NAVCA CHIEF OFFICERS
“COMMUNITY COHESION AND TRANSFORMING
NEIGHBOURHOODS”: April 26th: Grantham.
1
Context
1.1
We began with a simple question. Could housing associations
partner other voluntary and community groups to help build a
stronger and more sustainable third sector?
And how far might such partnerships reflect the priorities for the
third sector identified in the cross cutting review? Could they:
 Help make better use of volunteers
 Extend and improve effective use of IT
 Support BME communities and encourage community
cohesion
 Encourage stronger leadership and achieve higher skills
 Encourage the sector to work in rural and suburban
settings as well as the most deprived neighbourhoods
 Increase the sector’s capacity to earn income as social
enterprises.
1.2
The answer we found was yes. In our journey through England,
Scotland and Wales we found many examples, detailed in the
report, of situations where housing associations were engaged in
building effective community and neighbourhood partnerships
within the third sector. And these partnerships were strongly
focused on these six issues.
Our research complemented the Housing Corporation’s report,
which found that 20% of housing associations – representing
80% of activity – were involved in some “near housing”
community and neighbourhood activity – up from just 8% three
years ago.
2
How was this being done?
2.1
We found it quite easy to establish what housing associations
were doing in working within the third sector.
One, they were developing projects to benefit their tenants.
HouseMark – “ An Opportunity waiting to happen”
Two, they were identifying local needs and setting up
independent projects to meet them – “design and deliver” – and
employing their own community development staff.
Three, they were working systematically with their third sector
partners in activities that helped build joint capacity – both in
terms of strengthening the sector but also in terms of improving
the performance of the housing associations.
2.2
We explored this third group in more detail. We found four types
of partnerships, or “hubs”. There were “thematic” hubs –
tackling a specific issue. There were “neighbourhood” hubs,
connecting housing associations with the neighbourhood
management initiatives. There were explicit “capacity” hubs
aimed at quality and performance issues. And there were
“multiple” hubs where housing associations were working
together to build an internal critical mass of activity before
engaging with other third sector organisations in a range of
activities.
3
Where was this exploration taking us?
3.1
It’s true to say that as our research progressed, we realised how
closely our study connected with the current Government priority
of engaging with the third sector in both the management and
delivery of services.
3.2
A range of Government reports fitted in with our enquiries. For
example, Third Sector compacts, Firm Foundations, Why
Neighbourhoods Matter, Futurebuilders, ChangeUp and Local
Area Agreements all became relevant. Our report summarises
these initiatives to help housing associations get up to speed.
And in building out from our original feasibility study, we began
to assess the implications of the research for current policy issues
and neighbourhood debate.
4
Implications for the policy debate
4.1
We began to connect our work with the devolution agenda
involving change at national, regional, local and neighbourhood
levels. We went in search of “bedrock” – that is an organisational
structure within the third sector that would withstand the
pressure of this intention to devolve certain responsibilities to a
2
HouseMark – “ An Opportunity waiting to happen”
neighbourhood level as part of a process involving central and
local government, too.
4.2
We found that housing, with its mature reform programme –
dating back to 1974 – its revenue flow and its established
dialogue with tenants offered the best opportunity for
establishing local initiatives that would enhance such devolution
rather than be swamped by it.
So we put housing associations under scrutiny – what could they
offer?
4.3
We first realised that the great change in our economy from
manufacturing to services has implications at the level of our
research. Organisation used to be mainly around the workplace –
more Trade Union than Women’s Union. But organisation is now
more vibrant at home and neighbourhood level and increasingly
involves women. So our work indicates the relevance of this
housing and neighbourhood focus.
4.4
Next we realised that housing associations have largely travelled
through the great political problem that equates “reform” with
“privatisation”. This problem still hampers reform in health and
education. Our journey has been stormy. Proposals that housing
associations be established to take over the management of
previously Council owned housing have been portrayed by some
as asset strippers and being the private sector in disguise. Some
ballots have been lost. But the evidence is becoming persuasive
that rather that asset stripping, housing has seen a programme
of asset transfer through the change from “one size fits all”
Council housing management to the more flexible patterns and
third sector partnerships that housing associations can weave.
Despite the continuation of poor practice in a few unreformed
Local Authority housing departments, housing has seen the
greatest revolution in service delivery. Housing associations now
manage as many houses in the UK as Councils and tenants are,
in broad terms, more satisfied with the service they provide. Arms
Length Management Organisations (ALMOs) also manage a
significant proportion of housing stock with similar positive
outcomes. So the report suggests that the role of “community
anchor” sits more comfortably on housing associations and
ALMOs than it might on schools and hospitals, though here, too,
their journey to independence is beginning.
3
HouseMark – “ An Opportunity waiting to happen”
4.5
Then we began to realise that the bigger housing associations,
criticised by some partners as growing apart from the third
sector, actually had the capacity for significant input. There was
no direct correlation between size and insensitivity.
Neighbourhood initiatives were as likely, in fact one could argue,
more likely to be pursued by housing associations with the
financial security that size bestows. And there was a further
reason why both size and sensitivity matters. Neighbourhood
regeneration requires organisations that punch their weight – that
can go, in the words of one contributor – from “back street to
Downing Street”. Housing associations can do this. They can
work with national government. Their activities can complement
the move towards city regions. They engage with local
authorities. They connect self government with local
government. And they work at a neighbourhood and community
level.
4.6
We recognised that housing associations can be effective partners
not just because of altruism, though they see poverty as an
affront, but because of solid business sense. Failing
neighbourhoods put past housing association investment at risk
and make further involvement problematic. So “In Business for
Neighbourhoods” isn’t just a slogan or a brand, it’s an
understanding that a bad landlord cannot be a good neighbour.
It puts pressure to ensure effective performance at the level that
matters, in neighbourhood based housing management.
4.7
Lastly, we also recognised the need to refresh community
leadership at this “ground up” level. Too often we found energy
and enthusiasm thwarted by residents from the old guard. They
were comfortable with ward meetings, long agendas, points of
order and the bureaucracy of representation. Like the three
stages of housing association neighbourhood involvement, first
for tenants, then “doing for” and finally “doing with” we found
scrutiny councillors who were determined to be the only
community leaders rather than work with active citizens and play
the important role of neighbourhood enablers.
Because of their contact with significant numbers of tenants,
housing associations were well placed to encourage the new
energies that could be found amongst them and help to find that
ideal balance between legitimacy by election and legitimacy by
action. A number of housing associations had instituted their own
4
HouseMark – “ An Opportunity waiting to happen”
small award schemes or linked with programmes such as
Community Champions to bring new ideas to the fore.
5
Roadblocks and opportunities
5.1
One main problem is mutual suspicion. Do housing associations
see this broader neighbourhood picture? Can their third sector
partners see beyond size and, maybe, to help reform
bureaucracy, to seize the opportunities that these housing based
partnerships offer?
5.2
How far can “near housing” go? How rigid are the constraints on
housing associations to be risk averse and to be housing
monocultures? Can the new Communities England and the
Department encourage the connection between housing “depth”
and neighbourhood “breadth”.
5.3
Can housing associations, through their representative bodies,
form effective links with other “umbrella” organisations in the
third sector? The report found significant evidence of “parallel
lines” in policy, with voluntary and community organisations
assuming the housing associations had their own separate lines
of communication with local and central government. Both parts
of the sector were not often found sitting round the same table.
5.4
Housing associations also need to be faithful partners.
Regeneration programmes take time. A commitment to
partnership with other third sector organisations is for the long
term. Support cannot simply be switched off if other pressures
make extra calls on time and resources within the housing
association.
5.5
Housing associations also need to recognise the different
contributions they might make. In some neighbourhoods they
may need to lead regeneration programmes, in others they may
be best to support existing initiatives. In some circumstances they
may seek to transfer housing to more locally based organisations.
5.6
Our research demonstrates that housing associations can be
some of the “community anchors” the Government is looking for.
But other forces, pressure to reduce costs and pressure to reduce
the development role are at work. Neighbourhood management
is re-enforced by the ability to undertake neighbourhood action.
Physical improvement and new building needs to be part of the
5
HouseMark – “ An Opportunity waiting to happen”
neighbourhood package. “Multiple” housing association hubs at
neighbourhood level may be a way of ensuring some
development capacity.
We need to explore the territory, to see what links can be made
with ChangeUp, to connect with Local Area Agreements and the
Safer and Stronger Communities Fund, to promote “In Business”
still further. We need to recognise that housing associations are,
in the words of our report, an “Opportunity waiting to happen”.
Chris Wadhams
For NAVCA
th
26 April 2007
“An opportunity waiting to happen”, funded by the Home Office, was launched by the
Housing Associations Charitable Trust (hact), the Housing Corporation and the National
Housing Federation on June 12th 2006. Copies of the report and the brief summary are
available from hact.
hact is now in discussion with the Department for Communities and Local Government to
explore the potential of partnerships between associations and other third sector
organisations in building capacity and organisational infrastructure within the sector .
Chris Wadhams is the Managing Director of Chris Wadhams Associates Ltd. He can be
contacted by e-mail on cwadhams@hotmail.com, by telephone on 0121 784 4858 or by post
at 131 Newbridge Road, Birmingham B9 5JF.
hact-navca-april-26-presentation
6