Housing Policies in Cluj-Napoca: Evaluation of the Rent Support Program and Its Impact on Vulnerable Communities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for asking me to review this paper. Access to safe, affordable, adequate housing is a subject near and dear to my heart and my research. That you have examined the efficacy of a rent support program in Romania is I think, a good contribution to the literature in the area both for its explication of program details and documents as well as the impact on subsidy recipients. This provides a rounded view of the usefulness of the program and provides a good baseline for the policy recommendations made. 

I found the article clear and easy to follow throughout. I have several comments I would like to share with you:

1. You state that you use "qualitative and quantitative" analysis in your paper, yet you do not describe exactly what they are. You refer to themes in your tables, but there are many ways to extract themes from data. You also need a reference for your analytic process.  

2. You say you analyzed a database quantitatively (I presume), but with no attendant data or information.

3. You refer to "coding and anonymization" in terms of anonymizing participant names. Did you code your data in some way, if so, how? You refer to "topic codes" once, is that the same as a theme? This should be clear in the paper. The reader should not have to guess or interpolate how you did your analysis. 

4. Stating and then answering your research questions as you have done makes for easy understanding of your findings.

5.  I am not sure of the use of "patents" here. I suspect I am not the only one. Perhaps you could clarify the use here?

6.  I am thinking about the recommendation for financial counselling for program participants.  You note that several say they have never had to deal with paying rent etc. in the past and thus would like some training. I think that is fair. Nevertheless, such counselling may not help if the amount of benefit is too low. It has often been said here in Canada, that people in poverty should learn to budget their money. The reality is there is no way to better budget than they already do. Their pension/supports are not enough to cover rent, utilities and food, let alone anything else. I think it might be useful to note that budgeting may not be the issue for all, but a lack of adequate income.

Thank you again for this paper and good luck in your future research!

Author Response

Reviewer 1

1. You state that you use "qualitative and quantitative" analysis in your paper, but do not describe exactly what these are. You refer to themes in your tables, but there are many ways to extract themes from data. You also need a reference for your analytic process.

Answer: The work started with the ambitious goal of this quantitative and qualitative research. We have a large database of 800 records collected from 2018 to date but later during the development of the study we dropped the quantitative component, staying only on the qualitative dimension. Another paper will follow in which we will explore the quantitative dimension of the policy we are talking about here and the budgetary impact.

2. You say that you have quantitatively analyzed (I assume) a database, but without related data or information.

Answer. I have shown above. That's right, I have removed these mentions from the paper on pages 6 and 7. The text only refers to qualitative research.

3. You refer to "coding and anonymization" in terms of anonymizing participants' names. Did you code the data in any way, if so, how? 4. You refer once to 'thematic coding', is this the same as a theme? This should be clear in the paper. The reader should not guess or interpolate how you did your analysis.

Answer. Thanks very much for your observation. There were two categories of participant: families/single individuals who had benefited from the program or who failed to access the program, respondents who were interviewed, coded by "SI" (Subject Interview) from 1 to 10 (e.g. SI1 or SI9) as well as focus group participant, "SFG" (Subject Focus Group), followed by a number (e.g. SFG1, SFG2, etc.) On page 9 these were clarified.

4. Formulating and then answering your research questions as you did makes it easier to understand your findings.

Answer. Thank you very much, we think so.

5. Not sure about the use of "patents" here. I suspect I am not the only one. Perhaps you could clarify the usage here?

Answer. Yes, we have replaced the term with "recommendations".

6. I am thinking of the recommendation on financial counseling for program participants. Notice that several say they have never had to deal with paying rent etc. in the past and would therefore like some training. I think that is fair. However, such counseling might not help if the benefit amount is too low. It has often been said here in Canada that poor people should learn to budget their money. The reality is that there is no way to budget better than they already do. Their pension/support is not enough to cover rent, utilities and food, let alone anything else. I think it would be useful to note that budgeting may not be the problem for everyone, but lack of adequate income.

Answer. That is true. The program is aimed at low-income families. However, from the focus group it emerged this need for financial counseling for some families with whom they worked precisely to increase the budget given by getting better jobs, the specialists' opinion was emphasized that after a year of support a family with a larger budget still does not save even a small part of their income, or leaves aside the need to accept a small investment in children's education.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

I would like to start by thanking the editors for the opportunity to review this paper. I’d also like to applaud the authors for a comprehensive and important study. The study itself is an important contribution to multiple bodies of literature. My comments include some major structural changes that will make the paper stronger and the important contributions all the more evident to the reader.

 

Introduction:

-              It would be helpful to geographically place Cluj-Napoca for readers – tell the reader where it is, it’s contribution or relationship to other cities, its population, etc. to put the claims made here in perspective and to then offer the reader the information needed to understand some of the elements discussed in the literature review.

-              The research problem/question should be clearly introduced here. The paper proceeds in a way through the introduction as a broad discussion that’s not focused or highlighting the project at hand (discussing frameworks and inclusive approaches but not telling the reader why this information matters or what this article servs to contribute to these discussions).

o   This comment also applies to the literature review. I suggest that authors start by telling the reader more broadly what the literature tells them and also where and how a specific case study of Cluj-Napoca stands to contribute. It would be important to start off with the information shared later in the marginalization section on the case itself here to highlight the contribution.

Literature review

-              In addition to my previous comment, this section could use some restructuring to fully introduce and narrow down the discussion. It makes sense that the authors started more broadly with other examples from other countries, but the reader is left wondering why this all matters. Having a clearer introduction might help with this, but it might also be worth revisiting some of the subheadings here and narrowing in on how to best introduce the great project that comes later.

o   For example, the subheading “studies on Marginalization and Exclusion in Housing Policies” Focuses on the case of Cluj-Napoca and not more broadly on policies elsewhere. It might be helpful to start, as the other section did, with a broader discussion or perhaps to change the subheading itself.

-              I’d also suggest the authors include broader theoretical discussions around housing policy and common debates found in the literature.

Materials and methods

-              This section needs some restructuring and additional details. This can include a short quick into of the methods and data sources, but then a more detailed discussion of each. What documents were included in document review and what were some inclusion/exclusion criteria? How were folks recruited for the focus group and how was it designed? Who was interviewed, and why and how many folks were included?

o   One way to do this would be to have a small paragraph or section for each method with additional details before jumping into the justification and benefits of them as is done in the latter half of the first paragraph.

-              The same can be said of the data analysis – how and what type of analysis was conducted? I’m assuming it was a thematic analysis, but this isn’t clear. Some information about the coding, etc. would be helpful here (although I know it’s included later too in the Findings I’d suggest moving it here – the tables can be in an appendix). How participants are referenced later should also be included here.

Results

-              The current organization of the results is a bit confusing. I’d suggest outlining the main findings across the research questions rather than split up the document and interview/focus group analysis first. It seems both can be used to add to the relevant research questions.

o   Before jumping into each of the research questions I’d also suggest having a clear introduction of what the major findings were to signpost to the reader what the main findings were.

-              The references to analysis can be moved to the methods section (and be more succinct).

-              The use of “integrated” in analysis of RQ 3 was a bit confusing – please clarify.

Discussion

-              Here again it would be good to see a discussion ahead of time that signifies the relevance of the results shared above. As it is now it seems as if the discussion is just a continuation of the results. Instead, the discussion is an opportunity for the authors to bring together all of their results and consider their relationship and contributions to the broader discussions introduced earlier in the article (in the literature review).

Conclusions

-              This section was well done and highlighted the findings better than what was in the discussion. I’d suggest pulling from the first two paragraphs a bit and moving them up and using the conclusions section to reiterate the contributions of this work to the various theoretical and academic disciplines, policy, and practice.

Patents

-              Are these meant to be recommendations from participants? Why are they here? This seems like something relevant to include in the discussion.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Introduction:

• It would be helpful to place Cluj-Napoca geographically for the readers - to tell the reader where it is, its contribution or relationship to other cities, its population, etc. to put the statements made here in perspective and then provide the reader with the information needed to understand some of the elements discussed in the literature review.

Response. Thank you very much for the suggestion. We have made this change in the text on page 1. (Cluj-Napoca, an ever-expanding European city, a county seat municipality, is facing a housing affordability crisis, characterized by an accelerated increase in housing prices as well as rents. Cluj-Napoca is located in central Romania (south-eastern region of Europe). In recent years the city has undergone an extensive process of development and modernization, being recognized at European level as one of the cities with the best quality of life. It is a respected university center and a safe place where Romanian and European citizens alike want to live and raise their families).

• The research problem/question should be clearly introduced here. The paper proceeds in a way through the introduction as a broad discussion that is not focused or highlighting the project in question (discussing inclusive frameworks and approaches, but without telling the reader why this information is important or what this paper serves to contribute to these discussions).

Response. Thank you very much. Right. The introduction has been rewritten as suggested.

o This comment also applies to the literature review. I suggest that the authors start by telling the reader in general what the literature tells them and also where and how a specific case study in Cluj-Napoca contributes. It would be important to start with the information shared later in the section on marginalization on the case itself here to highlight the contribution.

Response. Thanks. This section has been rewritten.

Literature review

• In addition to my previous comment, this section could benefit from a restructure to fully introduce and narrow the discussion. It makes sense that the authors start more broadly with other examples from other countries, but the reader is left to wonder why any of this matters. A clearer introduction might help in that regard, but it might also be worth revising some of the subheadings here and narrowing down how best to introduce the big project that comes later.

Response. Yes, this chapter has been restructured, starting from the specific framework (and fortunately we have studies that can be invoked) and then broadening the perspective to international studies.

o For example, the subtitle "studies on marginalization and exclusion in housing policies" focuses on the case of Cluj-Napoca and not more broadly on policies elsewhere. It might be useful to start, as the other section did, with a broader discussion or perhaps change the subtitle itself.

Response. Yes, these sections have been rewritten and rearranged in their entirety.

• I would also suggest the authors include broader theoretical discussions around housing policy and common debates found in the literature.

Response. I am introducing such examples. Perhaps further research will pay more attention to housing policy at the international level. We focused on a local policy, contextualized to the experience of the inhabitants of the municipality of Cluj-Napoca.

Materials and methods

• This section needs restructuring and further details. It can include a brief overview of methods and data sources, but then a more detailed discussion of each. What documents were included in the document review and what were the inclusion/exclusion criteria? How were people recruited for the focus group and how was it designed? Who was interviewed, why and how many people were included?

Response. We have rewritten the paragraph in full, responding to your suggestions. Yes, we think the research demersal is now more clearly presented.

o One way to do this would be to have a small paragraph or section for each method with additional details before moving on to their rationale and benefits, as is done in the second half of the first paragraph.

- The same can be said for the data analysis - how and what type of analysis was carried out? I assume it was a thematic analysis, but this is not clear. Some information about coding etc. would be useful here (although I know it is included later in the findings, I would suggest moving it here - the tables can be in an appendix). How participants are referred to later should also be included here.

Results

• The current organization of the results is a bit confusing. I would suggest highlighting the main findings within the research questions, rather than splitting the paper and interview/focus group analysis first. It seems both can be used to add to the relevant research questions.

Response. Thanks. The requested clarifications have been introduced and the chapter has been reorganized

o Before moving on to each of the research questions, I would also suggest that there should be a clear introduction of the main findings to signal to the reader what the main findings were.

Response. We believe that restructuring the material adds clarification

• References to the analysis can be moved to the methods section (and be more succinct).

Response. Yes, we did. It is much clearer.

• The use of the term "integrated" in the analysis of preliminary question 3 was a bit confusing - please clarify. -

Answer. Yes, the term has been removed.

Discussion

• Here again, it would be good to see a discussion ahead of time signaling the relevance of the results shared above. As it is now, it seems as if the discussion is just a continuation of the results. Instead, the discussion is an opportunity for the authors to bring all of their results together and consider their relationship and contributions to the broader discussion introduced earlier in the article (in the literature review).

Response. Yes. Substantial changes have been introduced.

Conclusions

• This section was well done and highlighted the results better than what was under discussion. I would suggest dropping the first two paragraphs a little and moving them up and using the conclusions section to reiterate the contributions of this paper to the various theoretical and academic disciplines, policy and practice.

Response. After rewriting the paper we think the conclusions would flow harmoniously from the material.

Patents

• Should these be recommendations from participants? Why are they here? This seems like something relevant to include in the discussion.

Response. The term has been replaced with local policy recommendations, the passage has been re-written and inserted under Discussion.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1) Housing is treated as both an economic and social good. Hence, one of many public policies is housing policy, the aim of which is to help disadvantaged groups obtain housing. Housing policy is implemented using various instruments and tools.

2) Therefore, I consider the topic discussed to be very important. The article asks three research questions:

a) What are the main benefits and obstacles perceived by the beneficiaries of the rent support program in Cluj-Napoca, and to what extent do these aspects influence  the housing stability of vulnerable families?

b) How do eligibility criteria and program constraints (such as income thresholds  and duration) influence access to the subsidy for different categories of vulnerable people, in particular young people leaving care and families in marginalized areas?

c) To what extent are the current rental support measures sustainable in the long term, and what adjustments could help extend the benefits of the program to a larger number of eligible beneficiaries?

During the argument, answers to the questions were obtained and recommendations for the local government were provided.

3) In terms of improvements to the article, I propose to refer to the experience of Western European countries in the development of social and institutional rental. This phenomenon is not very widespread in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe due to the dominant private ownership of apartments. Due to rising prices, there are more and more voices promoting this form of public support.

4) The article may be published after the authors respond to the comments.

 

Author Response

1) Housing is treated as both an economic and a social good. One of the many public policies is therefore housing policy, which aims to help disadvantaged groups to obtain housing. Housing policy is implemented using various instruments and tools.

2) Therefore, I consider the discussed topic to be very important. The article formulates three research questions:

(a) What are the main benefits and obstacles perceived by the beneficiaries of the rental support program in Cluj-Napoca and to what extent do these aspects influence the housing stability of vulnerable families?

b) How do the eligibility criteria and constraints of the programme (such as income thresholds and duration) influence access to the subsidy for different categories of vulnerable people, in particular young care leavers and families in marginalized areas?

c) To what extent are the current rent support measures sustainable in the long term and what adjustments could help to extend the benefits of the program to a larger number of eligible beneficiaries?

As part of the argumentation, the questions were answered and recommendations for local government were made. Answer. Thank you very much.

3) In terms of improvements to the article, I propose to refer to the experience of Western European countries in the development of social and institutional renting. This phenomenon is not widespread in Central and Eastern European countries because of the dominant private ownership of apartments. Because of rising prices, there are more and more voices promoting this form of public support.

Answer: Thank you very much. Yes, we have referred to examples from the United States, France and Germany (pages 3 and 4) but unfortunately we don't have much data that would allow us to have much detail on local public policies.

4) The article can be published after the authors respond to comments.

Response: Thank you very much.