3 Improving monitoring and evaluation
13. At the start of the Programme the Department
did not calculate an estimate of the total cost to local authorities
and Registered Social Landlords of making all their homes decent.
While it did produce an estimate of £19 billion using data
from the English House Condition Survey, this covered local authority
housing only. According to the Department, the estimate did not
cover Registered Social Landlords as the extent of non-decency
in their housing stock was much less and they were more able to
tackle the problem using their own resources. In contrast, the
condition of local authority housing was much worse and would
require government assistance.[24]
14. According to the Department's latest figures,
local authorities and Registered Social Landlords will spend over
£37 billion making their housing decent (Figure 1), with
local authorities spending an estimated £29.3 billion compared
to the initial estimate of £19 billion. According to the
Department, these two sums are not comparable. For example, the
outturn figures overestimate expenditure on Decent Homes as they
include other capital works to communal areas, lifts and the wider
estate. In addition, the £19 billion was not an estimate
of the total long-term cost to local authorities as it did not
include the cost of future inflation or allow for properties that
were decent at the start but which subsequently fell below standard.
Finally, the English House Condition Survey, which formed the
basis of the estimate, only examined the condition of samples
of properties. Subsequent examinations by each local authority
of all their housing revealed that the level of non-decency was
higher than initially identified.[25]Figure
1: Landlord expenditure in the social housing sector: 2001-2011
| Local authorities and ALMOs
| Registered Social Landlords
| Total
|
| £ billion
| £ billion
| £ billion
|
| 29.32 |
8.07 | 37.39
|
Source: C&AG's Report, Figure 8
15. According to the Department, the production of
a long-term estimate would have depended on the Department making
such a series of assumptions about the way that the Decent Homes
work was going to be done by landlords that the resulting estimate
would have been of little use. The Department considered that
the £19 billion estimate produced was, nevertheless, a good
estimate of the total cost of work in the local authority sector
and that it gave the Government a reasonable measure of the scale
of investment required in that sector.[26]
16. The Department does not have robust information
on the number of social housing properties made decent under the
Programme. Although it has estimated that 1.4 million local authority
properties have been made decent, this figure is based on local
authority returns which include properties that are still non-decent
but where tenants have refused work or demolition is planned.
The Department also has no estimate for Registered Social Landlord
properties.[27]
17. The Department considers that its figures for
the year-on-year improvement in the overall number of decent homes
in the social housing stock are robust.[28]
Despite this, there is a significant difference in the extent
of the improvement shown by returns from landlords and by the
English House Condition Survey. According to landlord returns,
the number of decent homes in the social housing stock had increased
by 1.1 million by April 2009, whereas the Survey only showed an
improvement of 500,000 by April 2007.[29]
These differences have arisen, in part, because the landlord returns
count tenant refusals and planned demolitions as being decent,
whereas the Survey does not.[30]
In the Department's view, the landlord returns provide the most
reliable figures for progress on the Programme, although it also
continues to publish the Survey's figures.[31]
18. Ministers set the parameters within which the
Programme was to be delivered and decided that gap-funding specifically
for Decent Homes would not be given to local authorities that
chose to retain their housing stock.[32]
The decision over whether to retain or to use one of the three
delivery options that attracted gap-funding rested with local
authorities.[33] Factors
influencing their decision included the extent to which their
properties were non-decent, whether they had sufficient funds
to carry out the refurbishment needed, and their tenants' preferences.[34]
19. Although retaining local authorities have still
received funding from the Department via the Major Repairs Allowance
and Regional Housing Pot, the decision not to provide them with
gap-funding ensured they received less money from the Government
than authorities who chose one of the other three options for
delivering Decent Homes.[35]
Despite this, according to the Department the vast majority of
local authorities are successfully implementing the Programme.[36]
Where authorities still have work outstanding, the Department
and the Homes and Communities Agency are actively engaging with
these authorities about how they will complete this work within
the Programme parameters set by ministers.[37]
20. In 2002 the Department set a target for private
sector housing, that 70% of vulnerable households in such housing
should be in decent accommodation by 2010. By April 2006, this
target had almost been achieved, with 68% of vulnerable households
in decent private sector housing. However, because of the introduction
of the more demanding Housing Health and Safety Rating System
in 2006, the number of such households in non-decent private sector
accommodation increased. As a result, by April 2007, the number
of vulnerable households in decent private sector housing had
fallen to 61%.[38]
21. The funding of the private sector element of
Decent Homes is much simpler than for the social housing sector,
with local authorities receiving grants allocated by the Regions
from the part of the Regional Housing Pot meant for private sector
renewal. However, the Department only has an estimate of £1.2
billion for the amount of this grant that will be spent by 2011
on private sector Decent Homes.[39]
22. In overseeing the private sector element of the
Decent Homes Programme the Department has given local authorities
much greater discretion and has only monitored progress at a national
level.[40] As a result,
it does not know how much individual local authorities have spent
on the private sector element of the Programme. It is more challenging
for local authorities to monitor this element of the Programme
because they do not control the housing stock.[41]
24 Qq 2, 3 and 39 Back
25
Qq 38-40 Back
26
Qq 2, 3 and 38 Back
27
Qq 44, 48 and 75; C&AG's Report, para 2.14 Back
28
Qq 13-15, 47 and 48 Back
29
Qq 16 and 75 Back
30
Qq 42 and 43 Back
31
Qq 16 and 43 Back
32
Qq 24, 25 and 31 Back
33
Qq 28, 29 and 33 Back
34
Qq 5, 12, 24, 28, 35, and 72 Back
35
Qq 24 and 26 Back
36
Q 20 Back
37
Qq 11 and 18-21 Back
38
Q 45; C&AG's Report, Figure 6 Back
39
Q 45 Back
40
Q 37 Back
41
Q 45; C&AG's Report, para 3.4 Back
| 
