Serious Housing Need in Palmerston North
A Report Prepared under the Homelessness Group for the
Palmerston North City Council
August 1999
David
Spicer. B.A. Hons
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page 2. Executive Summary of Research Findings.
Page 4. Section
1. Introduction.
Page 6. Section 2.
Housing & Housing Policy in New Zealand.
Page 9. Section 3. Previous Housing Research in New Zealand.
Page 13. Section
4. Presentation of Qualitative Data.
Page 22. Section
5. Presentation of Quantitative Data.
Page 40. Appendix 1. Quantitative
Housing Questionnaire.
Page 42. Appendix
2. Qualitative Housing Questionnaire.
Page 45. References.
Page 46. Acknowledgements.
List of Tables &
Figures.
5.1 General Characteristics: Percentage
Income Spent on Rent. (Pg. 25).
5.2 General Characteristics: Distribution of
Percentage Income Spent on Rent. (Pg. 26).
5.3 General Characteristics: Distribution of
Housing Tenure. (Pg. 26).
5.4 General Characteristics: Distribution of
Adult Equivalents per Room, (Pg. 27).
5.5 General Characteristics: Distribution of
the Number of People per Room. (Pg. 27).
5.6 Comparison of Housing
Types: State & Private Rentals. Method 1. (Pg. 28).
5.6a. Comparison of Housing
Types: State & Private Rentals. Method g. (Pg. 28).
5.7 Comparison of Housing Types: Average Percentage Income Spent on Rent compared to the Number of Rooms per House. (Pg. 29).
5.8 Comparison of Housing Types: Average Number of Children Compared to the Number of Rooms per House. (Pg. 29).
5.9 Comparison of Crowded & Non-Crowded Houses: Costs. (Pg. 30).
5.10 Comparison of Crowded & Non-Crowded Houses: Ratio of Adults to Children as Crowding Levels Increase. (Pg. 30).
5.11 Comparison of Crowded & Non-Crowded Houses: Distribution of Over-Crowded Houses Broken Down by Housing Tenure. (Pg. 31).
5.12 Comparison of Household Composition: Average Total Income After Rent is Paid, (Remainder), & Average Remainder per Child. (Pg. 32).
5.13 Comparison of Household Composition: Percentage of Crowded Houses Compared to the Average Number of Children per House. (Pg. 32).
5.14 Comparison of Household Composition: Average Percentage Income Spent on Rent Compared to the Number of Children per House. (Pg. 33).
5.15 Comparison of Wage Brackets: Average Percentage Income Broken Down by Wage Bracket. (Pg. 33).
5.16 Comparison of Wage Brackets: Ratio of People per Room Compared to Income Bracket. (Pg. 34).
5.17 Comparison of Wage Brackets: Percentage of Over-Crowded Houses Compared to Income Bracket. (Pg. 35,l, `1).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Summary of Qualitative Findings of Foodbank Survey
v
91% of all respondents paid more than 25% of their
income on rent, 56% of all respondents paid more than 50% of their income on
rent and 17% of all respondents paid more than 70% of their income on rent.
v The average percentage of income paid on rent for
individuals responding to the survey in Palmerston North was between 52% and
56%.
v The demographics paying the highest percentage of
income on rent were people
living in one or two bedroom accommodation and those with
incomes below $170 per week.
v 49% of all people surveyed lived in conditions
deemed overcrowded by the method employed in the survey.
v Families with more than 2 children were
significantly more likely to suffer from over-crowding.
Summary
of Statements Made by Community Groups on The Matter of Serious Housing Need
v Community groups in Palmerston North believe that
there is a Serious Housing Need in Palmerston North in terms of the
affordability of housing, the quality of housing and the level of crowding in
low income families.
v Community groups in Palmerston North stated that
rent levels were too high and income levels were too low for some families to
cope with accommodation costs.
v Community groups in Palmerston North stated that the
Market Rental system for State-owned rental accommodation was failing to
provide for some families.
v Community Groups stated that many families were
being forced into overcrowded conditions due to the inability to afford more
appropriate accommodation.
v Community groups in Palmerston North stated that
some houses were not of a sufficient standard to meet the requirements of the
houses occupants.
v Community groups in Palmerston North stated that
both State and Private Landlords do not show enough concern for their tenants
in providing adequate housing.
Summary of Recommendations Made by Community Groups
on the Matter of Serious Housing Need
v Community groups recommended that the minimum wage
should raised and that more steps be taken to reduce unemployment to make rental
properties more affordable.
v Community groups recommended that rents were
lowered, specifically by a return to income-related rental prices.
v Community groups recommended that Welfare agencies
become more responsive in aiding those experiencing familial crises requiring a
change in accommodation.
v Community groups recommended that a set of minimum
standards should be devised and strictly enforced for both State and Privately
owned houses.
Section 1. Introduction
The following report has been commissioned by the
Palmerston North City Council, and is conducted under the authority of the
Homelessness Group to determine the level of Serious Housing Need in Palmerston
North. The conclusions of the research will be used by the PNCC to assess
whether it will be necessary to advocate to Central Government on behalf of the
residents and community groups of Palmerston North.
1.1
Definition of Serious Housing Need
For the purposes of the research, Serious Housing
Need has been defined by the following three factors
v The affordability of housing for low-income residents in Palmerston North
v The amount of crowding in low-income households in Palmerston North
v The standard of housing available to low-income residents in Palmerston
North.
These three
factors are used in every section of the report to define both the nature and
measurement of Serious Housing Need.
1.2
Qualitative and Quantitative Data Analysis
The data collection of this research took on two dimensions, those of
qualitative and quantitative data collection, each based on the previously
described factors of housing need. First, it was quantitatively analyzed by a
questionnaire administered to foodbank clients. Second, Serious Housing Need
was qualitatively analyzed by a questionnaire sent to Community Agencies and
Governmental Departments in Palmerston North.
1.3 Qualitative Data
Analysis
The qualitative approach used in measuring Serious Housing Need
consisted of a questionnaire sent to 150 Community Agencies and Governmental
Departments in Palmerston North. It was felt that the input of expert knowledge
in the form of the experiences and opinions of Community Group and Government
workers would be an invaluable method of highlighting areas of need and
obtaining recommendations on how best to address these problems. A copy of the
questionnaire sent of to the community groups can be found in Appendix 2 of
this report. As can be seen, the questionnaire asks for opinion and experience
on matters directly related to the three dimensions of housing need previously
described. The data was then analyzed and sorted into thematic sets of opinion
and experience and summarized.
In constructing the questionnaire, the utmost care was taken to phrase
all questions as neutrally as possible. Likewise, a broad and diverse sample of
the Palmerston North community was strived for in the administration of the
questionnaire to avoid presenting a one sided or biased set of opinions in the
report.
1.4
Quantitative Data Analysis
Serious Housing Need was also measured qualitatively
through the administration of a separate questionnaire to clients obtaining a
food parcel from either the Methodist Social Services Foodbank or the Salvation
Army Foodbank. The questionnaire focussed on the affordability and the level of
crowding in low-income housing. The data was then analyzed with the intent of
assessing the percentage of people living in Serious Housing Need. Further
analysis attempted to identify specific demographics disproportionately
affected by Serious Housing Need.
The two surveys described above are treated as individual studies in the report, each with its own methodology, results and discussion sections.
Section 2. Housing & Housing Policy in New
Zealand
2.1 The
Importance of Housing in Society
Housing is an important aspect in the structure and functioning of any society. At the most basic level housing provides shelter, a basic necessity and determinant of the standard of living of any person, (Waldegrave, 1996). Beyond the basic provision of shelter, housing has been recognized as a provider of security, access to community resources, a physical anchor and a base for family life. As such housing goes beyond being ‘just another commodity’. It is a fundamental need for human existence, physically, economically and socially (Roberts 1998).
2.2 Housing Policy in New Zealand
New Zealand Governments past and present have favoured home ownership as the preferred form of housing tenure, (Waldegrave, 1996):
“Above all else …(it is) agreed that the main task of the Government is
to protect and promote the New Zealand dream of owning a suburban home”. (Cited
in Vera 1995. 11).
Home ownership was seen as providing the security of tenure and good
housing conditions desired by New Zealand residents. Expansion of the home
ownership sector was actively encouraged by a number of government backed
mortgage schemes and indirect aid via governmental support of the construction
industry. Reports indicate that home ownership accounts for 75 % of all housing
stock, ((Murphy 1994), and commentators on housing issues quote New Zealand as
having a relatively high standard of housing, citing the high incidence of home
ownership as a causal factor, (Waldegrave, 1996).
In addition to assisting New Zealanders to buy their own homes, the
State is also the single largest landlord and provider of rental accommodation
in New Zealand. Although specific policies have changed over time, New Zealand
Governments have always maintained an interest in providing affordable housing
to those wishing to rent. It is this
governmental role of Landlord that is of most concern to this report.
To provide a comprehensive account of these policies is beyond the
scope of this report. However to provide some historical backdrop the following
section briefly details the housing policies of the more recent Governments of
New Zealand.
2.3 Recent Changes in New
Zealand’s Housing Policy
In 1974 the then Labour Government formed the Housing Corporation of
New Zealand, (HCNZ), a conglomeration of the Housing Division of the Ministry
of Works and the State Advances corporation, (Waldegrave, 1996). This new
entity was to replace the National Housing Council of New Zealand. Given the
amalgamated nature of HCNZ, the new Government corporation was seen to fulfil a
multi-faceted role. It not only administered the aforementioned home mortgage
schemes, but also constructed and purchased new accommodation and provided
affordable State-owned rental houses to New Zealanders in lower income
brackets. Its services were aimed predominantly at low- income families in New
Zealand who would not be adequately provided for by the commercial housing
market. The self stated objective of the Housing Corporation of New Zealand
was:
“…to ensure that all New Zealanders, particularly those with Serious
Housing Need, have access to housing with secure tenure, which they can afford
and suits their needs, (Cited in Murphy, 1994. 627).”
In addition, the New Zealand Housing Commission was set up in 1974 to
monitor the implementation of the Housing Corporation of New Zealand’s policies
and the level of housing standards in New Zealand. (Incidentally, the term
‘Serious Housing Need’ was coined by the New Zealand Housing Commission to
describe a variety of housing problems from homelessness to the inability of
some residents to afford adequate housing).
The HCNZ continued in this vein until a radical new approach to state
provided housing was implemented in 1991 with the formation of the commercially
driven ‘Housing New Zealand’ (HNZ). The announcement of this change was part of
the National Party’s budget of 1991, a budget characterized by market
deregulation, corporatisation, and formation of the ‘State Owned Enterprise’.
Under this new deregulated system, HNZ was to be State-owned, but commercially
driven. Thus the Government decreased its involvement over the State Housing
sector by transferring control to a company charged with operating the assets
in a commercially successful manner. It was thought that modelling HNZ on a
commercial business would increase its efficiency, promote contestability in
the housing market and reduce public debt, (Murphy1994).
The most prominent change in the new State Owned Enterprise of HNZ was
a shift away from ‘income related rents’, (calculated at 25 % of a persons
income), to a system of ‘market related rents’, (Waldegrave, Oct 1996). This
shift to the more expensive market related rents was offset by the introduction
of an ‘Accommodation Supplement’ in July of 1993, a new type of benefit in
which the State paid a percentage of the additional rental costs incurred by
the shift up to market rentals, (Murphy 1994). The merits and demerits of these
housing reforms and policies have been widely debated.
2.4 Housing New Zealand in
1999
The current focus of Housing New Zealand is how best to match the supply of State housing to the demand for such housing by low-income families. Thus, HNZ is striving to improve accommodation in areas of high demand while reducing excess stock due to either low demand or failure of the property to meet the needs of low-income families. This reduction of housing stock is linked to HNZ’s ‘Home Buy Programme’ which helps New Zealanders purchase their own home from HNZ’s housing stock in low demand areas.
HNZ currently allots its housing stock on a ‘priority of housing need’ system. Thus those that are homeless, living in seriously overcrowded, substandard or health endangering accommodation are given top priority. Non-priority applicants include those living in inappropriate locations, moderately overcrowded conditions or occupying houses that do not meet their physical needs. Any properties that are not required to meet these priority needs are then rented to people deemed to be in low-income brackets. (Adapted from statement by Peter MacKenna, Housing New Zealand).
Section 3. Previous Research on Housing in New
Zealand
3.1 Introduction
Research into serious housing need and the wider issue of poverty in
the 1990’s has been relatively sparse. This dearth of information was recently criticised by Labour’s Spokesperson on Housing, Graham Kelley. Kelley claimed
that:
“…the current National Government’s deliberate strategy over the last
eight years has been to deny that its housing policies cause poverty by
refusing to collect data that would show the extent of the problem.” (Kelley,
media statement, 1999).
None the less, research into Serious Housing Need has been undertaken in some parts of the country, predominantly by Charles Waldegrave of the Family research Centre, Lower Hutt, and in Palmerston North by Sharon Vera of the Housing Advice Centre. However, even this existing research is hampered by a lack of consensus as to what constitutes Serious Housing Need and how it is best measured. Without a nationally recognized demarcation line of what constitutes an acceptable standard of living, it becomes difficult to estimate the extent of the problem of Serious Housing Need.
3.2 National Housing Research; Analysis of the 1996 Census
At a national level, data obtained from the 1996 National Census was
analyzed along a number of dimensions related to housing. This census was of
particular interest as it was the first nation-wide collection of data after
the return to market rentals in 1991. At a gross level it was noted that the
Housing Index of the Consumer Price Index rose by 48.3% compared to a 27.5%
rise in the overall Consumer Price Index between the years 1988 and 1997. This
rise in Housing Index was greater than any other component in the Consumer
Price Index. However, it was stated that this rise in accommodation costs did
not take into account the introduction of the accommodation supplement.
In terms of rented accommodation, a regional breakdown revealed that
Palmerston North had the seventh highest median weekly rent level of the 22
regions surveyed, (about $150 per week). Additionally, it was stated that
Palmerston North experienced a 120% change in median weekly rentals between the
years 1986 and 1996, the thirteenth highest of the 22 regions surveyed.
The report also examined the level of crowding within homes in New
Zealand. The report was quick to point out that, unlike the U.K., Canada and
Australia, New Zealand does not have an officially recognized definition of
crowding in its legal statutes. A clause in the 1947 Housing Improvement
Regulations does specify a measure of what constitutes an overcrowded dwelling,
however, the census information was not detailed enough to measure crowding
levels by this definition. None the
less, a measure based on the Canadian model of crowding revealed that 5.7% of
New Zealand households ‘required one or more additional bedrooms due to
overcrowding’. (This 5.7% equates to 69,200 households nationwide). However, it
must be stressed that this is not an official statistic based on Government
approved measures, (New Zealand Now, 1996).
3.3 National Housing Research; Qualitative Measures of Serious Housing Need
The primary provider of research into Serious Housing Need and Poverty
in New Zealand in the 1990’s has been Dr. Charles Waldegrave. Due to the lack
of recognized methods of measuring these constructs, Dr. Waldegrave has
favoured a qualitative approach to measuring the problem. The research
typically took the form of extensive interviews with ‘focus groups’ comprising
people most affected by Serious Housing Need and Poverty. From these interviews
central issues affecting these groups or specific areas of need within the
domain of housing where discursively isolated and examined. It should be noted
that these ‘Focus Groups’ consisted of residents solely from the Wellington
Region. The findings were presented in two documents: Maori Responses to
Changes in State Housing: “A Qualitative Look at the Issues, Choices and
Experiences,” (1996, parts II & I), from which the following summary is
taken:
The major problems facing the members of these focus groups generally
fell into two categories, those of the adequacy
of housing and the affordability of
housing. In this section I will briefly discuss the findings in each of these
categories.
To begin with the adequacy of housing in the Wellington area, the
general feeling amongst the groups was that there was a discrepancy between the
price of rental accommodation, (particularly that provided by the State), and
the quality of the product provided. It was reported that Housing New Zealand
houses were often not meeting the needs of their occupants. Common complaints
included the lack of repairs undertaken on the houses; the overall safety of a
residence with particular reference to the safety of children; lack of heating;
the dampness of the properties and the overall appearance of properties.
Subsumed within this category of adequacy was the issue of crowding, an
issue that received much attention in the report in its own right. Simply put,
it was reported that many on the panel felt that there were “too many people in
one place” in many rental houses in New Zealand.
The issue of affordability of accommodation was also raised a number of
times in the interviews. Although State Housing was seen as the cheapest option
of all accommodation, (an opinion backed by the breakdown of the Census data),
many interviewees felt that they were being forced
to live in State housing as they could not afford to live in private rentals.
Furthermore, it was reported that even though State Housing did provide a cheap
alternative source of housing, many families were not coping with the higher
rents imposed by the shift to market rental prices. In relation to the adequacy
of housing, it was felt that these increased rents did not lead to an increase
in the quality of the housing provided.
3.4 National Housing Research; Quantitative Measures of Serious Housing Need
Dr. Waldegrave also performed a series of quantitative analyses of a
sample of low-income bracket Wellington residents in 1996. The report
specifically examining the effect of the 1991 housing reforms on Maori
residents. (Note that the study drew its sample from residents in lower income
brackets and as such, the statistics in this summary do not represent New
Zealand residents as a whole). The findings echoed the theme of his qualitative
work emphasizing the affordability of housing and the level of crowding in each
household.
It was revealed that 43% of the households sampled were crowded
according to the aforementioned Ministry of Housing Crowding index. It was also
found that of the 99 households surveyed, 52 had been forced to move into a
state house as they were unable to afford any other form of accommodation. The
majority of households reported that they were “struggling” to pay their
housing costs and were frequently “short for other essentials after paying
their accommodation costs”. One third of the sample were paying more than 50 %
of their income on rent. Many respondents felt that they had little or no
choice in their decisions about housing. However, It was stated that: “…there
was a significant proportion of the sample that were benefiting from State
Housing and Income Support. However there is a considerable group of people
who, “simply want to get out”.
3.5 Local Housing Research
At a more local level, Sharon Vera of the Housing Advice Center,
Palmerston North conducted an extensive survey of residents in the Takaro Ward
of Palmerston North. Again, this sample comprised mostly lower income residents
and residents experiencing housing difficulty. The research contained a pairing
of qualitative and quantitative interviews with the residents with specific
focus on the amount that people were spending on their accommodation costs, the
level of overcrowding within the sample, home ownership versus renting and the
impact of governmental policies on housing.
The study reported that within the sample, most people were well housed
and that the majority of people owned their own home. However, the results also
revealed that those who did not own their own home were considerably worse off
than those who did. People living in rental accommodation moved more often, had
more difficulties in paying their housing costs and had more people per household
when compared to people who owned their own house. Comparisons between tenure
types revealed that those in State Housing paid a higher percentage of their
income on rent and were more likely to experience difficulty in meeting their
accommodation costs than residents in private rentals. It was also noted that
residents in State housing were more likely to experience problems with their
accommodation such as lack of heating and general repairs, (Vera, 1995).
3.6 Other Studies of Housing need and Poverty
Other studies focussing on the broader issue of poverty support the
findings of the specific studies in housing summarized thus far. A study by
Waldegrave, (1995) set up the New Zealand Poverty Measurement Project, a focus
group aimed at establishing an efficient, socially acceptable and accurate
method of measuring poverty in New Zealand. The poverty threshold was based
largely on income in relation to housing costs.
The group found that 18.5% of all New Zealanders fall below this
threshold, and that housing costs are the largest single cause of poverty.
Further breakdowns indicated that homeowners were less likely than people in
rental accommodation to fall below the poverty threshold. Further, it was found
that people in State provided rental accommodation were more likely to fall
below the poverty threshold than those in privately owned rental accommodation.
Finally, it was found that the majority of those who fell below the poverty
line were families with large numbers of children, the majority of this
sub-sample comprised single parent families, (Waldegrave et al. 1995 and 1996).
Further studies focussing on clients utilizing the services of foodbanks draw similar conclusions to the research previously described. The study reported that foodbanks have experienced substantial increases in patronage from the year 1990 to 1994, in particular a 383% increase between 1991 and 1992, an increase exceeding triple that in any other year. The study also showed that around 55% of their clients paid over 50% of their income on accommodation costs.
Section 4. Presentation of Qualitative Data
Methodology
4.1 Questionnaire
and respondents
The principal aim of the qualitative questionnaire was to present an unbiased and comprehensive range of opinions on the matter of Serious Housing Need from people and organizations around Palmerston North. A copy of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix 2 of this report. A total of around 150 questionnaires were sent to Community Groups and Government Departments around Palmerston North with a return rate of 26. Of the 26 responses, only one came from a Governmental Department
As with the other sections of this report, the focus was on the three factors comprising the current definition of Serious Housing Need: affordability, crowding and housing standards. As such, the following summary of the expressed opinions is thematically organized around these three factors with an additional category in which responders were asked to share their experiences and opinions on any other matters related to housing that they believed ought to be addressed. In each category the respondents were asked to give their opinion as to whether each of the three factors constituted a problem in Palmerston North. If a problem was perceived, the respondents were asked their opinion on the causes of the problem and whether they believed there were any possible solutions. Each question was phrased as neutrally as possible and the format of the questionnaire allowed the responders to state that they did not believe that there was a problem. (Please refer to Footnote one).
In summarizing the report, I have attempted to adopt as neutral a
stance as possible. In the interests of brevity and accuracy I have attempted
to draw all of the opinions and experiences expressed together into one
comprehensive account without the use of excessive inference or paraphrase.
Discussion
4.2 Housing Affordability
This was the factor of Serious Housing Need that people seemed to feel
most strongly about. This was shown both by the nature and by the length of
their responses to questions on this matter. The responses to the question on
the matter of the affordability of housing in Palmerston North generally
centred on four themes:
1)
The high cost of rental accommodation.
2)
The low level of income for many people.
3)
A lack of education and budgeting skills for many people.
4)
A general theme regarding the mentality of landlords both public and
private.
The responses in this section were fairly unanimous, with the general
impression that there is a problem with the affordability of low income housing
in Palmerston North and as to the causes of this problem.
4.2 a. Low Income and the Affordability of Housing
The problem of insufficient income was typically attributed to one or
more of the following factors:
1)
Benefits were set too low given the cost of low-income housing.
2)
The minimum wage was too low given the same consideration.
3)
The level of unemployment in Palmerston North was too high.
4)
Many people were consistently unable to cover rent payments due to
additional and often unexpected living costs such as medical bills, school
fees.
The most commonly suggested solutions to the problem were to: 1. Increase benefit levels, 2. Take steps to reduce unemployment and increase the minimum wage, and 3. To increase the frequency and quantity of emergency benefit payouts. Furthermore, it was suggested that WINZ be more financially supportive of clients faced with unexpected costs such as those in point 4.
4.2 b. High Rents and the Affordability
of Housing
In terms of rent levels in Palmerston North, it was commonly stated
that low-income rental accommodation was too expensive. This was commonly
attributed to the shift to market rentals and the subsequent increase in
overall rent costs. Furthermore it was commonly stated that the accommodation
supplement was not covering this overall increase and as a result people were
experiencing financial difficulty overall. Other causal factors included a
feeling that private landlords were often set their rent prices too high in the
knowledge that people would be forced to pay them as there was no cheaper
alternative. The suggested solution was to lower rents in the State sector. The
most common suggestion for achieving this end was a return to income related
rents, generally stated at 25% of income, (a ceiling of 33% was also
suggested).
4.2 c. Education and Affordability.
A lack of education in the area of housing amongst low-income
households was also a common causal factor cited as contributing to problems
with accommodation costs. More
specifically, the following life skills were felt to be lacking in some
low-income families:
1)
A lack of knowledge regarding where one could obtain assistance from
community groups such as the Housing Advice Center.
2)
Knowing one’s entitlement to benefits such as the accommodation
supplement and how to obtain them.
3)
The ability to properly budget one’s finances to allow for rent, food
costs and any other expenses that may arise.
To resolve these problems, respondents typically suggested that the government fund more adult education classes to teach these life skills of budgeting and how to obtain assistance in financial matters. Another common suggestion was that agencies such as WINZ and Housing New Zealand become more “user friendly” in their service such that each client is made fully aware of his or her benefit entitlement.
4.2 d Education and the Affordability of
Housing
The final theme common to this section regarded the broader and more
academic issue of the ‘mentality’ of the housing industry in New Zealand. Many
respondents felt that the current housing environment was more concerned with
profit, or ‘return on capital investment’ than it was with the provision of an
affordable product, or care for the people utilizing their services. This was often tied to the new market rental
system failing to provide for the customer and it was often stated that this
new system was insensitive to the needs of low-income families.
4.3
Overcrowding
4.3 a. The Financial Basis of Overcrowding
The responses to questions on overcrowding in Palmerston North
generally agreed with research in the area outlined in the previous section of
this report. It was felt that the problem was centred on the issue of poverty
in that overcrowding was a strategy employed by some low-income families to
deal with the inability to afford accommodation of their own. Thus,
overcrowding was commonly seen as a forced “pooling of resources” due to high
rents. Due to this perceived financial
basis to the problem, the suggested solutions to the problem typically mirrored
those of the first section, (pertaining to the problem of affordability of
housing).
4.3 b. Social factors in Overcrowding
Another major factor seen as contributing to the problem of
overcrowding was based on the social problems commonly experienced by some
low-income families. It was often reported that people were being forced into
undesirable temporary accommodation with friends or family following a family
break up or other disagreement. Particular reference was made to young people
and solo parents. As such it was suggested that affordable temporary
accommodation be provided in Palmerston North to accommodate these people in
need and assist them to move to more appropriate housing.
4.3 c. The Cost of Moving
Accommodation and Overcrowding
Closely related to this social determinant of overcrowding was the
issue of the expenses involved in shifting to new accommodation. It was
frequently reported that people in Palmerston North simply could not afford to
move into new and more appropriate accommodation due to the high cost of bonds
for the house and its amenities such as power and phone. It was suggested that
WINZ and Housing New Zealand take account of these difficulties and make better
financial provision for those with a genuine need to move.
4.3 d. The Availability of
Large Houses and Overcrowding
The final frequently reported factor in the problem of overcrowding was
the unavailability of large State houses with many bedrooms. It was felt that
Housing New Zealand’s housing stock did not adequately provide for large
families who needed many bedrooms to accommodate their children. Subsequently
these families were forced to live in small and inadequate accommodation.
Frequently suggested solutions included the purchasing of more multi-bedroom
houses by housing New Zealand. It was also suggested that Housing New Zealand
ceased selling its existing stock of large houses.
Some reference to extended families was made by three of the
respondents. However the level of detail was minimal with the typical statement
being that some cultures preferred to live together in large units. No mention
was made as to the extent of the phenomena. Thus, from the results of the
questionnaire it is impossible to address the issue of extended families in
relation to overcrowding in Palmerston North.
4.4 Housing Standards
The most commonly reported physical indications of the lack of housing
standards in Palmerston North were the lack of heating, the lack of adequate
floor and window covering, unsafe wiring and the overall age of rental
accommodation.
4.4 a The Causes of Substandard Housing in the Private Sector
The primary causes of this lack of quality of housing were generally
divided along State and Private lines. Thus it was commonly stated that
Landlords simply were not concerned about the standards of their rented houses,
and were only interested in making money off the tenants. “Uncaring” and “Slack” were among the more
common adjectives used in conjunction with landlords on this issue.
4.4 b. The Causes of Poor Quality Housing in the State Sector
A similar opinion was generally held in regard to State housing, though
it was phrased somewhat differently. The following comments were common when
referring to the quality of State housing.
1)
State houses were not kept up to a suitable standard.
2)
Housing New Zealand maintained low standards of accommodation or had
none at all.
3)
There was a marked discrepancy between the increased rents of state
houses and the provision of a quality product.
4)
State houses in Palmerston North were not inspected frequently enough
to enforce quality standards.
As can be seen, both instances are tied by a common theme of a lack of
consideration on the part of the landlord for the needs of his or her tenants.
4.4 c. Education and Substandard Housing
Once again, a lack of education was cited as a cause of a lack of
action being taken to improve the standards of low-income housing in Palmerston
North. It was stated that tenants did not know their rights in respect to
quality accommodation. An unwillingness to speak out and demand that repairs be
undertaken or that amenities be supplied was also cited as a common problem. A
small number of respondents stated that poor housing quality was sometimes due
to damage inflicted by the tenants.
4.4 d. Solutions to the Problem of Substandard Housing
The suggestions for solutions to this problem were once again fairly
unanimous. The majority of the responders called for the introduction of a set
of stringent regulations detailing a minimum standard of quality that all
houses in Palmerston North must meet. Furthermore, it was stated that these
standards must be rigorously enforced and maintained in both State housing and
Private rentals. This general scheme was phrased in a number of ways, including
the employment of a “building inspector” who would regularly check all rental
accommodation in Palmerston North. Alternatively a “certificate of fitness” was
suggested. Under this scheme a rental property would require a document stating
that it had met the legal requirements regarding fitness for human habitation
before it could be put on the market for rent. A suggestion was made that
community nurses could report back to some central authority on the quality of
the houses in Palmerston North. Another suggestion was to make a list of all
landlords with accompanying comments and ratings available to prospective
tenants.
4.5 Additional Comments
The majority of additional comments focussed on specific groups that
the responders felt were not being adequately provided for by the current State
Housing system. These included the provision of adequate community care for
psychiatric patients. It was felt that more effort should be put into
short-term convalescent and outpatient accommodation and support. Similar
opinions were voiced regarding the elderly in Palmerston North.
Students were also identified as being particularly in need of housing
assistance. It was stated that students were not coping under the current
Student Allowance/Student Loan schemes and as a result were being forced into
inadequate and overcrowded accommodation.
Other miscellaneous comments included a repeated call for more
emergency and temporary accommodation in Palmerston North. Furthermore, the
newly introduced Tenancy Tribunal Fee was challenged on the grounds that it
prevented those most in need from using the service. Concerns about actual
homelessness were raised, (though they are beyond the scope of this report and
will be addressed at a later date). Finally comments were made warning against
instituting what were referred to as “Band-Aid Policies” to combat the problem
of Serious Housing Need. It was felt that any solutions implemented should be
far-reaching and long lasting.
Footnote one.
In each question the
responder was given the option of stating whether he or she believed that
indeed there was a housing problem in Palmerston North. However, out of all
responders, none chose to tick the box stating that the problem did not exist
in our area. Only one person stated that he or she did not know through lack of
experience.
4.6
Summary of Findings of Qualitative Research.
4.6 a
Affordability of Low-Income Housing
In the area of ‘affordability of low-income housing’, respondents most commonly stated the following causes:
v Rents were set
too high and that incomes were too low for some families to cope with housing
costs, (16 respondents).
v The market rental
system was failing to provide adequate housing for some families, (6
respondents).
v Some families
lack the life skills necessary to manage for accommodation finances, (6
respondents).
v Landlords are
setting their rent levels too high, (5 people).
In the area of ‘affordability of low-income housing’, the following recommendations were most commonly made by respondents:
v To lower rents in
the State sector, (6 respondents).
v To raise benefit
levels, (6 respondents).
v To assist helping
adults manage their accommodation budgets, (5 respondents).
4.6 b. Overcrowding in Low-Income Housing.
In the area of ‘overcrowding’ respondents most commonly stated the following causes:
v People were being
forced to live in overcrowded dwellings, as they were unable to afford adequate
accommodation, (13 respondents).
v People are being
forced to live in overcrowded accommodation due to the high cost of moving into
new accommodation, (3 respondents).
v People are being
forced to live in overcrowded accommodation due to familial break-ups, (3
respondents).
In the area of ‘overcrowding’ respondents most commonly made the following recommendations:
v Lower rents to
make appropriate accommodation more affordable to low-income families, (9
respondents).
v WINZ should be
more financially supportive towards those wishing to move accommodation, (2
respondents).
4.6 c. Standards
of Low-Income Housing
In the area of ‘standard of low-income houses’, respondents most
commonly suggested the following causes:
v Private Landlords
are uncaring in the maintenance of their properties, (10 respondents).
v Housing New
Zealand does not maintain a high enough standard of their rental properties, (6
respondents)
In the area of ‘standards of low-income housing’, the following
recommendations were most commonly made by respondents:
v Establish and
strictly enforce a set of housing standards to cover both State and Private
rental properties, (7 respondents).
------------
SECTION
5. PRESENTATION OF FOODBANK DATA
Methodology
5.1 Sample and Administration
The sample obtained in the administration of the foodbank questionnaire consisted of 233 individuals obtaining a food parcel from either the Methodist Social Services Foodbank or the Salvation Army Foodbank in the month of June 1999. The population comprised all people visiting the foodbanks. A response rate of about ¾ of the total population of foodbank users was achieved.
The questionnaire was administered by volunteers at the Methodist Social Services and Salvation Army Foodbanks. The administrators approached all people wishing to obtain a food parcel and read the questions to the respondents and recorded the answers given by the respondents. In each case the respondents had the right to refuse participation in the study and still receive a food parcel. Further, the respondents were assured that their individual responses would be treated with the strictest confidence. The administrators of the questionnaire prevented respondents from filling out the questionnaire more than once.
5.2.
Questionnaire.
A copy of the questionnaire used in the data collection can be found in Appendix one of this report. It was based on a questionnaire administered by the foodbanks in 1996 in a similar study of low-income families. A number of questions were added or altered in order to gain the information required for the current study, particularly those regarding crowding. The questionnaire was broken down into the following 5 sections.
1) Type of housing tenure, (e.g. Private Rental, State House, Home Ownership etc).
2) Income source, (covering both benefit and wage types).
3) The main reason for the respondent visiting the foodbank.
4) A breakdown of the number of people residing in each household by age and sex, and the number of bedrooms in the person’s household, (used to calculate the level of crowding in each residence).
5) Income per week and rent paid per week for each individual, (used to calculate the percentage income spent per week on rent).
5.3
Measurement Techniques
Most of the calculation techniques used in this report are self-explanatory. However, the calculations used to measure the percentage of a respondent’s income spent on rent and the level of overcrowding in a given residence require some additional explanation.
5.3a Percentage Income Spent on Rent,
(%R/I)
Two measures of rent relative to income are used in the following analyses. This is due to a difference in the methods used in measuring this statistic between Governmental Departments and Community Groups which centres on the accommodation supplement. The official governmental approach considers the accommodation supplement as a figure that is to be to be deducted from an individual’s rent. Thus percentage income spent on rent is calculated as:
Rent -
Supplement
_______________ X100
Benefit
In contrast, Community Groups view the accommodation supplement is an additional benefit like any other which should be considered as part of an individual’s total income. Thus the percentage of income spent on rent is calculated as:
Rent
___________________ X 100
Benefit + Supplement
Although these methods seem similar they will yield slightly different
results, in that the government’s method will always produce a lower figure. In
the following analyses the results of both calculation methods will be
presented. They will be denoted by the abbreviations Method G or the
‘Governmental Method’ and Method 1 respectively. The abbreviation %R/I is used
throughout to denote the percentage of the individual’s income spent on rent.
It should be noted that the sub-sample used in the governmental
calculation of percentage income spent on rent was relatively small compared to
the overall sample used in calculating method 1. About one third of the total
population both received and could state their accommodation supplement and
thus could be used in the method g calculations.
5.3b Number of Adult
Equivalents.
The following analyses use a measure of crowding that compares the
number of ‘Adult Equivalents’ to the number of bedrooms in a household. This
method is a combination of Charles Waldegrave’s measure of overcrowding and
that used in the analysis of National Census data both here and overseas. The
method defines one Adult Equivalent as the number of people that may
‘acceptably’ share a bedroom given their age and sex. Under this scheme, each
of the following categories is counted as one Adult Equivalent:
I.
A single adult (a person over 18 years of age).
II.
An adult and his or her partner.
III.
An adult, his or her partner and a child under 1 year old.
IV.
A single child (a person over 1 year old).
V.
Two children under 10 years of age of any sex.
VI.
Two children between the ages of 10 and 18 years of the same sex.
Two estimates of number of Adult Equivalents were calculated in this report. The need for two figures arose as the questionnaire did not ask for information regarding the partnership relationship of adults in a household. Accordingly, a ‘conservative estimate’ was calculated which assumed that all adults in a household were in a relationship. A second, ‘liberal estimate’ assumed that all people over the age of 18 were single adults and thus constituted one Adult Equivalent each. These two figures were then averaged to produce the Adult Equivalent Estimate reported below. The number of Adult Equivalents was then divided by the number of bedrooms and any result exceeding one indicated an overcrowded household.
Results
The aim of the following section is to assess whether Palmerston North has a Serious Housing need and to ascertain who is most affected by this Housing Need. To this end, the data is broken down and analyses are made by comparing different sub-groups within the sample. Thus, the following analyses were made:
1) A summary of the general characteristics of the sample as a whole.
2) Comparison between different housing types in terms of the form of housing tenure and the number of bedrooms.
3) Comparison between crowded and non-crowded houses.
4) Comparison between household composition in terms of the number of children per household.
5) Comparison across income brackets.
5.4 General
Characteristics
5.4a General Characteristics: Percentage Income Spent on Rent
Table 5.1.
|
|
|
Method
1 |
|
|
|
|
Average
Income* |
$248.95 |
Average
Rent |
$132.90 |
Average
% R/I |
56% |
|
Median
Income* |
$250.00 |
Median
Rent |
$135.00 |
Median
%R/I |
55% |
|
|
|
Method
G |
|
|
|
|
Average.
Income-A. Supp.* |
$202.10 |
Average
Rent-A.Supp |
99.65 |
Average
%R/I |
52% |
|
Median
Income-A.Supp.* |
$162.00 |
Median
Rent-A.Supp. |
$92.50 |
Median
%R/I |
56% |
*Notes.
%R/I= The percentage income paid on rent per week.
“Income-A.Supp”
and “Rent-A.Supp” refer to the governmental method of calculating %R/I.
All
income and rent figures refer to individual expenditure.
Thus from the four measures of percentage
income spent on rent in the right hand column, the sample obtained from the
foodbanks paid between 52% and 56% of their income on rent on average.
Figure 5.2
Note
that the above figure is calculated solely by method 1, however, calculation by
method G gives similar overall proportions. Number of respondents in each
category are listed in brackets in the legend.
As can be seen, the largest ‘percentage
income spent on rent’ bracket was that of 50-59%, followed in number by the
40-49% and 60-69% categories. As can be inferred from this figure, 91% of all
respondents paid more than 25% of their income on rent, 57% of all respondents
paid more than 50% of their income on rent and 19% of all respondents paid more
than 70% of their income on rent.
5.4b General Characteristics: Housing Tenure
Figure 5.3
As can be seen, the majority of the responders reside in privately rented accommodation followed by state rentals. The ‘other’ category includes forms of housing tenure such as boarding, home ownership, flatting or hostel accommodation. Each of the seven categories subsumed in the ‘other’ category were deemed to be too small to merit their own category
5.4 c. General
characteristics: People & Crowding
Figure 5.4
The overall proportion of responders living in over-crowded conditions was 49%, (106 people). As can be seen from figure 5.5, the majority of these ‘overcrowded’ respondents lived in accommodation with between one and two Adult Equivalents per room, (95 people).
Figure 5.5
As can be seen, the majority of the responders live in accommodation with between one and two people per room. The second largest group in the sample comprised of residences with less than one person per room.
Section 5.5 Comparison of Housing Types
Section 5.5 a. Comparison of Housing Types: Housing Tenure
Figure 5.6
Figure 5.6.a
Notes. Both method 1 and the governmental method of calculating %R/I are
presented here in figures a. and b. The Y axis represents both the dollar value
with respects to rent and income and the percentage of income spent on rent,
($/%).
As can be seen, there is little significant difference in either the average rent paid, average income or average income spent on accommodation costs between private and state rentals. Only a slight difference exists in terms of a slightly lower average rent and a slightly higher average income for those responders living in State owned rentals.
Section 5.5 b. Comparison of Housing Types: Number of Rooms &
%R/I
Figure 5.7
Notes. %R/I= The amount
of a respondent’s income spent on rent.
As can be seen, residents in houses with more than two rooms pay a lower percent of their income on rent than those with one or two bedrooms.
Section 5.5 b. Comparison of Housing Types: No. Rooms & No. Children
Figure 5.8
As can be seen, as the number of rooms per house increases, so too does the average number of children per house.
Section 5.6 Comparison of Crowded and Non Crowded Houses
5.6 a. Comparison of Crowded and Non-Crowded dwellings: Costs
Figure 5.9
Notes.
Both Method one and G are presented in the figure on the left and right hand
sides of the graph respectively. The Y axis represents both the dollar value
with respects to rent and income and the percentage value of income spent on
accommodation costs, ($/%).
As can be seen, there are very little differences in terms of average rent and income between crowded and non-crowded dwellings by either method.
5.6.b Comparison of Crowded and Non-crowded dwellings: Family
Composition
Figure 5.10
Notes.
Note that there were very small numbers of people in the very overcrowded
groups. Overall, 143 people fell into
the 0-1.5 AE/room bracket with only 67 people in the 1.5-3 AE/Room bracket
As can be seen, as crowding increases the number of children in each residence increases, particularly when the number off adult equivalents reaches 1.5-2 when a dramatic increase in the average number of children per household occurs.
5.6 c Comparison of Crowded and Non Crowded Dwellings: Tenure
Figure 5.11
As has been stated, the majority of the overall sample live in privately rented accommodation. This results in the fact that a greater total number of both crowded and non-crowded responders live in Privately owned rentals. However when relatively compared, State Houses are more likely to be overcrowded than are Private rentals or other forms of accommodation.
Section 5.7 Comparison of Family Types
5.7a Comparison of family types: Disposable Income & Number of
Children
Figure 5.12
Notes.
The ‘average remainder’ in the above figure is calculated by subtracting the
total amount paid in rent from the total income. The average remainder per
child ($/child) was calculated by dividing the remainder by the number of
children in the household plus one, (the individual). People with no children
were not included in the calculation. Note that this is a very rough estimate
of disposable income per child as it was not known whether the responder was
solely or at all responsible for financial support of the children or child.
The figure is provided only for the purposes of comparison between groups. Note
also that the sub-samples of people with more than 2 children were
comparatively small. 31 respondents reported living with three children and 33
respondents reported living with four or more children.
As will be seen, average income increases as a function of the average number of children per household. However, average disposable income per child decreases.
5.7 b Comparison of Family Types: Number of Children and Crowding
Figure 5.13
Notes: Once again that there were relatively few respondents who reported
living with 3 children or more, see previous figure.
As will be noted. Levels of overcrowding remain relatively stable for households comprising 1-2 Children per household. A dramatic increase in crowding then occurs for households with more than three children,
5.7 b Comparison of Family Types: Children & Percentage Income
Spent on Rent.
Figure 5.14
As can be seen, the average percentage income spent on rent decreases as a function of the number of children per household.
Section 5.8 Comparison across Wage Brackets
5.8a. Comparison across Wage Brackets: Percentage Income Spent on
Rent
Figure 5.15
Notes.
Both Methods, (1&G), of calculating %R/I are displayed here. Note
particularly that the sample sizes of each wage bracket in the governmental calculation
were very small.
As can be seen, as the average wage bracket increases, the percentage of that wage bracket spent on rent or other accommodation costs decreases.
5.8 b. Comparison across Wage Brackets: Number of People per Room
Figure 5.16
As will be noted, as income increases, so too do the average number of people per house and the number of rooms per house. However, the average number of people per room undergoes only a minor fluctuation.
5.8 c. Comparison across Wage Brackets: Crowding, (AE/Room)
Figure 5.17
This second measure of crowding measures the percent of households in each wage bracket that contain more than one Adult Equivalent per room. As will be seen no significant correlation seems to exist between crowding and wage bracket.
Section 5.9 Discussion
Like the other sections of this report, the foodbank questionnaire focussed on the affordability of rent relative to income and the level of crowding in low-income families.
However, the third measure of the quality of low-income housing was not assessed. Further to this, the foodbank data was collated with the intention of highlighting specific demographics in Palmerston North that were and are most affected by these aspects of housing need.
5.9 a.
Limitations of the Questionnaire and Interpretation of the Data
When reading the following data interpretations the following factors should be kept clearly in mind. Firstly that all information was recorded at an individual level and does not report on the expenditure of an entire household. Thus figures such as average rent or disposable income pertain solely to an individual’s expenditure. An analysis of the percentage of total household income spent on total rent as a whole was undertaken at the Manawatu Home Budgeting service. The analysis of 200 of their clients revealed that the average percentage total income spent on rent was slightly lower than that reported in the current study at 45%R/I.
5.9 b.
Limitations of the Sample.
It should be strongly noted that of the sample obtained from the Foodbank Questionnaire was limited in that it should not be generalized to any population outside of that of ‘foodbank clientele’. As such it should be kept in mind that the results reported in the present section are not a representative sample of Palmerston North residents as a whole, or to a low-income bracket residents of Palmerston North. However, the sample is thought to be representative of the population of foodbank users in general due to a policy enforced by the foobanks preventing people from using their services more than twice, (thus a different sample of foodbank users is generally seen each month). Furthermore it should be noted that June was quoted as being a non-exceptional month in terms of the level of foodbank usage.
5.9 c.
Affordability of Low Income Housing.
The general data analysis relating to the affordability of low-income housing revealed that the average percentage of income spent on rent for the sample was 56 %, or 52 % using the governmental calculation, (refer to figure 5.1). Further breakdowns revealed that the majority of the responders paid between 50% and 59% of their income on rent, the second largest group being those paying 40 to 49 percent, (refer to figure 5.2).
Further analysis revealed 56 % of the sample paid more than 50 %R/I and 31% paid more than 60 %R/I. As has been stated, the Poverty Measurement Group use 50% or 60% of income spent on rent as a demarcation line of poverty. Furthermore it was shown that 91% of all responders were paying more than 25% R/I. As has been stated 25% was the benchmark percentage used to calculate income related rent levels prior to the shift to market rentals in 1991. Given these statistics, it would seem evident that Palmerston North does have a degree of Serious Housing Need based on this measure.
The results appear to show that this problem of affordability is not restricted to any one form of housing tenure, (refer to figure 5.6). The difference between the percent paid on rent per week between Private and State rentals was minimal, (3% by Method G, 1% by Method 1). The differences between average rent paid and average income between the two forms of housing tenure were also non-significant.
However, figures 5.15 and 5.7 suggest that there are two groups that are disproportionately high percentages of their income on rent. First, those earning under $170 per week, (5.15), and secondly, those renting accommodation with one or two bedrooms, (5.7). Comments from Foodbank workers confirm that these demographics were disproportionately represented in the foodbanks clientele.
However, these findings are complicated by the following considerations:
1) As the number of rooms per house increases, so too does the average number of children per house, (refer to figure 5.8.)
2) As the number of children per house increases, so too does the average disposable income, (refer to figure 5.12).
3) As the number of children per household increases, the average percentage income spent on rent decreases, (refer to figure 5.14).
4) As the number of children increases, the average disposable income per child decreases
5) As such, although houses with more children have a higher disposable income and a lower percentage of their income on rent, the total disposable income per person is lower than those living with fewer children. Thus it would seem that number of children ‘offsets’ this decrease in the percentage income spent on rent as each additional child will ‘use up’ a proportion of the remaining income.
Given these additional factors it would seem that there is no simple answer to the question of who is most affected by the problem of high housing costs. As is revealed in the above section, each of the variables, (ie. rent, income, number of children etc), in the calculation of housing affordability is dependent on the other variables. Thus rent is related to income, income is related to the number of children dependent on that income, the number of children are related to the number of bedrooms in a household and the number of bedrooms relates back to rent.
It may seem fair to tentatively conclude that the problem exists regardless of the number of children or rooms when one considers the relationship that appears to occur between family size and disposable income per child. However, given this ‘inter-relationship’ it is difficult to compare %R/I levels between houses with different numbers of children. Thus, given the limitations of the data obtained from the sample, it would be beyond the scope of this report to draw any definite conclusions on the matter of who is most affected by high income to rent ratios.
5.9 d. Crowding.
In terms of the level of overcrowding, as has been stated, 49% of respondents live in conditions deemed as ‘overcrowded’ by the method used in this study. The majority of these responders lived in moderately overcrowded conditions with 1.1 to 2 Adult Equivalents per room, (refer to figure 5.4). To have just under half of the sample reporting over crowded living conditions is indicative of a Serious Housing Need with respects to crowding.
Little ‘financial’ difference was revealed when comparing crowded and non-crowded sub-samples. No significant differences were found between the crowded and non- crowded groups in terms of rent or percentage income paid on rent, (refer to figure 5.9). Further, there appears to be little correlation between income and level of crowding. As figure 5.16 shows, the ratio of people per room shows only a moderate increase as a function of income, (in terms of wage bracket). It could be hypothesized that this moderate increase can be accounted for by the previously mentioned relationship between family size and income. Likewise, as figure 5.17 indicates, the percentage of overcrowded houses does not show any significant change as a function of income.
A moderate difference was revealed when crowded and non-crowded houses were proportionately compared in terms of housing tenure. As figure 5.11 indicates, State houses contained the highest ratio of crowded non-crowded to houses followed by private rentals and ‘other’ forms of accommodation respectively.
The largest difference revealed when comparing crowded and non-crowded houses was family size. As will be seen in figure 5.10, as the level of crowding exceeds 1.5 Adult Equivalents per room, a dramatic increase in the number of children per household occurs. Furthermore, as figure 5.13 reveals, as the average number of children per household exceeds 2, the average number of overcrowded houses in that category increases dramatically.
Thus it appears that crowding is a strategy employed by large families to deal with the unaffordability of accommodation with sufficient numbers of bedrooms. This could relate to the previously discussed issue of the affordability of appropriate housing for large families. As such it could be hypothesized that large families could not afford adequately large accommodation due to having insufficient disposable income per child.
5.9 e.
Recommendations.
Based on the findings of this report, the following recommendations are made regarding housing research in Palmerston North:
v Research be undertaken on a regular basis by the city council in collaboration with the appropriate community groups such as the Housing Advice Center and the Manawatu Tennants Union.
v This research should be done in such a way that both comparisons across time and comparison across demographics are possible.
v This research should begin by focusing specifically on the needs of those earning under $170 per week, living in accommodation with two bedrooms or less and those with large families as per the findings of this report.
v As such, it is recommended that future research be done on a ‘ door-to-door’ basis of low-income households in Palmerston North to gain a higher level of information than the that in the present report. However, it is realized that such an endeavor would be very expensive, (certainly more so than the present report). Thus, the council could consider a larger scale replication of this style of report on a regular basis. Both the Salvation Army and the Methodist Social services have expressed an interest in conducting further research at their foodbanks.
APPENDIX 1.
QUESTIONNAIRE
FOR ALL FOODBANK CLIENTS
Please
fill out this form for all people receiving food assistance for the month of
May 1999. Please fill out the form yourself rather than ask your clients to
fill it out.
1.
Where do you live?
q State house, (Housing NZ House)
q Private rental.
q Own your own house freehold
q Own your own house but paying off mortgage
q Boarding, (fee paid covers food power etc)
q Hostel
q City council rental
q Other, (please specify). ___________________________________________
2. What is your income source, (Please tick all that
apply).