on regenerating disadvantaged Australian public housing neighbourhoods. If regeneration is not conducted well, as the Americans and British have often found, the exercise may have to be repeated in another decade or so, meaning a substantial waste of precious resources. Contemporary Australian urban regeneration policies, aimed at disadvantaged public housing neighbourhoods, are generally concerned with the issue of balancing social mix to create more socio-economically diverse communities. The major strategy to achieve a more balanced social mix is through diversifying housing tenure, to lower concentrations of public housing and increase owner occupied housing on estates. Two recent research articles in Urban Policy and Research are concerned with the outcomes of social mix strategies in contemporary Australian regeneration policy (Arthurson, 2002; Wood, 2003). The major issues raised by these articles consist of the problematic nature of the objectives set for tenure diversification and the gaps and ambiguities in the knowledge base for the benefits or otherwise of social mix (Arthurson, 2002; Wood, 2003). Taken together, the research articles demonstrate that there is insufficient linking between the underlying assumptions made for social mix in contemporary regeneration policy and the empirical evidence base. These concerns, coupled with the uncertainty of how to move beyond the present impasse about social mix, form the basis for this practice review. First, some brief comments are made about the issues raised by Arthurson (2002) and Wood (2003) about the incomplete and inconsistent empirical evidence base for social mix. Then, the important issue of placing social mix in its historical context, which is not considered by the two articles, is taken into account.

Questioning the Rhetoric of Social Mix as a Tool for Planning Social Inclusion

Within many urban planning circles it is almost accepted as a truism that a diverse social mix leads to more sustainable communities. This is generally concluded on the basis that the opposite situation—lack of social mix—leads to a multitude of problems. Proponents need only point to recent civil disturbances experienced in some neighbourhoods with high concentrations of social housing, as evidence of the problems associated with spatial concentrations of disadvantaged residents, including at Rosemeadow, Macquarie Fields and Redfern in New South Wales. On these estates, whether rightly or wrongly, concentrations of social housing tenants are associated with a range of issues. These include anti-social behaviour, crime, welfare dependency, drug and alcohol dependency and images of a socially excluded underclass eschewing work and disengaged from mainstream societal norms and values. Negative depictions such as these also contribute to the stigmatisation of neighbourhoods in which social housing is concentrated. The effects for social housing tenants may include increased difficulty in gaining employment due to postcode discrimination and poorer quality local services. These circumstances have prompted renewed interest by urban and social planners and housing policy makers in the idea of ‘social mix’ as a means to achieving social inclusion for the most disadvantaged groups. This article first explores the ambiguity of the concept of social mix before briefly asking what is new about its current permutations. Next, it reviews the evidence for some of the supposed benefits of social mix.

Social Mix and the Cities

The idea of balanced social mix, or creating communities with a blend of residents from different housing tenures and income levels, is of common concern for contemporary housing and planning policies in Australia, the UK and the USA. In Australia, the statebased Shelter organisations have run several workshops about the issue and in the UK the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has recently released a consultation paper on “Planning for Mixed Communities” (ODPM, 2005). Internationally, social mix and the related issue of neighbourhood effects have been the subject of much debate, which is reflected in the flurry of articles and special editions of major international journals, including Housing Studies (Vol. 17, No. 1 and Vol. 18, No. 6) and Urban Studies (Vol. 38, No. 12). This interest is by no means new as the concept of ‘social mix’ has informed Australian, British and US new town planning policy since the post Second World War years. In general, this model of town planning anticipates benefits for disadvantaged residents of coexisting with homeowners and working residents, in balanced heterogenous communities. However, the importance placed on social mix has waxed and waned over time and the policy goals, expectations and meanings and values embedded in the concept of social mix have also varied. During the 1970s in Australia, for instance, the concept was tied to addressing poverty and achieving redistributive ideals and equity in the distribution of government resources and as a reaction against the development of mass public housing projects. At that time, social mix was thought to achieve better access to services for disadvantaged residents and also to build more stable communities.

Urban Planning and Health: Revitalising the Alliance

Abstract The idea that important links exist between urban planning and health, or where people live affects their health and well-being and opportunities to lead productive lives, is not new. Historically though acceptance of these links is inconsistent. In the mid-nineteenth century strong connections were made between urban planning and the health of populations in addressing public health issues arising through rapid industrialisation. In the twentieth century recognition of these links became more tenuous. Echoing insights from 200 years ago, but reflecting on contemporary health issues the World Health Organisation, Commission on the Social Determinants of Health (2008:4) recently called for the need to place considerations of “health equity … at the heart” of urban planning policies. This paper reports on research that evaluated the Health in Planning Project, which aimed to contribute to better integration and in the longer term embed health considerations into policy within the planning sector. The four year project funded by the South Australian State Department of Health was a partnership project with the Department of Planning and Local Government. The external evaluation of the project used a mixed method design including individual interviews, focus groups, and analysis of project documentation and policy and planning documents.

Tenure social mix and perceptions of antisocial behaviour: An Australian example

Antisocial behaviour including littering and graffiti, crime and social disorder pose an important social problem within contemporary cities. Perceptions regarding the extent of antisocial behaviour are likely to differ not only along socioeconomic and demographic lines of the individual but importantly are also likely to differ depending on the type of neighbourhood or community one resides in. In particular, it is often assumed that antisocial behaviour, both real and perceived, will be higher in localities characterised by higher levels of public housing. Situated broadly in the antisocial behaviour and neighbourhood effects/social mix literature this paper examines perceptions of antisocial behaviour reported in a large sample survey in Australia focusing specifically on how responses differ by the housing social mix characteristics of the neighbourhood the respondent lives in.

'What is the Meaning of ‘Social Mix’? Shifting perspectives in planning and implementing public housing estate redevelopment

ABSTRACT This paper unravels a variety of perspectives about the concept of social mix, drawing on a case study of the implementation of a redevelopment project in Melbourne. The first part provides a theoretical overview of two internationally predominant academic debates around policy interpretations of this concept, namely social mix as a means for promotion of social inclusion; and as a state-led form of gentrification. These two arguments are usually presented as one, with social inclusion and reductions of concentrations of disadvantage one side of the ‘social mix policy’ coin, and state-led gentrification the other. This paper contributes to the national and international literature on public housing estate regeneration and social mix policies through exploring the question of whether these two ideas about social mix were shared by different stakeholders as the ‘messy’ process of redevelopment unfurled. Interviews were conducted with public tenants, homeowners and homebuyers, private renters and local service providers at the Carlton Housing Estate to explore the diverse perspectives of various stakeholder groups as estate design and implementation shifted. The study identified that as a result of the global financial crisis and the developers exerting pressure on government there was a gradual move away from perceiving social mix as a policy tool for encouraging social inclusion at Carlton, between public housing tenants and private residents, towards a different form of social mix and inclusion. Contrary to intentions, the revised form of social mix at Carlton was perceived as a means to harness market capital and attract higher income residents to the inner city.