The NHF has surveys HAs about the provision of new supported housing. plans to provide supported, sheltered and extra care accommodation have had to slash plans to build new homes, down from 8,800 to 1,350 units, according to a new survey by the National Housing Federation (NHF).

A Green Paper, expected to detail the proposals, is delayed until autumn

The NHF figures show 69 housing associations – which together deliver a third of supported and sheltered homes in England – responded to the survey.

Supported housing services are said to save the taxpayer some £3.5bn in NHS costs.

To the NHF, the government’s indecision has left residents and housing associations with little certainty about their future income, leaving boards to take tough decisions like:

• 71 new schemes, representing 2,185 homes, postponed
• 19 new developments, totalling 803 homes, cancelled
• 22 existing supported schemes and three sheltered schemes, amounting to 132 homes, facing closure.

The main factors for these closures and delays relate to the uncertainty about the government’s proposed funding model and the withdrawal of funding for support services.

Where schemes are going ahead, two key reasons were cited; 24% estimate the local cap on housing benefits would be high enough in their area to cover their costs, followed by 18% who believe their shortfall would be offset by sufficient government funding.

The five-year cumulative cost to the taxpayer of failing to make up the existing shortfall of these specialist homes is estimated at £2.72bn.

Associations made a strong case for an alternative model that addresses concerns about how the money will be allocated and how long it will be available for.

Here are some insightful comments from the NHF and 24 housing below:

“David Orr, chief executive at the National Housing Federation, said: “These findings really bring it home: changes to supported housing funding are stopping building for the most vulnerable.

“Housing associations know first-hand that the proposed funding model will not work – a view backed by a joint select committee – and yet government has failed to heed warnings.

“With social care in crisis, the role supported housing plays in alleviating pressures on the NHS is ever more important.

“These changes have not even come in yet and they have taken 7,000 homes for vulnerable people out of the pipeline.

“The proposed changes in funding bear no relation to the real cost of providing this type of housing. It is time government put supported housing on a secure and sustainable footing.”

John Glenton, Riverside’s executive director of care and support, who gave evidence at Westminster on the issue, said: “Landlords like us have strong partnerships with local authorities, and are poised to begin developing much-needed additional supported housing.

“While this uncertainty over funding continues, a question mark hangs over development plans which would support some of society’s most vulnerable people.

“Along with other landlords, we urge the government to resolve this quickly.”

Case studies

Riverside is among social housing providers with developments on hold as uncertainty over the funding for supported housing continues.

A scheme for homeless veterans in Colchester, Essex, and an extra care scheme in Rochdale, Greater Manchester, are currently stalled.

Riverside’s Homeless Veterans Scheme – Colchester

This scheme, comprising 50 supported housing units for homeless veterans, is currently on hold due to the uncertainty over revenue funding.

The annual shortfall for people living in a one-bed flat with high levels of support would be around £116 a week and almost £76 for those living in a flat offering a move-on facility.

The table below shows the current projected impact of the Local Housing Allowance cap (the lowest levels of rent in the private rented sector) for each tenant:

Despite council support for the scheme, the local authority is not in a position to commit to funding the gap.

The annual shortfall in rent in the first year of operation would be £260,000 representing 49% of total rental and service charge income.

Riverside received a £4.5m capital allocation from the Veterans Accommodation Fund administered by the Ministry of Defence.

The service has also received internal approval for significant additional subsidy from Riverside.

Riverside’s Keswick Close Extra Care – Middleton, Rochdale

Keswick Close is also on hold, as the majority of tenants are likely to be benefit-dependent in this low-income area.

Local residential care costs range between £400 and £1000 per week.

The imposition of caps means that tenants will face a shortfall in housing benefit representing over 25% of rent and service charges in the case of a one-bed flat and 18% in the case of a two-bed as illustrated below:

Without additional funding, tenants will struggle to make up this shortfall from their own incomes, and so the scheme would simply not be viable.

Keswick Close is a planned extra care scheme, which will comprise 101 homes, a mix of one and two-bedroom apartments and bungalows.

The scheme is supported by +£3m public investment through the HCA.

Just over a year ago, the government announced details of its proposal for the future of supported housing.

• The government wants to cap benefit for everyone living in supported and sheltered housing to the LHA rate from 2019
  • The LHA varies widely throughout the country, creating a real ‘postcode lottery’ of support. Where it is low, the gap between the amount paid through universal credit and the actual rent will be high. Tenants in those areas will struggle to make ends meet
  • The LHA is a reflection of the cost of renting a home in the private rented sector. It bears no relationship to the cost of providing specialist supported housing.
• At the same time, money will be transferred to local authorities to allow them to fund the additional costs
  • But there is presently no indication of what that mechanism might be, when it will be developed and what it will look like, giving housing associations very little assurance about whether they will actually receive this funding
  • The local top-up funds will be cash-limited and discretionary so there is no guarantee that a service will receive the top-up money
• Providers have been subject to a yearly 1% rent reduction since April 2017 for three years, apart from refuges
  • For housing associations, this represents a significant loss of income, which has had a significant impact on their capacity to build new homes. “

Inside housing reports:

The change to benefits will see housing benefit paid to tenants as part of a single monthly payment, rather than directly to landlords.

The pilots have so far seen a huge spike in arrears, especially early in the scheme’s introduction, with research this summer showing 86% of council tenants in receipt of the benefit were in arrears.

Make a cup of coffee and set aside a few hours for all of the publications from DWP which can be found here:

Social landlords may need to look at how and when they collect their rent, and the level of support some tenants will need to make the transition to a single, direct monthly payment, so engage tenants early folks and consider what needs to change:

The guidance is available here.

Tenant Management Organisations are small, tenant-led organisations that take on a number of landlord functions from local councils. The one managing Grenfell Tower, however, was actually an Arms Length Management Organisation – wholly owned by the council, writes Anne Power. She explains why the difference matters in light of the disaster at Grenfell.

Here are her thoughts from the London School of Economics. Anne has been involved in social research and has extensive experience of working with housing staff and tenants on estates for many years. Her published work has led to many changes in hosuing policy and funding for much needed projects.

This is what she has to say:

“When the Grenfell fire disaster happened, very few people had heard of Tenant Management Organisations (TMOs). The Kensington and Chelsea borough-wide TMO, formed in the 1990s, is known by tenants locally around Grenfell Tower as a “fake TMO”. It has now lost its role on the estate and may soon be disbanded. Among the 200 TMOs nationally, that particular organisation is a total anomaly – not community-based, not cooperatively run, not representative. It was set up to cover the whole borough and simply took on the existing council housing department and stock.

In sharp contrast to this model, TMOs are locally based, grassroots community groups that want to improve local conditions in their social housing estate or small area. They range from around 100 to 1500 rented properties in a single estate or area. Frustrated with remote council landlords who seem not to care, tenants often form a local group that fights for local control over local tasks to make their estate work – day-to-day repairs, caretaking, empty property, nuisance, rubbish, environmental and social problems.

Since the mid-1970s, over 200 of these TMOs have formed. They negotiate a management agreement with their council landlord to take on limited, local responsibilities, paid for out of an allowance from their rents. The council retains the ownership, a significant share of the rent, and overall responsibility for the properties, including allocations policy, capital investment, major repairs, public accounting and performance. For tenants to take on even part of their landlords’ role, to handle a budget, staff employment, service standards etc., they need proper training and dedicated time. Governments of all parties have supported the development of TMOs since the 1980s, funding training and introducing the Right to Manage.

Tenants in the Lancaster West estate where Grenfell Tower is located and in other big estates in the Royal Borough wanted more say and better housing services. The Director of Housing proposed a borough-wide TMO that kept the housing department intact. It was not a TMO, because the tenants could not take on the complex task of running the whole of the borough’s near 10,000 unit housing stock. The housing department staff were transferred over into the “new” organisation on existing terms and conditions, and the so-called KCTMO took over all council housing management functions, making it an Arm’s Length Management Organisation of the Council – an ALMO.

The actual management agreement between the borough and effectively the Director of Housing, who became the CEO of the TMO, is still unclear. An ALMO is a government-approved public structure, wholly owned and controlled by the Council, which separates the Council’s landlord services from other Council functions such as schools, libraries, and swimming pools. Kensington and Chelsea decided to keep the name Kensington and Chelsea TMO, in the hope that tenants would identify with it. There were a handful of tenants on the board as there are in other ALMOs. Grenfell was, at least in part, a consequence of the lack of local control; tenants of Grenfell Tower had warned months before of the risk of fire or other disasters because of the neglect of safety by the ALMO (KCTMO). The public inquiry will take many months to reveal the truth; prosecutions may take even longer.

Through austerity cuts, since 2015 financial support for tenant training has gone, and there has been little interest in TMOs. Kensington and Chelsea, following budget cuts, was quick to close day care centres, local libraries, and direct services, including the repair budget of KCTMO. It cut capital spend– hence the cheaper, less fire-resistant cladding on Grenfell Tower and the cheaper building contractor, the lack of fire sprinklers, and the meagre on-site supervision. The Council at the same time cut the Council Tax of the highest band of tax-payers.

The borough has a high level of evictions and resulting homelessness from private renting. Often Buy-To-Let landlords owning former council flats now let to homeless families, paid for by the borough through housing benefit, at vast public expense. Several homeless families were housed in ex-council flats in Grenfell Tower.

The National Federation of TMOs, with several hundred members, is shaken to the core by the fire and its aftermath. Many small TMOs are based in similar high rise blocks to Grenfell. Publicity about the “fake TMO” puts their track record at risk. Yet overall, TMOs have outperformed their local council landlords on rent arrears, re-letting flats, speed of repair, cost and tenant satisfaction.

The government has established a Recovery Task Force to secure long-term recovery as the clear “responsibility of the Council”. This means taking in house the ALMO that can no longer masquerade as a TMO, but all Senior Officers in the Council are under legal orders to say nothing; this includes the Kensington and Chelsea TMO, now with a new chief executive. There is no clear mechanism to respond to the urgent needs of the 2000-3000 residents living on Lancaster West estate, under the shadow of Grenfell since the recent suspension of the ALMO’s operations there. The Council seems deaf. People need action to restore normal conditions on the estate and rebuild trust.

So the Council must act to close down the “fake TMO” and take responsibility directly, both for what happened and what should happen next. A new Interim Director of Housing should take over, to work with the borough’s Interim CEO to develop a decent housing service. The first step is to put in place a neighbourhood manager on Lancaster West, someone who can pull together the core housing services, now so desperately needed, with residents directly involved, to restore the confidence of a deeply shaken community. The lessons of Grenfell resonate across the entire social housing world.”

This is an interesting article by Hays CEO and makes a good case for diversity in the workforce:

“I consider myself extremely fortunate to have spent a large part of my professional career working in different countries across Europe, North America and Asia. I couldn’t recommend the experience highly enough. Time spent living away from my home country was life changing for me, both professionally and personally. Over those years, I felt welcomed into local societies, encountered a vast range of cultures and people, gained valuable experience that I would not have otherwise gained, and as a result, my own career and life have certainly been richer and more fulfilled.

Sadly, it seems that such opportunities may soon become far more limited. Our increasingly open world is now changing and over the past few years, we’ve all seen how changing political landscapes have focused increasingly on immigration. The topic of immigration as a whole has come up time and time again in recent elections around the globe, including the United States, as well as in France and the UK, and it is usually portrayed as a bad thing.

While the overall debate around immigration is extremely complicated, it is simply wrong to broad-brush that all immigration is bad and must be curtailed. After all, the USA was built on immigration in the first place and the UK economy partly owes its strength to its historic reputation for attracting skilled workers from around the world to staff its industries and public services.

Borders need to be open to skilled workers, not closed

And this is why I feel it is important that politicians, and the government policies they enact, start to draw a clearer distinction between mass unskilled immigration and the movement of skilled workers across borders. The two are very different, yet few politicians seem to grasp that. We need free movement of skills in order for economies to run at their full potential and in turn for society to enjoy the many benefits it brings. Put simply, countries need to be opening their borders to skilled workers, not closing them.

The worrying reality

The prospect of a limit on skilled migration is now very real in more and more countries. Understandably this is creating growing concern to those who rely on access to talent pools beyond their own borders. As a recruitment company, my business sees all too well that without access to the best talent both locally and globally, businesses often find themselves exposed to a skills gap, making it harder for them to achieve their goals. This is the worrying reality for many today.

There’s been a huge amount of research into this topic which cannot be ignored as it consistently points to the clear correlation between appropriate immigration and economic growth. Here are a few examples:

• In the UK, the CBI has recently announced that European workers are crucial to the success of UK businesses and the wider economy, calling for an immigration system “based on need” rather than curtailing numbers to hit some arbitrary or specific target.
• This same report also acknowledged that without maintained access to global labour markets, businesses may be forced to postpone investment decisions because they are unable to access the necessary skilled workers.
• A recent study in the US, by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), also relayed the importance of skilled migration by stating it is likely to increase productivity and economic growth.

There may be a political need to cut migration in order to get (re)elected, but we simply can’t ignore the fact that businesses still have a real and pressing need for it. And that leads me to my next point – the free movement of talent makes really good business sense.

The free movement of talent makes good business sense

The benefits of working abroad aren’t just limited to individual careers – the benefits to businesses are real too, and there are lots of them. The free movement of talent simply makes good business sense, and it’s hard to argue otherwise in my opinion. In economic terms, it’s a simple supply and demand equation and talent should be allowed to move to where the demand is felt. Secondly, we know that diverse teams often perform more strongly than those made up of people with a similar background or set of experiences. Finally, hiring in external talent often raises the skill level of current employees. This can only ever be a good thing.

We must upskill our local workforces to ensure long-term prosperity

I have absolutely no problem with policies that enable a local economy to become self-sufficient in the skills its industries and public services require. In fact, such a system will provide a long-term competitive advantage for that economy. So, with a context where immigration is most likely to fall in the coming years, at least we have started to see increased focus on filling the skills gap by better educating and training local workforces.

Many years ago my first job was as an apprentice engineer, so I speak as someone who has personally benefited from skills-led training. Sadly such systems were largely eliminated in the intervening years in the UK, but have now started to make a comeback as realisation dawns again that they provide an excellent route into the world of work for many young people. This is why the UK government’s recent decision to launch T-Levels (the planned overhaul of technical education) is so important: it signals a real commitment to developing talented young people into the skilled workers we will all need to hire tomorrow.

A country doesn’t need to invent something from scratch, however. There’s nothing wrong with copying someone else’s good idea and we could all do far worse than look at Germany’s longstanding and successful apprenticeship model. There, most apprentices join a three-year programme, combining employer training with education learning. Germany still has its own skills gap but it would be far, far worse without the benefit of its systems that make technical education crucial to its economic success.

But, the upskilling of local workforces alone won’t solve the immediate skills-gap problem.

The problem with focusing entirely on local initiatives such as T-Levels and wider apprenticeships is that they do not solve the immediate problems that sit in front of business leaders today – the widening skills gap and consequent inability to staff all the roles that industry is creating today. Educating our young people is an excellent long-term approach, but it doesn’t plug the gap that is already apparent to many businesses currently trying to hire skilled workers. Establishing a talent pipeline for the future is something that takes time and can’t simply happen overnight.

If education is the long-term solution to the skills gap, then skilled migration seems to be the only shorter-term solution. Sadly, more and more countries are taking the opposite approach. However, some seem more enlightened, allowing skilled immigrants to fill the gaps that targeted local investment cannot yet fill. For example, Justin Trudeau’s government in Canada has recently launched a new ‘Global Talent’ scheme that will make it easier for people to obtain skilled worker visas, acknowledging the value that these people can bring to the nation.

Skilled migration will secure our longer-term prosperity

Ultimately, one of the key points that must be made is that prosperity and growth depend on people and that without the right talent and skills, businesses and therefore societies can flounder rather than flourish. Take the UK again for example. Domestic working age population growth is simply not high enough to drive long-term sustainable economic growth above around 2% without a significant boost in productivity. I see no imminent breakthrough on the productivity conundrum so without further immigration, the UK should start to prepare for an era of anaemic economic growth at best. That will starve further investment, leading to even slower growth and fewer jobs being created than would otherwise be the case. Net net, everyone loses. The UK is not alone with this equation. It is therefore vital that businesses across the world can access the broadest possible group of candidates with diverse sets of experience, as these are the individuals that will help to generate local economic growth.

Unfortunately, I don’t think we in business have done a good enough job to make sure our respective governments hear our concerns about the lack of access to talent that closing borders bring. Having access to the very best people, regardless of their origination, should be an issue near the very top of any government’s agenda. Running a business, I want the very best people working for me so that I can compete and win in a global market. Surely running a country warrants the same approach to attracting talent?

However, we must not lose sight of the fact that it is not just business that stands to benefit from this. Allowing skilled migrants onto our shores (wherever those shores are) will allow companies to run to their full potential. That, in turn, creates more jobs and more opportunities for local people at all skill levels. It increases tax revenues as firms prosper. That pays for more public services, education and infrastructure, creating an even better commercial environment. We all win. But we seem to have a long way to go before everyone agrees on that. “

The British economic model needs fundamental reform say IPPR

They go on to say:

“It is no longer generating rising earnings for a majority of the population, and young people today are set to be poorer than their parents. Beneath its headlines figures, the economy is suffering from deep and longstanding weaknesses, which make it unfit to face the challenges of the 2020s.

Here is the summary report:

cej-interim-report-summary-170911

Read the full report here.

Memories and Hopes: Re-thinking resilience in supporting homeless people is a new report of a project with homelessness agencies across the UK supporting homeless people to engage in community activities, re-discover old interests and hobbies and make new friends. Participants went to swimming classes, joined a gym, played competitive snooker, built coracles, volunteered at a cathedral and took up many other surprising interests and activities.

• Do homeless people with happy memories have a better chance of sustainable resettlement?
• Does taking up old and new hobbies and interests make people happier and more confident?

The project was supported by the Tudor Trust and produced by our friends at Lemos and Crane:

The Trust gave small grants of between £5,000 and £10,000 to 12 homelessness and supported housing organisations working in smaller towns and cities across the UK. The grants were to assist them in supporting a group of 10-12 homeless people on a pilot basis, encouraging service users to establish new connections with their local community, re-kindle old interests and hobbies, join in community activities and make new friends. More than 120 homeless and ex-homeless people took part. A manager in one of the organisations participating commented.

“Being able to plan social outings and activities without worrying about the impact on the project’s budget is beyond words.  The plans are onging and servise users are now very involved in all aspects of the planning procedures. This has had a significant impact on the overall ‘feeling’ of the project.”

One young mother took her baby daughter to swimming classes, with assistance from a support worker:

“It was the first time I didn’t feel I was being judged for being a young mum..It’s changed me as a person. It’s beneficial already, I am bonding with my daughter while getting about and meeting other mums.”

The report sets out:

• the varied personal histories of some participants
• The signfiicance of happy memories for many homeless people
• Case studies of individual participants’ experiences in this project
• Benefits of community engagement for service users, staff and volunteers
• Conclusions and recommendations

The report of the project by Gerard Lemos is here:

Memories and Hopes (InteractiveFinal)

As the government write to developers:

The advice from the DCLG has been sent to all building control bodies in England, including councils’ building control departments and private sector-approved inspectors.

The letter particularly draws the attention of building control bodies to the following:

• How to demonstrate compliance with fire safety requirements, for example ensuring that cladding and insulation used are of limited combustibility or that a whole wall cladding system test is undertaken.
• Where panels are removed for inspection or testing purposes, the integrity of the whole cladding system needs to be maintained.
• The structural design of any replacement cladding needs to be checked – it should not be assumed that existing fixings and systems are suitable for replacement systems.
• The need to ensure that replacement cladding systems or components protect the building adequately from rain and condensation.
• Guidance on how to meet energy efficiency requirements when re-cladding.

Here is the full letter of safety experts to the government:

Dear Prime Minister,

There have, understandably, been strong public reactions to the terrible fire at Grenfell Tower and its tragic consequences – the largest civilian loss of life from a single event in the UK since the Hillsborough disaster.

The occupational safety and health community is deeply saddened and disturbed by the Grenfell Tower fire and all the lives it claimed. We believe it is totally unacceptable for residents, members of the public and our emergency services to be exposed to this level of preventable risk in modern-day Britain.

Central Government and the Kensington and Chelsea local authority share responsibility for building standards and their enforcement locally, as well as for the funding and management of the maintenance of social housing. These responsibilities must be backed up with good, essential regulations.

However, for many years, Ministers and others with influence over them have called for regulations, including in health and safety, to be axed as a matter of principle. Arbitrary rules were imposed to establish deregulation of health and safety, such as a requirement to abolish two health and safety regulations (and more recently, three) for any new one adopted.

This mind-set has meant that, even when it was recommended and accepted that mandatory fitting of sprinklers would make homes or schools safer, this was rejected in favour of non-regulatory action. In practice, this approach favours inaction.

Good, well-evidenced and proportionate regulations in health and safety, based on full consultation, are developed and adopted because they save lives and protect people’s health and wellbeing. They are not “burdens on business” but provide essential protection for the public from identifiable risks.

At this crucial time of national reflection and sorrow, we urge all politicians to re-emphasise the need for effective health and safety regulation and competent fire risk management. These are fundamental to saving lives and sustaining our communities.

We believe it is vital that this disaster marks a turning point for improved fire safety awareness and wider appreciation that good health and safety is an investment, not a cost.

We call on the Government to accelerate and confirm the timeframe for completing its review of Part B of The Building Regulations 2010 and to include a focus on improved safety in the forthcoming Parliament.

Together, we offer our organisations’ support in undertaking the review – we all have valuable links to experts in this area who can advise on best regulatory outcomes. In the meantime, we welcome the Government’s commitment to act and to implement the interim findings of the forthcoming public inquiry.

You have it in your power to remove immediately a further risk to people at work and outside of the workplace – unwise deregulation – which threatens public and worker safety.

We, leaders in health and safety in the UK, call on you to scrap the Government’s approach to health and safety deregulation and think again. This could be announced immediately, it does not need to await the results of a public inquiry, and is the least that the victims of the Grenfell Tower fire deserve.

Yours sincerely,

Park Health and Safety

Lawrence Waterman OBE

Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH)

Graham Parker, President

Bev Messinger, Chief Executive

Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA)

Errol Taylor, Acting Chief Executive

British Safety Council

Lynda Armstrong OBE, Chair

Mike Robinson, Chief Executive