A major piece of research on social disadvantage in urban areas has just been published by the Department of Social Protection. The Research Paper “Combating Social Disadvantage in Social Housing Estates: The policy implications of a ten-year follow-up study” has been prepared by Tony Fahey, Michelle Norris, Desmond McCafferty and Eileen Humphreys, among the leading social researchers in Ireland. The research is of considerable importance to policy-makers at national local levels in that it provides an evidence-based analysis of the challenges confronting government in its management of the severe levels of disadvantage in many of Ireland’s urban areas. The research itself was undertaken as a part of a wider paper research project ‘Progress and Problems in Social Housing Estates: A ten-year follow-up study’. This project was carried out between late 2007 and early 2009 in seven local authority housing estates in Ireland and took the form of a follow-up to a study of the same estates which had been carried out in the period 1997-1999. As such it provides the policy-maker with something which is all too often missing when it comes to policy development in the State, i.e. a longitudinal perspective which is underpinned by relatively robust data analysis.
The research examines seven estates : Fatima Mansions and Finglas South in Dublin City; Fettercairn, Tallaght, in South County Dublin; Deanrock estate in Togher, Cork City; Moyross in Limerick City; Muirhevnamor in Dundalk and Cranmore in Sligo town. It broadly finds that the combined effort of both local and national agencies have made a positive contribution to mitigation of some of the disadvantage in the estates. It does, however, highlight the real challenge of bringing some degree of convergence between these communities and the wider national population noting as it does the fact that it is only in Fatima Mansions that anything like a substantive convergence has taken place.
The report is refreshingly frank and given it is so frank it is positive to see a central Government Department being willing to publish the report, albeit that it is on the web-site of the now defunct Combat Poverty Agency rather than the Department’s own web-site. Presumably this is due to the fact that the study itself originated when the Agency was in place.
One of the criticisms is that the research highlights the fact that there is no standard definition of the concept of area-based programmes. This can and does result in programmes where it can be difficult to understand the policy objectives and to relate them to the expected outcomes, even if these are available. The research goes further to highlight that the lack of a standardised view of the policy interventions in such disadvantaged areas “is itself significant, as it reflects the ad hoc, piecemeal manner in which they have grown up over the past two decades and the absence of a strategic approach to their role”, something which many in local housing functions will already be conscious of.
This can lead to a situation where there is a lack of clarity in what policy may be seeking to achieve. Underpinned by a history of restricted data analysis it can be difficult to come to a point where having a full understanding of who is responsible and what is being spent in such areas. This seems to substantiate the work of the Fitzgerald Commission in Limerick. There is as a result the research finds “no way of arriving at a comprehensive national summing up of the amount of public funding devoted to area-targeted anti-poverty measures in Ireland at present…. Only the Combat Poverty Agency and the Department of the Environment and Local Government were able to provide comprehensive breakdowns of all the Area Based Investment funded…” The research does try to make such quantification, something which the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform would do well to note. They arrive at an estimate of average spend per disadvantaged household for 2006 of €4,680, or €90 per week. The question legitimately can be asked as to the impact of this spending in the absence of a clear policy direction at national level at the time. Fortunately the new Government does seem to appreciate this as it moves towards an outcome based policy environment underpinned by the comprehensive spending review.
In addition, the research highlights the poor targeting of funding, again something which will not come as a surprise to those addressing disadvantaged communities on a daily basis. While the research finds “that the combined effect of economic boom and area-based interventions on the estates over the study period was, with some exceptions, substantial and positive, only one estate (Fatima Mansions) improved sufficiently to narrow the gap with the national average.” This relatively disappointing outcome may be due to the confusing proliferation of programmes and schemes along with limited coordination at national level across all such programmes, again something which has been highlighted by the Minister for Social Protection. Such fragmented arrangements along with “the funding principles they operate are often inflexible in the light of local conditions, and while in principle they aim to empower communities in practice they are often rigidly controlled by centrally defined eligibility criteria and accountability regulations.”
The research also highlights a continuing fragmentation of local governance arrangements. It notes that other reports such as those reviewing the role of the county and city development boards have, over several years, identified the failure to provide such bodies with the powers to direct greater integration, alignment and coordination noting that “monitoring is generally restricted to discrete projects and there are no mechanisms for arriving at an overview of what all local interventions taken together amount to in particular neighbourhoods”. The research goes on to identify the lack of inter-departmental co-ordination and yet despite this:
“Progress made to date in the provision of intensive, high-quality support services for acutely disadvantaged households is one of the most positive developments of the past decade in services for disadvantaged areas. The need for these services arises particularly in the fields of health, education and criminal justice. Examples of good practice in all these areas can now be found in the estates in the present study and more widely in Ireland.”
The report is a must read for policy-makers dealing with area based interventions, particularly in urban centres but there are many points which will ring familiar to those working in more rural communities. The Department should be acknowledged for publishing the research. It is refreshing to see this and hopefully is indicative of a willingness to be more open to critical but clearly constructive analysis.
Given the significance of the research readers are recommended to access the full report.
