PLACES APART? The Initial Report of CASE’s Areas Study Ruth Lupton February2001 CentreforAnalysis of Social Exclusion TheESRCResearchCentreforAnalysisofSocialExclusion(CASE)wasestablishedinOctober 1997withfundingfromtheEconomicandSocialResearchCouncil.ItislocatedwithintheSuntory andToyotaInternationalCentresforEconomicsandRelatedDisciplines(STICERD)attheLondon SchoolofEconomicsandPoliticalScience,andbenefitsfromsupportfromSTICERD.Itisdirected byHowardGlennerster,JohnHills,KathleenKiernan,JulianLeGrand,AnnePowerandCarol Propper. OurDiscussionPaperseriesisavailablefreeofcharge.Wealsoproducesummariesofourresearchin CASEbriefs,andreports fromvarious conferences andactivities inCASEreports.Tosubscribe tothe CASEpaperseries,orforfurtherinformationontheworkoftheCentreandourseminarseries,please contacttheCentreAdministrator,JaneDickson,on: Telephone: UK+2079556679 Fax: UK+2079556951 Email: [email protected] Website: http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/Case  RuthLupton All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicitpermissionprovidedthatfullcredit,includingnotice,isgiventothesource. CONTENTS Summary i Introduction 1 TheSpatialDimensionofSocialExclusion 1 CASE’sStudyofDisadvantagedAreas 2 Chapter1:Identifyingand UnderstandingDisadvantaged Areas 5 IdentifyingAreasofConcentratedSocialExclusion 5 TheCharacteristicsandDistributionofPovertyWards 5 SelectingAreasandNeighbourhoodsforOurStudy 7 UnderstandingtheDynamicsofAreasofConcentratedSocialExclusion 15 Summary 19 Chapter2:TheTwelveAreas 20 Area‘Type’:Location,HousingandPopulationMix 21 AreaCharacteristics:WhataretheAreasLikeasPlacestoLive? 30 EconomicCharacteristics 30 Housing 33 ThePhysicalEnvironment 34 Crime,DrugsandSocialOrder 37 FacilitiesandServices 40 SocialOrganisation 42 ReputationandPopularity 44 Chapter3:Evidenceof Social Exclusion 47 BarrierstoWorkforceParticipationandDisengagementfromEducationandWork 47 HealthProblems 51 ASenseofPowerlessness 55 EarlyChildhoodDisadvantage 57 PolicyInterventions 60 AreaManagementandGovernance 60 Area-BasedRegenerationInitiatives 62 SpecialProjects,InitiativesandProgrammes 63 Chapter4:Is AnythingChanging? 65 StatisticalEvidenceofEconomicChange 67 PopulationChange 68 SocialInclusionandAreaChange 71 NeighbourhoodChange 74 Summary 75 Chapter5:Discussion and Conclusions 76 CommonlyExperiencedandDeeplyEmbeddedProblems 76 CommunityPotential,ServicesandInvestment 77 TheDiversityofDisadvantagedAreas 78 UnderstandingAreaChange:Elementsof‘Regeneration’andInfluencesonIt 79 CautiousOptimism? 82 References 84 ii SUMMARY TheStudy ‘PlacesApart?’isthefirstreportofCASE’sstudyofdisadvantagedareas.Thestudyaimstoestablish andexplainthecurrentdirectionofchangeinthepoorestareasinthecountry,wheresocialexclusion is concentrated. Are such areas recovering or getting worse ? And how are they faring relative to others ? Is polarisation increasing or decreasing ? What causes areas to recover or decline? Why do some recover and others not ? What are the impacts, positive and negative, of policy interventions, andwhatcanwelearnforregenerationpolicy? To answer these questions we are following twelve small areas in detail, over time, using both local data and qualitative information to understand the trajectories of the areas in relation to the cities or boroughs in which theyare located, and to the national picture.The areas were selectedtoreflect the distribution and characteristics of the top 3% most deprived wards in the country, using measures basedon1991Censusdata. This report is based on fieldwork and desk research carried out during 1999/00, and sets out the baseline position at the start of our study. We will follow the areas from this point until 2002 and hopefullyuntil2007. Findings CommonlyExperiencedandDeeplyEmbeddedProblems Themostdeprivedareasandneighbourhoodshavemultipleproblems: • Unemployment is higher than average, and in every case, levels of literacy and educational attainmentarelowerthanaverage. • Educational participation, both at school and among adults, is low and there is a thriving informaleconomy. • Thereareproblemswiththequalityandmaintenanceofthehousingstock. • Crime is above average and there are concerns among residents in all areas about drug use anddealing. • Shops, banks and other vital services are struggling, although a reasonable level of provision remainsinmostareas. i • The areas are all regarded as undesirable relative to other areas around them, and the stigma thatisattachedtothemisdifficulttoshift. • Levelsofphysicalandmentalillhealtharehigh. • Early childhood disadvantage associated with poverty and with parenting problems and family fragmentation is a common problem across the areas, starting a cycle of disadvantage thatisdifficulttobreak. • Manypeoplelackconfidenceintheirownabilitiesandprospects,andintheirabilitytoeffect change inthe neighbourhoodandinfluence decision-makingbylocalagencies.Inmanyareas there is a mistrust of authority and, under pressure, social networks in some communities havebecomenarrowerandlessinclusive. Many of these problems are deeply embedded. They have grown up over a long period, and have affected people’s sense of identityand confidence, and their attitudes andinteractions withothers,as wellasmoretangibleoutcomes.Theyarenotgoingtoberesolvedinafewyearsbygeneraleconomic recoveryorarea-basedinterventions. Sustainedinvestmentwillbeneededtoeffectchange. CommunityPotential,ServicesandInvestment Yet while there are severe problems, disadvantaged areas also have much to build on. Some of the very negative media coverage of these areas is resented by their residents and felt to be inaccurate. ‘Community’ has not collapsed. In over half of the areas, the strength of the community and the people init came throughas one of its major assets.Eveninareaswheretherehadbeenabreakdown of social order precipitated by the behaviour of some residents, residents did not describe a loss of community,but rather a tighteningof existing,trusted,social networks,albeit less trust andinclusion of newcomers. Most areas have strongformal social organisation as well as informal links. In some, residents are taking a lead in regeneration programmes. Existing community networks, self-help and mutualaidactivitiesareamajorstrengthoftheseareasanditisessentialthattheyareencouragedand supported. Services in these areas are under extreme pressure because of the high demands placed upon them. Some services, in some areas, are inadequate, and many people regard additional investment in mainstream services as critical. However, in most areas, the level of service provision is at least as good as in other areas in the city or Borough, and in some, it is better. The areas have certainly not been abandoned by public services. The provision of these services is seen as essential in limiting their problems. Two thirds of them currently have a major area-based programme funded by central government, or have recently had one. All are benefitingfromat least one area-based programme or ii zone,mostofwhichhaveonlystartedrecently.Thuscentralgovernmentfundsaregettingtothemost deprivedareas. Despite the problems, the areas have potential for improvement, and we should expect to see change forthebetterduringtheperiodinwhichwearefollowingthem. TheDiversityofDisadvantagedAreas It is a mistake to think of deprived areas as though they fit a particular blueprint. The areas in this study include inner city areas, outer estates, a seaside town and mining villages. There are areas of mixed tenure as well as Council estates, white working class areas as well as those with a dominant ethnic minoritygroupandthose withdiverse ethnicity.Some of the areas are relativelyattractive and in good physical condition. Others are extremely run down. Some have few empty properties while others are between a fifth and a half empty. Some are renowned for crime and drug problems, while others are not. Some have excellent facilities and services, while residents of others complain that they have been neglected over the years. In some, there is a myriad of community groups and voluntary organisations; in others relatively few. Residents of some talk about the strength, homogeneity and stability of the community, whilst others note rapid population change and a diversity of different people and interests. In some areas, our ‘baseline position’ comes at a time of very rapid change, whereas other areas are currently more stable. Some areas are experiencing economic recovery close to the national rate. Others are lagging well behind, even relative to other areasinthesamecities. Disadvantagedareas mayshare some commonproblems,but theyare vastlydifferent intheir history, character and infrastructure. What will be appropriate for one area may not be right for another. The study illustrates the need for locally tailored strategies, building on local knowledge and experience, aswellastheneedfornationalstrategiestoaddresscommondifficulties. UnderstandingAreaChange:Elementsof‘Regeneration’andInfluencesonIt Area and neighbourhood characteristics are of three kinds. When we talkabout an area improvingor declining, we may be referring to a number of different features or characteristics of the area, driven byinfluencesatdifferentlevels: • Intrinsic characteristics, well established and hard to change. These include location, transport infrastructure, housing and economic base. These are usually determined both by local factors andbroadercityorregionalinfluences. iii • Populationcharacteristics.Changesinpopulationcompositionalsotendtoreflectregionalorcity- wide trends, mitigated by local factors such as high crime or the quality and availability of housing. • Characteristics thatareacquiredovertimeastheleastadvantagedpeoplebecomeconcentratedin the least advantaged neighbourhoods. These include reputation, environment, facilities and services, levels of crime and disorder, and aspects of social life such as the extent of social interactionandresidents’levelsofconfidenceintheneighbourhood.Thesecharacteristicstendto be determined much more locally than intrinsic characteristics and population mix, and for this reasontheyaremoresusceptibletolocalintervention. Dire neighbourhood conditions are not an inevitable consequence of concentrated deprivation. They can be improved by good local management, sustained investment in services and effective involvement of local people. However, we need to distinguish between ‘management’ (these efforts to improve local conditions) and ‘regeneration’, which will also require action at higher levels; for example control over new housing development in the city, or strategic economic development. The studydemonstratestheneedforeffectivemanagementactionatthemostlocallevel,aswellasforthe integration of local regeneration strategies with much broader policies extending beyond the neighbourhood. Cautious Optimism Optimism about area change must remain muted at this stage. There have been neighbourhood-level changes in many areas; physical estate improvements, better facilities or more involvement in decision-making. Some areas have seen improved policing and reduced crime, and there have been improvements in most of the schools. But other problems are more stubborn. There remains a significant minority who are alienated from the world of education and work. Informal and illegal economies offer alternatives to formal work. Though unemployment has fallen significantly, it has fallen less, as a proportion of its 1996 level, than the national average and in most cases than the surrounding city or Borough. Drug dealing and use in some areas, where heroin has re-emerged, seems to be increasing. The cycle of deprivation fuelled by poor health and early childhood disadvantageisyettobebroken.Thesearebiggerproblemsforsocietyasawhole,andinareaswhere they are concentrated, their impact is profound and continuing. Despite some improvements, these areas still have severe difficulties.Theyremainwell apart fromthe rest of the country. Intensiveand continuinginterventionisstillneededtopromotetheirrecovery. iv Introduction TheSpatialDimensionofSocialExclusion LSE’sCentreforAnalysisofSocialExclusion(CASE)wasestablishedinSeptember1997,reflecting the growing importance of the notion of social exclusion in British social policy. Tackling social exclusionis,inthePrimeMinister’swords“ournationalpurpose”and“attheheartofallourwork” (TonyBlair,1997). Launchingthegovernment’sSocialExclusionUnit,TonyBlairdefinedsocialexclusionasbeing: “about income but it is about more. It is about prospects and networks and life chances. It’s a very modernproblem,andonethatismoreharmfultotheindividual,moredamagingtoself-esteem,more corrosive for society as a whole, more likely to be passed down from generation to generation, than materialpoverty”(TonyBlair,December1997) Thus, in the government’s understanding, social exclusion is multi-dimensional, incorporating more aspects of deprivation than simple material poverty. It is a relative state, reflecting inequalities between members of society rather than absolute conditions, and it is an involuntary one; society excludes people rather than them choosing to exclude themselves. And social exclusion is dynamic, applying not just to an individual’s current circumstances but to their future opportunities and prospectsandeventotheirchildren’sprospects(Atkinson,1998). Likepoverty,socialexclusionisspatiallyconcentrated. Comparedwiththerestofthecountry,the44 most deprived local authority districts have nearly two thirds more unemployment, almost one and a half times the proportion of lone parent households, mortality ratios 30% higher, roughly a quarter more adults with poor literacy or numeracy and two to three times the levels of poor housing, vandalism and dereliction (Social Exclusion Unit, 1998). More than one third of the unemployed livesinthesedistricts(Smith1999). At small area level, the contrast between the most disadvantaged areas and others is even more marked. For example, in Manchester, mortality ratios are more than 50% higher in the worst wards than the best, and proportions of low-weight births five times as high (SEU,1998). In Newcastle, the unemployment rate in the worst affected ward in April 1998 was nine times as high as in the best. 1 The poorest electoral wards in the country have two or three times as many people without work as theirmostadvantagedneighbours(LuptonandPower,2001,forthcoming). Thatpovertyisspatiallyconcentratedisnothingnew.IndustrialBritainhasalwayshadpoorareasand indeed,hasalwayshadstudiesofpoorareas(Glennersteretal.1998).However,overthelastcentury, the relative deprivation of the poorest areas has got worse as absolute poverty has diminished (Gregory et al. 1999). The gap between the poorest local authority areas and the rest is widening. Moreover, the 1980s saw a particular increase in intra-urban polarisation, with increasing contrasts between poorer and more affluent electoral wards within cities. For example, while economic inactivity fell in the best tenth of wards from 16.7% to 13.5%, in the worst tenth it fell much less (from29.3%to28.6%)(Hills1995). Localstudiesinthisperiodshowthesamepatternofincreasing polarisationandsharpeningresidentialsegregation.(NobleandSmith,1996;SEU,2000). The evidence suggests both an increasing polarisation between neighbourhoods, at least during the 1980s, and the simultaneous and inter-linkingconcentration of multiple problems in the same places. The Social Exclusion Unit has identified up to 4000 neighbourhoods which are not only poor but which are ‘pockets of intense deprivation where the problems of unemployment and crime are acute and hopelessly tangled up with poor health, housing and education. They have become no-go areas for some and no-exit zones for others.’ (SEU, 1998: 9). Just as some individuals in society are socially excluded, with multiple disadvantages and few prospects, some neighbourhoods, where problems are concentrated, mayalso be at riskof exclusion, gettingrelativelymore disadvantaged as otherareasgetricher. CASE’sStudyofDisadvantagedAreas Our study starts with this evidence of the existence of severely disadvantaged small areas and neighbourhoods. It aims to understand the dynamics of area trajectories at a level beyond the individual and the family. What is the direction of change in these areas, relative to others ? And why do some areas recover when others do not ? What is driving area change ? What is the impact, positiveandnegative,ofpolicyinterventions,andwhatcanwelearnforregenerationpolicy? Figure1showsthebroadquestionswhichourstudyaimstoanswer. 2 Figure1:ResearchQuestions Directionofchange ReasonforChange • Are the most deprived areas closingthe gap • To what extent does broad economic recovery on others, or getting further behind ? Is the drive change inthe poorest areas ? Dothe poorest polarisationofthe1980scontinuing? areas‘riseupwiththerisingtide’? Alternatively, do policies which reinforce area polarisation (eg • Is this pattern generalisable, or does it vary housing)predominateovereconomicforces? betweendifferenttypesofarea? • To what extent is area change driven by the • At what level is change taking place ? Are changingmarket for labour or housing? What are we seeing changes in the hierarchy of small the market forces which are impacting on the neighbourhoods within districts, or changes poorest areas, and what is their impact. Is an area in the fortunes of larger areas, cities or obsolete when the workforce is no longer needed regions ? Is the direction of change the or whenitsinfrastructurebecomesredundant?Or sameatalllevels? do areas revive after they hit rock bottom and the scopefornewinvestmentiscompletelyopen? • Is government intervention a key factor in area change? Can it prevent or reverse other trends or only manage decline ? Does it obscure or detract from the need for more radical long term policies for declining areas, or divert resources into areas with recovery potential at the expense of those whichcanbesaved? • Is area decline a symptom of dynamic migration patterns, with some areas constantly ‘zones of transition’ orarethereareasofpermanentpoverty withlittlemovementinorout? • Do areas gather their own momentum of decline, andifsohow? • To what extent are area problems created by the people who live in them, as cultures develop whichconflictwithmainstreamvaluesandhelpto fuelareadecline? • What is the relationship between population mix and neighbourhood conditions ? Is there a threshold of concentrated poverty that always generates decline ? Alternatively, is there a level of decline that always prevents beneficial populationmix? • At the local level, what factors protect against area decline ? What kinds oflocalinstitutionsand forms of civil societyhelp,andhowarethesebest developedandsustained? 3