SO 12 'trailblazing' local authorities are to offer advice on training, employment and childcare to people looking for housing. The CLG announcement on housing options yesterday puts one of the key recommendations of the Hills Report into effect.

But anyone looking for the advice may be confused if they take a closer look at the local priorities for councils it published earlier this week. 

Take childcare - a key factor restricting employment opportunities and housing options. Only four of the 12 trailblazers make 'take-up of formal childcare by low-income working families' a priority.

Take concentrations of people on benefit - a key concern on housing and worklessness. Only five prioritise 'working age people on out of work benefits in the worst performing neighbourhoods'.

Or what about the supply of affordable homes? Even on this most fundamental issue, only eight out of 12 make 'number of affordable homes delivered (gross)' a priority.

Failing to tick the right boxes and speak the right management speak does not of course mean that the 12 will not deliver excellent advice. However, there is a crucial point to be made about 'options'.

As used in homelessness prevention, it has led to some invaluable work on helping homelessness people sustain tenancies and access the private rented sector. However, a strong suspicion remains among many advisors that in some local authorities homelessness prevention is really about homelessness application prevention.

Many people getting 'advice' on their housing and employment 'options' will have similar suspicions running through their heads about the real motivations behind it. And only two of the 12 authorities (Greenwich and Calderdale) can demonstrate those motivations by pointing out they make priorities of all three of the indicators above.

Posted by Jules Birch, July 4

Posted in Hills review, Local government, Social housing, Welfare

NOTHING is more guaranteed to win a housing minister headlines than a suggestion that something should be done about feckless council tenants. As a former welfare reform minister Caroline Flint is more than familiar with the issues about benefits and worklessness. So she must have known what she was doing when  she floated the idea of making looking for work a condition of getting a tenancy in an interview with The Guardian yesterday.

'Commitment contracts' appear to be the big new idea. They would apply initially to new tenants, who would be committed to actively seeking work as a condition of their tenancy, but could be extended to existing tenants too.

The idea - and the extensive coverage in today's papers - are highly reminiscent of the run-up to publication of the Hills Review a year ago. That morning, most national papers ran stories predicting that it would end security of tenure by proposing time limits on social tenancies. Ministers were forced to backtrack from that and John Hills began his press conference with the statement: ‘If you came here with the impression that I was going to be recommending the ending of security of tenure or that tenants will be thrown out of their homes then you’re going to be disappointed.’ Everything then went quiet - though suspicions remained about who had briefed the press in advance and why.

Flint's interview came ahead of a speech today to the Fabian Society in which she covers much of the same ground but rather less explicitly. She praises the work of Notting Hill Housing Trust in offering personalised support and a voluntary contract committing tenants to self-improvement and adds: 'Are these contracts something that could be used more widely? Or are there other kinds of incentives and conditions which could be built into tenancy agreements or the benefits system? If we are giving tenants a stronger voice, greater support and a better service then it's only right that we have higher expectations in return. Social housing should be based on the principle of something for something.'

It's hard to argue with efforts to offer tenants more personalised support or that they should be given more options or to disagree with the sentiment that social housing should act as a springboard as well as a safety net. But the moment the line is crossed between persuasion and compulsion is the moment that it becomes a non-starter.

Compulsion carries no weight without the threat of tenants losing their homes. Is the government really prepared to do that when it knows that the real problems of worklessness lie much more with issues such as childcare costs and the benefits system than with fecklessness? Is it really prepared to evict tenants it knows will still be statutorily entitled to help through the homelessness system but then be even more trapped in worklessness in expensive temporary accommodation?

And does it not stop to think why, as Flint points out, social landlords 'are often trusted by their tenants where other services are viewed with suspicion'? The reason they 'can put this knowledge, this positive relationship to good use by working with other services to help tenants find the training and work they need' is that tenants know they are not welfare snoopers and that they are not going to lose their home as a result.

Conservative spokesman Grant Shapps is right to dismiss the idea as 'legally unenforceable headline grabbing'.

Posted by Jules Birch, Feb 5

Posted in Hills review, Politics , Social housing, Welfare

SECURITY of tenure has been the big issue bubbling beneath the surface of the debate over the future of social housing this year. Ever since Blairite outriders proposed scrapping it during consultations on the Hills review, ministers - and John Hills himself - have been forced to deny that they are advocating any such thing.

But as the dust settles from Yvette Cooper's announcement-packed speech on Wednesday, there's no doubt that it will remain aSecurity  big issue in the debates to come - as Sarah Webb of the Chartered Institute of Housing and Michael Gelling of the Tenants' and Residents' Organisations of England say in this week's Inside Housing.

That's despite the fact that nobody (in government) is proposing anything resembling anything as 'radical' as time-limiting social tenancies or restricting eligibility by income. What are being proposed instead, in line with Hills's recommendations, are measures to increase mobility and housing options in a bid to tackle what Hills identified as the major problem: the fall in the number of new social tenancies.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the ideas floated by Cooper on Wednesday and much that is right. Yes, there are older people under-occupying large homes who would like to move to smaller ones nearer their families. Yes, choice-based lettings are a good idea. Giving greater priority to people looking to move for work makes a lot of sense. Families languishing on the waiting list may well welcome advice about shared ownership and private rental alternatives to waiting even longer. 

And yet concerns - and suspicion - will remain. Much as in the debate about homelessness prevention, will the housing options advice on offer really be objective and tailored to the interests of the tenant or household on the waiting list? Or will some landlords be unable to avoid self-interest in the advice they give? 'Breathing space in the private rented sector' sounds great but families need to be understand that they may be exchanging security of tenure for a six-month assured shorthold. And the experience of the last 20 years will teach many people to be suspicious of any politician promoting 'choice'.

That's why piloting the new system is the right approach - it worked to address fears ahead of the introduction of the local housing allowance - and that's why the terms of reference for the promised review of the private rented sector will be vital.

Posted by Jules Birch, Dec 14

Posted in Hills review, Private renting, Social housing

WINDING DOWN for Christmas? Forget it, if yesterday is anything to go by. If 2007 was the year of the review - step forward Hills, Cave and Callcutt - then 2008 looks like more of the same. Housing minister Yvette Cooper yesterday announced reviews of the housing revenue account (HRA) subsidy system and the private rented sector alongside a working group on regulation, new pathfinders on overcrowding and new pilot projects on housing options and bringing together housing and employment advice.

Her speech yesterday covered much of the government's response to Hills and Cave  and the aftermath of the spending review but also signalled five central themes for the future: investment; regulation; housing options and mobility; social mobility; and mixed communtiies.

And if that wasn't enough to be going on with, it came on the day it emerged that Judith Armitt has quit as chief executive of the Thames Gateway - reportedly after clashes with Cooper - that the Housing Corporation called for more larger homes in the investment programme, and the National Housing Federation published a glossy investment manifesto setting out how associations can deliver on new homes (seemingly by the government giving it what it wants on issues such as rent increases, building for outright sale and retention of surpluses).

The review of the HRA system will be carried out jointly by officials from the Treasury and Communities and Local Government, a statement to parliament confirmed. They will look at what's happened in the six pilot areas and will not make a final report until Spring 2009. However, early conclusions will feed into decisions on the housing regulator and rent and subsidy determinations. It was immediately welcomed by the Chartered Institute of Housing.

The review of the private rented sector will be 'independent' and 'comprehensive' with full details being announced next year. This appears to be in the context of increasing housing options for people on the waiting list as opposed to wider issues of regulation.

And an advisory group chaired by Ian Cole of Sheffield University will be charged with the tricky task of working out how to bring council and ALMO housing under Oftenant in line with housing associations. 

The pilots on overcrowding are part of an attempt to address a key issue raised by Hills - the slowdown in the turnover of social tenancies. Ideas include helping people who are under-occupying to move to smaller homes - although the political dangers of being seen to target pensioners can be seen in the Daily Mail this morning - as well using the bedroom standard rather than the outdated statutory overcrowded definition in the pilot areas.

Social mobillity will be addessed in five housing options pilots that will develop better advice not just on housing but (another key Hills theme) training and employment too.

Cooper summed up: 'Our challenge now in terms of policy development is around these themes. How we do more to increase opportunities for those living in social housing, or those who want to live in social housing but can't get in through the door at the moment? On supply - how can we do more to build the family homes as well as the additional units we need? On the institutional structure - how can we rapidly extend to local councils and ALMOs the new regulatory framework? And what should we do to improve the housing revenue account? On housing options and mobility - how can we better cater for the needs of different groups, for families, for older people, and to promote greater choice and mobility within the system? On social mobility - how can this be better promoted through social housing, particularly through helping people into work but also helping them to build up assets? And finally what more can we do to promote mixed incomes and tenures in existing communities as well as in new developments.'

Posted by Jules Birch, Dec 13 

Posted in Cave review, Finance, Hills review, Private renting, Social housing, Thames Gateway