Past eras of housing change and the impact on life chances today and in the future Rebecca Tunstall HSA 14th-16th A

1. Past eras of housing change and the impact on life chances today and in the future Rebecca Tunstall HSA14th-16th April 2010

2. Researching housing and life chances using the UK cohort studies �Cohort studies� � follow a whole generation from birth onwards Focus on children and families Can examine change over lifetimes Can examine differences between generations and eras Results: 1) Feinstein et al. (2008) The public value of social housing, Smith Institute 2) Lupton et al. (2009) Growing up in social housing in Great Britain: The experience of four generations 1946-2006, TSA/JRF/Scottish Govt 3) Tunstall et al. (forthcoming 2010), HCA/TSA Significant and positive effects of social housing with the index of advantage would suggest that socio-economic status matters Significant and positive effects of social housing with the index of advantage would suggest that socio-economic status matters

3. The four British birth cohort studies

4. Egs� c. 1946 cohort - Alan Sugar, born 1947 c.1958 cohort - Paul Merton, born 1957 c.1970 cohort - Gerri Haliwell, born 1971 2000 cohort??

5. Questions HOW HAVE PAST ERAS OF CHANGE AFFECTED HOUSING CIRCUMSTANCES? HOW HAVE CHANGING HOUSING CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTED LIFE CHANCES? HOW CAN RESEARCH BE LINKED TO POLICY FOR THE CURRENT ERA OF CHANGE?

6. Change in housing circumstances over individual lifecourses - in all eras Through childhoods - Incremental improvement in quality and desirability Incremental tenure transition Young adulthood � the exceptional period First independent households Lose housing quality and desirability More mobility Radical tenure change Adulthood - Incremental improvement in quality and desirability Continued tenure transitions (Late adulthood � wait�)

7. Eg. Cohort members with running hot water

8. Eg. Cohort members in homeowner households

9. Eg. Cohort members in private renting and �other� tenures

10. Eg. Cohort members in houses not flats

11. Eg. Cohort members in overcrowded households

12. Eg. Cohort members with 2 living rooms

13. Change between eras In general, substantial improvements 1946-58-70-2000: Transformative increase in proportion of cohort members in homes with bathrooms, kitchens, hot water, central heating; larger homes, fewer families overcrowded This constitutes reduced absolute �housing deprivation� But: Difficult early adulthood period extended; with greater class differences in timing of transitions Transformation of housing tenure: relative sizes, relative quality, neighbourhood context and association with class These changes may constitute increasing inequality in housing circumstances between individuals, or increased relative �housing deprivation�

14. Eg. Cohort members with bathrooms

15. Eg. Cohort members in homeowner households

16. Eg. Private renting and �other� tenures

17. Eg. Cohort members in social renting households

18. Changes in relative housing quality and desirability between eras, demonstrated through tenure

19. Socio-tenurial polarisation and depolarisation: Relative chance a child�s parents are in top 40% of �Index of Advantage� compared to bottom 40%

20. Change in life chances over the life course for 1946-58-70 cohorts As you get older, expect improvements in terms of: Life satisfaction (after early adulthood) Cigarette smoking (after early adulthood) Self efficacy* Basic skills* Highest qualifications Expected stability or ups and downs in: Employment rates Benefit claimancy* �Malaise�* Depression* Expect things to get worse in terms of: Self-rated health Obesity Exercise (* = info for 1958, 70 only)

21. Change in life chances between generations The late twentieth century saw �improvements� in terms of: Cigarette smoking Highest qualifications Employment rates Benefit claimancy* �Malaise�* Self-efficacy* There was little change between eras in terms of: Life satisfaction Self-rated health Exercise* The following worsened: Obesity Depression* Basic skills problems*

22. What role did housing and housing change play in these changes? We looked at tenure, just one aspect of housing circumstances We compared adult outcomes of those �ever� and �never� in social housing in childhood. Results: Strong correlations; stronger for later cohorts Eg 1970 cohort at age 34 in 2004 �Never� in social housing in childhood (in PRS or home ownership) Score 3.13/4.00 for health Smoke ave 3.0 cigs/day 86% in work �Ever� Score 2.92/4.00 for health Smoke ave 5.5 cigs/day 79% in work How much due to selection effects?

23. Control variables used to try to remove �selection effects� At cohort members� birth Father�s SES Mother�s SES Father�s education Mother�s education Household size Whether mother smoked during pregnancy Was mother a teenager when the cohort member was born Was father (or mother) present in household Financial difficulties in family Child�s gender Region Early childhood (ages 5/7) Cohort member�s test scores for academic achievement Cohort member�s mother�s rating of their attentiveness and problem behaviours Health as reported by nurse Height Weight Lone mother Mother�s malaise Later childhood (ages 10/11 and 16) Parental expectations about the child�s schooling Child�s school engagement Whether stayed on for post-compulsory schooling NB - not directly linked to social housing access critieria

24. Some correlations remained after controls 1946 � very few 1958 - for women eg for cigarette smoking, malaise, depression, well-being, benefits 1970 - for women and men eg for self-rated health, smoking; for men eg malaise, depression, employment, benefits, education Significant and positive effects of social housing with the index of advantage would suggest that socio-economic status matters Significant and positive effects of social housing with the index of advantage would suggest that socio-economic status matters

25. What are the implications of unexplained associations between childhood tenure and adult disadvantage within eras? Tim Leunig, LSE (Inside Housing 7.8.09): �Children should be kept out of social housing at almost any cost� 1) Feinstein et al. and Lupton et al.�s authors� views: No direct evidence that social housing tenure has caused significant harm to life chances that we could confidently avoid by any realistic housing policy Social housing has contributed to major absolute improvements of past eras It has been and will inevitably continue to be an important tenure for children and families 2) We studied the wrong thing!! Observation effects! We did not have a theory to link childhood tenure to adult outcomes! Tenure is widely used as a proxy for social disadvantage. Arguably, tenure is also crude way to look at relative �housing deprivation� Significant and positive effects of social housing with the index of advantage would suggest that socio-economic status matters Significant and positive effects of social housing with the index of advantage would suggest that socio-economic status matters

26. What are the implications of differences in associations between eras? What might explain these differences between eras? Increasing numbers of hidden selection variables? Intensifying neighbourhood effects? Or - increased �relative housing deprivation� between eras (crudely encapsulated by tenure)?

27. Policy ends Past eras: �For over a century, social housing has offered families and individuals the home they need� (Ruth Kelly MP, SoS, CLG, foreword to Hills 2007) What did we expect housing and public investment/expenditure on it to do? Tackle absolute �squalor� Current era: ��but� how can it help people get on in life? How can it underpin social cohesion, and opportunity for all?� (Kelly) New expectations: Reduce impact of prior disadvantages? Wipe out impact of prior disadvantage? Provide �return� on investment? Significant and positive effects of social housing with the index of advantage would suggest that socio-economic status matters Significant and positive effects of social housing with the index of advantage would suggest that socio-economic status matters

28. The �past era� problem of providing a �decent home for every family� has not gone away 2000 cohort: Children and families �homeless� (�had to move out of a place and had nowhere permanent to live�): Birth-9mths 7% 9mths-3 yrs 7% 3-5 yrs 7% In damp homes: 9mths 13% 3 yrs 12%

29. Maintaining equity given rising general quality is another old problem�

30. �with correlates that create concern�

31. �for future life chances

32. A newer problem: Children in sh almost excluded from non-deprived neighbourhoods

33. Research means to policy ends We can�t expect housing and investment in it to wipe out prior disadvantages while tolerating relative inequality in housing circumstances themselves Social housing may still offer �families and individuals the home they need� (Kelly) - but less able to offer the home they want The home people want is relative to the homes other people have But - we don�t know how to conceptualise or measure �relative housing deprivation� We don�t know how unequal housing circumstances are or what the trends are A task for research: Model of (relative) �child poverty� and �fuel poverty�? Based on continuous rather than categorical data (eg tenures) eg value of homes, internal space, satisfaction with homes..? Eg families with fewer than 4 rooms have below 60% median rooms and are in (relative) �space poverty�

34. Further info Feinstein et al. (2008) The public value of social housing, Smith Institute http://www.housingcorp.gov.uk/cfg/upload/pdf/life_chances.pdf Lupton et al. (2009) Growing up in social housing in Great Britain: The experience of four generations 1946-2006, TSA/JRF/Scottish Govt http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/growing-up-social-housing Tunstall et al. (forthcoming 2010), HCA/TSA r.tunstall@lse.ac.uk

36. What are the implications of unexplained associations between childhood tenure and adult disadvantage within eras? Tim Leunig, LSE (Inside Housing 7.8.09): �Children should be kept out of social housing at almost any cost� 1) Feinstein et al. and Lupton et al.�s authors� views: No direct evidence that social housing tenure has caused significant harm to life chances that we could confidently avoid by any realistic housing policy Social housing has contributed to major absolute improvements of past eras It has been and will inevitably continue to be an important tenure for children and families 2) We studied the wrong thing!! Coul dhave studied link bewteen housing circumtdnances or fmaily advnatged and life chnaces Arguably, childnre should be kept out of homelessness, dmap and overcrowded homes, private renting and low-value home wonership at any cost Significant and positive effects of social housing with the index of advantage would suggest that socio-economic status matters Significant and positive effects of social housing with the index of advantage would suggest that socio-economic status matters

37. Tenure and neighbourhood??

38. Authors� views (i) Social housing has been, continues to be, and will continue to be an important tenure for children and families No direct evidence that it has caused significant harm to life chances that we could confidently avoid by any realistic housing policy Research has not shown that �under Labour social housing has become a drag-anchor on social mobility� (Centre for Social Justice 2008) (Childhoods studied were in 1958-74 and 1970-86) Much of children�s life stories may be �written before they're even born� (Centre for Social Justice 2008), but individual factors eg. parents� SES, are strong and better understood drag-anchors. The role of social housing is unclear Context likely to be important eg changing labour markets, increasing inequality Likeyt o be �hiddne variables�, crises like rel beakdown, past oelessness that partly explain selection into social hosuing and were not controlled for Didn�t compare results for PRS � most obvious comparator/alternative - with social housing Didn�t look at effect of reduing squalor on life chnaces Significant and positive effects of social housing with the index of advantage would suggest that socio-economic status matters Significant and positive effects of social housing with the index of advantage would suggest that socio-economic status matters

39. Authors� views (ii) Even if we knew connection was causal, we do not know that �a responsible housing policy� can help re-write that story� (Conservative Party 2008) No support for �keeping children out of social housing� or any broad anti-social housing policy Alternatives - eg PRS - may have been and may still be worse As more children have been kept out of social housing by lack of supply/parental choice, outcomes for those in have worsened For outcomes we researched, non-housing policies seem much more obvious eg smoking cessation, education and training. Significant and positive effects of social housing with the index of advantage would suggest that socio-economic status matters Significant and positive effects of social housing with the index of advantage would suggest that socio-economic status matters

40. ?? What chages fastest What do we not mewasure? How will lifecourse effects pan out

41. ?? Studies which have examined both �tenure� and �neighbourhood effects� simultaneously have found a neighbourhood effect independent of individual tenure (eg. McCulloch and Joshi 2001). Importantly for this research question, others have found that part (but not all) of an apparent �tenure effect� is a neighbourhood effect (Ellaway and Macintyre 1998).

42. Cohort members who grew up in social housing c. 1946 cohort - Alan Sugar grew up in a council house in east London c.1958 cohort - Paul Merton grew up in a council flat in south London c.1970 cohort - Gerri Haliwell grew up on a council estate in Watford

43. Relative chance a child�s parents are in top 20% of Index of Advantage compared to bottom 20%