Your work is our business

1. Your work is our business

2. Your work is our business

4. Working through…issues of allocations, tenure and transparency

5. John Thornhill, Senior Policy and Practice Officer, CIH • Gill Duffy, Housing & Advice Services Manager, South Norfolk Council • Mike Ward, Associate Director, Circle

6. John Thornhill Senior Policy and Practice Officer CIH John.thornhill@cih.org

7. The coalition’s jigsaw A new political and economic context • CSR…..cuts, savings and efficiencies: Deficit reduction of £128bn in five years • Changes to regulatory framework: reactiveconsumer regulation • Welfare and HB reform • Local decisions, a fairer future for social housing:changing the way we use social housing

8. The pressures: social housing • Demand for social housing persistently out-strips supply • But social rented sector is shrinking: from 19.5% in 2001 to 17.7% today and its still shrinking • The sector plays a key role in housing people who are vulnerable and in need • Butan allocations system focused on need has concentrated disadvantage by tenure and often by location • Social housing has broader social and economic roles • housing associations invested over £209m on almost 900 education, employment and social projects between 2003 and 2008 • But there is a tension between the roles of social housing in terms of meeting acute housing need and contributing to broader social and economic well-being

9. Headline facts: social housing • There are 3.7 million households in the social rented sector. The number of households renting privately has risen since 2005 from 2.4 million to 3.4 million in 2009–10 • There were 1.8 million households on local authority housing registers across England on in 2008, that’s nearly 4 million people in total and this figure is rising • In the social rented sector, 20 per cent of household reference persons are aged under 35 and 29 per cent are aged 65 or over • Median household income in the social rented sector is £10,900, compared to £20,400 in the PRS and £29,200 in the owner occupied sector

10. Headline facts: social housing • Unemployment is highest in the social rented sector, 9 per cent compared to 7 per cent of private renters and only 1 per cent of owner occupiers • In 2009–10, 62 per cent of social renters and 24 per cent of private renters received housing benefit to help with the payment of their rent • 43% of people living in social housing have a long term disability • There are 7.2 millionin-betweens earning £12,000to £25,000 who cant access social housing and many struggle in the PRS

11. The pressures: Competing demands Meeting housing need Sustainable neighbourhoods Promoting choice Transferrable welfare asset

12. Social housing reform • Principles of improving supply in times of fiscal constraint, widening access, prioritising allocations to meet local needs • Charge affordable rent for developing RP’s: up to 80% market rent to facilitate new stock • LAs to have the option to issue flexible tenancies (2 years) • End open waiting lists and give local authorities the freedom to determine which categories of applicants can join waiting lists • Local authorities will be able to discharge their homelessness duty through a PRS let • Support greater mobility: Homeswap scheme and vanguard projects • Bring empty homes back into use

13. Working through…issues of allocations, tenure and transparency

14. Gill Duffy Housing & Advice Services Manager South Norfolk Council

15. www.south-norfolk.gov.uk

16. LEAN systems review Housing Register: Application and assessment process Annual review process

17. Background • LEAN systems review pilot for the council • Overriding need to reduce council expenditure • Desire to start exploring more freedoms under Localism Bill • Funding achieved to pay consultants to train project team and be involved in the review • Review carried out Feb – March 11

18. Methodology • Considered customer expectations of the service • Process mapped systems and processes – project team and then whole team • Highlighted obvious ‘issues’ • Agreed data required to evidence or show issues • Collated existing data and set up some daily monitoring • ‘Brainstormed’ ideal future state • Proposed and mapped realistic future state • Pulled out implications for consideration • Estimated cost of new processes and subsequent savings

19. The current process Housing registration process Sub regional process Annual review process

20. Some identified ‘issues’ High volume of applications • Numbers doubled since CBL launch 2007 • (1 March 2011) 8,000 applications – 5,000 administered by SNC with 3,000 by NCC & BDC • 70% of applications have little or no housing need • Each require staff time of 25 mins – 3 hrs • Each application incurs non-staff costs of printing and postage • 10% of applicants successful in bidding each year

21. Identified issues cont. Inadequate info from customers at application • Reason 1: paper applications incomplete • Reason 2: IT system ‘loses’ data when imported from online application form • Not all IT fields mandatory • 70% of applicants need to be re-contacted for additional or repeat information • Average time taken = 10 mins • 70% in 2010 = 245 hrs

22. Identified issues cont Non-bidders • Over 52% of existing applicants have never bid for a property • 80% of non-bidders are in Low Need band • Oldest ‘non-bidder’ application dates to 1968 • Customers believe they are accumulating priority • Resources used to process and re-register applications who are inactive

23. Identified issues cont. Annual review process • In 2010 sent 7,362 letters to update and ‘re-register’ existing applications • 41% did not respond and sent follow-up letter, stating application cancelled • 5% of these responded and application reinstated • Estimated cost of this process annually is £10k

24. Identified issues cont Medical assessments • 13 per month in 2010 • 32% lead to banding increase • 45 minutes for each assessment • Forms rarely provide the info required • Customers ‘chase’ priority and believe completion of form will give priority

25. The dream future Housing registration process Annual review process

26. Main proposed changes Considered restricted access to the housing register • Dependent on Localism Bill • Retain access and existing assessment policy for existing priority categories (Emergency, Gold, Silver and Bronze) • Include sheltered hsg applications • Include transfer applications to ensure bidders for potentially ‘hard to let’ properties • Agree local needs housing prioritisation policyHowever, probably not going to implement this.

27. Main proposed changes No customer self-application • No online application • No application forms Introduce pre-assessment / screening • At first contact establish likely housing need? • No = provide advice and realistic expectations. If still wish to register, basic details only, no verification. • Yes = make interview appt and inform of info required. Make own enquiries.

28. Main proposed changes Assessment and housing options interview • Call day before to ensure attendance and all evidence/info available. If not, cancel appointment. • Using all requested info, interview and give housing options. • If housing need, make banding assessment. • Input data straight onto system, • Provide bidding ref. number and email scheme guide and letter (or print if necessary).

29. Main proposed changes Cancel non-bidders at annual review • Inform of this at interview • If wish to apply again follow same initial process Cancel Low Need applications after 1 year • Inform of this at interview • If wish to apply again follow same initial process

30. What should the outcomes be? • Simpler, stronger system • Better focus on and interaction with customers • Customer expectations managed better • Fewer applications to the housing register • Focus of resources on those in need • Reduced staffing costs • Reduced cost of administration (= financial savings)

31. Implications to consider • Change in policy could be dependent on Localism Bill • Change in policy requires extensive consultation • Need to ensure application decisions are communicated legally, with right to review • Partners may not want to work in the same way – what would this mean for the partnership?

32. Working through…issues of allocations, tenure and transparency

33. Mike Ward Associate Director, Circle

34. Some perspectives on mobility Mike Ward Assistant Director of Business Growth Circle Housing Group

35. Why does being able to move matter? (With apologies to lovers of Springwatch)

36. Why does being able to move matter? “It is simply wrong that families are trapped in homes that are overcrowded, or that they find difficult to manage because of ill health or advancing years, while others who want to move to take up new job opportunities or to live closer to family are unable to do so. “I am determined that we make it easier for tenants to move.” The Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP

37. For us as a provider • Supports our mission to enhance life chances • Logical response to intensifying pressure on supply • Saves money

38. Human City Institute • Independent charitable ‘think-tank’ undertaking research into ‘human city’ issues. • Identifying barriers to the creation of successful settlements • Aspects include housing, health, the environment, community development, ethnicity and faith • ‘Counting Costs’ research led by Kevin Gulliver • www.humancity.org.uk • kevin.gulliver@tiscali.co.uk

39. ‘Counting Costs’ • Commissioned by Circle Anglia a year ago • Identifies the barriers to mobility in the sector • Uses existing datasets to estimate the number of tenants seeking a move • Considers the costs arising from an inability to move www.humancity.org.uk

40. Barriers to mobility • Buying is beyond most of • our tenants • 1997 – one in 77 could buy • 2009 – one in 500 • Fewer social rented homes • 4.4 million in 1997 • 500,000 fewer today (11%) • Growth in waiting lists • 39% increase between 2003 and 2009 • One in twelve households are registered

41. Real consequences, real burdens Health Education Social Care Policing & ASB

42. What is this costing? • Human City apply indicators of scale to a ‘cost per case’ based on relevant studies – e.g. cost to NHS of poor quality or overcrowded housing = £172 per case • Totals estimated in this way are: • Social care: £305m • NHS: £81m • Education: £32m • Criminal Justice: £58m • Employment: £66m • TOTAL - £542 million annually

43. What are we doing? Promoting and enabling mutual exchange – good for customers and good for landlords • Simple • Fast • Puts the customer in control • Saves us money -v- transfers • Drives customer satisfaction

44. Created in 2004 for Wherry HA • An alternative to paper-based systems • Also needed because ‘Move UK’ was not working • Quickly identified as positive by neighbouring councils and associations • Now has 170 landlords and ‘House Exchange Direct’, so is accessible to all • More than 130,000 registered users • Unique ‘three-way exchange’ search to enable chain-building www.houseexchange.org.uk

45. Housing options and advice • Conversions • Rehousing some people in • over-crowded homes • Sometimes it’s not about a move – • e.g. space-saving furniture • Group-wide principles • Maximising our allocation freedoms • Best practice guide being produced

46. The national scene • Localism Bill - paves the way for a regulatory direction requiring all social landlords to: • Subscribe to an internet-based mutual exchange service that tenants can register with, free of charge • Use a service conforming to minimum standards around matching and data sharing • Provide support for tenants who are unable to access the internet

47. National home swap scheme Membership Testing – June 2011 Available for users – July 2011

48. Web services option

49. Mobility in London • Home Connections G15 service launched last month • Landlords pledge 5% of lettings available for cross-London moves • Expects to enable around 150 moves annually • Initially for those with offers of work or work-related training • Now extending eligibility to include under-occupiers • Mayor’s pan London scheme under development

50. Other news… • Vanguard projects • £1m over 2 years to support 12 councils or sub-regions to: • Demonstrate the economic benefits of increased mobility • Demonstrate the savings of moving through mutual exchange • Explore what can be done locally to promote more mobility • Test the potential benefits of ‘payment by results’ • Identify any further steps which Government could take to promote mobility in a cost-effective way.