Stigma towards social housing in Melbourne: Does social mix
14
Stigma towards social housing in Melbourne: Does social mix matter? May 2019
Transcript of Stigma towards social housing in Melbourne: Does social mix
Stigma towards social housing in Melbourne: Does social mix matter?
May 2019
Context
• International trends towards regeneration of public housing estates to create mixed-tenure developments
• In Melbourne, Kensington Estate underwent renewal through late 1990s and 2000’s
• Current program: Public Housing Renewal Program
Social Mix
• The creation of mixed-income and mixed-tenure communities will reduce “blemish of place” (Wacquant, 2007) and “spoiled identity” (Goffman, 1986)
• Middle-class neighbours provide good role models and bridging capital
• Creates spaces for capital accumulation in the city
3
Contact theory
• Contact between ‘in-group’ and ‘out-group’ members reduces stigma
• Lack of contact or exposure leads to cognitive bias
• Only certain types of contact are conducive of reduced stigma
Social contact theory and social mix
• Place-based stigma is ‘sticky’
• Stigma often travels with tenants even after they leave
• Mixed-tenure developments often result in different forms of stigma and greater feelings of surveillance and judgement
• Narratives often follow three themes:
• Pathological• Structural• Bureaucratic
4
Social housing and Stigma
1. What degree of stigmatization is directed towards social housing and social housing tenants in Melbourne?
2. Who is most likely to stigmatise?
3. Does social mix and contact impact stigmatization?
4. What narratives are used when describing social housing?
Stigma is: “an attribute, or characteristic, that conveys a social identity
that is devalued in a particular social context”
(Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998, p. 505)
Research Questions
7
Research Process
Presentation of findings
Survey Analysis
Online Survey
In-person surveysPilot Study
Survey testing with a focus group
Research Assistant
recruitment
Initial survey and research
design
• Intercept surveys• Boxes in doctors,
pharmacist, café • Attendance at
community events
• Advertised through Facebook groups
• Emails to community groups
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The focus of the analysis was to empirically test the level of influence of a set of drivers on the level of stigma, as measured by our multidimensional stigma scale (Table 1). To facilitate the analysis, we generated a stigma index based on a simple average of all answers. Our baseline empirical specification aims at testing a set of stigma determinants, as described in the equation below: To account for this, we also tested for the presence of heterogeneous effects and consider the following contexts: the quality of interactions between with public housing residents; general attitudes towards diversity and the level of satisfaction with one’s own residential arrangements. To be clear, we are interested in testing whether having had good interactions with public housing tenants, valuing ethnic and linguistic diversity, and being satisfied with living space and conditions changes private resident’s stigmatization of public housing tenants.
8
Variable Observations Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
Stigma index 275 3.60 0.72 1.57 5
Residency length (years) 275 6.8 3.40 1 15
Age 274 43.82 17.55 18 99
Male 275 0.44 0.50 0 1
Private resident 275 0.53 0.50 0 1
Income (000$) 234 87.47 63.04 0 200
Unemployed 275 0.36 0.48 0 1
Australian born 275 0.68 0.47 0 1
Tenant 275 0.19 0.39 0 1
Welfare recipient 275 0.051 0.22 0 1
Diversity index 220 2.88 1.26 1 5
House satisfaction 235 3.98 0.76 2.16 5
Descriptive Statistics
9
To what degree do people stigmatise?
Main question Item (as a statement) Measure
Please rate how you agree with
the following statements
Social housing residents should live near the rest of the community
1 – 5 Likert-based
agreement scale,
where 1=strongly
agree, 5 = strongly
disagree
Government should spend more money on social housing
It is easy to recognise a social housing resident from other people *
Social housing residents make positive contributions to the community
I would prefer not to live next door to a social housing resident *
Neighbourhoods with a mixture of public and private housing are better than
neighbourhoods that only have private housing
Social housing estates are places with great community spirit
* The rating in these statements is inverted (i.e., more agreeance means more stigma)
While private housing residents expressed a higher level of stigma (stigma rating of 3.71) than residents of public housing, public housing responses also reflected internalised stigma (stigma rating of 3.43).
10
Correlated with higher stigma • Being a private resident • Longer residency length• Older age
Correlated with lower stigma • Higher income• Higher satisfaction with
housing • Higher support for
diversity generally
Who is most likely to stigmatise?
Dependent variable: Stigma index
Explanatory variable I II III IVPrivate 0.312*** 0.303*** 0.338*** 0.337***resident (0.087) (0.095) (0.082) (0.064)Residency 0.058*** 0.048*** 0.049*** 0.039**length (0.010) (0.016) (0.011) (0.017)Age 0.010*** 0.008*** 0.007*** 0.008***
(0.002) (0.002) (0.002) (0.002)Male 0.051 0.053 0.095 0.117
(0.068) (0.099) (0.070) (0.087)Income -0.001*** -0.001***
(0.001) (0.001)COB fixed effects Y N Y NOccupation fixed effects N Y N Y
N 274 271 233 230R2 0.229 0.263 0.217 0.288
Stigmai = b1Privatei + b2 Incomei + b3 Residency lengthi + b4Xi + ui
11
There are low levels of reported interaction between public and private housing residents
Contact between public and private housing residents per se does not significantly reduce stigma
Positive interactions strongly reduces stigma
Proximity to Kensington is correlated with lower stigma, there is no relationship for Flemington
Does social mix and contact impact stigmatization?
12
What narratives are used in describing social housing?
Most common words used by private housing residents Most common words used by social housing residents
13
• Stigma exists, attached to narratives about social deviance, ugly built form and racialized discourses
• Internalised and external stigma • Stigma can be a coping mechanism
whereby ‘downward comparison’ is used to create social distance
• Contact per se is not correlated with reduced stigma, suggesting that collocating housing is unlikely to ‘organically’ reduce stigma
• Community events and facilities
might generate opportunity for positive interaction
• Demographic characteristics and attitudes toward diversity are far more significant in predicting stigma than is proximity to public housing
• Public housing tenants avoid being ‘othered’ and have positive connections to community
• Wide-spread awareness of ‘structural’ explanations of social housing
Conclusions
