What next for supported housing?

The news that the government will back the Homelessness Reduction Bill will be welcomed by many as an important step in reducing the shocking levels of homelessness in the UK. However, when combined with the proposed changes to funding for supported housing it raises the question of what the future holds for charities that provide services for people who are at risk of being homeless.

Over the past 3 years I have had a unique vantage on this as Director of Development at Hestia.

In that time Hestia has expanded considerably. The charity is supporting something like 60% more people a year than it was when I joined, with turnover up a fifth and staff numbers up by around 40%.

The ways in which Hestia has expanded are suggestive of some of the routes charities working with people at risk of homelessness will need to consider if they are to continue to be viable, in the context of reduced local authority funding and reduced income from rent.

New ‘client groups’

While it is certainly true that local authority funding for traditional models of supported housing such as hostels has been squeezed, there are other sources of funding for specific client groups that have not felt the pinch to the same degree.

Hestia is now the largest provider of outreach support in the country to people the Home Office terms ‘victims of modern day slavery’. Hestia also now provides 5 safe houses for this client group. Other organisations have had success in providing ‘recovery houses’ or ‘crisis houses’, that provide short term support to people either to prevent the need for admission to a mental health ward or following admission.

Successfully identifying emerging ‘client groups’ in this way will be a key skill for supported housing charities who want to continue to provide high quality support to people at risk of homelessness.

Learning to speak ‘health’

A number of Clinical Commissioning Groups and Mental Health Trusts are, at variable rates of progress, getting more involved in funding housing related interventions.

Hestia now provides support to people being discharged from hospital in Hounslow, Ealing and Central West London as well as support to people using GP surgeries in Brent. 10 years ago much or all of this support would have been commissioned by the local authorities. However, they simply do not have the funding to do so, and it is unlikely that they will be in a position to do so in the near future.
Charities that can figure out how to explain their impact to health commissioners will have a better chance of being able to sustain their work.

Moving past labels

Anyone who has worked with people who are homeless or who are at risk of being homeless will tell you that the people they work with are, much like all people, complex and varied. Anyone who has worked in supported housing services will tell you that whatever labels are applied to people (“single homeless”, “mental health”, “substance misuse”) there is not actually nearly as clear a line between the needs of the different people who lived in the various hostels.

Hestia now provides a number of services for people who are variously described as ‘complex’ or ‘socially excluded’ or similar. What this means in practice is that people can come to these services with a variety of needs and the service will still support them to live as independently as possible.

Of course, it is important to maintain specialist knowledge and skills, for example relating to mental health or substance misuse, but those charities that can provide ‘person centred’ support, that recognises the complexity and variety of people’s experience, will be in a stronger position.

Next steps

None of this is to underestimate the challenges facing charities who support people at risk of homelessness. Local authority funding and income from rents will continue to be reduced even as ever greater numbers of people face the risk of homelessness.

On a personal note it’s been a privilege to be at Hestia for this time. I am moving on to be CEO of the Peel Institute, a community association in Clerkenwell. But more on that later…

What next after Brexit?

“the problems facing inner-city communities do not result from a lack of effective solutions, but from a lack of power to implement these solutions”

The Brexit vote represents another victory for campaigns based on the idea that there is something deeply wrong with British society and that people have little control over the decisions affecting their lives.

Despite being on the losing end this time, David Cameron has benefited as much as anyone from this message. His Conservative party ran in 2010 on a slogan of “Broken Britain”. In a speech in 2011, after riots in London, he defined our ‘broken society’ as one featuring

“irresponsibility, selfishness, behaving as if your choices have no consequences, children without fathers, schools without discipline, reward without effort, crime without punishment, rights without responsibilities”

These words make for effective campaigns because many people do not feel able to influence the decisions that affect their lives.

Screen Shot 2016-07-19 at 12.19.56

This was a theme that the Leave campaign played on strongly with lots of talk of ‘taking back control’. Polling shows that themes of control (over decision making in general or levels of immigration in particular) were the main reason given for voting to leave.

While the Brexit and Broken Britain campaigns were successful they have not yet lead to changes to the underlying sense of a lack of control felt by many people.

David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ was meant to fix ‘Broken Britain’. Perhaps the nicest thing we can say about that is that the Broken Britain campaign was more successful on its own terms than the Big Society.

We might well predict that the implementation of Brexit will not lead to people feeling a greater sense of control over their lives. Indeed, we might go further and predict that the result will lead to a greater suspicion in Whitehall of the very idea of trying to give people control of their lives, given the establishments well documented opposition to Brexit.

If this does happen we can also predict that the resentment and alienation many people feel about modern Britain will continue to find ways to manifest itself, primarily through campaigns lamenting the state of the world and offering very little practical means of improving it.

Several years ago I saw Umberto Unger give one of the most amazing speeches I’ve ever heard. He offered a different way forward. One which was so radical that I remember inhaling sharply when he said it. He proposed having annual, programmatic referenda.

I think what he meant was to offer the public a different kind of choice than the one that was offered this time round. One of the policy problems with the Brexit vote is that no one agrees what it means. A vote on alternative programmes would be much clearer.  People would be given the chance to vote for which programme would be implemented in the coming year. And then the government would have to implement this.

This is an incredibly radical idea and one at which many people would baulk. However, it does serve to make us think about how we could actually give people a greater sense of control of their lives.

 

Working class people are less likely to vote and making it easier to vote wont change that

People on lower incomes are less likely to vote than people on higher incomes.

image (4) And it’s not just voting. A recent American study found that “Lower-income people are more likely than others to withhold political opinions by saying “don’t know“”

Some, for example this recent report by Policy Network have argued that we need new institutions to engage people in politics. They called for:

“local deliberative bodies or citizen assemblies, support local authorities conduct effective participatory budgeting exercises, and experiment with new means for the public to engage in political decision-making processes in more direct and sustained ways”

There may well be a place for these things but the chances are that they are just as likely to replicate existing inequalities as they are to overcome them. For example, if working class people do not feel engaged in politics but middle class people do, there is a risk that the middle class people would dominate any new local assemblies.

Historically, one of the ways that working class people got involved in politics was through membership of formal associations such as trade unions. People learned that their opinions were valid and deserved to be heard through being members of these clubs or associations.

However, membership of trade unions has been in decline for many years.

image (5)

Indeed, few people are members of any type of association (although significant numbers are still members of sports clubs).

The situation is starker still if we break the numbers down by age. Most people under 35 are not members of any type of political, voluntary or recreational association.

image (6)

It’s probably no coincidence that as well as not being members of clubs, most people under 35 also do not think that most people can be trusted.

image (7)

There is plenty out there to give working class people the impression that their views don’t count. For examples, schools and workplaces can often reinforce the view that it’s best to keep your head down rather than speak out, particularly on controversial topics. Changing this requires far more than making it easier to vote.

How can Labour show leadership on providing the best support for victims of domestic abuse?

In the July Budget George Osborne announced over £3 million of support to ensure that “domestic violence victims get the help they need.” This is the second time in a year that Mr Osborne has pledged additional cash to prevent the closure of refuges for women fleeing domestic abuse. On this occasion he did so following The Sun’s high profile “Give Me Shelter” campaign.

For most of recent history The Labour Party has led the charge to ensure that victims of domestic abuse are given proper support. For example, Ed Miliband appointed the first ever Shadow Minister for Preventing Violence Against Women and Girls. However, Mr Osborne’s interventions mean that there is now a very real risk that Labour will be eclipsed by the Conservatives on this issue.

If Labour wants to continue to show leadership they must press for improved support for children who either witness domestic abuse or who are victims of domestic abuse. 1 in 5 children fall into this category, according to the NSPCC. Their needs are too often ignored or poorly served.

There are more children living in refuges for victims of domestic abuse than there are women, but there is often very little support for these children. Safer Lives, a charity that promotes strategies to decrease domestic violence, found that only 9% of children in domestic violence refuges had received any mental health support from a Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS), and a Women’s Aid survey revealed that 42% of refuges have difficulty finding schools for the children in their care.

Just as there is often a lack of support for children who are living in refuges, there is also too often a lack of appropriate support for all children who either witness domestic abuse or who are victims of domestic abuse. That’s why Hestia, the largest provider of domestic abuse refuges in London, is calling on the Home Office to include the needs of all children, including those living in domestic abuse refuges, in its next national Violence Against Women & Girls strategy. If it doesn’t want to get left behind, Labour should adopt this policy as its own.w

Civilizing society?

Can a government change people’s minds by passing laws? Probably not, or at least, it’s not as simple as that.

***

In the 1960s Roy Jenkins introduced a range of new laws to build what he called “a civilized society”. These included the effective abolition of capital punishment, the decriminalisation of homosexuality, and the legalisation of abortion.

These ideas seem commonplace now but this was not always the case.

image (3)

Although many people support women’s right to have an abortion in some circumstances, the idea that a woman has the right to chose whether or not to have an abortion was not supported by most people at end of the 1980s.

image (1)

Despite same sex relationships being decriminalised in the 1960s as late as 1990 most people in the UK thought same sex relationships were “always wrong”.

image (2)

Finally, a substantial majority of people continued to support the use of the death penalty well into the 1990s.

***

Obviously, the government can have an impact on public opinion. In fact, the decision by successive governments to create more university spaces is probably one of the main drivers behind the increasingly liberal view many now take on these issues.

Equally obviously, this is not an argument that government’s should never do unpopular things. I am certainly very grateful that Jenkins passed the laws that he did, even if they didn’t change many people’s minds. However, it does seem that, if they did change people’s minds, it took a generation to do so.

Those thinking about how we can change public opinion should perhaps bear this in mind.

Power to build 2

If the next Mayor is going to oversee a dramatic increase in the rate of housebuilding in London, they will need more than effective solutions. They will need to design an approach and strategy that brings together a coalition powerful enough to overcoming the obstacles that have so far prevented these much needed homes from being built.

That was how I ended a blog post last week on how a Labour Mayor of London could rapidly increase the rate at which new houses are built in London.

One of the ways of considering who should be in such a coalition, and how to get them on board, is to undertake a basic power analysis. To do so, we should first ask “who could most help or hinder a Mayor of  London to build new homes?”

The first organisation that springs immediately to mind is central government. On the one hand, the government gives money and powers to the Mayor, on the other hand, the government could ultimately disband the Mayor and the Greater London Authority.

This is exactly what happened when a previous Conservative Government passed the Local Government Act in 1985, disbanding the Greater London Council (GLC). Norman Tebbit famously called the GLC “Labour-dominated, high-spending and at odds with the government’s view of the world”.

We should ask ourselves the following questions about central government

  • What is that power?
  • What are their goals, demands, or vision?
  • Potential target? Who does this person listen to? Who has influence over them?

What is their power?

The government can decide on how much money the Mayor is given to build homes. They can also decide on the powers the Mayor has, for example, over planning or raising taxes.

What are their goals, demands or vision?

One of the principle aims of the government is to reduce the deficit.  A secondary, but important goal, is to increase the number and percentage of people who own their own home. Part of their vision is to build a so-called ‘Northern Powerhouse’ which includes giving more powers to the the combined Manchester Authorities.

Potential target?

George Osborne is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As such he is supremely influential when it comes to deciding how much money the Mayor of London will be given to build new houses. He is widely credited as the main proponent of the ‘Northern Powerhouse’. In his recent budget speech he said he is “unwavering “in his “support for home ownership”.

Assessment

We now need to assess to the government’s attitude towards the agenda, shared by all Labour candidates for Mayor, of increasing the amount the number of homes being built in London. Where would we rate George Osborne on a scale from die hard support to die hard against? I would say he is somewhere in the middle.

Although he supports the idea of increasing home-ownership, he does not support the idea of affordable housing let at social rents financed by government grant. He also does not support the idea of a Labour Mayor forcing developers to build more affordable housing and probably does not support the idea of a Labour Mayor forcing Tory controlled Local Authorities to build, for example by using targets or sanctions.

Implications

What does this mean for developing a housing strategy that might actually have a realistic chance of being supported and not opposed or even vetoed by central government?

The idea that the Mayor will receive any additional money to grant finance social housing is for the birds. Similarly, the idea that the Mayor will be given powers to raise taxes or borrow more to grant finance social housing seems highly unlikely.

In fact, I would go further and suggest that a Labour Mayor who vigorously lobbied for more grant or more powers to borrow or raise taxes, would risk going the way of Ken Livingstone in the 1980s and being disbanded.

However, a strategy that was built around using part of the increased power of a devolved health budget to support the development of innovative home ownership products such as Genie might have a chance of success.

Conclusion

There are of course a number of other players at work in the world of London house building, including land owners, housing developers, residents who might oppose development, housing associations, town planners, local councillors, to name a few.

A proper housing strategy would analyse each of these groups in turn, in the way I have done here and assess the extent that these groups can either be overcome or brought into alliance.

A Labour Mayor of London who wants to oversee a dramatic increase in the rate of house building needs to ensure that they are supported by and not blocked by the government. Appeal to the Chancellor’s support for home ownership and devolution, rather than calling for more tax raising powers or imposing more conditions on house builders, seems like the strategy with the best chance of success.

The power to build

All the Labour candidates for Mayor of London are committed to increasing the number of homes that are built in the capital. Tessa Jowell, amongst others, has called for the creation of a new agency ‘Homes for London’ to “take the lead, building thousands of homes that Londoners can afford on the vast swathes of land that the Mayor owns”

homes_for_londoners_logo

Tessa has a number of ideas for how this agency would London get building. These include:

  • Building directly on land the mayor owns
  • Training more Londoners in construction skills and,
  • Using planning powers to require affordable home ownership is part of new developments

These ideas will be familiar to many, partly because various voices have been advocating them for a number of years. But if these ideas are so good, why haven’t they been implemented?

Perhaps one of the reasons is that we haven’t had the right leader. Certainly a number of Tessa Jowell’s backers have made great play of her ability to get things done. For example, the NewStatesman, in their endorsement of her, refer to her track record moving both Sure Start and the Olympics from the drawing board into reality.

However, there is more to getting houses built than a strong and experienced Mayor (although that would certainly be a start). Alinsky’s famous quote springs to mind:

the problems facing inner-city communities do not result from a lack of effective solutions, but from a lack of power to implement these solutions

If the next Mayor is going to oversee a dramatic increase in the rate of housebuilding in London, they will need more than effective solutions. They will need to design an approach and strategy that brings together a coalition powerful enough to overcoming the obstacles that have so far prevented these much needed homes from being built.

Fortunately, next week’s blog post will outline exactly what such a strategy might look like. Watch this space.