Social Housing Sustainability in Turbulent Times: A Case Study

Steve Page, Paul Webb & Roy Williams

The ubiquitous opening quote …

“Voluntary tenant participation is fundamental to the development and well-being of a democratic, socially inclusive society and must be valued and properly supported”

(DETR, 1999, p. 13)

Agenda

Background to Social Housing One Vision Housing Context of the research Adopted Approach Findings Analysis Preliminary implications Conclusions Quo vadis … Q&A

Background to Social Housing - 1 Since 1919, local authorities have been required

by law to provide council housing (Lloyd George's "Homes fit for Heroes" campaign) sparked by poor physical condition of army recruits.

Clement Attlee's post-war Labour government built more than a million homes, 80% of which were council houses, largely to replace those destroyed by Hitler.

Then … giving council tenants the opportunity to buy the homes they were living in - at a generous discount - was one of the defining policies of the Thatcher era (circa 1980). Two million (many of them labour voters, did).

Background to Social Housing - 2 New Labour (late 90s Blair) was an

enthusiastic champion of ‘right to buy’ and home ownership in general. Helping working people to get a foot on the property ladder.

But … the "right-to-buy" phenomenon had led to a massive depletion in council housing stock … council housing estates were fast becoming the accommodation of last resort for those left behind by society, as families on middle incomes sold up and moved out.

Then … the near collapse of the banking system in 2008 ended the hopes of many on average incomes of ever owning their own homes. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14380936)

Housing Associations Private, non-profit making Operating surplus used to maintain

existing properties & buy new stock Existed since 19th century Many local councils have transferred

their stock to housing associations over the last decade or so to save money

Housing associations are run as private enterprises … but are heavily regulated

Timeline …

One Vision Housing (OVH) Formed in 2006 with stock transfer from Sefton Council Currently over 11,500 homes in stock Multi-award winning, including 2012 & 2013 Sunday

Times “Best company to work for”

Mission – to be the: Best employer Best landlord Best business Best investor in communities

Values – commitment to: Success – we will be the best Passion – we love what we do Authenticity – we do what we say we will do Courage – we dare to be different Enterprise – we never stand still

Context of the Research

OVH work with their Scrutiny Panel and Resident Inspectors to continuously review services and ensure they are striving for excellence in resident care … but how else might OVH improve to better meet the needs of their tenants?

We decided to start at the top with their Board

Board = 4 independents, 2 council nominees & 4 tenants

Research question “How can tenant Board members add extra value to OVH?”

Funded research – 50% UoC & 50% OVH

Adopted Approach

Single case study (Yin, 2008)

Interviews (eight) with Board members – both tenants and non-tenants

Interviews (three) with OVH managers closely allied to tenant activities

Two focus group meetings – Resident Involvement Team Scrutiny Team

Findings - 1

Focus groups also highlighted the importance of:

1. Tenant perspective & feedback

2. Expertise on customer service

3. Meeting OVHs strategic aims (not mentioned by interviewees)

Tenan

t Pers

pective

& fe

edback

Particip

ation &

enga

gemen

t

Experti

se on cu

stomer

servic

e

Protec

tion of serv

ices

Ensu

ring v

alue f

or money

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Main Role of Tenants on the Board of OVH

Findings - 2

Focus groups also highlighted the importance of:

1. What works (& what doesn’t)

2. (dis)satisfaction with services

3. Customer perspective

4. Representing the tenant population

What works (& what doesn’t)

(Dis)satisfaction with services

Customer perspective

Representing tenant population

Sense of ownership/empowerment0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Main Contribution of Tenants on the Board of OVH

Findings - 3

Focus groups also highlighted the importance of:

1. Each & every one of the six factors discussed by the interviewees

Feedback about services

Free expertise Improve efficiency & accountability

Customer focus Improve board decision making

Drive strategy0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Tenants Main Adding Value to the Board

Findings - 4

Focus groups also highlighted the importance of:

1. Each & every one of the six factors discussed by the interviewees except “improve policy development & implementation”

Improved CRM

Building relationships

Professional skills & understanding

Improve feedback

Improve knowledge of different OVH geographics

Improve business intelligence

Improve policy development & implementation

Improve understanding of operations0

1

2

Tenants 'Extra' Value-Added

Findings - 5

Focus groups also highlighted the importance of:

1. Community building; 2. Trust building; 3. Tenant inspection & scrutiny;

4. Tenant decision-making; 5. Tenant engagement

Develo

p "Good-N

eighbour"

schem

es

Celebrat

e importa

nt eve

nts

Charity

fund-raisin

g

Community build

ing

Trust

building

Tenan

t insp

ectors

& scru

tiny

Tenan

t deci

sion m

aking

Tenan

t enga

gemen

t01234567

Tenant 'Value-Added' Other than at Board Level

Findings - 6

Focus groups did not mention any other roles for tenant board members

Self-assessment Keeping sight of philanthropic roots

Targeted tenant involvement

Improve 'joined-up' training

Succession planning0

1

2

Other Roles of Tenant Board Members

Analysis - 1 Main role and contribution of tenants on the

Board appears to be to give the Board a tenant “perspective” & feedback on services (Scott et al., 2001)

Tenants add value to the OVH Board in a number of ways:

Feedback about services (Simmons & Birchall, 2007)Free expertise (van Vugt, et al.. 2000) Improve efficiency & accountability (Spink, 1998)Customer focus (Housing Corporation, 2000) Improve board decision making (Fraser & Gibson, 1991)Drive strategy (Kelly & Clarke, 1997)

Analysis - 2 Tenant Board members add value to OVH in a

number of other ways, i.e. not directly at the Board level:

Develop "Good-Neighbour" schemes (ODPM, 2002)

Helping to celebrate important events (ODPM, 2002)

Charity fund-raising

Community building (Simmons & Birchall, 2007)

Trust building (Tunstall, 2001)

Analysis - 3 Continued …

Tenant inspectors & scrutiny

Tenant decision making (Millward, 2005)

Tenant engagement (Cooper & Hawtin, 1998)

Targeted tenant involvement

Improving training

Maintaining OVH’s Philanthropy

Succession planning (Jordan & Maloney, 1996)

Preliminary Implications

81% of housing associations believe they will be adversely affected by the introduction of direct payments to tenants (Ipsos MORI, 2013). Tenant engagement & participation can be used to minimise impact for OVH.

“Bedroom tax” (Welfare Reform Act, 2012) Government’s impact assessment shows that those affected will lose an average of £14 a week. Housing association tenants are expected to lose £16 a week on average. Affects an estimated 660,000 working-age social tenants – 31% of existing working-age housing benefit claimants in the social sector. http://www.housing.org.uk/policy/welfare_reform/%E2%80%98under-occupation%E2%80%99_penalty.aspx OVH do not have enough one bedroom houses, but they can work with tenants to minimise impact & help with finding suitable

alternative accommodation.

Conclusions OVH’s Board consists of 40% tenant

members

Research question: “How can tenant board members add extra value to OVH?”

Findings indicate that the main role & contribution of tenant board members is giving a tenant “perspective” & “feedback” on service – encourages engagement

Tenant involvement & engagement can be used by OVH to minimise the impact of the “bedroom tax” & direct payments to tenants (Welfare Reform Act, 2012)

Quo Vadis? Working with OVH looking at how

tenants can inform & develop strategy?

Further work on tenant engagement with OVH?

Further work on tenants/value-added beyond OVH, i.e. across the sector?

Something else … ?

One thing is for sure – we will definitely be doing more “housing” research

ReferencesCooper, C. & Hawtin, M. (1998) An introduction to understanding ‘resident

involvement’, in: C. Cooper & M. Hawtin (Eds) Resident Involvement and Community Action: Theory to Practice, Coventry: Chartered Institute of Housing).

DETR (1999) Developing Good Practice in Tenant Participation, London: DETR.

Fraser, R. & Gibson, M. (1991) It’s a Better Way of Working: Tenant Participation in Housing Associations, London: NFHA.

Housing Corporation (2000) Communities in Control, London: Housing Corporation.

Ipsos-MORI (2012) Impact Of Welfare Reform On Housing Associations – 2012 Baseline Report: For the National Housing Federation. Available at: http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Publications/sri-housing-impact-of-welfare-reform-on-has-baseline-2012.pdf.

Kelly, M. & Clarke, C. (1997) Good Practice Manual on Tenant Participation, London: Women’s Design Service.

ReferencesMillward, L. (2005) ‘Just because we are amateurs doesn’t mean we aren’t

professional’: the importance of expert activists in tenant participation, Public Administration, 83, pp. 735–751.

ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (2002) Evaluation of Tenant Management Organisations in England, London: ODPM.

Scott, S., Currie, H., Fitzpatrick, S., Pawson, H., Kintrea, K., Rosengard, A. & Tate, J. (2001) Good Practice in Housing Mangement: A Review of the Literature, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

Simmons, R. & Birchall, J. (2007) Tenant Participation and Social Housing in the UK: Applying a Theoretical Model, Housing Studies, 22:4, 573-595.

Spink, B. (1998) Housing management 1800 to 2000: a practice in search of a policy, in: C. Cooper & M. Hawtin (Eds) Resident Involvement and Community Action: Theory to Practice. Coventry: Chartered Institute of Housing.

Tunstall, R. (2001) Devolution and user participation in public services: how they work and what they do, Urban Studies, 38, pp. 2495–2514.

Referencesvan Vugt, M., Snyder, M., Tyler, T. R. & Biel, A. (Eds) (2000) Cooperation in

Modern Society, London: Routledge.

Wheeler, B. (2011), What future for social housing? Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14380936

Yin, R. K. (2008), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 4th Edition, London: Sage Publications.

Questions?