Housing associations preoccupied with growth
Housing associations have allowed business concerns and government influence to over-ride their broader social purpose as voluntary organisations.
This is the claim made in a report, Housing associations in England and the future of voluntary organisations, published by the charitable Baring Foundation.
The study uses the example of housing associations to discuss what might happen when voluntary organisations take over public services.
Report author Andrew Purkis, formerly chair of the Charity Commission, says some housing associations became preoccupied with the development of new social housing and creating powerful balance sheets, at the expense of quality.
He states: ‘This was the sexy, exciting part of the business and to some extent these housing associations took their eyes off the more mundane tasks of tenant management and other, wider aspects of their mission.’
Mr Purkis says some associations, partly because of diminishing growth opportunities, are now ‘rowing back’ and focusing once again on local sensitivities and tenant engagement.
The report concludes that housing associations have only limited independence and are only able to borrow so successfully because of government regulation. This, says Mr Purkis, has also led to associations being reluctant to campaign, with a ‘wide gulf’ between associations and housing campaigners.
It says: ‘The government dictates the rules as regulator, supplies the capital grants, controls the housing benefit that makes up two-thirds of rental income and fixes rent levels.
‘When so busy responding to encouragements, incentives and requests from a powerful government managing their market, it must have been difficult for housing association boards to say no, or to define different priorities of their own.’
Mr Purkis also says there is no persuasive evidence that housing associations are better at creating tenant satisfaction than councils and their arm’s-length management organisations.
Tom Dacey, chief executive of 25,000-home association Southern Housing Group, described the report as ‘tendentious nonsense’.
Mr Dacey said: ‘If growth provides new affordable housing for people in need we are guilty as charged, that’s what we are here for, that’s our mission.’
David Orr, chief executive of the National Housing Federation, said associations ‘have to be concerned about their balance sheets in order to be able to deliver the wider social agenda’.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (24)
Sidney Webb | 25/08/2010 9:52 am
Yes, we need growth, tonnes of it, but we also need good prudent management.
Take One Housing Group for instance, who's Chief Exec has recently explained to us how bumping up the rents to their tenants would allow them to build even more than they do currently. Yet look at their inspection report outcomes - hardly a glowing account of a good housing manager giving value service to tenants.
As I say, growth is essential, but it should not be at expense of quality and value for money services to tenants. Even the private sector has learned and follows that lesson.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Harry Lime | 25/08/2010 9:59 am
If RSL's are obsessed with growth and can't afford to build social rented properties, personally I haven't a major problem with them building properties for private rent, providing they're not using any existing land banks that they have for social housing.
I'd rather see an (allegedly) inefficient RSL as my private landlord than potentially any private landlord who could decide to sell their properties, might not answer queries, organise repairs etc. No matter how bad the RSL at least you have a degree of accountability which often the private sector is lacking.
Obviously none of this should be done at the expense of providing social housing, but in these fallow times it may be worth considering....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 25/08/2010 10:09 am
On your toes, Pickles.
Mr Dacey's fighting-talk smacks of entitlement and complacency.
Let's hope in October's spending review HAs are put firmly in their place.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 25/08/2010 10:24 am
Housing Associations residents have been left well off the centre of any concern by their landlords. It is all about getting bigger, or absorbing this or merging that.
Social housing providers have become financial operators and forgot their are service providers.
Governemnt should stop this going on at once.
New social housing building should be run by new organisations independent from social housing providers who should only focus on service and maintainance.
Only this willo ensure Housing Associations would look properly after their customers.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Junior | 25/08/2010 10:34 am
What you just realised this- well go around and look at the condition on the property's in and out side.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Junior | 25/08/2010 10:36 am
Progressive Solutions Required have you a little eastend my fellow neighbour. I hope?????
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Junior | 25/08/2010 10:37 am
Sorry should of readed our you - beg your pardon
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Junior | 25/08/2010 10:38 am
p.s. why they are allowed to build cardboard boxes with no insulation under noise???
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Paine | 25/08/2010 10:44 am
I look forward to reading this report. It appears to sum up the paradigm perfectly.
I don't accept Harry Lime's argument that poor quality is acceptable because matters are often worse with private landlords. You can't drive a bus on the pavement just because you see car drivers do it.
On the one hand, HA's are treated like private companies - they are not as accountable or as transparent as LA's have to be, on the other they act as though they are charged with a Holy Mission of feeding the 5,000.
They've lost their way so profoundly that they don't even know they are standing at a crosroads.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Harry Lime | 25/08/2010 10:57 am
Paine, your mangled analogy aside, I don't willingly accept poor quality, it's just in the private sector currently there's hardly any guarantees of quailty other than accreditation schemes that are voluntary and therefore don't tackle those it needs to.
The entry of a large "player" be that RSL's or institutional into the private sector will force those within it to raise their game, or potenitially lose residents, not to mention the fact that RSL's would almost certainly continue to renew tenancies year after year unless there are breaches, not simply because the landlord wants to sell, or move their mate in.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment