Joyless ride on estates of despair

The housing Green Paper and Spending Review 2000 have now outlined the government's plans for social housing and identified the resources that will be available to carry them through. Most welcome are the promised increase in ADP, the commitment to bring all social housing up to standard in 10 years, and the recognition that mixed tenure, mixed income schemes represent the best way forward for new development. Also impressive is the energy and intellectual heat that radiates from the work of the Social Exclusion Unit and its Policy Action Teams, and Richard Rogers' vision of dynamic, compact cities now enshrined in the Urban White Paper.

All this is for the future. By contrast, on the old and tired council estates that make up the bulk of this nation's social housing stock, nothing much has yet changed. Much of the new money will not come on stream until next April; special funding through SRB, the New Deal and Health and Education zones is patchy; and the National Strategy for Area Renewal has yet to be rolled out.

Two decades of underfunded public services have taken their toll. Estate residents feel that little is being done for them, and that conditions on estates are getting worse, not better. Some, lacking hope that things will improve, weigh up whether to stay, or move elsewhere to better their family's life chances. If households with choice move away, the task of area renewal will become even harder. It is a race against time to prevent already troubled social housing estates from deteriorating further, and the clock is ticking.

This is the verdict of 'Communities in the Balance', a study of social exclusion on housing estates commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and published last week. The report is based on qualitative research carried out on large council estates in three diverse settings, each exemplifying different social and economic conditions common in post-industrial Britain: - northern area that has lost its traditional industries; - a medium sized town enjoying rising prosperity; and - a London borough in which relatively rich and poor people are housed in close proximity. The estates selected all had their troubles, but were far from the worst.

The research's main focus was the nature of social exclusion, its causes and its consequences in deprived neighbourhoods. It found that there is a great deal to be done to make estates like these attractive and safe places to raise families.

Listening to excluded people

In the first stage of the research, estate residents identified as 'vulnerable to social exclusion' - a minority on each estate - were asked to talk about their own experience of estate life. They described an estate culture which:

- tolerated crime, drugs and antisocial behaviour;

- accepted low personal achievement and educational attainment;

- set norms that were different from mainstream society; and

- exerted strong pressure on others to conform to them.

For many, joblessness and the lack of money and motivation meant that the estate was where they spent most of their time. They were tolerant of a poor environment and had little optimism that things could be changed for the better.

Most of the younger residents were poorly qualified and skilled, with low levels of literacy. Of those jobless since leaving school, most had also had an unstable family background, brought up by multiple adults - usually one or other birth parent with a succession of partners.

There was toleration of a level of non-personal crime, within limits which had little to do with the law. Many younger respondents said they were themselves regular drug users; some young men admitted involvement in crime, including stealing cars, dealing drugs, theft and violent behaviour.

Front line workers' perceptions

Next, front line public service workers involved day to day with the estates - from housing, health, social services, police, education, employment, youth and community services - were asked for their perceptions of social exclusion and how it should be tackled. Some saw it as largely a product of estate life, and thought that when councils allocated families to such estates, they were setting them up to fail.

They were well aware of the problems that families faced: "What are the problems on the estate? Well, we've got drugs, youths on streets intimidating families, known families going around and causing trouble to everyone else, poverty and the benefits trap, truancy, exclusion from schools, teenage pregnancy, poor parenting, lack of pre-school facilities, lack of child care facilities. Oh, and low expectations."

Gaps in service provision existed, they said, not because providers failed to understand the needs to be met, but because resources were spread so thinly. Even where SRB topped up resources for some services, council budget cuts were causing the withdrawal of other services from the same areas.

Many front line public service workers were demoralised. The organisations they worked for had been repeatedly restructured to cope with reduced levels of staffing. They felt they were losing the battle on troubled estates: things were getting worse, not better; problems like drugs and crime were not being contained; and the life chances of successive generations were being damaged.

Communities in the balance

Finally, panels of estate residents demographically representative of each whole estate community were asked for their views. These differed significantly from those of the minority 'excluded' groups in many important respects. They were much more critical about the appearance, state of repair and unmodernised condition of their estate, but were also more likely to believe that estate problems could be tackled, given the will and the money.

There was considerable concern about the ineffectiveness of the council and police in dealing with antisocial behaviour and the widespread availability of hard drugs. Residents felt their estates had been largely abandoned by the public services. Parents said they found it difficult to instil positive social values in their children when the authorities appeared unwilling or unable to prevent the crime, vandalism and drug dealing that took place openly on these estates.

Yet, while residents in each area thought their estate was 'going downhill', most remained broadly content to live where they did and many saw their estate as a friendly place. But on all the estates, residents' commitment to stay was by no means absolute. One young mother summed up the views of many:

" I grew up here, I've lived here all my life. I like the estate. But if it gets any worse, I'll have to move out."

The realities of social exclusion

This research demonstrates that social exclusion, often addressed at the level of individual households, has structural causes and a strong community and neighbourhood dimension. The collapse of blue-collar work in traditional industries has contributed directly to the increasing concentration of poverty and disadvantage on social housing estates, reinforced by the use of lettings policies as a welfare 'safety net'.

Over the last 20 years, housing estates have become poorer places with more jobless households, fewer in work, poorer services and a poorer physical environment. Poor areas require constant attention, and seriously disadvantaged and vulnerable families need consistent support. But the underfunding of public services over the last two decades led to the withdrawal of services from housing estates at a time when the number of people vulnerable to social exclusion was increasing.

Although those vulnerable to social exclusion were in the minority on each estate, they dictated the common 'estate culture', which embodied views and attitudes different from the majority. As a consequence these estates were particularly difficult places for families with children. Concerned parents adopted protective strategies to prevent peer pressure involving their children in crime and drugs. Vulnerable families were exposed to conditions in which even families with much better resources would find it difficult to thrive.

If the National Strategy for Area Renewal is to succeed, it will have to turn around estates like these. This study shows that will not be easy. Long term exclusion from work and its rewards has unwelcome and lasting consequences, both for individuals and for the communities in which they live. But decades of tight budgetary constraint and internal restructuring have left public services in poor shape to make the step change needed to turn troubled estates around.

What this research shows is that mainstream public services - housing, social services, education, police - are a vital life support to families living on these estates. The problems are not insuperable and, importantly, the public sector does not need to do this on its own, but if the energy of existing estate residents is to be harnessed, they will need confidence that there is a solid long term financial commitment to the level of public services that these estates need.