A social welfare project for urban poor and disadvantaged groups that relies heavily on heritage conservation for housing and employment

Models Project Information
Proj ID: 

Model09

Proj Subject: 

A social welfare project for urban poor and disadvantaged groups that relies heavily on heritage conservation for housing and employment

Proj Name: 

Platform for Housing in Toledo (PVT) / Plataforma para la Vivienda en Toledo or Vivem (vivienda y empleo): equipamiento de viviendas para colectivos excluidos

Proj Purpose: 

The primary objective was to provide the members of marginalized and socially excluded groups with the mechanisms with which to integrate themselves into society via access to employment, credit, housing and capability building. Secondarily, the project also aimed to attract a younger population back to the historic core of Toledo and regenerate the district.

Proj Time Frame: 

1997-present

Proj Method & Activities: 

From previous experience of dealing with the problem of urban poverty, ASAYMA knew that it needed a multifaceted approach to addressing exclusionary structures and institutions in Toledo. In 1997, it began the Platform for Housing in Toledo program (PVT) which sought to work with government agencies and private companies to be able to offer technical, financial, educational and human-resource support to program beneficiaries.

The following year (1998), it created ASAYMA PVT Construccion – a construction company specializing in the rehabilitation of historic buildings whose sole aim was to serve as a training ground and employer for PVT participants. Some beneficiaries were employed with this company while others were helped to find work with third parties/other companies.

As employees of ASAYMA PVT Construccion, target beneficiaries were trained in the work of gardening, construction and conservation-restoration of historic structures, particularly in rehabilitating Moorish architecture, of which there is little expertise in the district (an in-demand skill which was later helpful in finding former PVT participants find jobs with other employers). The construction company exposed participants to an ‘artificial work environment’ since part of the training itself was familiarizing previously unemployable or difficult-to-employ individuals with holding a job; teaching them how to act in the work place and how to be good employees and co-workers. While employed with the company or under “insertion contracts” with other companies, beneficiaries and their families lived in one of the apartment buildings they were working on. Half of the units in each building were leased at market rates to youths and other mainstream tenants (often from a higher socioeconomic background than the beneficiaries) partly as a financing scheme (to subsidize the cost of reserving the other half of the property to serve as temporary housing for the project beneficiaries) and in part to expose PVT participants to home environments which did not carry the stigma of being ‘ghettos’ or perceived as low-income housing – a negative perception which contributes to their experience of exclusion. Part of their salaries thus went to paying the lease on the apartment unit (at subsidized, lower than market rates) and another part (a mandated € 250 per month) went toward savings in a bank account. These savings could not be withdrawn by the participant as this was meant to build the individual’s credit rating (thereby increasing their chances of being approved for a bank loan in future) and would later become the downpayment for the purchase of their own home (n.b., if the beneficiaries later decided against continuing to save up for their own homes, previous deposits were forfeited).

At the same time, the PVT scheme also provided services to the rest of the family (e.g., offered support services to help women improve their home management and housekeeping abilities, actively discouraged truancy and juvenile delinquency among children, employed women in ASAYMA) because it recognized that the whole household was heavily affected when the primary breadwinner was disadvantaged; that other family members contribute to the success or failure of efforts at reintegrating people into society; that exclusionary structures within the family such as gender inequality existed and had to be addressed as well; and because it hoped to break the cycle of poverty that reinforced the marginal status of families and continued it into the next generation.

By 2003, ASAYMA PVT Construccion had renovated three buildings (converted into 23 apartments) greatly increasing the market value of the properties. In the same year, the first beneficiary family had reached the last stage of empowerment under the PVT scheme: building more permanent homes for themselves and purchasing it at cost; empowered decision making in terms of selecting the type of home they preferred and the location they wanted). By 2005, 4 of the 575 beneficiary families (a total of 2,300 individuals) had built and bought their own houses and 5 more were preparing to do the same. As of 2006, 149 contracts of employment have been obtained helping project participants find regular, stable employment with other companies (62 of which are insertion contracts). ASAYMA still offers follow-up services to beneficiaries formerly employed by ASAYMA PVT Construccion who have since moved on to other jobs. It coordinates with managers/supervisors who have employed PVT participants and maintains support groups that meet regularly to offer means for conflict resolution in the workplace and the family.

Models Coverage
Location: 

Toledo, Spain

Toledo, a national monument, lies just south of Madrid and was, until 1560, the Spanish capital. It spreads out over an area of 15,370km with a population of less than 600,000 people, 12% of whom reside in the capital. Much of the architecture in this historic city is medieval with many 15th and 16th century structures exhibiting a wide range of styles – Roman, Gothic, Baroque and Moorish, among others.

In 1986, Toledo was inscribed in the World Heritage List and in 1997, declared a Historical and Cultural Heritage of Humanity by UNESCO.

Models Financing
Funding Agency: 

From 1998-2005, the program operated on a budget of € 3,172,975.51 most of which was generated by PVT itself. Funds were generated by:
(1) renting out half of the apartment units in each restored building at prevailing market rates. These profits helped subsidize the lease of the project participants who occupied the other half of every building;
(2) income coming from the companies involved in the project (i.e., companies promoting social integration through “empresas de inserción”/insertion contracts) via third party work; and
(3) requiring beneficiaries to purchase (at construction cost) homes that they had built for themselves.
These funds helped recover the initial capital for loans taken out during construction and restoration and granted PVT the leeway to later take on more beneficiaries when the first project participants were nearing the end of the integration process.

A portion of the project’s funding was publicly funded. The Ministry of Housing contributed to 1.42% of the project’s budget while 30.26% was sourced from the regional government and 3.25% came from the City Council of Toledo. Only 7.77% of the total budget came from private funds.

Models Organization
Mod Org Name: 

Asociación de Ayuda al Marginado de Toledo (ASAYMA; an NGO that seeks to help marginalized sectors of society. It targets immigrants and indigenous peoples, women, children, elder persons, persons with disabilities and members of ethnic minorities)

Org Project Director: 

D. Javier Carrascoso Zaba (Manager, ASAYMA)

Org Resources: 

ASAYMA PVT Construccion, the construction company ASAYMA created to implement PVT was an integral component of the program. Other partners of the project were NGO Junta de Comunidades de Castilla la Mancha (Assembly of Communities of Castile La Mancha) and the private organization Fundaciones La Caixa, Caja Madrid y Obra Social de JCC, Real Consorcio para la Ciudad de Toledo. Government agencies involved were the Ministry of Housing and Excmo. Hon. Ayuntamiento de Toledo (Toledo City Council).

Org Mailing Address: 

Asociación de Ayuda al Marginado de Toledo (ASAYMA)
Calle San Marcos, no 16
45002 Toledo
Spain

Models Evaluation
Status: 

PVT is touted as having an 80% success rate in reintegrating marginalized families into the mainstream (failing to reintegrate 3 families). Its achievements led to ASAYMA’s participation in drafting the Regional Social Integration Plan (PRIS) in 2001 and because of what the program has achieved, the local government has called for new enterprises to be established to meet the demand for employment of similarly situated low-skilled workers.

ASAYMA PVT Construccion received recognition from the Royal Academy of Fine Arts and the Workshop – Schools of Toledo for its restoration work and in 2007, ASAYMA received an award from the regional government on World Consumer Day because their efforts had greatly benefited marginalized consumers.

Selection Criteria & Results of Initiative: 

PVT is noteworthy as a case study that uses heritage conservation as a strategy for employment and housing. Its appeal as a model worthy of imitation is that the project takes a bottom-up approach to issues of poverty and social exclusion. It addresses the problem by responding to how the poor themselves have described poverty – as an ‘experience of ill-being’ (Narayan et. al., 2000) – and seeks to enable them to achieve largely through their own efforts, an improved quality of life. This improvement is measured on many levels, seeking to offer “occupation of a dignified flat, schooling of the children of beneficiary families, solution of their juridical-legal problems, optimal cohabitation [experiences and behavior] with respect to neighbours, greater social recognition after obtaining employment, and total personal autonomy when it comes to seeking and utilising public resources of healthcare, education, as well as the possibility of purchasing their own home” (UNHabitat Best Practices Database entry, 2006). It studies the context of marginalized groups and the conditions surrounding their exclusion before attempting to offer innovative interventions and recognizes that as a category, they require greater support services than are often offered by governments.

Because the program recognizes that poverty and unemployment are problems for governments as much as for specific individuals, it involved major social and political actors in the attempt to find solutions. As a result, the project benefited the local and national government as well for its triumphs have reduced the need for social welfare and transformed PVT participants into tax-paying citizens.

Applicability to Philippine Setting: 

Toledo is in some ways similar to Intramuros. Both are walled cities of historic significance for the nation, former capitals now relegated to simply being in close proximity to modern capital/bustling business and commercial centers with tourism serving as the main attraction in the area.

Like Toledo, Manila’s urban poor lack security of tenure in land/housing and livelihood. They stand to benefit from receiving training to build up their skills base. Conversely, implementing a similar program in Manila would not only improve the condition of deteriorating historic buildings, but it would also create a supply of specialists in building conservation and restoration – currently a skill reserved for only a few. Perhaps in the case of the Philippines, the model could be adapted for subdividing heritage homes and other small structures.

Possible Benefits: 

A program such as this might serve as an alternative strategy to the government’s penchant for creating resettlement areas that force residents to relocate outside of Manila to decongest the city. Rather than sending people away, a program such as this would offer marginalized beneficiaries a decent place within the city and, in the process, would create more decent places in the process of restoring neglected buildings.

Attempting a project such as this would allow the public and private sector a chance to work together in responding to the issues that have been articulated in countless studies of the plight of Manila’s urban poor.