1 / 17

Hal Pawson Heriot-Watt University Edinburgh

Key Findings on the Longer Term Impacts of CBL. Hal Pawson Heriot-Watt University Edinburgh. Presentation Outline. Research aims and methods CBL spread Impact of CBL on tenancy sustainment Distributional effects of CBL Impact for statutory homeless households

devon
Download Presentation

Hal Pawson Heriot-Watt University Edinburgh

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Key Findings on the Longer Term Impacts of CBL Hal Pawson Heriot-Watt University Edinburgh

  2. Presentation Outline • Research aims and methods • CBL spread • Impact of CBL on tenancy sustainment • Distributional effects of CBL • Impact for statutory homeless households • Impact on ethnic segregation • Applicant perspectives on CBL • Summary and conclusions

  3. Research Aims and Methodology • Heriot-Watt University commissioned to undertake research 2004-06 • Main elements of methodology • Case studies focusing on 13 CBL schemes - 11 in England, 2 in Scotland (pilots and non-pilots) • Large amount of administrative data collected from each case study scheme • In-depth interviews with CBL applicants and with community groups advising service users on making CBL bids

  4. CBL Spread 2001-2005 • 27 pilot schemes 2001-03 • Dec 2004: 71 schemes – a third led by HAs • Most landlord LAs operating or planning CBL by Jul 2005 (England) • ‘No plans LAs’ mainly small DCs • 22% of all HA lettings in England made under CBL Q4 2005 • 77 HAs in England (9 in Scotland) letting most vacancies through CBL Q4 2005

  5. Impact on Tenancy Sustainment • Claimed prospects of improved tenancy sustainment a major justification for CBL • Most direct measure: % of lets terminated within 12 months • General – though not universal – tendency for significant reductions in ‘early termination’ rates after CBL launch • Non-CBL LA ‘early termination’ rates generally falling by about 3% p.a.

  6. Impact on Management Performance and Cost-effectiveness • CBL can help ‘underperforming’ landlords to improve void management (though this is not inevitable) • Potential savings quite large compared to any increase in lettings service ‘running costs’ • Staffing costs usually held constant but overall running costs slightly increased due to: • Advertising • Premises costs • Annualised set-up costs (e.g. IT investment) • For landlords underperforming on void reletting and with relatively high tenancy turnover CBL can unlock major net savings – in Sheffield estimated at £1M p.a. • ‘Already efficient’ landlords have less to gain financially but those having converted to CBL see this as justified by ‘non-quantifiable benefits’

  7. Concerns on CBL’s Possible Distributional Impacts • ‘Simplified’ applicant ranking systems could disadvantage most needy applicants • possible result: greater sifting of most deprived households (e.g. statutory homeless) into least popular housing • Reflects concerns about equity impacts of marketisation in education and health • Hypothesis that CBL could compound ethnic segregation • Allowing ethnic minority applicants ‘freer choices’ could intensify ‘ghettoisation’

  8. Distributional Impact of CBL for Statutory Homeless Households (1) • Classified neighbourhoods by popularity • Compared pattern of lettings before and after CBL • Focused on relative propensity of statutory homeless households to be rehoused in: (a) ‘low demand’ areas (b) ‘high demand’ areas (c) flats as opposed to houses

  9. Distributional Impact of CBL for Statutory Homeless Households (2) • Compared pre-CBL and post-CBL data on the likelihood that a statutory homeless household would be rehoused in a ‘high demand’ area • Homeless households ‘did better’ under CBL in all 6 areas for which data available • No clear pattern on relative likelihood of homeless households being rehoused in flats under CBL • Conclusion: CBL landlords have configured rules and procedures to avoid any significant detriment to homeless households

  10. Impact of CBL on Groups Potentially Disadvantaged in Engaging with the System (1) • Need for specific measures to protect interests of potentially disadvantaged groups recognised by most CBL landlords • Maintenance of an ‘assisted list’ – membership identified: • through the registration process • through monitoring of bid data to pinpoint ‘high need’ non-bidders • Dissemination of information on vacancies and how to bid: • direct mailing of vacancy advert info to ‘assisted list’ applicants/advocates • translation of ‘how to bid’ info into minority languages etc. • provision of info on available vacancies by automated telephone systems

  11. Impact of CBL on Groups Potentially Disadvantaged in Engaging with the System (2) • Assistance with bidding: • training of applicants to use website • training of caring professionals and advocates to make proxy bids (including outreach work to hospitals, hostels, prisons). • Establishment of dedicated ‘customer support’ staff/team • BUT…v. few landlords specifically monitoring applications from/lets to ‘potentially disadvantaged’ applicants so hard to conclude on actual impact

  12. Impact of CBL on Ethnic Segregation • Classified neighbourhoods in relation to % of ethnic minority social renters in 2001 • Compared lettings patterns before and after CBL on % of ethnic minority lettings in ‘areas of concentration’ • General tendency for greater % of minority ethnic lets outside ‘areas of concentration’ under CBL than previously

  13. Distribution of Leeds Council Lettings to Ethnic Minority Households pre-CBL and post-CBL

  14. Explaining Increased Ethnic Minority Diffusion Under CBL • Under traditional allocations policies housing staff need to offer people properties they think will be accepted • Tendency for staff to ‘play safe’ when matching ethnic minority households to properties • Evidence suggests an appreciable proportion of ethnic minority applicants will bid for and accept tenancies in areas staff would not risk • More broadly, research evidence that – at least in some areas – many applicants taking up tenancies in areas other than those for which they would have been considered under traditional systems

  15. Applicant Perspectives on CBL • Research included in-depth interviews with housing applicants and newly rehoused tenants • Findings raise questions on ‘received wisdom’ that CBL overwhelmingly popular with consumers • Many applicants welcome the opportunity to have a direct say in choosing a property. But…. • Prolonged unsuccessful bidding breeds frustration and doubts about system fairness – exacerbated by confusion about applicant ranking systems • Landlords much better at explaining how to bid than how competing bidders prioritised • Need for personalised feedback to explain unsuccessful bids

  16. Summary and Conclusions • CBL introduces consumerist mechanisms into a traditionally paternalistic, producer-led sphere • As a rule, CBL boosts tenancy sustainment • Some devolution of power and responsibility from landlords to applicants. But landlords retain ability to shape systems to deliver desired outcomes – e.g. in relation to statutory homeless households • In multi-ethnic cities extending CBL is contributing to ethnic dispersal not ethnic segregation • Landlords need to focus on the need for (a) greater transparency and (b) systems to better inform ‘low priority’ applicants of their realistic prospects for securing a social tenancy

  17. Your response and questions Are your communications clear on prioritisation policies? Are you communicating effectively with unsuccessful bidders?

More Related