CIH Level 3 Certificate in Housing Practice (QCF)

Assignment 1

Delivering Affordable Housing Services to Diverse Communities

Please attach this to the front of your assignment to form one document

Your Name Richard Somers

Your tutor’s name Geoff Proudlock

Module number and module title Module 1: HP3M1/HP3M2

Delivering Affordable Housing Services to Diverse

Communities

Course CIH Level 3 Certificate in Housing Practice (QCF)

Date assignment submitted 06/11/14

First attempt or resubmission (please state) First Submission

Please reflect on the assignment you are about to submit; then answer the questions below. This will

help us to address your concerns and help you to improve your skills. We may use this information to

help us improve our courses.

1. Things I think I have done well in this assignment:

Investigating issues using organisational resources.

I think I have done well at being concise and to the point with my answers.

I think I have followed the assignment brief well.

2. Things I have struggled with in this assignment: 

The word count – I found it restrictive as I wanted to explore issues more.

Referencing from books – I had difficulty accessing books for the assignment.

3. Skills I would like to acquire/develop to improve my assignments:

I need to develop my analytical and time management skills.

4. Was the assignment brief clear?

Yes.

5. Think about the four compulsory self-assessed tasks you completed online. Note here the key

things you learned from these tasks, and how you might use this information in your studies and/or

your career:

I discovered lots of new things which I was unaware of. There is much that I do but did not

understand the background to.

I now have a clear view of affordable housing; it is much larger than just local authority. This is

useful as it widens my view regarding RSLs.

I did not realise that there was such an immense background to Tenant Involvement. We have an

engagement team where I work but I did not realise why they are involved with residents, now I

know. There are many things which they do which I was not aware of. This will be useful when

referring my Tenants who complain about services.

I found the regulation activities really interesting they showed me just how much regulation

underpins what I do and feel that it will impact on the quality of the work I produce.

Please ensure that your work is clearly referenced as plagiarism is treated very seriously and

can result in a reduction of grade, a failure grade or, in extreme cases exclusion from the

course.

TUTOR FEEDBACKTo be completed by tutor and uploaded to Moodle

Student Name

Module number and module title Module 1: HP3M1/HP3M2

Delivering Affordable Housing Services to Diverse

Communities

Course

Date received by tutor

TUTOR COMMENTSThis should include a discussion of the presentation and referencing as well as the content which was

completed well and what needs to improve.

Overall comments

What you did well

What you could improve

Grade awarded (first attempt):

Delivery of Affordable Housing Services

HP3M1

Equality and Diversity for HousingHP3M2

Pass Pass

Refer Refer

Grade awarded (resubmission):

Delivery of Affordable Housing Services

HP3M1

Equality and Diversity for HousingHP3M2

Pass Pass

Refer Refer

Delivering Affordable Housing to Diverse Communities

Section A

1. The government defines affordable housing as:

“Social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing which is provided to eligible households whose needs are not met by the market. Eligibility is determined with regard to local income and local house prices” (CGL 2012, p.50).”

2. The main differences between social and private rented housing are:

Difference Social Rented (SR) Private Rented (PR)

Affordability Rent is much more affordable than PR as it is set according to national

rent regime and not according to market levels

(Harriot and Matthews, 2009).

Rent is set according to market levels which is much higher than SR

(Harriot and Matthews, 2009).

Funding Publically Funded from Government Borrowing.

Private Investment and Private Sector arrangements.

Eligibility Based upon housing need, and a households ability to

meet a predetermined criteria (Harriot and Matthews, 2009).

Based upon ability to pay (Harriot and Matthews,

2009).

Security and Variety of Tenure

Varied stronger tenure available, for example,

Introductory/Probationary Tenancies leading to

ongoing Secure/Assured Tenancies. In some cases

Fixed Term.

Limited and insecure Fixed Period Tenancies.

Regulation National Regulation by the Governments Homes and Communities Agency. Co-Regulation with Residents central to this (HCA,

Not Nationally Regulated, PR landlords can voluntarily sign up to regulatory bodies.

2012). Residents not involved in co-regulation.

Resident Involvement (RI) Co-regulation with residents is central and pivotal to this type of housing(HCA,2012)

RI is not a statutory or regulatory obligation.

Residents have very little say.

Repairs and Maintenance Statutory basis. Resident scrutiny.

Little or none.

3. ‘Affordable’ housing is necessary because:

1. It fills the gap for those with housing need who cannot afford private rented or owner occupation.

2. It can meet specific needs for specific groups, for example the elderly and the disabled where the market may not.

Section B

Partnership Working

Paul Davey, the Joint Chief Operating Officer (JCOO) for the Enfield Homes (EH) ALMO and Enfield Council (LBE), was interviewed regarding the joint working between both in the delivery of the LBE Estate Renewal Programme.

Paul worked as the Assistant Director of Housing for LBE and led this programme for LBE prior to his current role. Paul became JCOO following a LBE Cabinet decision to bring the EH ALMO back in house in 2015.

Paul’s role is to lead both EH and this LBE Programme in terms of Governance, Strategy and Delivery. Currently there are six ongoing Estate Renewal Projects.

Prior to Paul’s appointment structured joint working did not occur between LBE and EH in terms of this programme.

The joint working occurs at different levels from project groups, to the Governance Board to the Housing Board which feeds back to the LBE Cabinet. These joint groups all meet monthly.

The joint working occurs at different levels and involves Directors from both LBE and EH, the EH ALMO Chair and Vice Chair, EH Housing Managers, LBE Project Managers, LBE Legal, LBE Property Services and LBE Regeneration. Other

partners within this working include a Member of Parliament, Councillors, Private Property Developers, and independent legal and consultation companies.

This joint working is a well-resourced informal relationship which does not have a statutory basis. It makes sense as the client base and leadership are the same. There is a real team culture.

This partnership aims to deliver the Estate Renewal within deadline and to budget, to measure progress and tackle complex issues in an environment of trust. Success means the provision of new mixed tenure affordable homes and the regeneration of neighbourhoods to a high and sustainable standard. In terms of goals Paul Davey felt that while it is hard to measure success that the current projects are all on target, within budget and running well.

The strengths of this partnership working are that it provides a great mix of skills, innovation, an increased efficiency, more resources and wider experience level. There are common aims and goals. There are good clear governance arrangements which work well because they have been agreed mutually. EH also brings a wider view with its historical knowledge of the stock which is essential to the LBE Estate Renewal Team.

This joint working has provided a useful learning experience in a relatively new function for the LBE and EH. The mutual trust created will be beneficial in terms of future structural arrangements are likely to bring teams together formally following the reintegration of both organisations

Paul felt that there are some weaknesses as it could be argued that there is still too much unnecessary demarcation of roles. Also that there can be unhelpful competitive jealousies between organisations and managers resulting in silo, or independent working. This is monitored and addressed by Paul when it occurs.

In conclusion, this partnership makes sense, works and is a real asset to the Renewal of Enfield’s Estates.

Section C:

Your Voice Matters

There has never been a better time for you to get involved with what your Landlord

does, your voice matters. I am going to explain why and look at the pros and cons of

what’s available for you.

Why should you get involved? Quite simply because now you have a real chance to

have your say and make things better. In 2012 your landlords regulator, the Homes

and Communities Agency (HCA) stated that it “is for providers to support tenants

both to shape and scrutinise service delivery and to hold board and councillors to

account (HCA, 2012, p.15).”

The HCA set the Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard (TIES) which

states that your Landlord “shall support their tenants to develop and implement

opportunities for involvement and empowerment (HCA 2012, p.18).”

UK Landlords have taken this on board and now organise and support activities such

as Mystery Shopping, Online Forums, Tenant Board Membership, Service Scrutiny

Panels, Forums, Resident Associations and Tenant Management Organisations.

Your level of involvement will really depend on how deeply you want to be involved.

You may just want to be consulted, or you may want a deeper more ‘substantial

participation.’ David’s Wilcox’s 1994 revised Ladder of Participation provides a useful

summary of different the degrees of involvement which you may want to consider:

Resident Participation

and Control

Wilcox’s Ladder Example

Substantial Supported Initiatives Tenancy Management

Organisations

Substantial Acting Together Tenant Scrutiny Groups

(i.e., reviewing repairs

performance)

Substantial Deciding Together Resident Associations

Consultation Consultation Decent Homes and Estate

Improvement( i.e.,

choosing a new security

system)and meetings

Limited Information Housing News, Meetings,

Housing Website, Postal

Update

(Joseph Roundtree Foundation, 1994)

Enfield Homes offers involvement which is both consultative and substantial and

which can be in done individually or in a group. What you choose will depend on

which rung of ladder you want to step on.

Individual involvement at Enfield Homes comes in the form of Mystery Shopping and

the Network which is an Online Feedback Forum. Both are anonymous and very

flexible as they can be fitted into your commitments. However, as they are structured

consultation this means that feedback is limited to a number of options or responses.

Also for the Network you will need access to a computer.

If you want a more ‘Substantial Participation’ there are many groups which residents

can join. For example The Customer Senate and their sub group The Service Panel

which scrutinise landlord performance, report back and make recommendations.

These groups have access to facts and figures and key people within the landlord

service. Their opinions carry weight and their recommendations are implemented.

Having said this scrutiny is not for everybody as it requires a mental and time

commitment. Helpfully the Community Engagement Team provides support in terms

of office space, minute taking and also skills training and access to the Business

Improvement Team and other key members of the staff.

Group Involvement also comes in the form of Forums for Disability, Sheltered

Housing, Leaseholders and Young People, and Resident Associations. These

groups are set up and supported by your Landlord and they enable people with a

shared interest to come together and voice their opinions and hold their Landlord to

account. These focus on specific issues and can provide an interesting array of

views on a subject and much debate. These groups are often quite passionate which

a good thing is as it gives people a change to release frustrations. Some people may

be put off by the passion which can occur, while others positively thrive on it.

Finally there is the Customer Voice which is made up of representatives from all the

mentioned groups and draws them all together. It has all the pros and cons of

everything which has been described so far. This group feeds back and influences

your Landlords Housing Board.

Your voice matters, so be involved, choose what’s right for you and make a

difference.

Task D

Report to: Jan Goodkind, Principal Housing Manger

Report by: Richard Somers, Tenancy Management Officer.

Date: 28/11/14

I ntroduction

This report will consider just how far Enfield Homes (EH) meets the equality and diversity needs older residents aged 65 and over (65+) in terms of:

1. Our legal duty under the Equality Act 2010.

2. Benchmarking EH against best practice with as identified by the Chartered Institute of Housing for Customer Insight, Involvement and Communication.

3. Recommending Improvements.

1.Our Legal Duty Under the Equalities Act 2010 (EA 2010)

The Equality Act 2010 makes it unlawful to discriminate against anyone who shares the ‘protected characteristic’ of Age, Gender, Disability, Gender Reassignment, Marriage and Civil Partnership, Maternity (and Paternity), Race, Religion and Belief, Sex and Sexual Orientation.

The Act also introduces a Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) which replaces previous race, disability and gender duties. The EH Equality and Diversity Policy 2014 summarises this duty:

“The PSED requires public bodies to:

2.2.1 Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct prohibited by the Act;

2.2.2 Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it; and

2.2.3 Foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not (Enfield Homes, 2014).”

The links between the EA 2012 and Housing Organisations such as Enfield Homes are clear, we serve residents who share these protected characteristics and we are in a positon as a landlord to protect them from discrimination, to advance their opportunity and to foster their good relations with others. We can challenge prejudice and combat discrimination (CIH, 2010).

EH and Residents Over Sixty Five

The Context

This report looks at residents who share the ‘protected characteristic’ of age, more specifically old age, defined as those who are 65+.EH manages 9.1% of the dwellings in Enfield (Enfield Council, 2014). Data extracted by the EH Business Improvement Team identify 25,679 household members housed by EH; this includes both tenants and family members. Of these 3479 are 65+, this forms 13.5% of EH’s customer base.

EH houses the majority of those over the age of sixty five in General Needs (GN) Housing stock. EH also provides twenty four Sheltered Housing Schemes (SHS) with the capacity to accommodate eight hundred and forty four residents. These schemes are available to people aged fifty five years and over.

2.Bench Marking Against the CIH Equality and Diversity Charter

In July 2012 the Chartered Institute of Housing produced a Charter of good practice with regard to Equality and Diversity(CIH, 2012) The service EH provides is considered against the best practice standard of ‘Who we serve (CIH, 2012) “with regard to Customer Insight, Involvement and Communication with the 65+ in the table below.

Meeting the needs of Older People (65+), knowing them, Listening to them, and Communicating with them.

Key Area Good Practice Within

CIH Charter

EH Sheltered Housing

Scheme(SHS) Practice.

EH General Needs

Practice (GNP)

Comments

How do we know who our older (65+) customers are?

“We proactively use customer profiling to develop customer insight information to help us develop fair and accessible services.”

Customers are profiled on sign up to SHS using Getting to Know You Survey (GTKYS).

Profiling supports SHS planning and delivery of service.

Customers are profiled on sign up using the same GTKYS as SHS Profiling updated via Tenancy Audit programme. Their vulnerability needs are flagged on customer database.

Due to resources GNP is slower at capturing decline in the 65+ profile. 80+ visited once a year, during winter for a Tenancy Audit.

GTKYS does not have a category for Gender

Customer accounts flagged. Needs reported back to SHS. Adjustments to care are easy to make in tailored facilities.

Changes in profile with regard to cognitive and physical ability can be captured from resident interaction with SHS officers.

SHS information collated by Business Improvement Team for discussion in monthly Equality and Diversity meeting which feedback for business planning. Feedback given to Executive Management Team, and Housing Board.

Profiling feedback to GN database and vulnerability

Customers over eighty years old are audited annually in the winter. Customers. 65+ tend to be in direct debit credit on their rent account and not cause nuisance so generic interaction is limited.

Information fed back respective management teams, and Business Improvement Planning and Executive Management Team Agenda.

Assignment.

There does not appear to be a clear link between GNP, policy and implementation. This is due to the resources that GN has.

Generally there is an issue with the accuracy of the profiling data entry. The database has only has one field for disability.

marker added to database for day to day interactions, i.e, repairs and rent. The 65+ are supposed to have a vulnerability flag.

How do we involve our older customers in the design, delivery, monitoring and review of scrutinising services

“We provide structures, resources, training and capacity building opportunities for customers to enable them to contribute to delivery of fair and accessible services.”

The EH Community Engagement Team (CET) run and support resident scrutiny groups the Customer Senate, service panel, repairs focus group. There is also a Sheltered Housing Forum where residents bring issues to the table. There is SHS representation on the Customer Voice which feeds back directly to the housing board.

SHS actively consult and carry out impact assessments on any change which they make to their schemes with

CET supports the resident group involvement for those in general needs. They market these activities and provide transport to and from events.

Consultation is carried out for Estate Improvements and Decent Homes.

.

65+ are in both SHS and GNP are involved, if they want to be.

There is a concern, particularly with GNP that as the council moved forward with its digital transformation programme that the 65+ will be placed at a disadvantage.

Involvement is better supported in SHS than in GN.

their residents.

CET provides skills and confidence training to residents who wish to participate.

The Chair of the ALMO lives in a SHS, and participates at housing board level.

SHS residents not keen to engage in online forums.

GN not keen to engageOnline.

How is information about the service provided – what form does it take and how clearly does it explain different aspects of the service to customers who are 65+.

“We provide our customers with regular, robust and appropriate information accessible in all formats which have been agreed with them.”

SHS comply with this; they provide regular translated material upon request, in braille and large print, also in audio format.

SHS also provide face to face information which is crucial.

There is a quarterly Housing Magazine mailed out. Translated versions available. Home visits to explain services can be arranged upon request.

EH provides a website with current and up to date information.

Face to face interaction is limited in GN. However EH does provide a Freephone number for

Face to Face interaction is limited in GNP.

.

Serious concern regarding digital exclusion.

.

“All language, imagery, procedures and publicity are inclusive and representative of our diverse communities, information is provided in alternative or accessible formats where this is required.

Yes, they provide this, in large print, audio, and translated versions upon request.

queries.

Yes, they provide this.

Outcomes – How did we do?

a). EH does well when it comes to the SHS, GN is another story and needs attention. EH generates customer insight through profiling and acts on this information to develop services.

EH offers a strong culture of involvement to the 65+ whether they are in SHS or GN if they want to engage.

Information is presented in a regular, robust way and in a number of formats to both SHS and GN.

There is much from this benchmarking exercise that EH can be proud of. However, there are some areas which we will need to work on.

b) In terms of defining our customers’ needs EH must look at how often it profiles the 65+ in GN stock. It needs to proactively visit and engage with the 65+ more often than it does and communicate with them regarding its services.

The structures for involvement are in place; however the 65+ in GN need to be informed about them more proactively.

EH needs to be careful with regard to digitally excluding the 65+. The current system of information works well and must be maintained as we services become more digitally focused.

c). In terms of resources, we have what we need to implement these changes; it is just a question of providing a focus on the elderly in GN as a part of our day to day business.

In terms of the future we need to maintain our non-digital information services to those both in SHS and GN. This needs to be funded as part of our Public Sector Equality Duty.

3. Recommendations

The following recommendations are made:

GN Tenancy Officers to carry out Welfare Visits to the 65+ more frequently, every six months or more to check on health and provide updates regarding EH services including resident involvement.

The link between GNP, policy and implementation needs to be reviewed in terms of the service we offer to 65+.

Digital Exclusion for the 65+ needs to be addressed by EH.

Current practices need to be retained as services become more digitally focused.

The quality of the database data from Profiled information to be checked bi-annually to ensure that there are no gaps with regard to the needs of the 65+..

The Getting to Know You Survey needs to capture Gender Assignment Information.

Reference List

Books

Harriott, S & Matthews, L (2009) Introducing Affordable Housing. Coventry, CIH.

Websites

Chartered Institute Of Housing (2012). Equality and Diversity: CIH Charter for Housing. Available from: http://www.cih.org/resources/PDF/Policy%20free%20download%20pdfs/Equality%20and%20diversity%20charter%20for%20housing.pdf [Accessed 18.11.14]

Department for Communities and Local Government (2012). The National Planning Policy Framework. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf. [Accessed 01.11.14]

Enfield Council (2014). Borough Profile. Available from: http://www.enfield.gov.uk/downloads/file/9026/borough_profile_-_march_2014 [Accessed 26.11.14]

Enfield Homes ( 2014). Equality and Diversity Policy 2014. Available from: http://www.enfield.gov.uk/Enfieldhomes/downloads/file/267/equality_and_diversity_policy_2014 [Accessed 25.11.14]

Homes and Communities Agency (2012).The Regulatory Framework for Social

Housing in England From 2012. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/320616/regfwk-2012.pdf. [Accessed 02.11.14]

Joseph Roundtree Foundation (1994) Community Participation and empowerment: Putting theory into practice. Available from: http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/h4.pdf

[Accessed 13.11.14]