david orr welfare reform impacts. report published 12 feb 2014 fieldwork sept/oct 2013 respondents =...
TRANSCRIPT
David Orr
Welfare reform impacts
• Report published 12 Feb 2014
• Fieldwork Sept/Oct 2013• Respondents = 66% of
GN stock
Social sector size criteria
• 58% of HAs significantly affected by the size criteria
• 9% of GN tenancies are affected by the size criteria.
• 19% of tenancies of working age and in receipt of HB
• = 190,000 affected HA tenants in England.
• 17% of affected tenancies contain someone with a disability
Click icon to add picture
Version 1 | Internal Use Only © Ipsos MORI
Variation in the extent to which housing associations have been affected by the size criteria
90%
80%
71%
63%
60%
55%
50%
48%
26%
23%
70%
88%
80%
79%
5%
20%
29%
38%
40%
45%
50%
52%
69%
75%
27%
12%
15%
21%
Not very much/ not at allA great deal/ fair amountRegion
Size
Q Overall, to what extent, if at all, do you think your organisation has been affected by the introduction of the size criteria?
Small (<500)*
Medium (500-2,499)
Medium/ Large (2,500-4,999)*
Large (5,000-9,999)*
Largest (10,000+)*
North East*
York & Humb.
North West*
East Midlands
London*
West Midlands
South East
South West
East of England
Net not very much/ at all
(±)
-84
-60
-43
-25
-20
-9
0
+4
+43
+52
-43
-76
-65
-57
Base: All valid responses (183), September-November 2013
* % Great deal/ fair amount significantly different to respondents overall
Arrears (size criteria)
Two-thirds of affected tenants currently in arrears
Of these, 75% have seen arrears increase since 1st April 2013.
29% of tenants currently affected by the size criteria have fallen into arrears since 1st April 2013.
38% of all those currently affected by the size criteria are in arrears due to a failure to pay the shortfall = 72,000 HA tenants in England
53% of associations report an increased difficulty in rent collection because of the size criteria
Since 1st April 2013 the overall average number of tenants in arrears has risen by 7%, from 1,165 per association to 1,245 per association.
Click icon to add picture
Version 1 | Internal Use Only © Ipsos MORI
£1,202,488
£1,009,268
£1,121,313
3%
19%
35%
10% 8% 7%
19%
3%
21%
36%
10% 8% 7%
16%
3%
21%
31%
15%8% 8%
15%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
Outstanding arrears levels over time
Base: All valid responses (183), averages exclude DK and NS (159, 165, 169) NHF Online Survey September-November 2013
on 31st December 2012 Currently
Ave amount
of arrears/
HA
Q In your general needs stock, what was the total amount (in £) of arrears outstanding….
on 31st March 2013
Ave amount
of arrears/
HA
Ave amount
of arrears/
HA
Click icon to add picture
Version 1 | Internal Use Only © Ipsos MORI
Proportion of those currently affected by the size criteria and arrears
Base: All valid responses base sizes in brackets, September-November 2013
390Average no of GN affected by size criteria (Base 179)
34% (133)Not currently in arrears (Base 96)
66% (257)Currently in
arrears (Base 96)
44% (113)Not in arrears pre-April 2013 (Base 77)
56% (144)In arrears pre-
April 2013 (Base 77)
75%
7%
18%
Q Of those currently in arrears and affected by the size criteria, how many
have seen their arrears increase, decrease or stay the same since 1st April 2013? (76)
Increase Decrease
Stay the same
Click icon to add picture
Version 1 | Internal Use Only © Ipsos MORI
Proportion of those currently affected by the size criteria in arrears, NOSP and evictions
Base: All valid responses base sizes in brackets, September-November 2013
34% 28% 38%
390Average no of GN affected by size criteria (Base 179)
(133)Not currently in arrears
(Base 96)
(109)In arrears not due to
failure to pay size criteria shortfall(Base 72)
(148)In arrears due to failure to pay
size criteria shortfall (Base 72)
0.3% (0.4)In arrears due to failure
to pay size criteria shortfall and evicted
(Base 61)40%
60%(89)…and not issued with NOSP (Base 52)
(59)…and issued with NOSP (Base 52)
HA responses
• 67% give greater priority to downsizers• 45% not normally allow tenants in arrears to downsize• 36% would normally allow downsizing with arrears
Allocations
• 14% developing under AHP think size criteria has made it harder to meet commitments
• 30% say size criteria will impact new home delivery post 2015• 33% increasing number of 1 and 2-bed properties
Development
• 2% have re-classified a significant number of properties• 10% have re-classified some stock• 0.02% of all stock reclassified
Re-classification
Click icon to add picture
Version 1 | Internal Use Only © Ipsos MORI
Estimated spend to deal with the introduction of the size criteria
Base: All valid responses (base sizes in brackets), September-November 2013
Q Are you able to quantify how much, if anything, your organisation as a whole has spent/ will spend on …up to April 2013 and 2013-14?
£34,332
£3,162
£14,509
£9,382
£10,795
£4,632
£10,279
£66,147
£53,227
£49,929
£4,364
£26,496
£7,908
£17,959
£7,499
£17,846
£99,381
£94,728
Estimated average spend - 2013-14Estimated average spend - up to 2013
Rent collection costs
IT costs (including new transaction methods)
Financial capability/ Inclusion programme costs (eg debt advice)
Employment/ work skills programme costs
Other welfare advice costs
Legal costs
Any other associated costs
All costs combined
All costs combined (2012 survey)
(81)
(92)
(67)
(78)
(89)
(97)
(73)
(78)
(80)
(90)
(66)
(77)
(74)
(79)
(111)
(121)
(152)
(130)
Click icon to add picture
Version 1 | Internal Use Only © Ipsos MORI
Tenant responses: Actions of those ceased to be affected by the size criteria
Base: All with general need tenanted home affected by size criteria on 1st April 2013 and excluding DK/ NS (151), September-November 2013
Q How many, if any, of your tenanted homes have ceased to be affected by the size criteria since 1st April 2013 because tenants have…..?
14
10
3
4
1
21
52
…downsized via a transfer
…downsized via a mutual exchange
…taken up a Private Rented Sector tenancy
…increased their income through work so no longer claim housing benefit
…taken in a lodger or lodgers
…ceased to be affected for some other reason
Average number ceased to be affected
Average number ceased to be affected % of all
ceased to be affected
26%
19%
6%
7%
2%
40%
100%
Click icon to add picture
Version 1 | Internal Use Only © Ipsos MORI
Tenant responses: Discretionary Housing Payments
Base: All valid responses base sizes in brackets, September-November 2013
15%
Average number of GN tenancies on HB currently affected by the
size criteria (179)
Affected by size criteria since 1st April
and been awarded DHP (140)
390
24%
Affected by size criteria since 1st April and made one or more claims for DHP (114)
4%
Awarded a DHP, affected by size criteria and living in an adapted property (48)
76% Currently
affected NOT making a
claim
Unsuccessful claim
Successful claim
Click icon to add picture
Version 1 | Internal Use Only © Ipsos MORI
Q To what extent, if at all, has your organisation seen the following occur because of the introduction of the Benefit Cap?
Base: All valid responses (183), September-November 2013
5
4
1
2
1
1
13
12
9
8
9
4
30
27
18
34
20
8
5
3
40
44
60
44
57
50
78
54
12
13
12
12
14
37
16
43
A great deal A fair amount Not very muchNot at all Don't know
Increased difficulty in rent collection
An increase in the demand for housing from people living in the private rented sector
An increase in demand from existing tenants for smaller property
A rise in the level of arrears
A fall in your total rental income
An increase in the number of existing tenants requesting a transfer
A rise in the number of evictions due to arrears
% great deal/ fair amount
17%
16%
10%
10%
9%
5%
1%
An increase in family separation *%
Impacts of the introduction of the Benefit Cap on housing associations
Click icon to add picture
Version 1 | Internal Use Only © Ipsos MORI
Housing association concerns about the move to Universal Credit
Q How concerned, if at all, is your organisation about the following aspects of the move to Universal Credit?
Base: All valid responses (183), September-November 2013
64
62
75
53
70
56
51
46
19
30
32
18
41
21
35
39
40
41
3
1
4
3
5
4
7
10
33
1
2
*
3
3
4
3
3
4
3
3
4
4
Very concerned Fairly concerned Not very concerned
Not at all concerned Don't know
The capability of tenants to cope with monthly budgeting
The additional resources needed to support tenants with transition to Universal Credit and direct payments
The capability of tenants to access online systems
Clarity over the timetable for migration to tenants to Universal Credit
Increased difficulty in rent collection
The technological infrastructure and systems put in place by government departments to support the move
Identifying ‘vulnerable’ tenants to have alternative payment arrangements (ie paying housing costs to the
landlord)
% very/ fairly concerned
94%
94%
93%
93%
92%
91%
86%Clarity over operation of the arrears triggers
60%The technological readiness of your
organisation to move to Universal Credit
90%
Click icon to add picture
Version 1 | Internal Use Only © Ipsos MORI
Measures to improve preparedness for the introduction of Universal Credit
Q Which if any of the following would most help you be more prepared for the introduction of Universal Credit? Please select up to a maximum of three responses
Base: All who are not at all, not very or fairly prepared for introduction of Universal Credit (173), September-November 2013
70%
60%
45%
27%
25%
24%
17%
14%
5%
3%
1%
More focus by my organisation
None of the above
Other
More clarity from DWP on timetable
More knowledge about our tenants
More clarity over DWP funding systems
More resources made available to landlords
More clarity over data sharing arrangements
More emphasis on a national publicity campaign for tenants
Closer working relationships with DWP
Closer relationships with local authorities
The HCA’s Affordable Homes Programme 2015-182015 – 2018• Portion of funding held for future market engagement• Grant
– Confirmation of scheme specific rates– Start on site payments
• Encouragement of councils to make land available• Focus on cross subsidy and value for money through
disposals and conversions– High level of scrutiny implied
• Meeting local need, but emphasis on provision of one and two beds
• New rules around firm and indicative schemes
• Move towards a more flexible approach– Opportunity for on going bidding following initial funding round – Scheme specific grant– Some drop dead date flexibility for ‘trusted delivery partners’ – Mix of capped (social) rent and discounted (affordable) rent
• Smaller providers and consortia encouraged• Focus on cross-subsidy and provision of market sale • Framework agreements with Boroughs • New means of funding
– Revolving investment fund– London Housing Bank
The Mayor’s Housing Covenant 2015 – 2018
Contact
Pippa Bell
National Housing Federation
020 7067 1174
Further information: www.housing.org.uk/welfare
Sign up to our newsletter
Join us on LinkedIn