Hal Pawson Heriot-Watt University Edinburgh

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?