Systematic review
Effects of, and user experiences with, interventions aimed at assisting homeownership among low-income groups: a systematic review
Systematic review
|Updated
Paramount in Norwegian housing policy is the idea that everyone has the right to safe, secure and adequate housing. A key tenet is that people should be able to own their own homes.
Download
Key message
Paramount in Norwegian housing policy is the idea that everyone has the right to safe, secure and adequate housing. A key tenet is that people should be able to own their own homes. Start-up Loan (Startlån) is one of many interventions in Norway to support homeownership among individuals and families in economic difficulty or special needs. There is a strong interest in similar interventions from other countries, such as “Right-to-Buy” in the United Kingdom, as evidenced in the Housing Commission Report “Room for everyone. A social housing policy for the future.”
Effect of interventions to improve access to homeownership
Four studies examining the effect of interventions to improve access to home ownership met our inclusion criteria. The included studies had low methodological quality and a high risk of bias. One study showed a significant advantage for the intervention group after 4 years, but after 10 years this effect was no longer significant. The quality of the evidence was assessed to be low or very low. We are therefore uncertain whether these interventions increase homeownership among low-income households. Experiences of interventions to improve access to homeownership Eleven studies examining the experiences of participants in interventions to improve access to homeownership met our inclusion criteria. The included studies had low methodological quality. We identified both positive and negative experiences related to the interventions.
Summary
Background Norwegian welfare policy is centred on the idea that everyone has the right to a satisfactory standard of living, good health and quality of life. Standard of living is often defined as an individual’s access to resources which can be employed in different domains in order to maintain one's living conditions. In the housing market, choices depend on access to resources such as income and wealth. Many arguments are used to justify interventions to support homeownership: widespread homeownership leads to better neighbourhoods (physically and socially); homeowners accumulate wealth by paying down debt while the value of their home may increase. The fact that most people in Norway aim to own their own home affects the supply side of the rental market, which is characterized by small apartments and short-term contracts. Accordingly, the rental market offers little in the way of long-term security. This systematic review was commissioned by the Norwegian State Housing Bank as part of the follow-up to the Housing Commission Report “Room for everyone”. The review aims to shed light on aspects of the housing market in Norway and to identify areas for further research. Objective The review aims to summarize research on the effect of interventions to improve access to homeownership for low-income groups, and research on users’ experiences with such interventions. Method We systematically searched databases and grey literature for studies which measured the effects of interventions to improve access to homeownership for low-income groups, including former renters and low-income first-time buyers. We also searched for studies which examined users’ experiences with such interventions. For studies related to the effect of interventions, we included controlled study designs (randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, interrupted time series, controlled before and after studies and case control studies). For studies related to users’ experiences of interventions we included cross-sectional studies and studies with qualitative data collection methods. At least two researchers independently read and assessed studies for inclusion or exclusion based on predefined inclusion criteria. We then assessed the methodological quality of the included studies using checklists appropriate for the study design, and extracted data according to pre-defined data extraction form for either quantitative or qualitative data. The outcomes from the quantitative analysis are presented in a narrative synthesis and assessed using The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). The qualitative studies were analyzed using the narrative synthesis method. Results Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review: four studies related to the effect of interventions to improve access to homeownership for low-income groups and 11 studies related to users’ experiences of such interventions. One of the included quantitative studies examined the effect of Start-up Loan (Startlån), two studied the effect of Individual Development Accounts (IDA) and one studied the effect of the Gateway Transitional Families Program. The studies examined low-income families from Norway and USA (Oklahoma and Hawaii). We assessed the evidence base for each of the outcomes measured in the included studies to be of low or very low quality. Hence we are uncertain about the effects and it is difficult to base conclusions on these findings. While one study showed a significant advantage for the intervention group after four years, the effect showed no significance after 10 years. The qualitative studies described the experiences of low-income households’ (first-time buyers and/or former renters in municipal rental housing) with a variety of measures: establishment grants, shared equity schemes and shared ownership schemes, various types of housing cooperatives, lease-purchase, Right-to-buy, Habitat for Humanity International, Home Ownership Program and Gateway Transitional Families Program. The evidence base generated six overarching themes: housing and neighbourhood, social relations, predictability and control, organization of the intervention, self-esteem and personal economy. Except for “organization of the intervention”, these themes were present to varying degrees across the included studies. The studies were assessed to have a high risk of bias. Discussion We are uncertain about the effects of interventions to improve access to homeownership for low-income groups, because the evidence base was assessed to be of very low quality. The included studies which examined IDAs demonstrated no significant differences between the control and intervention groups. A number of explanations were offered for this outcome, including the relatively low housing prices in the geographical area of the study. It appears that the Tulsa IDA experiment accelerated purchases, but in the longer term the intervention group did not significantly outperform the control group. The implication is that the intervention simply accelerated purchase among those who would have bought anyway at a later stage. The qualitative studies threw up interesting themes which may inform the further development and testing of initiatives in this field. Conclusion Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. Given the available evidence we are uncertain of the effects of Start-up Loan, IDA and Gateway Transitional Program. The existing evidence base related to users’ experiences of receiving, or participating in interventions to improve access to homeownership for low-income groups was also assessed to be quite low. Needs for further research Further research on the effect of interventions to improve access to homeownership for low-income groups is needed. Future studies should have longer periods of follow-up.