The Government has announced an attack on mixed income communities.
The previous coalition government certainly showed no interest in the idea of building or maintaining mixed income communities. This logic is now being pushed further and we are witnessing an all out assault.
The Government will:
- Force local authorities to sell council housing in richer areas
- Continue to squeeze the local housing allowance
- Cap the total amount of benefits a household can receive at £23,000 pa
The combined impact of these policies will be that deprivation will be more concentrated in certain areas and there will be fewer mixed income communities.
This all comes at a time when academics in America are finding more and more evidence that growing up in mixed income communities is good for children in low income households.
Of course, under New Labour there were legitimate criticisms that the rhetoric of ‘mixed communities’ was far more often used to justify destroying social housing than to help poorer people to live in richer areas.
What Lawrence Katz and others are looking at is slightly different. They found that children in poor households who grow up in richer areas do better in a number of ways than children in poor households who grow up in poor areas.
This is true for different races and genders. Similarly, they found that children who moved to poorer areas, did less well as adults than those who stayed in richer areas.
This is not to say that poverty is inevitable. However, it does appear that it’s better to be poor in a mixed income neighbourhood than to be poor in a poor neighbourhood.
Housing and neighbourhood policy should aim to be part of eradicating poverty. While poverty is still a feature of our country, housing and neighbourhood policy should aim to make sure that as many poor children as possible can grow up in richer areas. The Government is failing to do this. What’s the phrase for the opposite of evidence based policy?