The Social Impact of Large-scale Housing Investment in Sunderland

1. The Social Impact of Large-scale Housing Investment in Sunderland Alan Middleton The Governance foundation

2. Project Aims: • Longitudinal Study: First Phase • To measure the social and economic impact of housing investment in Sunderland, looking at: • Housing management issues • Employment & unemployment • Community safety • Levels of education and skills • Poor health • Develop a methodology that can be used by other organisations

3. Objectives Measure changes over time in: • The social, economic and ethnic make-up of households • Social statistics relating to the housing, health, education, crime and employment of residents; • The relationships between these social indicators; • The experiences and views of residents with respect to their quality of life • Satisfaction with neighbourhoods, housing quality, housing management and area management;

4. Objectives Measure changes over time in: • Turnover and vacancy rates in particular property types and areas, and how this impacts on the social, economic and ethnic make-up of different neighbourhoods; • The impact of new-build on the social, economic and ethnic make-up of neighbourhoods; • The experience of vulnerable groups, such as lone parents with children, black and minority ethnic groups, long-term unemployed, elderly residents, and young people.

5. Gathering and analysing data: • Secondary data • Census data • Secondary data that is available from local agencies. • The data that is gathered by Gentoo for management purposes • Primary data • Interviews with key informants • Focus groups • Household survey

6. Outcomes • An analysis of the relationship between housing investment and social change; • The creation of an analytical process for investigating the changing relationship between different social indicators • The development of a model that uses primary and secondary data to link the indicators

7. Report Structure 1. Background 2. The Policy Context 3. The Problem of Evidence 4. Overcoming the Evidence Problem 5. Gentoo’s Contribution to the Sustainable Communities Agenda 6. External Stakeholders’ Perceptions 7. Community Cohesion 8. Satisfaction with Homes and the Environment 9. Vulnerable Groups 10. Refurbishment, Renewal and Displacement

8. The Policy Context • The National Context: • Sustainable, Cohesive and Empowered Communities • Inter-Agency Working • Evidence-based Policy • The Regional Context: Housing and Sustainable Communities • The Regional Economic Strategy • The Regional Spatial Strategy • Housing and the RSS • The Regional Housing Strategy. • Sunderland’s Strategy for Housing

9. Regional Economic Strategy • ONE will work with banks and community organisations to help people from deprived communities to achieve financial inclusion • Equality and diversity will be at the heart of their activities • In response to ‘empowering people to work’, ONE will concentrate on the most deprived urban communities and groups

10. Regional Spatial Strategy • RSS will support housing, economic and infrastructure investment in the City Regions to deliver sustainable communities • Nine social objectives relating to indicators of deprivation • BUT • How is community defined in this context? • How will evidence be shared? • How will the objectives be monitored

11. Regional Housing Strategy • 90% of region’s housing in 2022 already exists • Improvement and maintenance is to be based on community involvement • Need for holistic approach that integrates housing and community/neighbourhood renewal strategies • Housing providers have an important role in neighbourhood management and may lead on community and neighbourhood-based initiatives • Housing investment to be better aligned with health and social service provision

12. Regional Housing Strategy 2 • The strategic objective of meeting community and social needs is one of the most challenging because of the complexity of the issues and the number of agencies involved • There is currently a lack of evidence of the level and nature of need • Problem of evidence is recognised, but responsibility is passed on to others.

13. Sunderland Housing Strategy • Housing is the cornerstone of any sustainable community • Addressing housing issues cannot be done in isolation, part of creating sustainable communities for diverse populations • Partnership for shared outcomes with health, social care, education, community safety and the economy • Working in neighbourhoods throughout the city • ‘These partnerships have a responsibility to ensure that all priorities are tackled and addressed and that the strategy is monitored and evaluated’.

14. Region-City-Community • The regional and city authorities all buy into the Government’s agenda for communities • The regional authorities think that implementing, monitoring and evaluating community-based strategies are the responsibility of ‘sub-regional’ authorities • City authorities think they are the responsibility of non-statutory partnerships • Role of Gentoo and other RSLs? • Role of the Community and Voluntary sectors?

15. The Problem of Evidence

16. For local inter-agency collaboration in support of sustainable, empowered and cohesive communities: • What information needs to be shared? • What would constitute evidence? • What evidence is needed to evaluate policy outcomes? • What spatial scale is appropriate for collation and analysis? • Whose responsibility is it to gather and evaluate this information?

17. Secondary data and Neighbourhood Analysis • National: Neighbourhood Statistics • More information than ever at district level • Lack of evidence for neighbourhood policy • Not technologies and techniques for spatial analysis • Not the indicators of quality of life • Regional and local • Lack of coherence between administrative and spatial boundaries • Low priority given to gathering and using neighbourhood statistics • Different spatial units of analysis • Failure to share information

18. CLG Data for Neighbourhood Renewal(P&SD* excl. Census & IMD) Total P&SD Sources and Spatial Units • Population 89 6 LSOA; MSOA • Deprivation 87 5 All DWP LSOA (2004 only) • Employment 155 36 16 DWP LSOA; 18 ONS MSOA • Education 177 5 1998 WARD; 2003 WARD; 3LSOA • Health 197 3 2DWP; 2003 ward • Housing 69 4 OA; Postcode; 2003 ward; MSOA • Crime 83 2 LSOA; MSOA • Liveability 82 13 11 MSOA; 2003 ward; 1 LSOA • Diversity 65 5 3 DWP LSOA; 2 MSOA • Disability 43 3 All DWP LSOA • Children 193 7 1998 ward; 2003 w.; 4LSOA; MSOA • Older People 50 2 All DWP LSOA All DWP LSOA data available for 2004 only; otherwise 2003 wards *Periodic and Sub-District

19. IMD and inter-agency collaboration • 3 of the worst 12 LSOAs cut across 2004 ward boundaries • Neighbourhoods • Most of the LSOAs cover more than one neighbourhood/community • Management Areas • In the 12 most deprived parts of Sunderland, two of the LSOAs involve four Gentoo Management Areas and a further four LSOAs are covered by three Management Areas.

20. IMD and inter-agency collaboration • The housing management area with the worst overall IMD score in Sunderland does not come out worst in any of its constituent parts • The East End management area has the 2nd and 3rd worst LSOAs, but in a third LSOA, only its results for unemployment appear in the bottom ten LSOAs • Can partnership working take account of this and wider diversity? • Can we get the evidence that would allow targeted inter-agency collaboration?

21. Evidence and Inter-agency Collaboration • Crime and community safety data exists, and it can be aggregated to management boundaries and estates • Education data exists, but it is not even made available to other departments within SCC • Health data does not currently exist at the levels needed for collaborative working

22. Policy • Every Child Matters • Youth Justice • NHS based on Prevention • The elderly in the community • Housing, Health, Social Services, personal security • The Individual and the Community • Growing need for Neighbourhood-based data

23. Community Cohesion and Satisfaction

24. Policy Exchange • ‘We can’t buck economic geography’ • ‘Newcastle is not successful enough to deliver prosperity to Sunderland’ • ‘Our fourth indicator [for successful towns] is perhaps the most important: where do people want to live?’ • ‘People on the ground know the reality of success and failure better than any policy-maker or analysts can ever hope to do.’

25. Demos: Council-resident relations 1. I haves 2. ‘I have nots: Isolated and dependent, this group resents the fact that it needs public help for basics such as housing and benefits. They ….are frequently frustrated by the public sector’s failure to meet their needs effectively.’ 3.We haves 4. ‘We have nots: Housing estate activists who see collective action as a way to improve their lives…..’going into battle’ with the council for a fair share of resources.’

26. Demos & Trust ‘We found that low trust in Sunderland council was deeply related to the area’s economic decline and the resented sense of dependency this has created among the community. While there was strong social trust among communities in the area, this has been formed through adversity and there was a sense of solidarity in opposition to the council’

27. Household Survey: Social Cohesion • Low levels of social capital • Neighbours • Family ties • Joining organisations • Variation across communities • South Hylton Green & Pennywell

28. Satisfaction with Homes and Environment • Overall satisfaction levels in Sunderland • Satisfaction in South Hylton Green • Satisfaction Analysis for Selected Estates

29. Overall satisfaction with flat/house (Tenants and Owner Occupiers)

30. Household Survey: Satisfaction with Home • High levels of satisfaction with flat/house (90%) • No difference between renovated tenants and owner occupiers • Only 6% think rent is poor value for money • Main difference is between renovated and non-renovated, but only 7% of NR rate rent poor value

31. Household Survey: Problems with Home • Low levels of reported problems • Only one problem reported by more than 10% • draughts (12%) • 10% had problems with windows

32. Tenant Satisfaction with Gentoo

33. Satisfaction with work done

34. Satisfaction with Sunderland City Council

35. Household Survey: Satisfaction with Gentoo and Council • High level of satisfaction with Gentoo (81%) • High level of satisfaction with improvements (83%) • High level of Satisfaction with Sunderland City Council (85%) • Can residents distinguish between the two organisations?

36. Household Survey: Satisfaction with Environment • Very high levels of satisfaction with their neighbourhoods (94%) • Peace and quiet is most important reason (45%) • Good management by Gentoo is not seen as important for further improvement (2%)

37. Household Survey: Neighbourhood better or worse • Two thirds said no change in past 5 years • Main reason for better neighbourhood is condition of properties (35%) • Main reasons for neighbourhoods being worse: • Anti-social behaviour (51%) • Problems with young people (49%) • Vandalism (30%) • Crime (28%) • Neighbours (27%) • Lack of youth facilities (26%)

38. Partnership and Participation • Gentoo has an extensive range of community participation activities • Very little interest in more participation in management of housing and environment

39. Do residents have enough influence over Gentoo Management?

40. Would you like a bigger say?

41. Empowerment?

42. Conclusions • Think Tank interpretations of life in Sunderland don’t reflect residents’ perceptions • Primary data supports an alternative view • Something needs to be done about secondary data to support partnership working in the future • Strategic policy-making organisations need to take this on Board: responsibilities and monitoring • Gentoo will develop their Community Assessment Model, with the assistance of the Governance Foundation, and hopefully in partnership with others

43. Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master subtitle style The Governancefoundation Contact: Alan Middleton at: alan.middleton@governancefoundation.org www.governancefoundation.org 3 Brindley Place Birmingham B1 2JB 43