Memorandum by Dr Tim Brown, Director,
Centre for Comparative Housing Research, De Montfort University
(CVP 17)
1. PERSONAL BACKGROUND
1.1 Dr Tim Brown is Director of the Centre
for Comparative Housing Research (CCHR) at De Montfort University
in Leicester. He is a Corporate Member of the Chartered Institute
of Housing.
1.2 Tim's interest in "Choice, Voice
and Public Services" stems from research on allocations and
lettings in social housing in the late 1980s. Fieldtrips to The
Netherlands in the early 1990s revealed a radical alternative
to traditional allocations methods in the UK such as points-based
systems. This new approach was known as the "Delft Model"
after the city of that name which pioneered it in the late 1980s.
He subsequently undertook development and evaluation work with
three housing organisations in the late 1990s who initiated the
transfer of the Delft Model to the UK (where it is has become
known as Choice-Based Lettings—CBL): Harborough District
Council, Leicester Housing Association and Charter Housing Association
in South East Wales.
1.3 His involvement in CBL has broadened
to cover, for example:
— Links with similar initiatives in
health and social care—customers/users do not see issues
in terms of departmental/professional silos;
— Making the connections with, for
instance, information communications technology and the e-government
agenda as a way of improving communications with customers; and
— The relationship between choice,
quality and the future of public services.
2. THE ROLE
OF THE
CENTRE FOR
COMPARATIVE HOUSING
RESEARCH
2.1 Tim and his colleagues, Ros Lishman
and Jo Richardson, have taken an active role in developing and
evaluating CBL including:
— Working with Harborough District
Council and its partners on Harborough Home Search—the first
district-wide CBL system in the UK which went live in early 2000;
— Evaluating Harborough Home Search
with the support of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation;
— Evaluating schemes developed by Leicester
Housing Association in Mansfield and Charter Housing Association
in Caerphilly; and
— Providing help and advice on CBLs
for local authorities and housing associations through an ODPM-funded
project that ran from summer 2001 to spring 2004—see http://www.choicemoves.org.uk.
2.2 Publications involving Centre staff
include:
Brown, T, Hunt, R & Yates, N (2000): Lettings—A
Question of Choice: Coventry, Chartered Institute of Housing
Brown, T, Hunt, R, Line, B & Middleton,
C (2001): HomeChoice: choice based lettings in practice:
Birmingham, People for Action
Brown, T, Dearling, A, Hunt, R, Richardson,
J & Yates, N (2002): Allocate or Let?—Your Choice:
Coventry and York, Chartered Institute of Housing and Joseph Rowntree
Foundation
Brown, T, Hunt, R & Richardson, J (2002):
"How to Choose Choice"—Lessons from the first
year of the ODPM's CBLs Pilot Schemes: London, ODPM
Brown, T, Hunt, R & Richardson, J (2004):
Has it Worked?—An Evaluation of the First Three Years
of Harborough Home Search: Market Harborough, Harborough District
Council
2.3 The Centre is currently finalising a
good practice guide on CBL for the ODPM, which is due to be published
shortly.
3. CHOICE-BASED
LETTINGS: BASIC
ELEMENTS
3.1 Policy Development
3.1.1 CBL schemes in the UK have been operating
on a district-wide basis since early 2000 when Harborough District
Council and its partners launched Harborough Home Search. In England,
the Government's policy has its origins in the Housing Green Paper,
"Quality and Choice—A Decent Home For All", that
was published in April 2000 and which proposed pilot schemes to
test out different approaches. This resulted in a programme covering
27 schemes that ran from 2001-03. An evaluation study of the pilot
schemes was published by the ODPM in 2004.
3.1.2 The legislation and statutory guidance
provides a framework for local authorities and their partners
to develop schemes that reflect local requirements while at the
same time meeting their legal and regulatory requirements.
3.1.3 The ODPM published targets for moving
towards greater choice in spring 2002:
— 25% of local authorities are required
to have CBL systems by the end of 2005; and
— 100% of local authorities are required
to have CBL systems by 2010.
The Deputy Prime Minister has recently
highlighted that it is the Government's intention to have a national
CBL system by 2009.
3.1.4 From an analysis of information provided
in Housing Investment Programme returns for 2003-04, 78 local
authorities in England are operating some type of CBL. A further
100 local authorities have stated that they intend to be running
a system by the end of 2005. CBL is operating in both urban (eg
Home Connections in Central London) and rural areas (eg New Forest)
as well as in high, mixed and low demand housing markets.[1]
Nevertheless it would appear that a number of them are either
small-scale or do not fully meet all of the principles of CBL—some
for example appear to be primarily based on marketing low demand
properties or only cover part of the social rented sector in an
area. [It is worth noting that customers find multiple approaches
confusing and unhelpful].
3.1.5 In Scotland, there has been less emphasis
placed on CBL though a number of schemes have been developed and/or
discussed eg Berwickshire, East Lothian and Edinburgh. A strong
theme in Scottish policy on allocations and lettings has been
the development of common housing registers for local authority
areas. One of the main aims of this initiative has been to provide
a more straightforward and understandable system for customers/users
in accessing social housing.
3.1.6 In Wales, the National Assembly is
currently commissioning research (and a good practice guide) on
CBL. It has part-funded a number of pilot schemes over the last
four years. A number of local authorities and housing associations
have also taken the initiative and developed CBL systems.
3.2 Principles
There are six interlinked principles of a CBL
system and these are shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Principles of a Choice-Based
Lettings system
Each of these interrelated principles pose important
challenges in designing the system to meet local requirements,
for example:
3.3 CBL Process
3.3.1 This is illustrated, in general terms,
in the flow in Figure 2:
Figure 2: General process of choice-based
lettings
3.4 Traditional Systems
3.4.1 Traditionally, social housing in the
UK has been allocated on the basis of need using a complex points-based
system. Households are awarded points on the basis of their existing
housing situation, medical condition and social issues (and the
number of points may increase or decrease as circumstances change).
They are placed on a waiting list. When a household reaches the
top of the list and in the opinion of housing officers a suitable
property becomes available, they will be made an offer. Many social
housing landlords have operated a limited offer policy ie if,
say, two properties are refused by a household, that household
may be suspended from the waiting list for a period of time.
3.4.2 The problems with traditional approaches
have recently been well-illustrated by Oona King (MP for Bethnal
Green and Bow) on 21 October 2004 on the "Debate on the ODPM
Select Committee Report on Social Cohesion"
". . . I do think the days of telling people
that they can take the flat they are offered or lump it must come
to an end."
4. ISSUES
4.1 Introduction
4.1.1 This section seeks to address a number
of the points raised by the Public Administration Select Committee
in its "Issues and Questions Paper". It draws primarily
on the experiences of CBL, and attempts to provide insights into
how this new approach on lettings links into the broader debate
on choice.
4.1.2 Evaluation of CBL has generally shown
positive findings. The ODPM's review of the pilot programme in
England and Dutch studies have come to similar conclusions that
customers generally prefer the new system compared to traditional
approaches because of its transparency, fairness and ability to
exercise greater relative choice. More detailed case studies that
the CCHR has been involved with supports this perspective. For
example:
— 80% of respondents to a Harborough
Home Search Survey who could compare the new system with the previous
system preferred the former; and
— Customer focus groups in the Home
Connections scheme in Central London preferred the new approach.
4.1.3 Nevertheless, there are continuing
concerns as to whether the needs of specific groups and vulnerable
households have been fully addressed.
4.2 The Meaning of Choice
4.2.1 The degree of choice in traditional
allocation approaches for the applicant or customer is heavily
limited. They may be able to express an interest in a specific
area ie housing officers will only make an offer to a household
of a property from that area. They may also be able to refuse
offers—subject to the nature of the limited offer policy.
4.2.2 CBL allows customers to respond to
advertised properties where they meet the eligibility criteria
(eg household size). This provides a greater relative degree of
choice. It enables them to consider properties and areas that
meet their aspirations rather than being dependant on the procedures
operated by social housing landlords.
4.2.3 However, this is not a free market
system. The eligibility criteria limits choice, while the selection
criteria (eg use of bands of need and priority cards) attempts
to ensure a balance between meeting housing need and providing
choice.
4.2.4 Furthermore, the nature of the housing
market is a major constraint. In high demand areas, the lack of
available affordable properties to rent of the appropriate type
and in the right location restricts customer choice. It is interesting
that a number of CBL schemes in high demand areas have increasingly
broadened their remit to focus on a wider range of housing options,
for example, shared ownership, private renting, care and repair,
and more general advice and support.
4.2.5 From a public service quality perspective,
there are three dimensions:
— Process of receiving the product/service;
and
Overall, CBL focuses on the lettings process.
It does not directly increase the amount of social housing that
is available. It, therefore, changes (and improves) the way in
which the process takes place by enabling customers to have a
greater relative degree of choice. It also begins to alter the
image and perception of social housing landlords from being gatekeepers
to facilitators.
4.3 Concept of Customers
4.3.1 At one level, the use of the term,
"customer", is a conscious attempt to move away from
traditional allocations systems where applicants were passive
to one where they are proactive and empowered to make relatively
greater choices. Even so, there are challenges in defining what
we mean by the customer especially in relation to highly vulnerable
households. In such situations, it may be a formal or informal
carer (eg a family member or a neighbour) who acts as "the
customer". There can be cases where the views of the carer
may be significantly different from the vulnerable household over
making responses to property advertisements.
4.3.2 There is also a danger that the citizen
or community perspectives could be marginalized. From a citizen
perspective in relation to CBL, the key challenge is balancing
rights and responsibilities. "Rights" focus on ensuring
that the "needs" of customers are being addressed, while
responsibilities centre on the requirement that they become proactive
in the process.
4.3.3 The community perspective consists
of two dimensions that have to be addressed:
— Involving community organisations
in the development and delivery of CBL; and
— Working with local communities on
how allocations policies can contribute to building sustainable
neighbourhoods—this might, for instance, involve the use
of local lettings policies in rural areas ie giving priority to
households with a local connection.
4.4 Choice and Equity
4.4.1 The debate on allocations and lettings
processes has centred on fairness and transparency. In relation
to the former, the concern with both traditional approaches and
CBL has been whether specific groups are disadvantaged because
of lack of information and inappropriate policies. A fundamental
requirement for CBL is that policies and procedures should be
`proofed' to ensure that vulnerable households and other groups
are not disadvantaged. In part, it is reassuring that the ODPM
recently set up a Black and Minority Ethnic Advisory Group on
Social Housing to explore aspects of this issue. But considerable
additional work is required in relation to CBL. The ODPM evaluation
of the pilot programme pointed out that one of the major weaknesses
of some of the 27 schemes was that the needs of vulnerable groups
were not fully addressed at the outset. Actions that are required
include:
— Better co-ordination between housing
and the health and social care sectors;
— Greater involvement of voluntary
sector and community organisations in developing and designing
CBL systems; and
— Encouraging and supporting user involvement
in designing and monitoring CBL systems.
4.4.2 From a transparency perspective, there
is a growing accumulation of evidence that customers consider
CBL to be much easier to understand. A particularly positive feature
is that feedback is provided on successful lettings ie property
location, the number of bids/responses, and the key selection
criteria (eg priority card/time on housing register etc). This
enables households themselves to check on outcomes rather than
relying on the "word of housing officers"!
4.5 Information
4.5.1 As has already been pointed out, information
is crucial for empowering customers to make informed choices.
The experience of CBL schemes in the UK is that three types of
information are required:
— Social housing market information
including:
— Location, type and numbers of properties;
— Relative degree of popularity of
areas and properties; and
— Availability of properties.
— Information on advertised properties
including not just landlord details, property type, rent, council
tax band, location, number of bedrooms etc, but also features
such as size of rooms, presence/absence of a garden, car parking.
— Area information such as quality
of schools, location of health centres, and availability of public
transport.
4.5.2 Basic information is usually made
available through local newspapers and/or freesheets. Making more
detailed data readily available and accessible is challenging
for many housing organisations. Detailed property information
including maps and photographs can be provided on websites. However,
only between 10-20% of applicants are likely to have access to
the internet at home. Neighbourhood information on schools etc
has traditionally not been held by housing organisations. Again,
this type of data is now being made available on CBL websites—but
there is a real danger that the digital divide might reinforce
social exclusion and inequalities in the lettings process. Clearly,
there needs to be some joined up thinking with the ICT and e-government
agenda to address this emerging issue.
4.5.3 Finally, customers are becoming more
sophisticated and demanding in their information requirements.
They want more detailed information on property adverts and they
demand to be able to obtain it easily! They would like individualised
feedback on responses to adverts. Young people want instant access
to information and decisions. These each present major challenges
for social housing landlords in addressing customer requirements
in the CBL process.
4.6 "Voice"
4.6.1 Involving customers and communities
in the development, delivery and monitoring of CBLs is central
to the principle of "voice". The key issue is that social
housing organisations have to respond to the demands of the customer.
If they want personalised feedback on responses, this has to be
delivered. Otherwise, customers will become disenchanted with
the system.
4.7 Devolution and Diversity
4.7.1 The crucial question is the balance between
central and local government responsibilities. In The Netherlands,
nearly 85% of municipalities have a "Delft-based" system.
This has been achieved without any targets being set by the Dutch
Ministry of Housing and Planning. The legislation merely requires
that social landlords should have an allocations system.
4.7.2 In England, the ODPM has set targets
for implementing CBL with all local authorities having such an
approach by 2010. Forthcoming good practice guidance will "encourage"
local authorities and their partners to move towards sub-regional,
regional and eventually a national system.
4.7.3 The potential danger is that the Government
will increasingly become more and more prescriptive on CBL and
this will hinder councils from developing schemes that reflect
local circumstances. The Homelessness Act, 2002, for example,
resulted in a number of CBL pilots introducing more bands and
categories of need—thus loosing some of the straightforwardness
of the system.
4.7.4 There is a tension between local decision-making
and a postcode lottery in choice-based lettings. Schemes should
be developed to reflect local circumstances but this has to be
done within a broader context of ensuring that national priorities
are being achieved. A balance has to be achieved so that households
in one area have similar opportunities to those in an adjoining
district, while acknowledging that the local housing markets may
be different.
November 2004
1 High demand examples include Locata in West London
and Homes@Kennet in Wiltshire, while low demand examples include
Bradford Homehunter. Back
| 
