Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Social Return on Investment of Mutual Support Based Housing Projects:
Potential for Socio-Economic Cost Savings and Higher Living Quality
Sarah Borgloh · Peter Westerheide
European Real Estate Society MeetingMilano
June 25, 2010
Outline
Motivation
Characteristics of the projects
Research question
Methodology/Data
Main results
Interpretation
Motivation
Growing share of elder people with need for assistance and long term care
Increasing costs of social security systems
Need for reforms in health insurance and long term care insurance
Rising importance for subsidiary support from
- Families
- Informal networks
- Neighborhoods
Motivation
To what extent can professional care and support be substituted by informal help from neighbors?
Can substitution produce significant cost advantages?
Analysis of four housing projects with very different character, …but some common features
- Propagation of neighbourly life and support
- Architectural features and infrastructural characteristics to create opportunities for frequent contact between neighbors (accessibility for handicapped, open contact spaces, meeting rooms)
- Coordination and encouragement by social workers
„Lebensräume für Jung und Alt“ (Living Spaces for Young and Old), Liebenau Foundation, Lake Constance Area
5 locations with 39 to 84 apartments
Multigenerational approach: younger and elder residents as owners and renters in households of different size
Provision of professional care services by external service provider
Social workers consult and motivate residents
Characteristics of the projects
„Haus im Viertel“ (House in the quarter), Bremer Home Foundation, Bremen
Housing complex with 92 apartments (incl. restaurant, meeting center, living community for dementia patients)
Focus: elder residents with/without need for assistance
External professional care provider in direct vicinity
Social work with focus on neigbourhood support provided by manager
Characteristics of the projects
„Residence Heinrichstraße“, Protestant Johanneswerk, Bielefeld
Complex with 42 accessible apartments
Elder and younger residents (partly handicapped)
Continuous care approach: residents can stay even if need for support is increasing
Support by professional service provider available
Joint activities are supported by social workersand service staff
Characteristics of the projects
Multigenerational house, Catholic Caritas holding company CBT, Wipperfuerth (near Cologne)
2 dwellings with 35 accessible apartments
Apartment size between 35 und 96 sqm
Resident of different age and family status
Professional support not an element of the project
Social work on a case-by-case basis
Characteristics of the projects
Calculation of the total effect of „social investments“ in mutual support based housing projects
Focus: Cost or assistance of elder residents
Measurement of costs and yields for all involved parties:
- Residents
- Non-profit organizations running the housing projects
- Social Insurance
- Municipalities
Research question/target of the analysis
Survey among residents und business level analysis of project costs
Survey among residents in control group, living in conventional settings
Comparison by propensity score matching (comparing individuals with similar propensity to live in one of the housing projects)
Methodology
Comparison of housing projects with conventionaln housing
and assistance settings
Need for AssistanceNeed for Assistance
Control groupTreatment group
Costs CostsPropensity score matching
Qualitative Aspects Qualitative Aspects
Methodology
Variables in the PS estimations Age Sex Number of children under age ten in household Household size Education Income Number of physical diseases Care level Handicapped Voluntary engagement before moving in Information on current/preferred
alternative housing situation
Methodology
222 interviews / 313 persons in the treatment group 268 interviews / 428 persons in the control group
Data
Treatment Group Control Group
Age57.78
(26.09)56.64
(26.30)
Female0.69
(0.46)0.61
(0.49)
Living in Single Household0.52
(0.50)0.40
(0.49)
(Very) Good Health0.51
(0.50)0.60
(0.49)
Care Level (Yes)0.11
(0.32)0.17
(0.37)
Disabled0.22
(0.42)0.22
(0.41)
Table displays variable means. Standard deviation in parentheses.
Basic results
Lower average costs for assistance
- Lower costs on individual (private household) level
- lower costs for social insurance and municipalities
Evidence for positive spillover effects in the quarter/urban district
Better assessment in terms of living quality
Some results in more detail
VariableDimension Treatment
group Control
groupDifference Significance
All
Diseases Number 1,03 1,40 -0,37 **
Need for care Dummy 0,13 0,22 -0,08 **
Care level Scale 0-3 0,19 0,28 -0,09 (*)
Elder than 50
Diseases Number 1,36 2,13 -0,77 ***
Need for care Dummy 0,16 0,33 -0,17 ***
Care level Scale 0-3 0,23 0,41 -0,18 **
Health status/need for care
Some results in more detail
Health status
> Better development of health status: Health status and need for care differ when survey was conducted although it was not different when people moved in
> Has to be treated cautiously!
Some results in more detail
Health status/need for care: two scenarios (different composition of compared groups)
> Version 1: health status and need for care equal when moving in: positive effects in health development are attributed to housing projects
> Version 2: health status and need for care equal at survey time: positive effects in health development are treated as exogenous (robustness check)
Some results in more detail
Costs
> Version 1: significantly lower total cost
> Version 2: lower cost differences; significant differences only for group 50+
Version 1 Version 2
total sample 50+ total sample 50+
-30.9% -50.1% -20.6% -36.0%
Source: Authors calculations, bold values significant at least at 90 per cent level. Total costs, partly imputed.
Some results in more detail
Costs
Source: Authors calculations, bold values significant. Total costs, partly imputed.
Version 1 Version 2
total sample 50+ total
sample 50+
Lower bound -205.49 -394.48 -160.74 -259.06
Upper bound -13.43 - 144.21 33.56 -44.75
90%-confidence intervals for difference between treatment and control group (total costs), in Euro per month
Some results in more detail
Reasons for cost differences:
> Better health development/lower need for care (differences between version 1 and 2)
> Inclusion of inpatient care individuals
> Lower need for assistance due to better infrastructure (construction)
> Higher incidence of unpaid and voluntary support by neighbours in the treatment group
Some results in more detail
Need for regular daily help
> In treatment group lower on average
> significantly different for the elderly
> but inspite of lower need: more help from neighbours
Treatment group
Control group
Difference Significance
Daily assist., 50+ 0,50 0,71 -0,21 ***
Daily assistance received from neighbors, 50+ 0,07 0,03 0,04 *
Results for version 1
Some results in more detail
Mutual neighborly help in a wider sense
> More frequently in treatment group than in control group given (for all and 50+) and received (by 50+)
> Focus on practical help (z.B. shopping, crafting, housekeeping)
Dimension Treatment Group
Control Group Diff. Significance
Support received from neighbors Dummy 0.43 0.26 0.17 ***
Support given to neighbors Dummy 0.51 0.36 0.15 **
Results for version 1, sample 50+
Some results in more detail
Time use and activities outside
> Respondents in treatment group spend significantly less time alone at home and take more often part in activities with their neighbors
> Residents of the four housing projects use services offered in the district/urban quarter more often than the control group does
Some results in more detail
Housing quality, social life, life satisfaction
> Better assessment of
housing and living conditions in treatment group
social life within the quarter/urban district
> Differences increase with age
> No significant differences with respect to overall life satisfaction
Conclusion/Interpretation
> Decreasing need for assistance and care
> More support from neighbours
> Potential for savings in public budgets
> Savings potential for residents – increase of disposable income
> Positive spillover effects to urban district/quarter
> Not limited to small groups, substantial effects of similar projects on a broader scale possible
Thank you for your attention!!!
Contact:
Dr. Peter WesterheideZentrum für Europäische WirtschaftsforschungCentre for European Economic ResearchL7 168161 Mannheim, GermanyTel: ++49 621 1235 [email protected]
not quantifiable
appraisable
not appraisable
Indivdual
Society
Costs / YieldsLe
vel o
f ana
lysis
Org
anization
Guideline: The concept of Social Return on Investment
Housing preferences of elderly:
> High preference for independent living (as long as possible), housing quality becomes less important
> Higher living quality in senior cohousing projects
Mutual support among acquainted persons:
> Needs frequent contact to emerge
Costs of support:
> Some indirect evidence of cost savings potential in CCRC
> No systematic analysis of relative costs of mutual support based housing projects (compared to conventional models)
Literature Review
Methodology: The concept of Social Return on Investment
Social Return on Investment (SROI): levels of analysis
Economic Value: economic yield, conventionally defined and quantified in monetary terms, on individual and project level
Socio-Economic Value: value added on societal level, quantified in monetary terms
Social Value: value added, not quantifiable in monetary terms
