HQN’S MAGAZINE FOR BOARDS, EXECUTIVES AND LEADERS AUTUMN 2019
EVIDENCE special
Contents Autumn 2019 Evidence Issue 24
Published by: HQN Rockingham House St Maurice’s Road York YO31 7JA
Editorial: Janis Bright Alistair McIntosh Email: evidence@hqnetwork.co.uk Advertising: All enquires to: hqn@hqnetwork.co.uk Tel: 01904 557150 Design: Sam Wiggle
Printed by The Reliable Print Company, York
Published four times a year. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without written permission is strictly prohibited.
Printed on FSC ® certified paper.
3 – Welcome 5 – Housing wealth inequality in Scotland 6 – Great expectations: Exploring social housing customers’ expectations of great service 8 – Homelessness prevention in the UK: Developments and challenges
10 – Improving dispute resolution for landlords and tenants 12 – Renter protection and institutional investment in multi-family rental housing 14 – Lived experiences of the priority need system in Wales 15 – Northern Ireland round up 16 – Accreditation success 18 – Housing Studies Association Conference 2020 19 – The last word
2
| AUTUMN 2019
Welcome! “The growing divergence that has characterised housing policy in the four UK jurisdictions is a positive development that reflects the conditions that have shaped their housing markets”
Housing researchers have long from the point of view of evidencechanging housing aspirations recognised international evidence based policy development it allows and homelessness prevention. reviews as an integral part of the the impact of different policy There is no doubt too that UK-wide research process. However, in terms responses to be analysed and research has influenced the recent of making an impact on policy assessed within a framework of recommendation by the Commons development in the UK, evidence broadly similar housing systems. Work and Pensions and Northern from other countries is Ireland Affairs Committees often at a disadvantage to recommend the because the housing The ongoing conflict and uncertainty extension of the current systems – and in surrounding Brexit has highlighted the Welfare Reform Mitigation particular the housing Package in Northern finance and social potential impact of a range of outcomes Ireland beyond March welfare systems – are on the future of the UK as a political entity. 2020. so different. Findings The ongoing conflict and and recommendations, uncertainty surrounding even from Anglophone countries Recognition of the growing Brexit has highlighted the potential such as the USA, Canada or importance of cross-jurisdictional impact of a range of outcomes on Australia, may be of little direct use comparisons and contrasts the future of the UK as a political in the context of the more uniquely has been a fundamental pillar entity. Regardless of the outcome it distinctive housing system in the UK. underpinning the research is important that there is a continued In contrast, academics and programme of the UK Collaborative focus on policy orientated crosspolicy makers have increasingly Centre for Housing Evidence jurisdictional housing research. recognised the value of inter(CaCHE). This has been particularly jurisdictional research within the beneficial from the perspective of UK. The growing divergence that Northern Ireland given its size and has characterised housing policy ongoing budgetary constraints. Joe Frey development in the four jurisdictions This year already three stakeholder Knowledge Exchange Broker, is a positive development that engagement events organised CaCHE reflects the combinations of by CaCHE in partnership with the economic, socio-demographic Department for Communities in and political conditions that have Northern Ireland have helped shaped the particularities of their influence the formulation of housing markets. However, it also legislation and policies with regard has the added advantage that to the private rented sector, AUTUMN 2019 |
3
Ready for your in-depth assessment?
Be on standby with HQN – choose the support that works for you Have a practice run Our team of experts will take you through your paces.
Training session for boards and SMTs One of HQN’s experts will deliver a tailored session explaining the IDA process – what to look out for and how to prepare.
Had the call? Need practical support? We can mobilise quickly. If you are tight on time or resources it’s never too late.
Please contact Anna Pattison on 01904 557197 or anna.pattison@hqnetwork.co.uk to find out more.
Housing wealth inequality in Scotland Ken Gibb reports on a recently completed CaCHE project on housing wealth inequality in Scotland, in partnership with Policy Scotland and the Resolution Foundation. At the end of the project we conducted an international evidence review and drew implications for housing wealth inequality. The project was funded by the Poverty and Inequality Commission. We try to make sense of housing wealth inequality with a simple conceptual framework (see diagram). This framework distinguishes the drivers of housing wealth from the measured nature and extent of housing wealth inequality. And in time it moves on to think about the impacts of housing wealth inequality and wider outcomes, including policy responses and feedback loops to the driver’s nature and extent of housing wealth inequality. It is within this framework that we organise our evidence review. Housing wealth inequality – a framework for analysis Drivers • parental wealth • long-term policy settings • mortgage market • returns elsewhere • tax system • available supply • local price differentials
Nature and extent of HWI • inequality measures • change over time • Scot v UK • within Scotland • across sub-groups
Impacts • frustrated aspirations, access and market affordability • demand for BTL, second homes investments • existing spatial and social inequalities compounded and reinforced • demands for policy responses?
Wider outcomes • inter-generational • rentier demand and productivity reducing • social mobility • social cohesion • demands for policy responses?
We can organise the main findings as follows: First, what are the main contextual facts about housing wealth and inequality? • Wealth in the UK and in Scotland has increased sharply relative to income over recent decades and the absolute gap between the richest and poorest has expanded considerably across different measures of inequality. Housing wealth inequality is nearly twice as unequally distributed as income in Scotland and Britain • The importance of owning housing assets cannot be overestimated (rising home ownership rates initially moderated inequality as home ownership grew). Wealth Inequality across different age bands is growing and changing (younger households are no longer on the wealth escalator as they were in earlier generations) but is arguably no less significant than inequalities within age cohorts • Because of the patterns and trajectory of house prices and patterns of ownership of property, there are considerable implied variations in housing wealth within Scotland. Second, what does the economic evidence tell us? • The economics literature tells us that high and/or rising housing prices and rents have direct effects of housing wealth. There are significant impacts on stability, savings and productivity, which feedback on wealth patterns and social mobility • Policy decisions relating to housing wealth and consumption impacts have generally been the purview of central banks and Treasuries – not housing or sub-national governments – despite the growing evidence that regional variations are important • Affordability problems and local housing shortages affect the economic performance of cities and regions – this can make cities and regions less competitive, which in turn further exacerbates income and wealth shares. Third, what do micro studies tell us about health and social mobility impacts? What do we know about private landlords and changing housing wealth? • The evidence on health effects is mixed. Several studies say that there is an impact but others suggest that there are intervening factors, and there are strong assumptions deployed in the other studies which can be queried • Social mobility may be impacted through multiple channels advantaging those already with the financial capacity to support their children: from affording better schools to assisting housing investment decisions. However, more evidence is required • During a period of home ownership decline, the rental market has grown quickly: landlords may now AUTUMN 2019 |
5
account for 5% of all adults in England. The sector has grown extensively (more people have become landlords) and intensively (some landlords acquired more properties). This creates a new way in which housing wealth increases inequality as most landlords are wealthier than tenants (though there is diversity among landlords). Fourth, what can we say about intergenerational and asset-based based welfare? • Intergenerational inequalities are a contested issue because of how we define ‘generations’ but also how we measure and control for confounding factors. While generational inequality may be ‘apparent’, it may well be driven by wider structural inequalities • Despite the scope to draw down housing wealth for consumption or welfare, housing wealth is generally accessed only as a last resort, or as a safety-net, with most people reserving it as precautionary saving (oldage care) or to be bequeathed to the next generation. Finally, what does the evidence tell us about the potential for policy reform? • Housing tax policies, broadly conceived, offer a suite of potential policy reform instruments to consider, though specifically Scottish measures need to recognise the mixture of devolved and reserved fiscal policies that would have most leverage influencing housing wealth inequality • A key constraint is reformability – the technical, political and acceptability of wealth reform. While much of the focus is on the difficult political economy of reform, there are also many practical problems. See, for example, the challenges of reforming property taxation.
Housing wealth is a multi-dimensional and complex issue. In addition, it has risen up the Scottish housing policy agenda. Scotland is currently undergoing a national stakeholder consultation process. The vision for housing policy and the principles that guide it have been published for consultation and include two interesting and potentially radical elements. First, it is suggested that a goal of housing policies should be to stabilise house prices. Second, it is proposed that housing should not be viewed as principally a store of wealth or indeed that we should not have such an undiversified approach to savings and wealth accumulation.
Radical goals This raises all manner of interesting questions. These goals are radical. But are they politically and technically implementable? It is one thing to say that we wish to operate any housing system with stable house prices; it is quite another thing to say that that can actually be delivered by policy interventions (and sustained on a consistent basis). Second, it is also politically quite challenging to suggest that housing and homeownership should not be a key store of people’s wealth and savings. What alternatives are there and how do we moderate or even remove the desire to own housing for investment, sometimes speculator purposes? Housing wealth inequality is not merely an academic or simply ethical issue about fairness or indeed about its consequences for the housing system. At least in Scotland, it appears to be rising to the top of the policy reform agenda. https://bit.ly/2MjWNuK
Great expectations: Exploring social housing customers’ expectations of great service Simon Williams, from research consultancy Service Insights, reports on recent qualitative research. ‘What do social housing customers want?’ It’s a question underpinning the very nature of the day to day work of housing providers, but one we perhaps don’t reflect upon as often as we should. Interestingly, whilst many practitioners might have strongly felt opinions on the answer to this question, there seems to be a distinct lack of independent evidence available to effectively answer it. Lincolnshire-based housing provider Acis, working with Service Insights, recently helped to contribute to
6
| AUTUMN 2019
better understand this issue, assisting both themselves and other social housing providers in understanding what customer expectations of great service looks like, and how housing organisations may need to change to deliver to those expectations.
Research design Exploratory research was developed with eight social housing providers around the UK – Acis, WDH, Yorkshire Housing, Riverside, Gentoo, Orbit, Regenda, and Midland Heart – who between them manage almost 200,000 properties. An innovative approach was taken to the research design by applying a large-scale qualitative
approach using thematic analysis of free-text questions. This compares to the more standardised quantitative approach in the social housing sector where customers are asked their perspective using a rating scale. Whilst this can be highly effective, a qualitative approach can offer a deeper and richer picture. The research aimed to be simple yet effective. As such, just three questions were posed: 1. Think about the last time you received great service, this could be from any organisation; for example, Amazon, Royal Mail, or your bank perhaps. What made this service great? 2a. Do you expect this same level of great service from your landlord? 2b. Why? 3. Can you describe what great service from your landlord would look like? The questions were tested in November 2018 with a small number of housing researchers, from which a pilot of 250 customer responses were gained in December 2018. From this, full scale data collection proceeded across all the participating providers between January to April 2019. Data was collected via providers’ existing customer satisfaction feedback structures, such as monthly or quarterly telephone interviews with customers. By taking this approach, we could be confident responses were generally representative of the customer profile of each landlord. A total of 5,817 tenants participated in the research, producing a raw data set of 246,613 words. Responses were manually coded using thematic analysis applying first and second coding techniques to group codes into themes. To complement the customer perspective, a staff consultation was also undertaken asking the same questions to research practitioners of 25 social housing providers from around the UK.
Findings The findings from the customer group for Question 1 highlighted that when considering service outside of the social housing sector, tenants most frequently cited aspects such as speed and timeliness of service, followed by good communication in the service process. Interestingly, whilst digital forms of service were often noted (such as Amazon), human qualities such as friendliness, helpfulness, politeness, and respectfulness also often featured. Quality of service, consistency of service, and keeping promises also rated highly. For Question 2, a large majority of tenants (83%) stated they expected the same level of service from their landlord as they receive from other companies, with the main reason cited that as they are paying for the service, they expect it to be of a good standard. Interestingly, as well as the traditional view that tenants should abide by their tenancy agreements, from the customers’ perspective an alternative view was gained whereby landlords should abide by their service promises to tenants (such as on repairs and maintenance).
Finally, for Question 3, when asked if they could describe what great service looks like, it was interesting to note that for the vast majority of customers, the concept of great service centred on their sense of home. Consequently, it is not surprising that repairs and maintenance featured in the top three priorities, along with speed of service. Other themes of customer service also featured, such as listening, communication, problem solving, and respectfulness. “I expect more from my landlord, because I’m not just a customer, I’m a tenant and my concerns relate to my home. I am also doing my best to create a lovely home and expect my landlord to support me in showing respect to me and the property.” From the practitioner group, many of the same findings could be observed as those identified by the customers. However, differences could also be observed. These focused upon staff underestimating the importance of the home when considering ‘great service’: this did not feature at all in the staff research findings. In summary, this research aims to add to the broader discussions and debate about what customers expect in service delivery, and how social housing providers may meet this. Our research suggests customer expectations are not unreasonable, but some mismatch in landlord service priorities still exists. To read a full copy of the Acis report, please visit https:// bit.ly/2Bf20gW. Dr Simon Williams can be contacted at info@serviceinsights.co.uk
JOIN NOW! The Housing Studies Association (HSA) is a UK-wide membership organisation which brings together researchers, practitioners and professionals to promote the study of housing. HSA runs a programme of events including our annual conference and our public lecture on housingrelated themes. The Association also offers: • Events grant scheme enabling members to disseminate and discuss their work, • Seminar Series grant competition • Conference bursaries to early career and/or nonwaged housing researchers and practitioners • The prestigious annual Valerie Karn prize for best paper by an early career housing researcher. Become a member from just £25 a year and access these benefits plus reduced rates to our events. See www.housing-studies-association.org Follow us on twitter @HSA_UK.
AUTUMN 2019 |
7
Homelessness prevention in the UK: Developments and challenges Post devolution, homelessness policies and laws diverge across the UK, write Suzanne Fitzpatrick, Jenny Wood and Peter Mackie. These “natural experiment� conditions enable investigation of the relative effectiveness of homelessness prevention across the four UK jurisdictions, with a view to mutual lesson learning.
8
| AUTUMN 2019
The comparative analysis summarised here is informed by official homelessness statistics, national surveys of local authorities in Scotland, Wales and England (91%, 86% and 51% response rates respectively), and interviews with expert key informants from the statutory and voluntary sectors (35 in total) across all four countries.
A prevention framework There are a range of homelessness prevention typologies within the international literature. Most commonly used is the tripartite ‘primary, secondary, tertiary’ model inspired by public health approaches. However, we argue that the following five-category typology offers more discrete categories of prevention, and provides for a finer-grained assessment of prevention efforts in the UK: • Universal prevention – preventing or minimising homelessness risks across the population at large • Targeted prevention – upstream prevention focussed on high risk groups, such as vulnerable young people, and risky transitions, such as leaving local authority care, prison or mental health in-patient treatment • Crisis prevention – preventing homelessness likely to occur within 56 days, in line with legislation across Great Britain on ‘threatened with homelessness’ • Emergency prevention – support for those at immediate risk of homelessness, especially sleeping rough • Recovery prevention – prevention of repeat homelessness and rough sleeping.
Key findings The study reveals how early developments in Scotland focused on emergency prevention – ensuring that all homeless people have an enforceable right to temporary accommodation, albeit some local authorities routinely fail to meet their duties in this regard. Importantly, there is no legal obligation to provide emergency accommodation to single people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, even if they are at high risk of sleeping rough. Within this context, rough sleeping has more than doubled in England since 2010, doubled in Wales since 2015, and remains a problem in Scotland and, to a much lesser extent, in Northern Ireland. Most effort has recently been expended on crisis prevention, whereby people at risk of homelessness within 56 days are assisted to remain or secure alternative accommodation. Recent legislative developments in Wales and England have proved effective, albeit there is sometimes a gap between intentions of the law and current practice. There is also now a policy commitment in Scotland to introduce stronger prevention legislation, and interest has been expressed for doing the same in Northern Ireland. Progress on targeted prevention with high-risk groups, such as those leaving prison, has been slower to develop across the UK, despite a firm understanding that leaving state institutions too often results in homelessness. There are exceptions: some improvements are apparent for care leavers in many parts of the UK, and new standards
are being implemented for prison leavers in Scotland. Education, health and criminal justice sectors often come in contact with high risk groups at a much earlier point than housing and homelessness services. However, key informants felt that the ‘duty to refer’ homeless people to local authorities imposed on public bodies in England under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 does not go far enough in tying wider services into preventative solutions. The most important driver of homelessness in all its forms is poverty. Cuts in housing allowances, coupled with affordable housing shortages and exclusionary allocation practices, mean that England’s recent record on universal prevention is dismal. Homelessness levels have risen sharply since 2010 in London and the South of England in particular. Lower housing pressures and welfare reform mitigation measures mean that the picture is more mixed in the other UK nations. The effectiveness of efforts to prevent the recurrence of homelessness (recovery prevention), and especially of rough sleeping, has varied within and between UK countries over time. Currently, Wales and Northern Ireland are in much better positions than Scotland and especially England because of the greater protection given to Supporting People funding streams. However, promising policy initiatives are underway, with major Housing First initiatives progressing in all three GB countries and relevant projects established in Northern Ireland too.
Recommendations for homelessness policy • The UK Government must improve the social security safety net, whilst devolved and local governments, and housing associations also have a role in enabling access to more affordable and secure housing • Greater collaboration and investment in services are required to ensure nobody becomes homeless because of leaving a state institution • Scotland and Northern Ireland should adopt homelessness prevention legislation similar to that in England and Wales. Across the UK, wider-ranging public sector prevention duties are also required to target earlier multi-disciplinary assistance towards high risk groups • The use of inappropriate hostels and shelters as emergency and often long-term accommodation should end. Moves to embrace housing-led solutions are welcomed, particularly the Housing First model for homeless people with complex needs • The engagement of health and social services is crucial to recovery prevention amongst vulnerable homeless people. There must also be investment in housing-related support. This article summarises a briefing paper produced by Professor Suzanne Fitzpatrick and Dr Jenny Wood of Heriot-Watt University and Dr Peter Mackie of Cardiff University for the UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence (CaCHE). The full briefing paper can be accessed here: https://bit.ly/2oHQ4S4 AUTUMN 2019 |
9
Improving dispute resolution for landlords and tenants Disputes can occur in any consumer market, but in the private rented sector they may have particularly severe consequences, such as the loss of a home and homelessness, writes Jennifer Harris. An adequate system of dispute resolution is key not only to allowing tenants and landlords to exercise their legal rights but also to ensuring that disagreements can be resolved. However, the UK’s current dispute and redress processes are fragmented and confusing, and landlord and tenant disputes can often only be resolved via formal litigation. The justice system tends to present multiple barriers of entry, and questions have been raised across the UK regarding whether the courts are indeed the best forum for addressing disputes within this context.
Resolution mechanisms Our ongoing research examines the role and potential of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms that allow disputes to be resolved without the involvement of courts or tribunals, such as mediation, adjudication, or the services of an ombudsperson. A review of available evidence, key stakeholder interviews, and examination of international examples of alternative dispute resolution approaches, suggests that the following key principles could be applied to the UK to improve dispute resolution for landlords and tenants. The principle of providing a proportionate approach to resolving disputes would sit at the heart of an improved system of redress in the private rented sector. Although certain disputes will require court intervention, others may not, and an improved system would provide a broader set of procedures that allow a response that is proportionate to the needs and complexity of individual cases. Findings indicate that effective dispute resolution systems usually involve a pathway of interlinked processes that gradually escalate in intensity and resources, while focusing on resolving disputes at the earliest opportunity. Most of the models we explored aim to prevent disputes escalating into formal resolution processes by equipping individuals with knowledge of their rights, responsibilities and available options. Early self-help and processes for finding and identifying relevant information that are accessible, user-friendly, and tailored to different circumstances can empower people to become
10
| AUTUMN 2019
actively involved in the dispute resolution process. An improved system of redress would prioritise prevention, aim to increase awareness of the range of resolution processes, and support people in choosing the most suitable option for their needs and circumstances.
Use of technology The findings suggest that digital processes play an increasingly important role within the dispute resolution landscape, offering numerous benefits such as greater accessibility, speed, and efficiency. Nevertheless, these systems must consider the unequal distribution of the factors that affect people’s use of technology, such as skills, support, and available equipment. In order to avoid possibly disadvantaging certain groups of people, an effective system of redress would provide alternative options alongside the development of digital services and ensure that the design of new systems is userfocused. On a practical level, this would involve ongoing user testing and consultation to ensure that provisions are made for technology to cater to different needs, capabilities and circumstances. Our study indicates that the evidence base for alternative dispute resolution in the housing sector could be enhanced: to date only limited evaluations have examined the successes and weaknesses of these approaches. An improved system for redress would explore opportunities to further incorporate mechanisms for ongoing evaluation and review in order to ensure that the system continues to adequately serve its purpose, as well as to identify and address any accessibility issues. Evaluations need to measure and interpret success from the viewpoints of different stakeholders and multiple lenses of accountability, while exploring opportunities to share learning with the wider sector. Alternative dispute resolution is not a panacea to the problems of our justice system, and its development must be accompanied by supporting infrastructure. This includes adequate access to tailored advice and information, increased awareness of its role and potential, and a commitment to continuous learning and improvement. Nonetheless, under the right conditions it can represent an exciting opportunity to rebuild the dispute resolution landscape to provide landlords and tenants with a less stressful and more accessible and effective means of settling disagreements and accessing justice. This study forms part of a new three-year research programme ‘Raising Standards in the UK private rented sector’ funded by TDS Charitable Foundation and SafeDeposits Scotland Charitable Trust. For more detail contact Jennifer Harris at the University of Bristol J.Harris@bristol.ac.uk
Your people are your most important asset – make sure you’re investing in them
HQN has an outstanding track record of helping organisations achieve real and lasting performance improvements. Ensuring your staff have access to relevant, timely training is vital in the ever-changing landscape of the sector. With over 200 different topics covered we have you and your organisation’s interests at heart. Our outstanding team of training professionals deliver the highest quality training sessions: • Sign up to our public training covering a range of key issues, from technical ones to soft skills • Looking for a more tailored approach for a number of your staff? Book an in-house session and get real value for money • Want something longer term? We’ve a range of qualified coaches and mentors. For more information please contact hqn@hqnetwork.co.uk, call 01904 557150 or visit www.hqnetwork.co.uk AUTUMN 2019 |
11
Renter protection and institutional investment in multi-family rental housing Stanimira Milcheva from University College London reports. The announcement of the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (MHCLG) plan on 15 April this year to end unfair evictions and ban Section 21 may sound a positive step towards better renter protection in England. Section 21 evictions essentially allow landlords to evict tenants for no reason with two months’ notice. However, one needs to take such reforms with caution as while one part of the Assured Shorthold Tenancy may change, so may other parts of it that increase the protection of landlords. The conventional wisdom in cases that look to increase tenant protection is to claim that landlords will stop letting, or will increase their rents, or will change the way they select tenants.
So, is higher tenant protection really so bad for landlords? In a recent working paper entitled “Renter Protection and Institutional Investment in Multi-family Rental Housing”, Dr. Meagan McCollum from the University of Tulsa and myself assess how various tenancy statutes across US states affect the performance of institutional landlords in the private rented sector. The rented sector in the US is called multi-family rental housing and is largely dominated by institutional investors rather than buy-to-let investors or individuals. Those institutional investors act as landlords as they will generate revenues from the rents they collect on the apartments they own. Similar to the discussions in England, in the US, after
Exhibit 1: Renter protection across US states
Note: Darker states have higher renter protection score.
12
| AUTUMN 2019
decades of infrequent incremental change to landlordtenant laws, pressure on states to make changes is mounting. New York and Oregon are leading the way on providing more legal tenant protection. Renter protection refers to laws that protect tenants’ rights in rental agreements. For example, states have different statutes on maximum security deposits landlords may request, minimum amount of time a landlord must wait before evicting a tenant for nonpayment, and protections against retaliation for tenants if they request repairs or make complaints against landlords. (Renter protection is not the same thing as price controls; outside of a few large cities with their own stricter laws, landlords are not restricted on the rent they can charge.) Exhibit 1 shows state-level variation in the levels of renter protection across the US; the darkest states have the highest tenant protection. The research assesses individual tenancy laws across US states and classifies states as more or less tenant friendly (landlord friendly) using various metrics. The following statutes across all states are considered: right to complain, right to form tenant organisations, nonrenewal notice, maximum deposit allowed, rent increase notice, time to return security deposit, right to withhold rent, non-payment eviction, lease violation eviction, time to recover personal property, right to deduct repair cost from rent. Landlords in tenant-friendly (or protectionist) states may face restrictions such as the inability to collect large security deposits from tenants, longer waiting periods before they may evict tenants for non-payment, or be subject to the right of tenants to legally withhold rent if
certain repairs are not completed. The research explores the effect of renter protection on the net revenue stream (net operating income, NOI) of institutional landlords over time and across neighbourhoods with varying housing affordability and eviction rates. The main findings of the study are displayed in Exhibit 2. In areas (census tracts) with the least affordability (high average rent to income ratios, high rent burden) as well as areas with high levels of poverty, minority residents, and eviction rates, higher renter protection is significantly associated with higher annual NOI. Additionally, in these groups cash flow (NOI-debt service) is significantly higher in states that have more renter protection. On the contrary, in more affordable areas and areas with less poverty, eviction or minority residents, the impact is negative or insignificant on NOI and cash flow is significantly lower as well. Furthermore, we show how specific laws affect the NOI. Statutes such as the right to complain, right to form tenant organisations, very short time to return security deposit, right to withhold rent if repairs not completed, and longer time to recover personal property have a positive effect on NOI. The only laws that have a negative effect on NOI are when rent increase rules slightly favour the tenant and when the time to eviction is slow. The results suggest that while single policies may be significant, the biggest effect comes from a combination of protections; as the number of binary protections increases, so does NOI.
located in a less affordable area or an area with high poverty or high share of minority residents, actually landlords benefit from an increase in renter protection. Why is that – how can the effects of renter protection actually lead to better landlord performance over time? One way to explain this is that renter protection leads to stabilisation in rental income. For example, void periods in which landlords do not receive any rent may be reduced and the costs associated with the search for the next tenant lowered. During periods of voids, in addition to not receiving rent, landlords may experience more refurbishment costs to make the unit attractive to the next tenant as well as marketing costs to advertise the unit. There is some evidence from industry as well that landlords actually prefer a case where tenants feel secure and are less likely to move away, as that gives stable and predictable rental income. Another way to explain our observations is that landlords may engage in more stringent pre-screening of tenants when they are located in the less-affluent areas and be able to select more reliable tenants, thus improving their properties’ financial performance. Dr Stanimira Milcheva is Associate Professor in Real Estate and Infrastructure Finance at the Bartlett School of Construction and Project Management
What do those findings mean? Renter protection depends on the neighbourhood where the property is located. If a rented property is
Exhibit 2: The role of US state-level renter protection score (RPS) for property-level net operating income (NOI) in the top and bottom quartiles of affordability of US census tracts Panel A: Affordability quartiles RPS
High R/I
Low R/I
H. Rent Burden
L. Rent Burden
H. Renter Occ.
L. Renter Occ.
0.186077*** (0.15383)
-0.01141 (0.01643)
0.01380** (0.00583)
- 0.01445 (0.01975)
0.10519* (0.05774)
-0.01627 (0.02096)
r2_w
0.11437
0.11790
0.11595
0.10702
0.12054
0.12173
r2_b
0.48375
0.42403
0.46537
0.44044
0.48945
0.44617
r2_o
0.44712
0.36675
0.43400
0.39499
0.45884
0.40233
High Poverty
Low Poverty
High Minority
Low Minority
High Evict
Low Evict
0.09737*** (0.00928)
-0.01334 (0.02367)
0.204559*** (0.39794)
-0.00538 (0.02047)
0.05873*** (0.00794)
-0.00915 (0.02009)
r2_w
0.52441
0.62452
0.53106
0.63147
0.61192
0.64204
r2_b
0.56020
0.57348
0.55011
0.56024
0.55033
0.62412
r2_o
0.56568
0.56533
0.54578
0.53316
0.55615
0.62445
Panel B: Demographics quartiles Renter protection score
Note: The stars next to the coefficients indicate the confidence level. Three stars stay for 99% confidence of rejecting the Null hypothesis of no effect or renter protection score (RPS) on the net operating income (NOI) of properties in each subsample. The dependent variable is NOI per unit of each building. The key explanatory variable it the RPS. We include a host of other control variables of which you can learn more in McCollum and Milcheva (2019). Each column is a subset of all the properties which are located in certain census tracts. For example, high poverty would suggest that only buildings in the top 25% of the tracts with the highest poverty are included. R2_w, r2_b, r2_o stays for the R squared within the estimates, between the estimates, and overall. A high R square indicates a good model fit.
AUTUMN 2019 |
13
‘You can’t just wave a magic wand, can you?’ Lived experiences of the priority need system in Wales Dr Helen Taylor, from Cardiff Metropolitan University, outlines the findings from her Academic Fellowship at the National Assembly for Wales. The Welsh Government introduced the Housing (Wales) Act in 2014, creating for the first time a prevention duty to help all eligible individuals and households who are threatened with homelessness within 56 days. This legislation has been celebrated as “one of the best examples to date…of the Welsh Government using its powers… to take policy in a substantially different direction from that followed elsewhere in the UK” (https://bit.ly/2poZ6Du). The implementation of this has seen a substantial impact on the number of households assessed as “threatened with homelessness” having their homelessness successfully prevented as well as a “reorienting the culture of local authorities towards a more preventative, person-centred and outcomecentred approach” (Fitzpatrick et al 2017). Concerns remained, however, around effective assistance for those who are already homeless and those falling out of the system through “non-cooperation” (https://bit.ly/2BbwNLy). Responding to this, the National Assembly and Welsh Government have undertaken a number of pieces of work looking at the legislation over the past year. The National Assembly’s Equality, Local Government, and Communities Committee has undertaken an inquiry into rough sleeping in Wales, with follow up work to be completed in Autumn 2019. The Welsh Government has commissioned research into the use of the priority need test within the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 and has also established a Homelessness Action Group with representatives from the third sector, academia, and housing associations. A key element of these discussions is how and when the use of the priority need test to establish individuals’ statutory duty to assistance should be used.
Homeless people’s views The focus of my Research Fellowship was to engage with individuals who have experience of rough sleeping to understand their views on the use of priority need testing. The research was planned so as to capture retrospective views about individuals’ experience of the priority need process; however, throughout the interviews individuals were keen to share how they thought the system could be improved. The research therefore outlines a set of recommendations from the ten individuals I engaged with (from four different locations across Wales) regarding improvements to the homelessness system.
14
| AUTUMN 2019
Very few of these relate to the specific legislative duties but more to the availability of broader services as well as the implementation of the system itself. The respondents to the research outlined the following recommendations: 1. A focus on a more person-centred approach 2. More flexibility in the implementation of the system 3. A focus on recruiting staff with lived experience 4. The introduction of a regulator of homelessness services 5. More investment in substance misuse services 6. Better quality temporary accommodation to be available 7. Better links between education and homelessness 8. More investment in day services. Recommendations 1-4 can be understood as relating to the implementation of the system. Respondents outlined issues around the inflexibility of the administration of the system, particularly in regards to how it does (or does not) meet the needs of individuals who have substance misuse or mental health problems. An emphasis on individuals having to meet appointments to be seen as “cooperating” was often in conflict with individuals’ ability to keep track of days and time. Respondents also emphasised issues relating to “proving” their priority status if it related to mental health problems. A persistent theme here was individuals feeling a lack of control in their engagement with the system. Respondents suggested that there needs to be a better relationship between those assessing priority and those presenting as homeless, and called for staff to take the time to “find out who the person is you’re working with” and to “think outside the box”. A proposed solution to this was a focus on recruiting local authority staff with lived experience of homelessness.
Broader issues Recommendations 5-8 relate to the interaction between the homelessness legislative system and broader services. Again, linked to this issue of flexibility and lack of control, respondents highlighted that there was sometimes a lack of appropriate offer of help from the local authority. Individuals shared experiences of how they were placed in a pub for temporary accommodation following release from
prison for alcohol-related offences, whereas others emphasised the lack of safety within large-scale hostel accommodation. One respondent outlined that her temporary accommodation was within shared floorspace and she
“there was a lot of drugtaking… I wouldn’t use the toilet or shower or nothing” was a single female amongst 30 men using the same area. She described that “there was a lot of drugtaking…I wasn’t necessarily using the toilets or anything in there because there was needles on the floor, blood up the walls…I wouldn’t use the toilet or shower or nothing”. The lack of availability of substance misuse services and day centres was also highlighted as a barrier for individuals to create the change in their lives that they wished to. This report will be published in October 2019 and will be presented to the CELG Committee prior to that. It is hoped that the narratives from those who have experienced the priority need system will inform decisions on legislative approaches in the future. Fitzpatrick, S., Pawson, H., Bramley, G., Wilcox, S., Watts, B. & Wood, J. (2017) The Homelessness Monitor: Wales 2017. London: Crisis Information on the National Assembly Academic Fellowship scheme is available here: https://bit. ly/2qgcHh2
Northern Ireland research roundup Here is a snapshot of just some of the recent research focused on the region. How many homes does Northern Ireland need? This work was undertaken by the Housing Market Symposium established in 2017 by the Department for Communities in response to a key indicator contained in Northern Ireland’s draft Programme for Government 2016-21: “the gap between the number of houses we need and the number of houses we have”. https://bit.ly/33yzYsK Rethinking social housing This report combined original research and engagement with the housing sector, tenants, politicians and the public to explore fundamental questions about the future of social housing in Northern Ireland. https://bit.ly/31ektVy Can different social housing regimes exist within the UK? Devolution of housing policy within the UK can foster sub-types of social housing regime. But the effects will be limited by the UK-wide welfare regime which continues to produce high levels of income inequality and poverty, says Mark Stephens from Heriot-Watt University. https://bit.ly/2MjXSTk Community identity shapes residential mixing A study of long-term residents and incomers in an area of Belfast found different concerns over identity and belonging in the two groups – but also shared needs for support in the neighbourhood. https://bit.ly/2BagBdD Health and housing transitions The Northern Ireland Longitudinal Study offers data on people’s health status, their housing tenure and their residential moves over the ten years from the 2001 to the 2011 Census. This analysis finds with those in social and private rented accommodation in 2001 generally having the largest probability of transitioning to ill-health over the next decade. https://bit.ly/32j5qez Universal Credit An interim report by researchers Mark Simpson and Ruth Patrick charts the history of Universal Credit, differences in Northern Ireland including significant mitigations, and what may happen next. The report marks the start of a research project on the effects of UC in Northern Ireland, funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. https://bit.ly/33vQREy Green futures A study of social housing built to low energy or Passive House standards in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland found that the homes can be built for minimal extra cost compared to traditional build. But the gains to occupants from lower running costs could significantly reduce fuel poverty. https://bit.ly/32iVhP0 AUTUMN 2019 |
15
Christmas came early for Curo A big congratulations to Curo who have recently been accredited for their income management services.
Lydia Dlaboha, HQN, presenting the award to the team at Curo
We’re delighted to be able to announce that Curo have been accredited for its income management service. HQN’s lead assessor for income management accreditation, Tony Newman, and the accreditation panel noted that: “Curo have an impressive pre tenancy offer with their passport to housing service and, it’s clear to see, a genuine emphasis on supporting customers. They’re creative and innovative, using different ways to engage with their customers. “Their partnership working with the DWP is really positive and I’m very impressed to see how they push for positive changes within the sector as well as providing such strong support for their own customers. “Curo demonstrate enthusiasm and energy, exploring new options and ways to improve this service for customers and the organisation, through a range of innovative projects. “Curo clearly have a strong focus on customers with evidence of a range of positive interactions which are supporting customers, tailored to their individual circumstances and needs, to sustain their tenancies. Partnership working is used effectively to offer customers a range of ways to access relevant support. “I was impressed by: • Curo’s track record of current arrears performance improvement • The level of personalisation/individual focus and with customers in arrears • Their commitment to partnership working • The thoughtful approach to providing information for customers (such as the Lifehack videos) and the range of opportunities for customers to provide feedback.”
16
| AUTUMN 2019
Head of Customer Accounts, Emma Owens told us: “The accreditation process was a significant amount of work, but really worthwhile. It gave us the chance to self-audit, review the way we do things and not just to ensure we are in line with regulations and pre court protocols, but that we were doing the right thing, for our customers and for the business. We have identified some improvements we can make, but also the process has been re-assuring, and gave the team a good boost and encouragement following on from some hard years of rent cuts and welfare reform. “Tony as always is a pleasure to work with, and has helped us identify where we can continue to drive up performance and ensure we are helping our customers stay in their homes, and thrive. Getting accredited also reassures our exec and board, as well as customers, and in the current uncertain political climate this is critical – as the rent is harder than ever to collect, yet so important to remain viable.” Congratulations again and keep up the good work.
Gaining HQN Accreditation means your organisation not only meets or exceeds good practice standards, but is also proud to offer a best-in-class service to its tenants and residents. Here’s 2019’s roll of honour – well done, everybody! Blackpool Coastal Housing
South Essex Homes
Bolton at Home
Sovini Property Services
Calico Homes
Tamworth Borough Council
Camden Council
Vale of Aylesbury Housing
CHP
whg
Curo
Wythenshawe Community Housing Group
Inquilab Housing Association Ipswich Borough Council
Yarlington Housing Group
Lancaster City Council London Borough of Southwark Midland Heart Muir Property Services Nottingham City Homes One Vision Housing Optivo Regenda Homes Rochdale Boroughwide Housing
To find out more about our accreditation services please contact Anna Pattison on 01904 557197 or anna.pattison@hqnetwork.co.uk AUTUMN 2019 |
17
Housing Studies Association Conference 2020 6-8 April 2020 | Sheffield, UK Call for Papers: ‘Housing, devolution and localities: Inventing a future or more of the same?’ The HSA is pleased to announce its call for papers for the 2020 annual conference. This conference will look at devolution in its broadest sense, meaning the transfer of decision-making powers between actors. Many housing organisations now undertake a range of support roles such as employment support, digital education and wellbeing, as well as diversifying business interests in order to meet these needs. There is pressure on housing associations to remain viable organisations whilst ensuring access to secure and affordable housing for those who require it. The private sector remains the key actor in the provision of housing either in their role as developers or as landlords. The state has continued to support this growth through policies which fix housing as a key pillar of the UK economy.
Confirmed plenary speakers include: • Paul Dennett (Mayor of Salford City Council and Lead for Housing, Planning and Infrastructure in the Greater Manchester Combined Authority) • Quintin Bradley (Leeds Beckett University) • Tamsin Stirling (Independent researcher) • Prof. Peter Roberts (Chair of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive) • Jess Perera (Institute of Race Relations) • Andrea Gibbons (University of Salford) This conference will provide the space for academic researchers, practitioners, and those working in housing policy and related areas to reflect and debate on these issues.
Abstracts should be submitted by Saturday 14 December 2019. More information about how to submit: https://bit. ly/2BCfbIU
GDPR 2020 –
lessons learned from the first 20 months Get up to date with GDPR and reflect on the lessons learned at these bespoke events for housing professionals. This interactive event, led by GDPR experts Jill Jones and Helen Iles, will discuss the latest developments in GDPR and reflect on the lessons learned to date, focusing on common pitfalls in the sector, how to effectively manage a data breach and how you can measure your organisation’s compliance with GDPR.
15 January 2020 – London 22 January 2020 – Manchester Visit hqnetwork.co.uk/events or call 01904 557150 for more information and to book your place.
18
| AUTUMN 2019
The last word Hot air about building performance creates turbulence
Alistair McIntosh, Chief Executive, HQN We’re in the danger zone now. Winter is coming, as they say. Picture if you will a cold, wet day where the light is fading fast. What does a builder on scaffolding ten storeys up with freezing fingers do? You know what’s coming. He bangs on the cladding without the insulation using any old screws and hops back into the comfort of a warm Transit. That’s what I’m told by people in the know anyway. It could be true. I was sitting in the café the other morning when two loud mouthed hi viz blokes came in. They pulled out an enormous architects’ drawing and proceeded to tell all and sundry how they would ignore it to get the job done. So, should we file all the specifications for our buildings under fiction? Hold your horses! The architects are fighting back. You should get your hands on Fionn Stevenson’s new book called Housing Fit for Purpose. It sets out the gaps between homes as planned and what goes on when people actually live in them. Fionn is looking at carbon emissions but there are lots of lessons for fire safety too. Her starting point is the shocking statistic that new housing in the UK routinely
uses three times more energy than predicted. How did we get so far out of sync and what must we to do to get back on track? Fionn says that “key areas of concern were poor implementation of new technologies, unnecessarily complex controls, inadequate training of installers, poor commissioning and handover procedures and poor fabric construction, resulting in extensive thermal heat loss”. That’s damning isn’t it. As you would expect the designers try to say it’s all down to the folk in the homes not using them properly. That’s more or less what car makers used to claim in the 1960s when their motors were “unsafe at any speed”. Here we go again. According to Fionn: “They wrongly blame the occupant or believe that the answer lies in ‘educating the occupant’ … when, in fact the cause lies blatantly
life. You will need to find a way of getting the resident to sign up to it. If you don’t you will keep on making the same mistakes. Are homes built in laboratory conditions in factories the answer? Well, they do demote the freezing fitter from a main part to a supporting role. And that’s a start. But there is still a flaw. You can use all the science there is to design the homes and the robots can put them together with inch perfect precision. Despite that you still don’t know how it will work out in practice. What can you do to fix this? Fionn suggests asking families to live in the prototypes part time to test them out. That will help to identify any teething problems. When a builder tried this they found that heat loss was 50% higher than the designers said it would be. So, they changed the windows, sorted out flaws in the heating and hot water systems and
“We need to test out that what we build works in real world conditions. We almost never do this” in the poor design and installation of technology. This makes it impossible for the hapless inhabitant to use it properly.” So, what can we do to put this right? Fionn comes up with a set of practical suggestions. Firstly, we need to test out that what we build works in real world conditions. We almost never do this. So, we need to go back to the homes when folk are living in them and make sure all is going to plan. Was everything fitted the way it was supposed to? Is it working in the way it is meant to? What do the residents have to say? How can we use this evidence to get it right next time? Fionn pulls no punches; sometimes the testing can disrupt day to day
came up with simpler controls. All in all, Fionn’s book suggests that the professionals should use a bit of humility and work with residents to solve problems. If we don’t do this the homes we build and refurbish won’t be safe and we won’t cut emissions. The Welsh Government is tying funding to decarbonisation. Will the rest of the UK follow suit? Yes, they will. When they do we will need to cut emissions in real life not just in pretty drawings. Fionn shows how we can square the circle. It puts me in mind of the slogan of the tenants that are pushing for co-production: “Nothing about us, without us.” Fionn shows the power of co-production in practice. Read her book, I’ve not done it justice.
AUTUMN 2019 |
19
New for 2019!
Bespoke stress testing – made easy You’ve all got to do stress testing. That’s what the regulators are saying in England, Scotland and Wales. No wonder, as there’s such a lot on the horizon. Is Brexit a known unknown or an unknown unknown? Whatever it is you’ve got to make plans for it. And we can help. To find out more contact Anna Pattison on 01904 557197, or anna.pattison@hqnetwork.co.uk