Sitra is part of Homeless Link
Report to Leicestershire Housing Services Partnership
Overview of current and proposed legislative and regulatory changes on services and communities
James Berrington Sitra Associate Patricia Dearnaley Sitra Associate
July 2016
Contact us
Sitra Gateway House 8 Milverton Street London SE11 4AP Wendy Green 020 7840 4441 Sitra Consultancy Coordinator [email protected] [email protected] www.sitra.org 020 7840 4439 Leicestershire Housing Services Partnership Overview of proposed legislative and regulatory changes on services and communities
Contents 1. Executive Summary ...... 3 2. Introduction ...... 8 3. Methodology ...... 9 4. Leicestershire Context ...... 14 5. Overview of welfare reform and legislative change ...... 20 6. Impact of welfare reform and legislative change in Leicestershire ...... 27 7. Access to information, advice, advocacy & support ...... 37 8. Access to affordable homes ...... 44 9. Supply of affordable homes ...... 49 10. Managing the impact on local services ...... 59 11. Conclusions ...... 62
2 | Page 1. Executive Summary
“The Government’s welfare reforms represent the most fundamental changes to the benefits system in a generation” (Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion 2013)). The purpose is to reduce dependency on social security and encourage employment, but it also forms part of the Government’s deficit reduction strategy. The welfare reforms combined with changes to social housing in England that are likely to change what the sector looks like and who it serves, create unprecedented changes to affect some of the poorest and vulnerable people and the organisations there to support them. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation (Power et al. 2014)) conclude that “cutbacks in support make people on low incomes, in work and out, more vulnerable to debt, risk of eviction and shortage of necessities, so they rely on food banks and other emergency support”. Whilst considerable work has been, and is being, done across Leicestershire to address the impacts of welfare reform and the changes to housing legislation, more can be done and done more effectively. It is anticipated that in future, the impacts will be felt by more people and deeper by some, leading to an increased demand for services. In the context of reduced public sector funding, it will be increasingly important to focus services and spending on how it can most effectively support those in greatest need. This report highlights the sheer scale of change that the welfare reforms are bringing, as well as the significant changes brought about by housing and planning legislation. It brings together the experiences of customers, local authorities and providers in evaluating the impact and draws on this experience and expert knowledge to make recommendations for action by the Leicestershire Housing Services Partnership. A key message from participants in the study is that on the whole, they are, as one respondent reported “Just a little (or a lot) poorer” than in the past: many have been affected by welfare reform, some could cite examples of others in their communities or families that have been affected. In many cases, they are, it appears, juggling a lack of resources to try to keep their household’s financial head above water. Several respondents (notably younger people) requested more assistance with managing poverty and avoiding debt, not through cash payments, but by considering ways that the Partnership could facilitate services and advice on ways to alleviate the impact of reduced weekly income; The impact of welfare reform is largely economic at an individual level, the report highlights these impacts and what services may help mitigate the impact. Appropriately targeted information and advice is key to supporting individuals and families find solutions. This could be through maximising income, or managing existing income, or minimising outgoings. The lack of awareness and understanding of welfare reform reported by participants was significant. In general, few participants (either in the focus groups or online survey) had any prior knowledge of government changes, and even fewer displayed any insight into the potential impact for them, their families and the community. It is not sufficient, however, to circulate the information without explanation of how the changes may apply to individuals and their families: some respondents had misunderstood information, or believed patently mythical ideas about changes, for instance, that if a bed is removed from a bedroom it will no longer be subject to removal of the “spare room subsidy”. One notable exception was the Hinckley and Bosworth group, which clearly had been well briefed by the authority, and had developed analytical views on the short and long term implications for individuals, families and their communities. Whilst there are certainly a range of information and advice available to customers, it hasn’t necessarily reached all those to whom it is directed, or who need it. It is therefore suggested that existing work and material is built upon and that all information and services should be simple, accessible and user friendly, designed from the viewpoint of the customer.
3 | Page Participants in receipt of welfare benefits had some first-hand knowledge of the impact on their own family’s situation, and where this impact was negative, some expressed concern about the lack of potential advocates who could intervene in times of difficulty, such as in dealing with (perceived) unhelpful staff at the Job Centre. This, coupled with a lack of knowledge and understanding of the welfare benefit regulations, had led to sanctions being applied, and a lengthy appeals process without income. Particular from younger respondents there was a strong desire to access work opportunities, but an awareness of the barriers facing them, such as lack of work skills, having no experience and even having no access to clothes suitable for attending an interview. It seems that this time of enthusiasm and motivation offers an opportunity to induct young people into the world of work before long-term worklessness becomes entrenched, so support and assistance in early adulthood may yield optimum value for money. For those with a reduced household income and also those affected by the removal of the spare room subsidy, moving to smaller or cheaper property is important. The report therefore addresses the impact of the changes in housing legislation of the supply of affordable homes. The changes brought about through housing legislation will reduce available affordable rented housing stock and also reduce the numbers of new affordable rented housing, due to an increased focus and funding for home-ownership products. There was consensus amongst local authorities and providers that there remains a need and demand for affordable rented housing and that joint working was a way forward to better meet this need. Younger participants were particularly concerned about the impact of welfare reform on their future housing options, and this, coupled with reduced supply of affordable housing, raises questions about the potential for supported housing providers being unable to facilitate move-on for young people, with secondary impact upon supported accommodation. Many of the older participants provided feedback and ideas on the standard of local services following years of shrinking resources: some were keen to focus on how their local environments could be improved or made more convenient/easier to use. The use of Asset Based Community Development models (ABCD) may be a way of capturing that commitment to communities by residents and help find cost-effective solutions. The Leicestershire Housing Services Partnership has a vital role in strategic oversight and monitoring the impact across Leicestershire. Importantly it has the potential to pull together a wide range of organisations and services providers to make the most effective use of available resources in addressing the impact of welfare reform and legislative change.
1.1. Recommendations summary The recommendations detailed here in summary are drawn from across the report where further detail and explanation can be found, including at Appendix 1 – Proposals from the focus groups / online survey.
Strategic oversight
Partnership working Make a clear and demonstrate shared vision and commitment to joint working in the responding to the recommendation and addressing the impact of welfare reform and legislative change.
4 | Page Strategic oversight
Targeting limited resources Share practice in identifying those most in need, to ensure that limited resources are appropriately targeted. Carry out equality impact assessments of services addressing the impact of welfare reform, to ensure that those most in need are being reached. Consider ABCD models of service development to cost effectively deliver services the communities want and support,
Learning from experience Ensure all projects addressing welfare reform include requirements for evaluation of effectiveness.
Working with health Examine how to calculate social value and cost effectiveness of housing and the role of preventative services in meeting health outcomes.
Monitoring impact Develop common approaches to metrics used for monitoring outcomes and in measuring effectiveness. Develop a set of key performance indicators for use by LHSP to monitor and track the impact of welfare and legislative change. Stress test existing service and support provision and prepare contingencies if appropriate.
Managing the impact on local services Encourage longer (three year) funding settlements for voluntary sector organisations to provide some stability. Consider how to optimise the use of volunteer services to supplement existing services. Work with local tenant activists and community action groups to identify opportunities to improve local community environments without threatening existing paid employment. Consider the environmental issues raised by participants and to further research.
Support for customers
Managing financial impact Consider a coordinated programme of supporting people to access resources to supplement their weekly income. Work with existing programmes, such as food banks to explore how the Partnership may support the expansion of these programmes. Continue to support the work to expand the role of credit unions across the County. Consider how infrastructure services may be made more accessible for people on low incomes to maintain a healthy lifestyle.
5 | Page Support for customers
Information and advice for customers We suggest using customers in the design and testing of information and advice. Work together to run a benefit take up campaign, helping claimants and potential claimants to understand their entitlement to welfare benefits. Develop and circulate materials to assist claimants and potential claimants to interpret relevant welfare benefits regulations, to ensure that individuals understand how regulations and criteria apply to their situation. Develop and circulate materials explaining and interpreting welfare reform to ensure that individuals understand how regulations and criteria apply to their situation, specifically: - Removal of the “Spare Room Subsidy” - Changes to Housing Benefit and Housing Support - “Pay to Stay” - Removal of the lifetime tenancies. Wider access to advocacy for customers Support the expansion of advice/advocacy services through a Neighbourhood Advisor pilot based in local communities. Consider how independent advocates could support claimants in dealing with perceived “unhelpful” staff in Job Centres. Support advice and advocacy agencies to improve awareness of their service.
Preparation for work Further publicise and promote the City Deal programme to young people. Training opportunities around work skills are increased/promoted/publicised to young people. Consider how LHSP members may offer additional opportunities for gaining work experience within their organisations. Work with local businesses to set up a scheme to help people gain work experience. Consider how donated office clothes could be made available to people going to interview.
Supply of affordable homes
Strategic planning Ensure housing data provided for the HEDNA is as robust as possible. Develop a combined approach to planning policies affecting affordable homes requirements and starter homes to ensure rented homes continue to be provided. Ensure there is a thorough understanding of the viability challenges that affordable led delivery can and will provide in future.
Right to Buy Develop a local data collection system to monitor sales in a timely fashion (6-monthly by one LA, or NROSH sales data provided and analysed locally).
6 | Page Supply of affordable homes
Section 106 Districts and boroughs to share their renegotiated S106 agreements with each other, to exchange ideas and develop common approaches. Assess how local authorities can support and encourage better take up of S106 sites by Registered Providers.
Social rented housing Boroughs and districts work together on joint procurement processes to reduce costs of new self-developed social rented housing.
Affordable Housing Share potential partnership arrangements between LAs and RPs to develop affordable rent. Find a way to support affordable rented products in future.
Starter homes Carry out an evaluation and assessment of the impact of starter homes on delivery of affordable rented homes (once detail of Starter Homes is available).
Commuted sums Monitor and encourage strategic use of Commuted Sums to develop or co-fund affordable rent housing.
New funding sources Gather intelligence and legal advice re new funding solutions (to minimise duplication across boroughs and districts).
Supported housing and housing for older people Develop a county wide needs assessment of specialist housing for vulnerable and older people. Campaign against the LHA restriction cap that will prevent the development of much needed supported provision in the future. Exploit the consensus to explore capital and revenue options with health at a senior strategic countywide level, building on existing contacts.
Private rented sector Develop a common data set across all authorities to better understand the scale and range and support the private rented housing market.
Self-build Provide greater support and wider promotion of self-build as a housing option for citizens.
7 | Page 2. Introduction
The Leicestershire Housing Services Partnership (LHSP) in liaison with local colleagues commissioned Sitra to examine current and proposed legislative and regulatory change, with regards to welfare reform and housing, to understand the potential impact on individuals and the wider communities. The LHSP was keen to identify how the localities can work together to ensure the best possible outcomes in this difficult climate. The aim was to gather views and experiences from key stakeholders across the county including key representative communities and service providers including registered providers. This report contains the views, opinions and experiences of these communities. Importantly it includes their suggested action for the LHSP to take, alongside that of the authors. These experiences, views and recommendations are presented alongside findings from other analyses from across the country. These are grouped under the following section headings:
• Managing financial impact • Access to information, advice, advocacy and support • Access to affordable homes • Supply of affordable homes • Managing impact on local services. The researchers reached out to all LHSP members to share their experiences, evaluations and services provided in their localities. Due to the limited scale but large scope of the research, this report is not a full audit of every service and provision delivered by local authorities, registered providers and the voluntary sector in Leicestershire. It is inevitable that there will be services in place and action taken across the county that are not recognised within the report. The implementation of much of the legislative change will be through, yet to be published, Regulations and other measures, which means that as more detail emerges further understanding of the implications and impact will become clear.
8 | Page 3. Methodology
The methodology was determined and agreed following discussion between Sitra and the LHSP in advance of commencing the research project. This was split into three key strands: a. Scoping b. In depth interviews and questionnaires c. Stakeholder engagement 3.1. Scoping The first stage of the research has been a rigorous qualitative assessment of existing research, reports and assessments. The initial research identified that the assessment of the welfare reform has been challenging and that the cumulative impact of the unprecedented wide range of social policy changes is not easy or indeed necessarily possible to calculate in an exact scientific way. The changes detailed in the next chapter are being implemented over disparate timescales, some started some years ago, all of which make any cumulative assessment extremely challenging. The government’s own impact assessments look at specific strands or specific welfare changes, pretty much in isolation (for example, see the Welfare Reform and Work Bill: Impact Assessment for the benefit cap (Department for Work and Pensions 2015) This approach to impact assessment was borne out by many of the reports uncovered during the scoping research for this paper. Studies were identified at both national and local areas and often focussed on specific elements of the changes, for example a key benefit change. These reports are referred to during the report and can be found in the Bibliography. We have also used these reports’ recommendations and good practice to inform this report and make suggestions to LHSP where these may be worth replicating locally Scoping included analysis of existing welfare reform, but also announcements made in the Autumn Statement, Comprehensive and Budget 2016 (HM Treasury 2015). Both the Housing and Planning Bill and Welfare Reform Bill were progressing through Parliament throughout the research period and subject to much debate and change, before being enacted in May 2016.
3.2. In depth interviews In-depth interviews with key stakeholders from across the county from public sector, not for profit and statutory services:
• Richard Evans, CEO, Citizens Advice Leicestershire; • Liz Steiner, County Operations Director, Citizens Advice Leicestershire; • Peter Davey, Chief Officer, The Bridge; • Alison Simmons, Head of Strategic and Private Sector Housing, Charnwood Borough Council; • Debbie Preston, First Contact Plus Manager, Leicestershire County Council; • Quin Quinney, Community Services Group Manager, Blaby District Council; • Ian Jones, Principle Housing Strategy Officer, Blaby District Council; • Graham Perkins, Welfare Reform and Benefits Manager, Blaby District Council; • Janet Gower Johnson, Service Manager, Supporting Leicestershire Families; • Julia Eames, Strategic Planning & Commissioning Officer, Adults & Communities, Leicestershire County Council; • Simon Dalby, Local Area Coordinator, Leicestershire County Council; • David Platts, Head of Revenues, Benefits & Customer Services, Charnwood Borough Council; • Mike Thomson, Community Services, Leicestershire County Council.
9 | Page The authors thank the interviewees for their time and insight. Thanks are also made to all focus group and stakeholder meeting attendees and to all respondents to research questionnaires.
3.3. Stakeholder groups The research brief identified four stakeholder groups affected by changes to government legislation, which the LHSP particularly wanted to focus attention on and find out their views and experiences. These included both consumers of services but also registered provider and local authority housing providers and property developers. These groups were consulted on relevant issues:
Methodology
Focus Online Questionnaire Group Issues Group Survey
Young Welfare Reform ü ü people aged The supply of affordable housing 18-25 years Changes to tenure Wider contextual changes
Social Welfare Reform ü ü housing The supply of affordable housing tenants Changes to tenure Wider contextual changes
Older Welfare Reform ü ü people The supply of affordable housing above Changes to tenure pensionable Wider contextual changes age
Housing Welfare Reform ü ü providers The supply of affordable housing Changes to tenure Wider contextual changes
3.4. Focus groups & stakeholder meetings A total of nine focus groups & meetings were convened to consider issues specific to each group:
Target Group Date Venue Local authority development & 16th March 2016 Melton Borough Council strategy officers Leicestershire Housing Services 13th April 2016 Blaby District Council Partnership Young People 27th April 2016 The Falcon Centre, Loughborough Provider Stakeholders 17th May 2016 Charnwood Borough Council • Service provider staff
10 | Page Target Group Date Venue • Development staff • Strategic planning staff Tenants, residents and Older 6th June 2016 Hinckley and Bosworth Borough People Council Tenants, residents and Older OneStopShop, Lutterworth People Young People Hinckley Homeless Group Young People 7th June 2016 Twenty-Twenty, Loughborough Tenants, residents and Older Me & My Learning, Melton Mowbray People
Each focus group used a workshop format, with the facilitator/s introducing the subject areas, advising on background and contextual information, before supporting participants to explore the issues in groups and to feedback to the wider group. The priority in each session with the consumers of services was to support them to:
• Identify the impact of government changes on themselves and the community; • Propose suggestions on how LHSP and its members could assist, advise and support those in the community affected by the changes Engaging individuals in the focus groups proved to be more or less challenging according to the age of the participants:
• Tenants from the ages of 25 years to just below retirement age proved to be the most difficult to engage: social housing providers report that the majority of tenant activists tend to be over retirement age, as they tend to be time-richer than younger tenants; • Young people below the age of 25 years were recruited through either their supported housing provider, or through their education provider, and in the case of both successful events, the provider had facilitated and strongly urged participants to attend. The use of non-cash incentives was also useful in optimising attendance; • Existing tenant activists over retirement age were well informed, analytical and tended to evidence a longer-term view of government changes and an understanding of the wider, unplanned consequences of the changes. The provider stakeholder group was run by two facilitators and addressed two areas: the impact on customers and service provision by housing providers; and the impact on housing supply in Leicestershire. The provider stakeholder event was attended by 14 representatives from registered providers and boroughs and districts, across both development and management.
11 | Page Property development and strategic Service Provision planning
• Non/financial impact on residents • Existing housing supply • Service Delivery • Impact of welfare reform • Under-occupation • Impact of Housing & Planning Act • Employment and Education Support 2016 • Consequent impact on management • Future Housing Supply • Viability of services - social rented housing • Cuts to local authority and county - affordable rented housing funding - supported housing and housing for older people - home ownership - private rented
3.5. Provider stakeholder research questionnaire As a follow up to the provider stakeholder focus group and to widen the range of views and responses, a survey questionnaire was circulated across the LHSP mailing list of registered providers and local authorities. The responses received built upon and deepened the knowledge obtained in the focus group.
3.6. Customer and service user research participants
3.6.1. Customer and service user online survey To enable interested wider participation, an online survey was promoted through Twitter and LinkedIn, to which 206 responses were received. Of these, 13 responders reported that they live in Leicester city or outside the County, so these responses were disregarded in the analysis. The benefits of this additional research was: a. To enable wider participation; b. To gather quantitative data that could not have been collected in a focus group setting; c. To enable a confidential platform for sharing information regarding participants’ personal situation In addition, 36 members of the public attended focus group meetings, resulting in a total 229 individual responses. Whilst 229 responses cannot be described as statistically significant for a county population in excess of 650,000, a number of useful outputs were identified: d. The participants’ level of knowledge and understanding of the government changes was evident from their responses, and informs our recommendations around information and advice services; e. A number of participants offered very detailed information about the impact on their families’ personal circumstances; f. Some of the data provided a comparator for existing and new data supplied by other research
N.B.: not every online participant chose to respond to every question; therefore, the total response rates for each question will vary.
12 | Page
3.6.2. Participants in the online survey
Please tell us about your income. Are you:
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% In full time employment Retired In receipt of Housing Benefit In receipt of Disability Living Allowance/ Personal Independence Payment In part time employment Other In receipt of Employment and Support Allowance In part time employment and in receipt of working tax credits In full time employment and in receipt of working tax credits Retired and in receipt of pension credits A stay at home parent with a working partner Not working, in receipt of Income Support/Universal Credit
Figure 1 Income profile of respondents to online survey N=176
3.6.3. Focus group participants
Age Profile of Focus Group Participants
18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Young people Older people Social housing tenants under retirement age
Figure 2 Age profile of focus groups N=36
13 | Page 4. Leicestershire Context
Information about the population of Leicestershire already exists in a number of reports and strategies; therefore, the focus here has been on some key contextual information. Further details can be found in the following strategic documents and resources: • Leicester and Leicestershire Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMAA) 2014 • Leicestershire 2015 Joint Strategic Needs Assessment • Leicestershire’s Health and Wellbeing Strategy 2013-2016 • Leicestershire’s Public Health Outcomes Framework • District Community Profiles LG Inform provides up-to-date published data about local areas and council performance; it can give an overview, or to help review and compare performance with other authorities. See LG Inform data reports: http://lginform.local.gov.uk.
4.1. The Leicestershire context - Overview of population
Figure 3: Total Population Leicestershire Districts
14 | Page
4.2. Households
Population* Dwellings**
Local Private Other Private Total authority Registered sector Providers
Blaby 93,915 0 3,040 0 36,900 39,940
Charnwood 166,100 5,850 2,620 10 61,440 69,920
Harborough 85,832 0 2,890 0 33,450 36,340
Hinckley and 105,078 3,430 1,610 0 42,250 47,280 Bosworth
Melton 50,376 1,890 600 0 19,850 22,340
North West 93,468 4,480 1,490 0 34,730 40,690 Leicestershire
Oadby and 56,170 1,260 530 0 20,770 22,560 Wigston
16,900 12,780 10 249,380 279,070 Figure 4: Population and housing tenure by District
15 | Page 4.3. Employment
Employment in Leicestershire Districts (full time + part-time)
Employment by District 2011-2014 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 - 2011 2012 2013 2014
Blaby Charnwood Harborough Hinckley and Bosworth Melton North West Leicestershire Oadby and Wigston
2011 2012 2013 2014 Blaby 48,100 50,800 49,800 51,900 Charnwood 57,700 58,200 60,000 63,100 Harborough 35,500 34,100 36,200 36,800 Hinckley and Bosworth 38,200 38,400 39,700 40,600 Melton 19,300 18,300 19,000 19,200 North West Leicestershire 48,300 50,900 49,800 50,800 Oadby and Wigston 18,200 17,600 17,300 16,700 Figure 5: Employment in Leicestershire 2011-2014 by District
16 | Page 4.4. Unemployment
Claimant count by District 2013-2016 3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
Blaby Charnwood Harborough Hinckley and Bosworth North West Leicestershire Oadby and Wigston
Figure 6: Claimants by District 2013-2016
Housing Benefit claimants losing “Spare Room Subsidy” by District to February 2016 Spare Room Subsidy Reduction Applied All HB Not applicable Number of Average HB reduction claimants (private housing) Not applied cases amount Blaby 3,389 1,276 1,914 204 £ 14.86 Charnwood 7,452 2,027 4,774 649 £ 15.20 Harborough 2,676 869 1,607 201 £ 15.18 Hinckley and Bosworth 4,541 1,412 2,673 460 £ 13.55 Melton 2,248 718 1,367 162 £ 13.63 North West Leicestershire 4,742 1,204 3,008 530 £ 14.81 Oadby and Wigston 2,083 923 1,014 150 £ 14.95 Figure 7: Source: Housing Benefit Case load statistics February 2016
17 | Page Total financial impact of reforms by category 2015/16 £6
£5
£4
£3 Billions £2
£1
£- Reforms only Reforms targeting Reforms to Housing Others reforms: and affecting those at those with health Benefit inc cap and out of work work condition and/or disabilities
Figure 8: Financial impact of reforms by category 2015/16
4.5. Rural
Leicestershire has 187 rural parishes. Parish and Town Councils play a crucial role in rural communities and there is a growing emphasis on Local Councils shaping local communities and directly providing local services. 32% (approx. 208,000) of Leicestershire’s population live in rural areas, of which 80,500 residents live in villages, hamlets or isolated dwellings. In some districts such as Melton and Harborough this is much higher with approximately 46% and 71% living in rural areas, respectively (Leicestershire Rural Framework 2014-2020).
4.6. Deprivation indicators Indices of deprivation can be mapped for each district at Lower Super Output Area (LSOA), which each have between 1,000 and 3,000 people. Every LSOA across England (32,482) has been given a relative ranking for each deprivation domain. The ten domains are: • Barriers to Housing and Services • Crime • Education, Skills and Training • Employment • Health and disability • Income • Income deprivation affecting children • Income deprivation affecting older people • Living and environment • Multiple deprivation An interactive tool that drills down into this data is accessible from Leicestershire Research and Statistics at: http://www.lsr-online.org/deprived-communities.html
18 | Page
4.7. Housing need
Total Existing Net Newly Net Backlog households Total need forming Supply Need need falling into need per households over 25 need annum years Blaby 13 387 111 511 162 349 8725 Charnwood 23 572 212 806 632 174 4350 Harborough 11 274 92 376 168 208 5200 Hinckley and Bosworth 14 359 158 532 287 245 6125 Melton 8 147 84 238 167 71 1775 North West Leicestershire 14 327 190 531 322 209 5225 Oadby and Wigston 10 188 51 249 89 160 4000 93 2254 898 3243 1827 1416 35400 Figure 9: Estimated level of Affordable Housing Need (per annum)
19 | Page 5. Overview of welfare reform and legislative change
The range and scale of changes brought about by both welfare reform, legislative change for housing and planning; and funding to local authorities, are without precedent. Whilst some are already being implemented, others are recently enacted and the detail of what these mean will be set out in Regulations, which are yet to be defined. Due to the extensive nature of the changes and the complexity of each, we here set out the changes in summary, including some of the anticipated implications. These changes either are, or will, affecting citizens, service providers and housing providers across Leicestershire.
5.1. Local Authority Finance Settlement 2016-17 The Local Government Finance Settlement 2016/17 (HM Treasury 2016) confirmed that core government funding to councils known as Revenue Support Grant (RSG) would reduce by 28 per cent in 2016/17 (Local Government Association 2016). Increasingly local council tax and localised business rates will play a more important role than RSG. CIPFA reports that total funding for local authorities will fall by 2.8% (average) in 2016-17, resulting in a real terms cut of 6.7% over the spending review period (CIPFA 2015). In addition to reductions in funding, some new funds were also added including £1.5bn to councils through Better Care Fund and additional funding to support rural areas. Additionally, councils have the freedom to charge a 2% social care precept on council tax to raise additional funds to meet rising social care demands. £10m is to be made available to local authorities to help the homeless. The New Homes Bonus is to be retained and reformed with the aim of stimulating house building.
5.2. 2016 Budget Some specific measures announced relevant to this research include the launch of the prospectus for the Starter Homes Land Fund, which invited local authorities to access £1.2bn of funding to remediate brownfield land to deliver at least 30,000 Starter Homes nationally. Also, a new Help to Save scheme for those on low incomes who wish to regularly set aside some of their income for pension or home purchase, was announced.
5.3. Welfare Reform Act 2012 5.3.1. Universal Credit Universal Credit replaces a number of means tested benefits with a single benefit paid to the head of household. It replaces: Jobseekers Allowance; Employment and Support Allowance; Income Allowance; Housing Benefit; Child Tax Credit; Working Tax Credit. Government estimates an increase to entitlements by £190 per claimant household per year. Universal Credit is being introduced in stages. As part of this change, all the benefit will be paid to the claimant (direct payment), this will include housing benefit, which may have previously been paid to the landlord. There are concerns that this may lead to increased rent arrears and potential evictions. 5.3.2. Housing Benefit – Local Housing Allowance The maximum amount of housing benefit to help with rent payments for people in the private rented sector is called Local Housing Allowance (LHA). There is a restriction of the
20 | Page maximum LHA payment to the thirtieth percentile of average local rents, thus capping the total amount of housing benefit payable. The Spending Review 2015 further announced that the Local Housing Allowance rates will be applied to all social housing rents from April 2018, where tenants had signed a new or re- let tenancy from 1 April 2016. An exception has been made for sheltered and supported housing for one year whilst research project and policy review is carried out. It is understood that the government is committed to ensuring vulnerable groups are safeguarded.
5.3.3. Housing Benefit – size criteria Size criteria have been introduced for most Housing Benefit recipients in social housing (excludes older people), reducing awards by 14% where tenants are deemed to have one spare bedroom and 25% where they have two spare bedrooms. This has also been referred to as the Spare Room Subsidy or controversially, the Bedroom Tax.
5.3.4. Housing Benefit – under 35s Most claimants aged under 35 are only able to receive Housing Benefit at a ‘Shared Room Rate’ rather than for self-contained accommodation. From April 2018 this will be the Shared Accommodation Rate of LHA, which is lower than the one bed rate in all areas and lower than the average rent for social rented one-bedroom properties in nearly all parts of England.
5.3.5. Changes to tax credits A number of changes have been made to tax credits, including reductions in the basic, 30 hour and childcare elements; increases to the child element; changes to working hours’ requirements, thresholds, disregards and withdrawal rates.
5.3.6. Housing Benefit & Council Tax – deductions There are increases in deductions taken from Housing Benefit and Council Tax in respect of other adults living in the property.
5.3.7. Employment and Support Allowance – restrictions Restriction has been made to contributory Employment and Support Allowance for claimants in the ‘Work Related Activity Group’ to 12 months.
5.3.8. Disability Living Allowance – replacement The Disability Living Allowance (DLA) has been replaced by the Personal Independence Payment (PIP), which applies a new set of standards. From April 2013 onwards all new and existing DLA claimants will be required to undergo a medical assessment to help determine their entitlement.
5.3.9. Council Tax Benefit – abolition From April 2013 the national system of Council Tax Benefit has been abolished and replaced by locally determined Council Tax Support schemes. Pensioners will remain entitles to rebates as previously. Funding to local authorities for council tax rebates will be cut by 10%.
5.3.10. Total benefit – cap From April 2013 there has been a cap on the total benefit payable to people of working age at the median earnings level after tax. This is £26,000 per year (£500 per week) for families and lone parents and £350 a week for single person households. It should be noted that
21 | Page further reductions in benefit levels are to be made under the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016.
5.3.11. Benefits and tax credits – annual increases Annual increases in benefit and tax credits will be by 1%, this replaces the previous practice where increases were set by the Consumer Price Index.
5.3.12. Sanctions and suspensions of benefits Length and level of sanctions increased for claimants who fail to comply with more onerous requirements on preparing or looking for work.
5.3.13. Stage Pension Age The State Pension age is planned to increase to: 66 between Nov 2018 and October 2020; 67 between 2026 and 2028; 68 between 2044 and 2046.
5.3.14. Discretionary social fund The discretionary social fund was abolished (i.e., crisis loans and community care grants) from April 2013 and responsibility passed to LAs. There will be some provision for loans for one-off expenses and emergencies via ‘payments on account’ of universal credit. Claimants not yet migrated onto UC will still be able to apply for budgeting loans. Local authorities will have discretion on what assistance (‘local welfare provision’) to provide. This could include referrals to local charities for help in kind; not necessarily cash payments.
5.3.15. Supported and sheltered housing The overall benefit cap and social sector size criteria do not as yet affect most tenants in supported and sheltered housing. These tenants are also excluded from being able to claim housing costs through Universal Credit and can claim Housing Benefit under existing rules.
5.4. Housing and Planning Act 2016 The Housing and Planning Act received Royal Assent on 12 May 2016. The details of many elements will be contained within Regulations setting out how elements of the act will be implemented and when.
5.4.1. Lifetime tenancies to fixed term tenancies It will be mandatory for the use of fixed term tenancies for all new council tenancies, which will be set at a minimum of 2 years and up to 10 years; an exception is made where there is a child under 9 in the household, where the tenancy is granted until they become 19 years old. Succession to secure tenancies will result in the granting of a fixed term five-year tenancy; on expiry the local authority will have the freedom to issue another fixed term tenancy.
5.4.2. Deregulation of housing associations The government has sought to make housing associations more independent from government. Pay to stay will be mandatory for councils only and optional for housing associations. Changes have been made to allow associations to merge, restructure, and wind up etc. more easily. The current disposals regime requiring permission of the regulator before
22 | Page disposing of stock has been removed. The Disposals Proceeds Fund, which restricts how money from sales is spent, has been abolished. The Homes and Communities has consulted on the recovery of capital grant during May 2016, the results of this consultation are yet to be published.
5.4.3. Extension of right to buy The Act enables the Voluntary Right to Buy agreement between housing associations and the Government. Here, housing associations are able to extend the right to buy to their tenants on a voluntary basis. The Voluntary Right to Buy is not statutory, the act sets out how the mechanisms to ensure housing associations receive full compensation for any homes sold. The Act also states that the Government will publish ‘the home ownership criteria’ that will be used to direct the HCA to monitor association compliance. Pilots are being run by London & Quadrant, Saffron Housing, Sovereign and Thames Valley Housing Association. Up to 1.3m housing association tenants will be eligible to exercise the right to buy, if it is offered.
5.4.4. Sale of higher-value vacant council homes The Act requires local authorities, which have retained ownership of their stock, to sell high- value homes as they become vacant. The income will be used to compensate housing association voluntary right to buy discounts. Where the Government makes an agreement with a local authority outside London about building new homes, at least one new affordable home is provided for each dwelling that is assumed to be sold
5.4.5. Pay to stay - at market rents The Act makes higher rents compulsory in due course for council tenants where the combined income is £40k+ (London) or £31k (rest of England): • Rents will be increased to the average market rent with a taper above income thresholds • Tenants are required to declare their incomes • Rents will increase incrementally from April 2017 Councils are required to pay the additional rental income to the Treasury; registered providers are able to keep the additional rent. It is estimated that 10% of social housing tenants will be affected. Housing associations will have discretion over whether or not to implement higher rents for tenants with these income levels.
5.4.6. Starter Homes The Act introduces a statutory duty on local authorities to promote the delivery of Starter Homes, defined as homes for market sale at sub-market rates targeted exclusively at young first time buyers over 23 and under 40. The Government has committed to build 200,000 Starter Homes, which will be sold at a minimum of 20% below the open market value, capped at £250,000 outside London. Starter homes will replace affordable housing contributions in new developments, with a minimum threshold of 20% per development; this is expected, but Regulations are required. The Act introduces a new statutory framework for starter homes including: • A statutory definition • The ability to set a starter homes requirement through local planning • Powers for the Secretary of State to intervene if local planning authorities fail to carry out their role in this area.
23 | Page 5.4.7. National Planning Policy: consultation on proposed changes The Government consultation on proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework widens the definition of affordable housing to additionally include starter homes. It also includes a duty on local authorities to promote the development of starter homes. The government proposed to give ‘automatic’ permission to housing schemes on sites allocated for that use in local plans, a brownfield register, development plan or neighbourhood plan. A new general duty would be imposed on every English council to "carry out its relevant planning functions with a view to promoting the supply of starter homes in England". This would apply to local plans and the duty to cooperate on strategic matters as well as individual planning applications, the explanatory memorandum says. It is proposed that the Secretary of State may introduce regulations providing that a council may only grant planning permission for a residential development meeting certain criteria if they include a set number or proportion of starter homes or a payment to provide starter homes. Under the bill, councils would be required to produce progress reports on the provision of starter homes and the secretary of state would obtain powers to direct them to ignore policies that clash with this policy aim.
5.5. Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016
5.5.1. 1% reductions in social housing rents General needs housing rents in social housing will be reduced by 1% per year for 4 years starting in April 2016. This is estimated to have a cumulative effect of a 12% reduction in rents over 4 years. There are exemptions for shared ownership properties, mortgagees in possession and where it would ‘jeopardise the financial viability of the registered provider’. The following are exempt: Accommodation where household income exceeds £60,000; Intermediate rent; specialised supported housing; PFI social housing; Temporary social housing; fair rent properties; care homes. Supported housing is exempt for 12 months ‘while a review is carried out’. Included under supported housing are: Supported housing; sheltered accommodation for older people; Extra care housing; Almshouses; ‘specialised supported housing’ (high level of support, no/negligible public capital subsidy, commissioned in line with local health, social services or strategies).
5.5.2. Benefit cap The annual benefit cap rates will be reduced to £20,000 for couples and lone parents and £13,400 for single households. The link between the benefit cap and national median earnings is removed. Housing benefit will be capped at LHA levels for new housing association tenants from April 2016, but implemented from 2018.
5.5.3. Housing Benefit for young people From April 2017, removal of the automatic entitlement to the housing element for new claims in UC from 18 –21 year olds who are out of work. There will be exemptions, including for vulnerable young people, those who may not be able to return home to live with their parents, and those who have been in work for six months prior to making a claim, who will continue to be able to receive housing support for up to six months while they look for work.
24 | Page 5.5.4. Re-classification of private registered providers The Office for National Statistics announced on 30 October 2015 the re-classification of private registered providers as public bodies, effective from July 2008. The effect has been to add £63bn to public sector debt.
5.5.5. Four-year benefit rates freeze The main rates of income support, jobseekers allowance, employment and support allowance, housing benefit and universal credit will be frozen for four years from April 2016. Various other elements will also be frozen, including the work-related component of ESA, individual child elements of child tax credit (CTC), and most elements of working tax credit.
5.5.6. Limiting support through Child Tax Credits (CTC) / Universal Credit The family element of CTC will be abolished from April 2017. Payments of individual elements for children will be restricted to a maximum of two children or qualifying young people born after April 2017, except in prescribed circumstances. There will be a new disability element created, paid according to whether the child is considered disabled or severely disabled.
5.5.7. Changes to conditionality for responsible carers under Universal Credit (UC) Under UC, the responsible carers who have children aged three or four will be subject to all work-related requirements. Those with children aged two years will be subject to work- focused interview requirements and work preparation requirements. Those with children aged one year will be subject to work-focused interview requirements.
5.5.8. Replacing Support for Mortgage Interest with Loans for Mortgage Interest Claimants of Income Support, income based Job Seekers Allowance, income related Employment Support Allowance, Pension Credit and Universal Credit will receive support for eligible mortgage costs through the provision of loans secured against their property.
5.5.9. Further changes specifically affecting children and families • Child Trust Fund scrapped. Introduced in 2004 to encourage saving, accessible at age 18, payable to all families but more to poorest and disabled children. • Health in Pregnancy Grant scrapped. A £190 grant introduced in 2009 for all pregnant women on accessing health and dietary advice. • Sure Start Maternity Grant limited to first child only. A £500 grant to help with maternity expenses for low income families, now generally not payable if there is another child under 16. • Child benefit recovered on a sliding scale via income tax from people earning between £50,000 and £60,000 (and in full if earning over £60,000). • Baby element of child tax credit removed. This was an extra £545 in the first year, payable to low and middle-income families. • Childcare costs covered by working tax credit cut from 80 per cent to 70 per cent. Working parents may need to pay up to £1,560 a year extra for childcare. • Tax credits withdrawn from ‘middle income’ families. A family with one child may lose tax credits on an income of around £26,000, but there is no income limit and tax credits are still payable at higher incomes if there are additional children, disabilities or childcare costs.
25 | Page • Most couples with children now required to work at least 24 hours a week (was 16) to qualify for working tax credit (some families lost up to £3,870/ year if unable to find additional hours. • Backdating of tax credits cut from 3 months to 1 month. New parents miss out on payments if do not claim within 31 days of birth.
26 | Page 6. Impact of welfare reform and legislative change in Leicestershire
In this section we will assess the impact of welfare reform and legislative change. We will look at what action has been taken locally and what local services are available to address the impacts of welfare reform, and what might be improved. Conscious of a clear brief for tangible, practical action which the LHSP could take forward and implement, our recommendations are drawn from three areas of experience: citizens and professionals from Leicestershire; and lessons learned from practice in other parts of the country. The policy objective of the welfare reforms is to encourage individuals to move from benefit dependency to the world of work and in the case of under-occupation, to move home. Research on behalf of the Local Government Association ((Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion 2013)) assessed the mitigations that may be taken by households affected by at least one of just three Housing Benefit reforms: LHA changes; Under-occupation; and Benefit cap, see Figure 10 below. They estimated that one in four households impacted by the LHA changes would either find work or move home. But only one in seven of those impacted by the size criteria would find work or move home.
Mitigations taken by households affected by welfare reform 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% LHA Changes Underoccupation Benefit cap
Find work Move home Do neither
Figure 10: proportions impacted by each housing measure expected to mitigate impacts by finding work or moving home
Even at the report’s best estimate of one in four getting a job or moving home, this leaves many people for whom their situation will mean a reduction in household income. For some in receipt of benefits, they may already be working (the research estimates that nationally 45% of households of ‘working age’ receive one or more of the main state benefits, including Housing Benefit). The report estimates that 59% of all welfare reform reductions fall on households where somebody works. “The reductions for working households are greater than the reductions for households where no one works in 314 of the 325 local authorities in the analysis.” (Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion 2013)
27 | Page Equally, it may be that a lot more people may want to move home to somewhere cheaper and smaller, but there is a lack of available housing stock to move to. We have looked at other potential mitigating action that individuals and families might be able to take to address cuts to their income caused by welfare reform, and suggest these fall into two broad areas: reducing expenditure; and increasing income. The former could mean trying to negotiate a lower rent (but this may be unlikely); reducing outgoings, including non- essential items, but this may result in situations of ‘heat or eat’. Increasing income could be through increasing hours or rates of pay, if in employment; or for others it may be a case of moving into employment; or to increase benefits.
6.1. Modelling impact locally A number of local authorities we spoke to described the local preparatory work carried out as benefit changes have been introduced. Blaby District Council has a group that meets bi- monthly comprised of strategic housing, CAB, Housing Benefit and providers, providing an opportunity to look at impact locally. At Blaby Council Housing Benefit sits under housing rather than finance as may be the case in other areas, which they believe creates greater internal communication. Blaby have also carried out workshops with front line workers, third sector staff, housing staff and community staff to bring up knowledge levels of welfare reform changes. Training has also taken place with Members. Others reported assessing which residents may be most likely to be affected, based on data sources, including customer profiling. These were then targeted for information and support in advance of changes.
6.2. Managing financial impact
6.2.1. Working age claimants in Leicestershire Data Zone level statistics (Department for Work and Pensions 2016) for Leicestershire show a total of 32,030 working age claimants (excluding Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment claimants) (see Figure 11 below), with the majority (almost 17,000) in receipt of Employment Support Allowance and Incapacity Benefits. Of the survey participants, only 33% are in receipt of welfare benefits, not including pensions without pension tax credits.
28 | Page Working Age Claimants in Leicestershire at November 2015
Job Seeker ESA and Incapacity Benefits Lone Parent Carer Others on Income Related Benefit Disabled Bereaved
Figure 11: Working age claimants N=32,030
6.2.2. Service provider experience Feedback from the Bridge tells us that they are being approached for support by increasing numbers of people, who are closer to the edge financially; their needs more complex. They are seeing more people who have always worked in the past, but are now unemployed and need support. Those without a history of claiming benefits are new to the system and need help and advice in steering through it. This lack of understanding may easily lead to sanctioning creating further debt problems. The CAB reports increases in numbers of people failing to get benefits on first application, there is an initial refusal, and then an appeal is lodged leading to long periods of time before receiving any income. This is critical for someone leaving a weekly paid job, who may not receive Universal Credit for five weeks, even once assessed.
6.2.3. Customer experiences Online participants were asked to quantify their loss of weekly income, firstly as a result of changes to welfare benefit rules, and secondly as a result of the cap on total household benefits.
“I have had to borrow to pay debts and also had the stress of moving to a smaller property whilst children are doing A levels and GCSE's, also now under a counsellor for depression and anxiety.”
Many participants reported difficulties in funding the basics to sustain life: food, lighting and heating, rent and council tax, with a number of participants citing actual or anticipated increased debt as a result of welfare benefit changes: this reflects existing research (Gibbons 2015), (IPSOS MORI 2013) (Taylor & Loopstra 2016; Perry et al. 2014; Bishop’s Commission on Poverty et al. 2015). Few expressly stated that they made use of food banks across the County (exclusively young people were happy to share this information), but national research for the Trussell Trust (University of Hull 2016) shows an annual 2% increase in use in 2015/16.
29 | Page
Loss of Weekly Income as experienced by customers
Loss of weekly income as a result of welfare reform
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% £0.01 - £4.99 £5.00 - £9.99 £10.00 - £20.00 - £30.00 - £50.00 - £100.00 and £19.99 £29.99 £49.99 £99.99 above
Figure 12 Financial impact on online survey participants N=33 Household Welfare Cap
Loss of weekly income as a result of household welfare cap
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% £0.01 - £5.00 - £10.00 - £20.00 - £30.00 - £50.00 - £100.00 and £4.99 £9.99 £19.99 £29.99 £49.99 £99.99 above
Figure 13 Loss of weekly income due to the household benefit cap N=13
30 | Page Number of children Household type Single, no Single, with Couple, no Couple, with 5 and 0 1 2 3 4 child child child child above dependant dependant(s) dependant dependant(s) 0 0 0 13 85 108 0 107 0 118 Figure 14 Household profiles: claimants in Leicestershire receiving lower benefits as a result of the cap on household welfare benefits to 2015
CAB Leicestershire report difficult choices by many customers in debt and on very low incomes who are forced to choose between heating and eating. This leads to poor diets for parents and also for their children, as they cannot afford decent food. Subsequent illnesses lead to repeat visits to primary health services. These experiences are echoed in research on behalf of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (Fitzpatrick et al. 2016) and in Brighton and Hove (Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion & Rocket Science 2015), which found a growth in personal debts, reduced standards of living – eating less, heating less, buying cheaper food, and savings depleted. To address this people are accessing loans from friends and family, crisis loans and Discretionary Housing Payments and from payday lenders. Further, they found that residents reported feelings of powerlessness, lack of perceived options, leading to stress, anxiety and in some cases insomnia and low-level depression. They also found that indebtedness led to exacerbation of pre-existing conditions and also having an impact on abilities to maintain relationships.
6.2.4. Removal of “Spare Room Subsidy”
“I moved with the fear of bedroom tax. I am now stuck in a house I hate with no prospect of moving because of the area. This has impacted on my mental health massively. “
Respondents reported losses of Housing Benefit from the removal of the “Spare Room Subsidy”: this provides a useful comparator with The Uneven Impact of Welfare Reform research (Beattie C; Fothergill S 2016), which concluded that:
• As a general rule, the more deprived the local authority the greater the financial loss.
• 83 per cent of the loss from the post-2015 reforms – £10.7bn a year by 2020-21 – can be expected to fall on families with dependent children. On average, couples with two or more dependent children lose £1,450 a year while lone parents with two or more lose £1,750 a year.
• The post-2015 reforms hit working-age tenants in the social rented sector particularly hard – on average they can expect to lose almost £1,700 a year, compared to £290 a year for working-age owner occupiers
31 | Page Loss of Housing Benefit as a result of loss of the "Spare Room Subsidy"
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
£0.01 - £4.99 £5.00 - £9.99 £10.00 - £19.99 £20.00 - £29.99 £30.00 - £49.99 £50.00 - £99.99 £100.00 and above
Figure 15 Weekly loss of income as a result of the removal of the "Spare Room Subsidy" N=16
In the survey, 18 of the 29 of respondents affected by the removal of the “Spare Room Subsidy” were not aware of the Discretionary Housing Payments system, and had not been able to move to a smaller property. Some of their responses suggest that their unsatisfactory housing situation is not due to the removal of the Subsidy, but largely they appear to be subsisting in order to avoid getting into debt.
If you are not in receipt of Discretionary Housing Payment and have been unable to move, what effect is this having on you and your family?
My partner is now in receipt of PIP so our rent is covered except for the bedroom tax. Before he received PIP we were nearly evicted due to rent arrears
We are fragmented across 3 addresses. My daughter lives with her mum in Burbage, my son who is studying A levels in Quorn, has had to move in with his grandmother temporarily to continue his studies. I applied to social housing for a property for myself and son, but at the rate it's going he'll be at Uni before I'm offered a property. Things are getting stressed between my son and his grandmother; he's been there over six months on a temporary arrangement. Which is affecting his grandmothers plans of downsizing.
My house is too small. My children sleep on the floor.
Cut back on heating, food quality, electricity, clothes etc.
Stress, anxiety, problems with costs, no help from council at all
Hard I find it hard to get anything hard on shopping and basic things
It’s horrible because I hardly have any spare money left over each month to do things together with, it took me 5yrs to save for a holiday for us, I am just constantly watching the pennies and would love to get my child in to a hobby but once again because of private renting that is not possible, people pay less on their mortgages.
I was offered the payment but the problem is, it’s a one of short period payment and there is too
32 | Page much paperwork and red tape otherwise I would of considered it for moving privately
We will lose our home
6.2.5. People with Incapacity
Loss of weekly income as a result of reduction in ESA/PIP 45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% £0.01 - £4.99 £5.00 - £9.99 £10.00 - £19.99 £20.00 - £29.99 £30.00 - £49.99 £50.00 - £99.99 £100.00 and above
Figure 16 Loss of weekly income as result of changes to ESA/PIP N=14
6.2.6. Overall impact of pre- and post- 2016 welfare reform
Total anticipated loss by 2020/21 Total anticipated loss by 2020/21 from pre and post-2015 welfare from post-2015 welfare reforms reforms Local Authority Name Estimated loss Financial loss Estimated loss Financial loss £m per year per working age £m per year per working adult £ per year age adult £ per year
Blaby 14 230 30 510
Charnwood 27 240 56 490
Harborough 10 180 22 410
Hinckley and Bosworth 16 250 35 520 Melton 7 15
33 | Page Total anticipated loss by 2020/21 Total anticipated loss by 2020/21 from pre and post-2015 welfare from post-2015 welfare reforms reforms 220 470 North West Leicestershire 17 280 35 590
Oadby and Wigston 9 280 20 570
Figure 17 Overall impact of pre and post 2016 welfare reform, Leicestershire districts
Working Age Claimants in Leicestershire at November 2015
Others ESA and on Job Lone Total Incapacity Carer Income Disabled Bereaved Unknown Seeker Parent Benefits Related Benefit 32,030 2,835 16,955 2,780 5,230 620 2,965 645 0
6.2.7. Wage Reductions in Real Terms
“People are not stupid, if you are on a low income then you already know how to budget, you have to just to survive. The problem is not having enough money to go around, not bad management”.
Following the methodology used in (Gibbons 2015), (table derived from ONS data releases for the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, 2010 & 2015* (*provisional), and the Bank of England Inflation Calculator. Inflation adjustment calculated by the author). The evidence shows that the wages for full time employees in the County has reduced between 2 and 14%: with only Melton and Charnwood outperforming the national average.
Percentage Percentage 2010 2015 adjusted for Change inflation
Melton £ 408.00 £ 462.00 13% -2.14%
Oadby & Wigston £ 422.00 £ 426.00 1% -14.57%
North West Leicestershire £ 466.00 £ 478.00 3% -12.76%
Hinckley & Bosworth £ 475.00 £ 491.00 3% -11.89%
Charnwood £ 480.00 £ 527.00 10% -5.34%
34 | Page Harborough £ 481.00 £ 500.00 4% -11.26%
Blaby £ 498.00 £ 503.00 1% -14.51%
England £ 500.00 £ 528.00 6% -9.53%
Figure 18 Wage reductions in real terms, Leicestershire 2010-2015
This would suggest that households in the Districts should be entitled to additional in-work benefits as the value of their wages have decreased; however, research (Sheffield Hallum University 2014) estimates that post 2016 tax credit reforms will result in financial loss per working age adult of up to £52.00 per annum. Detailed estimated financial losses by District are attached at Appendix 2.
Case Study: North West Leicestershire
An exercise to analyse the characteristics of residents who have been identified as being affected by the reduced benefit cap in Autumn 2016 reveals that: • 82 residents have been identified by DWP as being affected by the benefit cap changes. • 33 of these are council tenants • 8 residents were affected by the earlier benefit cap • The average amount of benefit cap for council tenants is £98.70 • The average amount of benefit cap for all residents is £86.46 • The lowest amount of cap per week is £1.24 and the highest is £424.36 (single person) and £374.54 for a family with 8 children.
Of the 33 council tenants: • 39% (13) have a clear rent account – all are currently in receipt of full HB • 18% (6) have a credit on their rent account to the total value of £1120.77 • 42% (14) are currently in rent arrears to the total value of £5818.22, average arrear of £415.58 • Only 1 tenant is currently subject to a possession order • 79% (11) of those in arrears are currently in receipt of full or partial housing benefit. • 18% (15) are families who are currently or have recently been supported by the County’s Supporting Leicestershire Families (SLF) team (our local name for the Troubled Families Team).
Planned activities:
• The SLF team will take the lead for the 15 families they have been working with. • A drop in workshop is being organised by the SLF team which is open to all those affected. • Tenancy Support Officer will be writing to all those identified to offer advice and assistance on preparing for the change – referrals will be made to CAB etc. for those with complex financial issues. • The Housing Officers have been informed of the cases on their patch • The data has been shared with our Housing Choices Team to offer re- housing/homeless prevention advice, if required – particularly for the singles (4 people). Amanda Harper, Housing Management Team Manager, North West Leicestershire Council
35 | Page Housing associations remain concerned about many aspects of the introduction of Universal Credit (National Housing Federation 2015b). A large majority report being very or fairly concerned about:
• The capability of their tenants to cope with monthly budgeting (98%) • The IT infrastructure for Universal Credit (94%) • The capability of tenants to access online systems (94%) • Increased difficulty in rent collection (91%) • The additional resources needed to support tenants with the transition to UC (90%). The overwhelming majority of tenants (92%) would prefer their Housing Benefit to be paid directly to their landlord
Recommendations: Customer Research Participants • That LHSP consider a coordinated programme of supporting people to access resources to supplement their weekly income
• That LHSP work with existing programmes, such as food banks to explore how the Partnership may support the expansion of these programmes • That LHSP continue to support the work to expand the role of credit unions across
the County • That LHSP members consider how infrastructure services may be made more accessible for people on low incomes to maintain a healthy lifestyle
36 | Page 7. Access to information, advice, advocacy & support
“Giving assistance to my adult child who is not able to deal with officialdom and does not understand benefits AT ALL has had a major toll on my health. Before my child had lifetime awards - this is reasonable given the condition is genetic, lifelong and involves a high probability of deterioration. The forms and the sleights of hand within the questions - do not actually indicate ability to work or not, nor the kind of support which would be needed to have a working life of some sort. They clearly are to trip people up and not highlight BOTH abilities and problems and solutions to the problems if there is limited capacity to work. Always providing potential employers see them as viable employees - which the majority don't. Filling these forms in as the appointee has made my life a whole lot harder. My health is suffering and that means my capacity to help my child properly is diminished. It is a vicious cycle and *what happens when I'm gone* is ever at the front of my mind and adding to the stress.”
The feedback from participants in the research suggest that are still many people who are not aware of the help that may be available to them, or who to contact. We weren’t able to question individuals, but other research has suggested that sometimes this may be caused by a lack of trust in official communications, particularly if the information and advice is provided by the body the resident may be in debt to. Additionally, there may be a lower capacity to understand written communications, or to engage with online-based sources of support. There certainly is a wide range of information and advice services available across the county, both online and face-to-face. We were told, that there remains a cohort who wants to visit local council offices, they want to speak to someone in person, often to gain reassurance, but for some this is highly important. Some residents benefit from multiple sources of advice and support. Charnwood BC has sought to address debt for example caused by the removal of the spare room subsidy or issues relating to moving onto Universal Credit, through intervention at the earliest opportunity. Council Financial Inclusion Officers are collocated with Job Centre, Clockwise (credit union) and money advice. This approach has worked well to date, but only very low numbers are on Universal Credit. As Universal Credit is rolled out, it is questioned whether sufficient resources will be available to deliver similar levels of support to much greater numbers of people.
37 | Page Have you received any benefits, money or debt advice?
No, because I don't know who to No, because I contact didn't need it 21% 58%
Yes, from my landlord 5%
Yes, from another organisation 16%
Figure 19 Participants who have received benefits, money or debt advice N=98
If you were affected by the removal of the "Spare Room Subsidy, are you in receipt of Discretionary Housing Payments to top up your rent? No: I do not know about No: I applied but was not Yes Discretionary Housing successful Payments
17% 21% 62% Figure 20 Online participants’ awareness of Discretionary Housing Payments N= 29
Case Study: Charnwood Connect This advice and information project aims to offer one front door access to advice and information services locally. It is a partnership between the Bridge, Charnwood Borough Council, Loughborough University (Centre for Information Management, and Student Advice and Support Service), Charnwood Citizens Advice Bureau, Human Rights and Equality Council, John Storer House, Youth Shelter, PACE, and Living Without Abuse. Initially funded by the Big Lottery it aims to strengthen and improve access to advice and information services building on the success of individual partner agencies. The partnership currently has no discreet funding but The Bridge and Charnwood Borough Council are continuing to drive the work forward whilst seeking alternative funding opportunities. The Charnwood Connect website includes a Knowledge Hub which also acts as a resource for advice workers, who also have access to the Charnwood Connect Forum, a support and networking forum for workers and volunteer advice workers to share practice and help improve advice pathways for service users. A Financial Education and training programme will further enhance advice staff ability to support local people.
38 | Page A specialist support service (Housing Matters) gives preventative specialist housing support as well as debt and money advice for people who require it, this service works across the county. The site also acts as a volunteer recruitment site, giving access to training and opportunities to volunteer with one of the agencies. www.charnwoodconnect.org.uk
Leicestershire County Council Health & Wellbeing Hub Leicestershire County Council has a Crisis and Emergency Support information leaflet which sets out a very wide range of support services. It is very clear about what it offers: In a crisis you may be unable to afford the things you need to live such as food, gas, electricity or housing. This leaflet is to help you if you are in need of emergency support in a crisis.
7.1. Sanctions
When my boyfriend was sanctioned for three months and asked a DWP worker how he was to manage when benefits were stopped. He just said “That’s not my problem”
Whilst younger participants were more willing to discuss their experiences of being sanctioned, national data shows that the oldest and youngest claimants are least likely to be sanctioned, with those aged between 40 and 44 years being the most likely.
Sanctions by age range 3rd December 2012 to 31st December 2015
Unknown
60 and over
55-59 years of age
50-54 years of age
45-49 years of age
40-44 years of age
35-39 years of age
30-34 years of age
25-29 years of age
18-24 years of age
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000
Figure 21 UK Profile of sanctioned claimants December 2012 - December 2015
39 | Page More evident was the proportion of people with disabilities subject to sanctions. Over the same period, 83.5% of all claimants sanctioned were classified as having a disability.
Disability Disability - Yes 37,476 83.5% Disability - No 7,147 15.9%
Disability - Unknown 243 0.5%
This would suggest that: g. Information on avoiding sanctions is not being accessed by people with disabilities; h. People with existing disability benefits are at greater risk of sanctions
Jobseekers Allowance SancLons 22nd October 2012 to 31st December 2015
200 150 100 50 0
Coalville - Crown House Hinckley - Rugby Road
Loughborough - Lemyngton Street Loughborough - South Street
LuFerworth - Shambles Court Market Harborough - Coventry Road
Melton Mowbray - Parkside Wigston Magna - Leicester Road
Figure 22 Incidence of sanctions by Job Centre 2012-2015
County data on the incidence of sanctioning by Job Centre shows a steady increase in the application of sanctions until a peak in October 2013, with a steady decline to December 2015, which suggests that one centralised advocacy resource may be a cost effective alternative to a dedicated advocate placed in each Job Centre, as proposed by the Young People’s focus group. DWP are co-located in Districts and Boroughs, which may have assisted with the reductions in sanctions.
40 | Page
7.2. Preparation for Work
Claimants of Job Seekers Allowance & Universal Credit aged 16 – 24 years 2013 - 2016
Figure 23 JSA and UC Claimants aged 16-24 by District 2013-16
Whilst the data in Figure 23 (Leicestershire Statistics & Research 2016) shows a sharp downward trend since 2013, it should be noted that this reflects claimants, and not participation in employment, training or education. The Leicester and Leicestershire City Deal aims include:
• A new employment scheme targeted at 16-24 year olds that will reduce youth unemployment by 50% by 2018, deliver 3,000 new apprenticeships and 1,000 traineeships and work placements. • An innovative new employment and training scheme for young offenders. (Alfredo Sánchez-Castañeda et al. 2013) Research in Brighton and Hove found barriers to employment included: Health conditions or disability; Lack of relevant work experience; Length of time out of work; Unlikely job supply. The National Housing Federation has carried out an audit of Employment Support services including funding sources across its membership (National Housing Federation 2015a); and a related briefing paper (National Housing Federation 2016).
Case study: Me and My Learning, Melton Borough Council This provides a 1 front door approach to support, benefits and also employment. Organisation involved are: Adult Learning Leicestershire, Ambition East Midlands, Citizens Advice Bureau, CAN – Drug & Alcohol Support, Clockwise credit union, Heart the arts, Learn Direct, Let’s Talk Wellbeing, Loughborough College, Money Advice Service, Prospects, Qdos – Maths & English, Remploy, Voluntary Action Leicestershire, and Wheels2work. The service provides customers with easy access to a wide variety of support services to help them find employment, develop current skill sets, reduce debts and become healthier. The stated aim of the service is to provide services that will enable you to become digitally, financially and socially independent.
41 | Page 7.3. Support Discretionary Housing Payments Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs) are made by local authorities to assist individuals and families managing the transition whilst they make the necessary changes to adapt to the application of the benefit cap, amongst other reasons for support. The intention is that these are available to provide short-term, temporary relief or they can also help families manage their move into more appropriate accommodation. A total of £800m in Discretionary Housing Payments are being provided nationally over the next 5 years (from 2016/17). Whilst invaluable to households, Leicestershire CAB suggests that DHPs are masking underlying debt problems, which may go un-addressed. Local spend of Discretionary Housing Payments in 2015/16 is set out in Figure 24 below (please note that this data is subject to audit checks). Nationally most authorities are within the 85-100% range, with the lowest of 16.45% in North Lincolnshire and the highest in Stratford-upon-Avon, the maximum allowed by regulations of 250%.
Discretionary Housing Payments 2015/16 Expenditure Leicestershire Authority DHP Financial Original Allocation Percentage Expenditure 2015/16 (£) (£) Spent (%)
Blaby 42,222 47,062 90
Charnwood 125,763 137,517 91
Harborough 33,205 46,343 72
Hinckley and Bosworth 97,895 78,129 125
Melton 34,420 35,202 98
North West 117,842 103,678 114 Leicestershire
Oadby and Wigston 36,456 36,918 99
Figure 24: Discretionary Housing Payments by District
Of Charnwood BC’s 6,200 properties, 4,600 receive some benefits. Of these they have 500 cases where households are affected by the spare room subsidy. Of the borough’s £148,000 DHP budget, £90,000 is used to support those affected by the spare room subsidy. Of the 500 cases, less than 100 are on the transfer list with approximately 50 % of these bidding regularly for properties to move to. About half of these cases are getting support from friends and families to remain in their current homes. There is some criticism that use of DHPs reduces incentives for tenants to move to a new property, by delaying the decision. Some boroughs have tried to address this with different approaches. In Melton BC have a conditional approach to accessing DHP. They insist that customers engage with the holistic Me and My Learning support system; registering for a customer account is a requirement prior to getting DHP. Blaby DC have a tapering offer, where 100% DHP is given for 13 weeks, this is then reduced to 75%, 50% and then 25% over time, encouraging and supporting individuals to find sustainable solutions such as employment or moving home.
42 | Page Case study: Supporting Leicestershire Families Supporting Leicestershire Families has been running for 4 years and is part of the Troubled Families Agenda and is run from Children and Families at Leicestershire County Council. The teams are based in district and borough offices and work with the most complex families with wide ranging needs, who have 2 key identified areas affecting them. These outcome areas are: - Antisocial behaviour and crime with young people and adults - Attendance at school - Worklessness - Children in Need - Domestic Abuse Following assessment, a plan is drawn up describing how support will be delivered, and reviewed every 12 weeks as progress is sought on the moving the family forward. Funding for the service is on a Payment by Results basis and making progress on employment is a key delivery element. There is concern that as welfare reform is embedded, more people will move to Universal Credit and we see more people affected by sanctions. The most vulnerable families have the least resilience to cope with these changes.
Recommendations by customer research participants Information and advice • That LHSP works together to run a benefit take up campaign, helping claimants and potential claimants to understand their entitlement to welfare benefits; • That LHSP develop and circulate materials to assist claimants and potential claimants to interpret relevant welfare benefits regulations, to ensure that individuals understand how regulations and criteria apply to their situation; • That LHSP develop and circulate materials explaining and interpreting • the removal of the “Spare Room Subsidy” to ensure that individuals understand how regulations and criteria apply to their situation; • the changes to Housing Benefit and Housing Support to ensure that individuals understand how regulations and criteria apply to their situation; • “Pay to Stay” to ensure that individuals understand how regulations and criteria apply to their situation; • the removal of the lifetime tenancies to ensure that individuals understand how regulations and criteria apply to their situation; Wider Access to Advocacy
• That LHSP supports the expansion of advice/advocacy services through a Neighbourhood Advisor pilot based in local communities; • That LHSP considers how independent advocates could support claimants in dealing with perceived “unhelpful” staff in Job Centres; • That LHSP supports advice and advocacy agencies to improve awareness of their service Preparation for Work
• That the City Deal programme is further publicised and promoted to young people; • That training opportunities around work skills are increased/promoted/publicised to young people; • That LHSP partners consider how they may offer additional opportunities for gaining work experience within their organisations; That LHSP works with local businesses to set up a scheme to help people gain work experience; • That LHSP considers how donated office clothes could be made available to people going to interview 43 | Page 8. Access to affordable homes
8.1. Access to affordable homes: the impact of the Local Housing Allowance
Impact of Local Housing Allowance on the affordability of rented properties
52%
6%
3%
13% 26%
- Very easy: there are plenty of properties to rent at below the level of the Local Housing Allowance - Easier than before - It makes no difference - Harder than before - Difficult: there are few properties to rent at below the level of the Local Housing Allowance
Figure 25 Perception of impact of Local Housing Allowance N=31
In the context of reducing supply of social housing, analysis of the Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rates with average weekly rents across the County evidence: a. In all cases, local authority properties were the most affordable for those on Housing Benefit during the reference period (2014/15); b. Rent levels for bedsits/studios are relatively less affordable that larger properties, frequently showing as above the LHA level for the district; c. In those districts where a number of Broad Rental Market Areas apply, there is variation on affordability, dependent on where a property is located within the district; d. Reductions in LHA rates to 2020 will further reduce the spending power of people in receipt of Housing Benefit: However, in order to make savings in welfare payments the annual uprating mechanism was changed: e. For 2013/14 capped at the previous year’s figure plus the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) f. For 2014/15 and 2015/16 capped at the previous year’s rate plus 1 per cent
44 | Page g. For the next four years starting in April 2016 the LHA rate is frozen at the 2015/16 figure In addition, if the calculated 30th percentile figure is lower than the level indicated by these mechanisms then that is used for the new LHA rate instead. In other words, from April 2016 for the next four years, the LHA rate can fall but not rise. (Chartered Institute of Housing 2016)
8.2. Comparison of Local Housing Allowance (LHA) with weekly rents by District 2014/15 The Local Housing Allowance (LHA) for Housing Benefit districts are calculated and issued by the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) each year. The LHA rates are used to calculate the greatest level of housing benefit that can be claimed for properties according to the area in which the property is located. Where there is a likely difference in rental values within districts, the district may be subdivided into Broad Rental Market Areas (BRMA). LHA rates are based on private market rents being paid in each BRMA, and determined annually by VOA Rent Officers by calculating the range of weekly rents and setting the LHA at the level of the lowest 30th percentile or the existing LHA, whichever is the lowest. Tables 16 – 22 below demonstrate the relative affordability of average rents in 2014/15 (the latest available data) in each District against LHA figures. Average weekly rents marked in Red would require a claimant to make a contribution towards the rent from other income, and those marked in Amber may be affordable in some BRMA within a District, but not others.
Blaby Shared Room Rate (Bedsit/Room) 1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms Leicester & Surroundings LHA £ 59.00 £ 86.54 £ 109.62 £ 126.92 £ 161.54 Average weekly rent (LA) £ - £ - £ - £ - £ - Average weekly rent (PRP) £ 61.52 £ 77.99 £ 89.34 £ 102.24 £ 119.19 Average weekly rent (PRS) - £ 105.06 £ 128.51 £ 151.72 £ 219.77
Figure 26 Comparison of weekly rents with LHA 2014/15: Blaby
Charnwood Shared Room Rate (Bedsit/Room) 1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms Leicester & Surroundings LHA £ 59.00 £ 86.54 £ 109.62 £ 126.92 £ 161.54 Average weekly rent (LA) £ 48.71 £ 65.74 £ 76.04 £ 82.32 £ 91.26 Average weekly rent (PRP) £ 69.81 £ 75.31 £ 91.47 £ 102.12 £ 115.88 Average weekly rent (PRS) £ 72.64 £ 94.48 £ 117.70 £ 148.28 £ 252.64
Figure 27 Comparison of weekly rents with LHA 2014/15: Charnwood
45 | Page
Harborough Shared Room Rate (Bedsit/Room) 1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms Leicester & Surroundings LHA £ 59.00 £ 86.54 £ 109.62 £ 126.92 £ 161.54 Northamptonshire LHA £ 57.00 £ 81.58 £ 104.89 £ 122.36 £ 163.16 Average weekly rent (LA) £ - £ - £ - £ - £ - Average weekly rent (PRP) £ 67.84 £ 78.73 £ 90.81 £ 101.96 £ 112.38 Average weekly rent (PRS) £ 85.06 £ 106.44 £ 133.79 £ 165.98 £ 249.66
Figure 28 Comparison of weekly rents with LHA 2014/15: Harborough
Hinckley & Bosworth Shared Room Rate (Bedsit/Room) 1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms Leicester & Surroundings LHA £ 59.00 £ 86.54 £ 109.62 £ 126.92 £ 161.54 Coventry LHA £ 65.00 £ 92.06 £ 110.38 £ 126.92 £ 168.98 Average weekly rent (LA) £ 66.08 £ 69.04 £ 80.14 £ 83.98 £ 86.44 Average weekly rent (PRP) £ - £ 79.58 £ 92.98 £ 102.41 £ 123.45 Average weekly rent (PRS) £ 72.18 £ 89.43 £ 117.70 £ 143.68 £ 219.08
Figure 29 Comparison of weekly rents with LHA 2014/15: Hinckley & Bosworth
Melton Shared Room Rate (Bedsit/Room) 1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms Leicester & Surroundings LHA £ 59.00 £ 86.54 £ 109.62 £ 126.92 £ 161.54 Grantham & Newark LHA £ 56.77 £ 75.03 £ 98.08 £ 109.62 £ 150.00 Nottingham LHA £ 68.68 £ 91.15 £ 107.19 £ 119.10 £ 150.00 Average weekly rent (LA) £ 51.96 £ 65.40 £ 75.44 £ 83.23 £ 91.84 Average weekly rent (PRP) £ 64.21 £ 77.13 £ 89.21 £ 97.58 £ 107.02 Average weekly rent (PRS) £ 85.98 £ 88.28 £ 115.40 £ 136.32 £ 242.07
Figure 30 Comparison of weekly rents with LHA 2014/15: Melton
North West Leicestershire Shared Room Rate (Bedsit/Room) 1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms Leicester & Surroundings LHA £ 59.00 £ 86.54 £ 109.62 £ 126.92 £ 161.54 East Staffordshire LHA £ 57.73 £ 80.77 £ 103.85 £ 122.36 £ 106.79 Derby LHA £ 58.24 £ 83.91 £ 103.85 £ 116.53 £ 155.77 Average weekly rent (LA) £ 52.47 £ 59.85 £ 72.79 £ 84.18 £ 89.23 Average weekly rent (PRP) £ 61.88 £ 76.48 £ 90.43 £ 97.53 £ 102.45 Average weekly rent (PRS) £ - £ 95.17 £ 115.86 £ 142.07 £ 229.43
Figure 31 Comparison of weekly rents with LHA 2014/15: NW Leicestershire
46 | Page Oadby & Wigston Shared Room Rate (Bedsit/Room) 1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms Leicester & Surroundings LHA £ 59.00 £ 86.54 £ 109.62 £ 126.92 £ 161.54 Average weekly rent (LA) £ 58.39 £ 68.69 £ 75.91 £ 84.16 £ 93.37 Average weekly rent (PRP) £ - £ 74.98 £ 91.69 £ 101.21 £ 110.19 Average weekly rent (PRS) £ - £ 100.46 £ 125.52 £ 154.48 £ 212.64
Figure 32 Comparison of weekly rents with LHA 2014/15: Oadby & Wigston
8.3. Impact of the removal of the “Spare Room Subsidy” on respondents
My partner is now in receipt of PIP so our rent is covered except for the bedroom tax. Before he received PIP we were nearly evicted due to rent arrears
Under the Welfare Reform Act 2012, tenants who were deemed to be under-occupying properties (i.e. having one of more bedrooms than required for the size of the household) and claiming Housing Benefit were subject to a reduction in award of 14% for one bedroom, and 25% for two bedrooms. This has proved to be controversial: a. Due to a lack of smaller properties for rehousing downsizers (Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research and Ipsos MORI 2014) ; b. Because had downsizers moved to the private rented sector, the cost of Housing Benefit would have increased (Wilson 2013); c. The central government funding is insufficient to offset the costs to local authorities of the Discretionary Housing Payment. This has necessitated some authorities to introduce additional restrictions to access. In addition, DHP is designed to alleviate some of the short term financial impact of the reduction in Housing Benefit and is not a long term solution (Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research and Ipsos MORI 2014). Participants in the online survey responded:
If you were affected by the removal of the “Spare Room Subsidy”, have you tried to move to a smaller or cheaper property?
Yes, and I have moved to Yes, but was unsuccessful No another property
2 7 26
6% 20% 74%
47 | Page When asked to quantify the weekly Housing Benefit award lost:
Loss of Housing Benefit as a result of loss of the "Spare Room Subsidy"
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
£0.01 - £4.99 £5.00 - £9.99 £10.00 - £19.99 £20.00 - £29.99 £30.00 - £49.99 £50.00 - £99.99 £100.00 and above
Figure 33:Loss of “Spare Room Subsidy” N=16
We are fragmented across 3 addresses. My daughter lives with her mum in Burbage, my son who is studying A levels in Quorn, has had to move in with his grandmother temporarily to continue his studies. I applied to social housing for a property for myself and son, but at the rate it's going he'll be at Uni before I'm offered a property. Things are getting stressed between my son and his grandmother, he's been there over six months on a temporary arrangement. Which is affecting his grandmothers plans of downsizing.
48 | Page 9. Supply of affordable homes
Welfare reform, planning reform and the recent Housing and Planning Act 2016 are currently or will affect the supply and availability of housing and particularly affordable housing in Leicestershire. The classification of Starter Homes as a form of Affordable Housing under planning rules and the duty on local authorities to promote supply of Starter Homes, is likely to result in fewer homes for what is currently classified as affordable housing being developed; this despite locally identified need for, and commitment to, such housing. It may be that those affordable homes for rent, which would have been expected, will now be units of sale. The impact will therefore be on the supply of new affordable rented homes for low-income households. A £2.3bn funding package has been announced to support the development of 60,000 starter homes. Of this £1.2bn will be targeted at assembling and remediating brownfield land to provide 30,000 starter homes through the Starter Homes Land Fund. The remain £1.1bn was announced in the November (2015) Spending Review announcement, but it’s use is unclear. The impact of new housing measures on development (Savills World Research 2016) conclude that the remaining commitment of 140,000 homes is likely to be delivered via Section 106. The research (Savills World Research 2016) suggests that there will be some overlap with existing markets; shared ownership and Help to Buy and question whether additional units will be created. The consultation allows for local planning authorities to impose Section 106 affordable housing in addition to the requirement to Starter Homes. However, there is a question whether delivering both will be viable. The proposed aim to deliver 400,000 affordable new homes in the Autumn Statement focuses on low-cost home ownership. The main effect of the schemes, shared ownership and Starter Homes, is to reduce the deposit required and therefore lower barriers to home ownership. Research for Brighton & Hove Council (Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion & Rocket Science 2015) found a growth in temporary accommodation; growth in waiting list for social housing; and a growth in homelessness decisions.
9.1. Strategic planning The current 2014 Leicester and Leicestershire Strategic Housing Market Area Assessment (GL Hearn 2014) provides an assessment of future housing need (including affordable housing) for the period to 2031 and 2036 and is used to inform the preparation of local planning policy. However, it will be replaced and superseded by a Housing Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA), which similarly will assess the areas housing and economic development needs. There are concerns that the time frame for the development of the HEDNA may not be able to take account of the effects of the Housing and Planning Act 216 on housing developers. Reliance solely on census data or NROSH returns will inevitably show out of date stock levels.
49 | Page
Recommendations • LHSP to ensure housing data provided for the HEDNA is as robust as possible. • A combined approach to planning policies affecting affordable homes
requirements and starter homes. The joint position also being strong enough to ensure that rented homes continue to be provided Ensure there is a thorough understanding of the viability challenges that Exis• ting stock affordable led delivery can and will provide in future
9.2. Right to Buy Feedback from registered providers has demonstrated an appetite to exercise their option to offer Voluntary Right to Buy to their residents, in addition to existing statutory Right to Buy and Right to Acquire. Decisions have been made in principle as they await the full details of the scheme including details of funding levels. Only then can registered providers assess the numbers and types of property that will be included or excluded from the scheme and the potential impact on their overall stock levels. For Leicestershire to maintain an understanding of overall levels of affordable and social housing and potentially to plan for its replacement, account will need to be taken of the loss of property due to Right to Buy. It is suggested that the LHSP may wish to collect intelligence regarding stock loss locally in a timelier fashion. One district council suggested a quarterly return to a central gathering local authority, if stock holding partners would be willing. Registered providers are interested and open to discussions; but as they already complete NROSH returns, they suggested this should be done annually. For those that worked nationally concern was raised about potentially burdensome systems and duplication.
Recommendations • A local system of data collection to monitor sales could be carried out on a 6- monthly basis by one central gathering LA. Or providers could send their sales information to a local centre when they complete their NROSH return, allowing for speedy local analysis.
9.3. Strategic asset management Where registered providers have stated that they are making disposals of stock, this is as part of stock rationalisation programmes and/or as an integral part of development programmes. Income invested back into associations’ businesses or into delivering new stock. Stock disposal may be open market or trade sales to other providers, of stock that is not financially viable. One district reported the demolition and disposal of decommissioned sheltered housing stock, which had often been empty for some time. The sites have been earmarked for redevelopment though at a lower density than the sheltered units. One provider plans to dispose of 125 units per year, however has a development strategy targeting the construction of 500 new build homes each year. Another specifically was planning to utilise the income from disposals to develop affordable rented property, as there will be no grant available to do this.
50 | Page 9.4. Use of Recycled Capital Grant Fund The geographical restrictions on the (re-)use of RCGF appear to remain, which does create potential issues for registered providers reinvesting in areas where development is not viable. However, it was not suggested that Leicestershire would be such an area. Whilst not the government’s first priority it appears that registered providers could still use RCGF to develop new affordable rent housing.
9.5. Sales of high value local authority stock Districts and boroughs have not yet carried out any evaluation of how much stock they may be required to sell, the loss of income this would create, associated costs, or the capacity to replace these units with new. The Districts and Boroughs are waiting until they have the regulations setting out the details of implementation, before carrying out evaluations. The consensus view was that at this stage, sales might be difficult to estimate. Additionally, as this work was yet to start, intelligence regarding stock loss would be too late to feed into the HEDNA. One district carrying out business planning had estimated a £500k impact to the Housing Revenue Account, but anticipated that this would be covered by savings rather than sales. In addition, they have looked at having to sell properties as they become vacant, which could potentially yield an estimated average £125K per property. However, there would be no scope to replace these units. Leicester City Council estimates the loss of 300-350 homes a year, which they would not have the ability to replace.
9.6. Pay to stay It appears too early to assess the implications of pay to stay. Districts and boroughs are awaiting draft regulations in order to assess what will be required and the associated costs of administration. However, it is understood that local authorities will not retain the additional income generated.
9.7. Impact of the Local Housing Allowance rate changes and the 1% rent cut on future development The changes to Local Housing Allowance, which sees people under 35 only entitled to the shared room rate, are seen as a game-changer. Specifically, the changes will have a major impact on the future viability of 1-bed properties. Providers note that when the ‘bedroom tax’ was introduced supply for new units shifted towards the prioritisation of 1 bed properties. Due to the long time lag of this working through the planning system many s106 schemes are emerging now with high proportions of 1 bed units, particularly flats. One provider said that many LAs still prioritise 1 bed properties when negotiating planning applications and some appear to not readily understand the financial risks these may pose to registered Providers (RPs) in terms of the future sustainability of tenancies.
9.8. Renegotiated Section 106 agreements It is clear that the changes have meant that existing Section 106 agreements have had to be renegotiated. The impact of this has been more shared ownership and affordable rent and less (if any) social rent properties. It is noted that registered providers are increasingly less interested in smaller sites, 1 bedroom properties and also larger homes.
51 | Page Whilst some providers are scaling back their programmes or putting new development on hold until 2018/2019 when it is hope that the climate may be more favourable; others are reported to have revised their business plans and are competing for units on s106 sites again. One provider is more focused on delivering different types of tenure with a significant shift towards shared ownership as this does improve scheme viability but also meets a housing need as they are finding there is strong demand. Their future development programme for affordable units will be around 50% for rent and 50% for shared ownership. Furthermore it is using commercial products to cross-subsidise affordable housing and is currently building homes for both outright sale and private rent on a number of its schemes. Most of another provider’s capacity for further unit completions is after April 2018 but it is now offering again on S106 units. It would welcome local authorities securing commuted sums in lieu for less important developments to generate grant to support rented development on mixed tenure brownfield ones. Dependent upon the details, Starter Homes could have a major impact on planning authority’s efforts to secure S106 affordable rented units.
Recommendations
• There may be benefit in districts and boroughs sharing with each other their negotiated S106 agreements, to exchange ideas and approaches • Assess how local authorities can support and encourage better take up of S106 sites by RP’s (as this is the key mechanism for delivering affordable housing)
9.9. Impact of 1% rent cuts Responses to the 1% rent cut have been varied as has been the impact on housing supply. One local authority felt that it had ‘severely impacted on new build in HRA, making borrowing to build unviable for either social or affordable rent’. However, it noted that whilst the initial rent cut did stall some development plans for registered providers and local authorities, its continued impact was hard to separate out from all the other factors (e.g. Government finance for home ownership not rent, etc.). For registered providers, whilst the 1% rent cut had an organisational financial impact, one provider suggested that their on-going conservative approach to financial planning mitigated this. Another provider reported that the cuts had forced efficiency gains to lower operating costs. Nevertheless, both these providers stated that there had not been a negative impact on future development programmes in terms of scale. For one provider continuing development was part of its strategy to meet the financial challenges; it planned to increase its programme and therefore grow its revenue stream.
9.10. Social rented housing The changes to the grant regime and government policy direct the development of affordable housing primarily toward home ownership products, so will it be possible to develop social rented housing in future? Local authorities have aspirations to increase social rent stock, but the deliverability of this is under question, as is the time frame. Registered Providers do not see social rent as a tenure that meets their financial requirements for development. They suggest that the additional rent from the affordable rent
52 | Page model is needed when grant is not available. Therefore, any units would be by exception and only where the scheme worked financially. Potential routes for development may be through S106 negotiated sites (unless Starter Homes reduce the viability of sites which in turn will reduce the amount of affordable homes delivered) or through local authority new build if provided without HCA grant input. Gifted units from developers may be a short term fix while RP capacity is limited; the numbers on offer may fall if Starter Homes are provided, reducing the overall number of potential gifted units. Developers may also choose to take an income from RP’s rather than gift properties when business capacity increases. RPs have indicated that they will be interested in S106 sites as they are likely to be the only route they have to provide rented accommodation. Commuted sums could also be used to support the delivery of rented homes in the absence of HCA grant.
Recommendations
• Any local authority wishing to self-develop social rented housing is likely to develop small numbers and may lack the capacity and skills in-house. It is suggested that there may be benefit for boroughs and districts to work together on joint procurement processes to reduce development costs.
9.11. Affordable rented housing In the face of default home ownership models, how will affordable rented housing be developed? Local authorities suggest that there may be options with rural exception sites (which are exempt), or supported housing, however this is currently ruled out due to the LHA cap. Commuted sums will remain important but are likely to be reduced if Starter Homes delivery eats into affordable thresholds. Or else local authorities could develop stock themselves. One authority suggested LA new build (RTBR plus prudential borrowing). On any S106 sites that have a greater than 20% Affordable Housing requirement (Starter Homes) and can be shown to be viable with Affordable Rent on (possibly plugging viability deficit with RTBR?). One RP reported developing below market rented units (typically Intermediate Rent) without recourse to HCA grant, achieved through commercial housing products cross-subsiding rented units. They anticipate continuing this, but the number of rented units will reduce, as there has to be a high ratio of commercial units to subsidise any properties for rent. LAs & RPs recommended pragmatism, flexibility, land and/or any funding they may have, such as new homes bonus, commuted sums etc.
Recommendations • LHSP to share potential partnership arrangements between LAs and RPs to develop affordable rent. • To find a way to support affordable rented products in future
9.12. Starter Homes Whilst assisting people to get onto the housing ladder is recognised as a good idea, local authorities state that there is an overwhelming need for affordable rented homes. Both providers and local cannot assess the impact until there is clearer guidance on where Starter Homes will be required and how implemented. One local authority highlighted that there are still doubts whether Starter Homes should be restricted to “under used or unviable industrial
53 | Page and commercial land that has not been currently identified for housing”. And that if they are solely for use on these sites then the impact may not be as great as initially thought. Uncertainties remain about: valuations, restrictions, administration, sales risk and impact of the second hand Starter Homes market. They also note that many private developers are also still uncertain of what the introduction of Starter Homes will mean for them. Some developers have expressed concern that the provision of Starter Homes may impact on the sales of their full market value homes, potentially affecting viability of sites further. Providing affordable units may be a safer bet for the developers. Whilst there may be instances where private developers recognise the benefits of working with an RP through the ‘traditional’ s106 arrangements this may occur in future on a more case by case basis (i.e. if there is a financial/risk benefit to the developer). As a result of this one provider expects to move more of its future programme to land led schemes. This raises new challenges regarding access to land, particularly when looking to deliver increased units for sale (including SO) as it may lead to direct competition with private developers for the same sites. The impact of Starter Homes on the land market is unknown and whether landowners will merely expect more for their land. Shelter (Emmett & Adam 2015) has evaluated the affordability of Starter Homes and found that in Leicestershire, that DINK (Double Income No Kids) households would only be able to afford a Starter Home if on average or above incomes. For families, with the exception of Blaby, they would need to be on higher than average or highest incomes, and for single people, only those on the Highest income would be able to afford a Starter Home; with the exception of Harborough where this would not be possible.
DINKS Family Single Local authority NLW AV HAV HI NLW AV HAV HI NLW AV HAV HI
Blaby
Charnwood
Harborough
Hinckley & Bosworth
Melton
North West Leicestershire
Oadby & Wigston Figure 34: Relative affordability of Starter Homes by District and income group
Key: DINK = Double Income No Kids; NLW = National Living Wage; AV = Average Earners; HAV = Higher than average earners; HI = Highest earners; Green cells = Affordable and eligible; Red cells = Not affordable or eligible.
The current Government proposal is that Starter Homes will make up 20% minimum of all homes on a qualifying site (schemes containing 10 or more units), this will therefore impact
54 | Page on the numbers of rented properties. One provider anticipated that this might diminish the number of S106 opportunities over time. There is potential for flexibility and the delivery of affordable rent homes in addition to the Starter Homes requirement via S106. If the affordable housing requirement is above 20% on any site, then additional affordable rented units may be possible, but both providers and local authorities report that that this leaves very little scope and this would depend upon viability. Savills research (2016) suggests that there may only be some scope for affordable rent in local authority areas where the requirement is set at 30% or above. It was suggested that if there is the provision for Starter Homes to be provided on all S106 sites then the viability of the sites will be reduced meaning there will be fewer affordable homes provided. If providers are intending to seek more land led schemes in future as a way to deliver affordable rented homes? What might district and borough councils do to assist this?
Case Study - Blaby District Council Over the last 4 years we have produced on average 120 new affordable homes per year, 80% of these for affordable rent. With the requirement for starter homes and the shift in the NAHP towards shared ownership it is difficult to see how affordable rented homes can be delivered in the future. Our current Strategic Housing Market Assessment identifies a need for 280 affordable rented homes per year which is 80% of the affordable housing need. The requirement for starter homes needs to be set at a local level through a robust housing market LHSPassessment, to share a potential blanket policypartnership will definitely arrangements have detrimental between LAs effects and oRPsn affordable to develop rented affordablesupply in rent.this District.
RecommendationRecommendation -s To find a way to support affordable rented products in future
• Once the detail of Starter Homes is clear, carry out an evaluation and assessment of the impact on delivery of affordable rented homes.
9.13. Sources of funding In the absence of grant funding for affordable rented housing, districts and boroughs will increasingly need to look at utilising a range of funding solutions, which may the use of their commuted sums, or new innovations in funding.
9.13.1. Commuted Sum spends A national report by Savills (Savills 2016) states that report that total commuted sums held by local authorities rose by 71% during the year to March 2015. Local authorities in Leicestershire suggest that looking at one year in isolation does not necessarily provide the full picture. On average a LA has 5 years, occasionally 7, in which to spend the commuted sums collected; time to ensure that the money is used in areas of greatest need (but where there may be a wait for a site) or to support strategic schemes that seek to provide specialised accommodation or which are not viable without LA input. These schemes rarely present themselves in the same year that commuted sums have been collected. Blaby District Council has ambitions to set up a Local Housing Company, which they believe may result in some revenue for affordable home supply in the future.
55 | Page Case Study - North West Leicestershire District Council North West Leicestershire has earmarked commuted sums held to support the delivery of new council developments and has negotiated gifted units on several sites to increase
council held stock. It suggests that in the future the Council may be in a position to purchase S106 negotiated properties. They have also negotiated gifted land on S106 developments, which will be delivered by RP partners. And further to this have held discussions with a developer regarding the
option of accepting gifted serviced land in other areas, in lieu of onsite provision, with a view to developing themselves.
Recommendations
• LHSP to monitor and encourage strategic use of Commuted Sums to develop or co-fund affordable rent housing.
9.13.2. New funding sources There is a mixed appetite amongst Leicestershire boroughs and providers regarding new funding solutions by new market entrants such as Rent Plus, QSH Octopus, Starfish and Heylo. Whilst some may be aware of them, they are not currently considering them. Others have looked into some with greater detail but at present are not pursuing these. Conversely, they state that dependent upon the Governments final decision on starter homes, these options may need to be re-visited.
Recommendations • LHSP to gather intelligence and legal advice regarding different new funding solutions to minimise duplication across boroughs and districts.
9.14. Supported housing and housing for older people There is broad acceptance and appetite for the development of a wide range of specialist housing for older people and other client groups including extra care, foyers and other supported housing across both local authorities and providers. Nonetheless, development has universally been put on hold and is in limbo until the position regarding LHA rates for specialist housing is resolved. This includes situations where considerable expenditure has been incurred to get schemes ready for planning and despite the availability of HCA funding for specialist funding and other funding sources including RTBR, ASC and free land. There is a suggestion that there is a lack of robust county–wide assessment of need for specialist housing for older and vulnerable people, and that a more complete picture of both needs and aspirations is required. This is seen as crucial due to the specialist design and often limited alternative uses of such buildings. Census data was seen as too blunt a tool as it fails to show aspirations and wishes of these cohorts, including the option to stay put. It is noted that the County Council are eager to develop extra care schemes in certain areas of the County and that they accept that the best way to do this is through developer contributions on S106 developments. Even so, this would need to be on larger scale sites in order for the proportion of affordable homes to be sufficient to be viable as extra care (i.e. 60+ affordable units).
56 | Page
Recommendations
• LHSP develops a county wide needs assessment of specialist housing for vulnerable and older people. • To campaign against the LHA restriction cap that will prevent the development of much needed supported provision in the future
Risks remain with such specialist housing due to potentially shifting commissioning priorities during the often-lengthy development timeframe. Without certainty that rent and service charges can be covered then this type of provision can create financial risks, along with the risks of secure revenue funding for the management of the schemes.
Case study – Harborough District Council Harborough has identified an increasing and expanding need for elderly provision. They negotiate bungalow provision on S106 sites on a one bungalow equalling 2 units basis to encourage developers to provide this unit type.
Both registered providers and local authorities are interested in partnership working with Health and Social Care as a way forward to collectively deliver strategic objectives. This may include partnering with Health & Well-being Boards and drawing in other alternative funders including pension and investment funds to secure future provision.
Recommendations
• The LHSP should exploit the consensus to explore capital and revenue options
with health at a senior strategic county wide level, building on existing contacts.
9.15. Private rented sector The private rented sector is an important provider of housing across the county, but is dispersed and small-scale (rather than large landlords or institutional investor involvement). Recent changes to the tax and Buy to Let regulations have not helped the private sector. The majority of landlords have traditionally been small portfolio holders and the implications of these changes have reduced the capacity for them to expand. One district reported that many have sold. Registered providers are either looking at the private rented market or are already actively developing units for private rent where there is a market and for the purposes of cross- subsiding affordable units. Data regarding the extent of the private rented market is challenging to obtain and is a fluid position as small landlords enter and exit the market. There is a suggestion that Census data will be the main source used in strategic planning documents, as had been done in the Leicestershire Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2014 and will be in the HEDNA. Different authorities currently use different methods: Google Analytics, Rightmove, Zoopla and Homefinder (local authority’s own internal web based private rented sector advertising platform).
57 | Page
Case study – Charnwood Borough Council
A tenancy relation officer with delegated powers and funding from Charnwood BC is based at the Bridge. The officer is able to check private sector eviction notices, mediate with landlords and works to prevent homelessness
Recommendations
• Given its importance across the county, the LHSP may seek to develop a common data set across all authorities to better understand the scale and range and potentially to support the private rented housing market.
9.16. Self-build Local authorities have a duty to provide plots to meet local demand for self-build. Demand is recognised locally and a number of authorities have set up a web-based register of interest for self-build, but these are early stages. In North West Leicestershire two sites are currently seeking to provide plots for self-build. One site will provide an offsite commuted sum in lieu of affordable housing the other site is proposing a proportion of plots as affordable self build plots.
Recommendations
• LHSP may wish to consider greater support and wider promotion of self-build as a housing option for citizens.
58 | Page 10. Managing the impact on local services
Spending power measures the overall revenue funding available for local authority services, including Council Tax, locally retained business rates and government grants. The annual local government finance settlement is concerned with the distribution of revenue raised from business rates and other funding streams through Revenue Support Grant and Business Rates Retention. The settlement provides local authorities with information on how much Revenue Support Grant they have been allocated for the next financial year. It may also provide illustrative information on allocations for the year or years following the next financial year. The Settlement Funding Assessment consists of each authority’s share of business rates income and of Revenue Support Grant from central government. Councils keep up to 50 per cent of growth in their business rate receipts arising from tax base growth, which may arise from new or expanding businesses. Most of the features of the system, such as the 50/50 split of business rate revenue growth between local and central government, are fixed until the system is reset, which is not expected until at least 2020. Figure 33 shows that the balance of income between 2015/16 and 2019/20 is shifting away from central government redistribution of its share of business rates and the Revenue Support Grant towards income from Council Tax, thus moving the funding away from business rates income and towards individual households.
Shift in income source from 2015/16 to Core Spending 2019/2020 Power change to Settlement 2020 New Homes Funding Council Tax Bonus Assessment England -0.4% -32.0% 24.0% -25.0% Blaby -5.8% -43.0% 27.0% -13.0% Charnwood -11.4% -37.0% 26.0% -28.0% Harborough -8.6% -52.0% 19.0% -17.0% Hinckley and Bosworth -7.2% -37.0% 27.0% -11.0% Melton -10.1% -48.0% 16.0% -28.0% North West Leicestershire -9.8% -44.0% 21.0% -21.0% Oadby and Wigston -9.4% -45.0% 18.0% -15.0% Figure 35: Shift in local government income source
The business rates retention system does not allow councils to benefit directly from the annual growth in business rates due to the increase in the Retail Price Index, with all increases retained by the Treasury, and deducted from the revenue support grant.
The ‘central share’ of business rate receipts is used by government to fund the needs-based revenue support grant (RSG). However, RSG is being reduced as part of the Government’s austerity measures. As a result, it is expected that the central share will shortly be larger than RSG, with the balance being used to replace other grants to local government. (Local Government Association 2015) The potential additional council tax will be made available from a £5 cash principle for all districts. This has been estimated by assuming district councils will increase their average Band D council tax by whichever is the greater of £5 or 2%, with no published time limit.
59 | Page That annual local government spending is undergoing year on year reduction is of no surprise; however, analysing the future central government funding intentions shows a significant shift in funding sources that will further impact upon people in the County (and elsewhere), simultaneously increasing charges to local tax payers and reducing resources, exacerbating the increasing poverty at the lower end of the income scales.
10.1. Impact As poverty and disadvantage increase, the need for support and advocacy increases, just as the resources available to local authorities and partners are decreasing. Again, it is not surprising that this report recommends that LHSP plans for optimising voluntary group activity in readiness for the most marked downwards spike in district spending power in 2018/19.
Core Spend per household: 2015/16 - 2019/20
£300
£280
£260
£240
£220
£200
£180 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20
Blaby Charnwood
Harborough Hinckley and Bosworth Melton North West Leicestershire Oadby and Wigston
Figure 36 Impact of on local authority spend per household in Leicestershire to 2019/20
Participants in the focus groups, particularly from an older age group, raised concerns about the impact of unstable accommodation on community cohesion and citizens’ motivation to volunteer as engagement and identification with a “home” neighbourhood is reduced. Thus, the need for proactive nurturing of a voluntary sector able to support the work of local services without threatening existing paid employment seems to be a key part of any on- going strategy.
60 | Page
Case study - Citizens Advice Bureau Citizens Advice Leicestershire is continuing to deliver a service on reduced funding levels. Whilst funding has not been cut as such, it has not increased since 2008. This amounts to a real terms cut in funding, at a time of increased need. Funding decisions elsewhere across the country mean that Citizens Advice Services may have to close (see Liverpool, Hereford, Newcastle, Walsall).
CAB Leicestershire’s response has been to restructure to drive through efficiencies; a
result of this has been to bring services closer to communities by co-locating CAB services within local authority offices. CAB has had to stop trying to be everything for everybody and focus support on the most vulnerable. A telephone contact centre, run by volunteers,
acts as a filter to focus the service. It may be that increasingly advice services will need to focussed on giving an intensive service to a fewer number of people.
The local boroughs and councils in Leicestershire do appear to value the role and impact of the CAB. There may still be room to gain better understanding, recognition and support from health and clinical commissioning groups. However short term (yearly) funding settlements prevent services being able to strategically plan for the future.
Recommendations • LHSP to encourage longer (three year) funding settlements for voluntary sector organisations to provide some stability.
10.2. Measuring outcomes Feedback from voluntary sector agencies is that different funders require different outcome measurement and indicators, the boroughs and districts, the County, and other funders such as Big Lottery and Children in Need. The time taken to collect data in different ways, formats and types for different funders is challenging for cash-strapped agencies. There may be opportunities for streamlining assessments and unifying outcome frameworks as much as possible. This could allow for comparative assessments and may foster easier joint working once established.
Recommendations
• LHSP to consider how to optimise the use of volunteer services to supplement existing services;
• LHSP to work with local tenant activists and community action groups to identify opportunities to improve local community environments without threatening
existing paid employment;
• LHSP members to consider the environmental issues raised by participants and to further research
61 | Page 11. Conclusions
Consensus from participants in the research is that the greatest impact of welfare reform and legislative change has yet to be felt; there is much yet to be implemented and the effects will take time to trickle through. It is suggested that to date the full impact has been softened by people claiming Discretionary Housing Payments, by borrowing from friends, family and other loan sources, none of which are sustainable in the long term. One officer noted: “The worst of the impact is yet to come”. The on-going reductions in public finance and an anticipated growth in need for assistance suggests that resources will need to be used increasingly more effectively and targeted where greatest need and impact can benefit. The shifts in local government financing indicate that local authorities will be seeking to draw in a greater slice of council tax from residents and benefit claimants than previously sought. The current 12% is being mooted to be increased in future to 25 or 30%. Consensus is being worked on locally across the county to avoid a postcode lottery. The widespread colocation of services in local council offices is clearly an efficient use of physical resources, fosters better joint working and is positive for customers in that they can do more in one place without being sent off to other places. There may be scope to expand the services available in one place.
Case study – The Royal Borough of Greenwich
Beyond colocation, the borough has a multi-agency welfare reform team; all cases received an individualised ‘all needs’ case assessment covering childcare, rent, job, health, employability and food poverty. The Borough has a ‘no wrong door’ approach, which means that all staff are aware of referral pathways, so someone calling the housing helpline will be steered toward support from their welfare reform support team. Source: (Grant Thornton 2015)
11.1. Information and Advice Services Doing everything online, often seen as a golden ticket for streamlining services, from claiming benefits to booking sports sessions, doesn’t suit everyone. A plethora of Apps, micro sites etc. can sometimes only serve to confuse people. Information and services need to be simple, accessible and user friendly, this is not necessarily as easy as it may appear and it is worth bearing in mind that customers don’t always act as providers expect. To what extent have the existing information and advice services been tested by or co- designed with customers? Researchers found county and local authority websites offering assistance confusing and unclear whom to approach for what sort of support. There is a lot if information out there, but not necessarily oriented toward someone who has no idea what help may be possible. An example is the Charnwood Connect website which comprehensively lists the agencies involved who you can contact. However, a better approach may be to design the site from the perspective of the customer, first setting out what sorts of problems a customer may be experiencing and then suggesting which agency may be able to assist best and how.
62 | Page 11.2. Identify those most in need Local authorities have been diligent in assessments of those likely to be affected by welfare reform and targeting information and advice to those. It is suggested that this will be increasingly important so that limited resources can be targeted appropriately and where possible utilise early intervention and preventative services. For example, it should be possible to identify those who will be affected by the reduction of the Overall Benefit Cap through DWP. If not already undertaken LHSP members may wish to carry out equality impact assessments related to welfare reform implementation. Are there specific groups that may need additional focussed support and assistance, e.g. people with mental health problems? Melton BC investigated those affected by the lower benefit cap to check whether an exemption may apply. They targeted employment support to ‘easy wins’, households with low barriers to work and likely to be very negatively affected by reforms if they remain unemployed. For those households with high barriers to work and high impact of welfare reform, special care was taken. Their analysis was used to address households where the council is already working with them, looking to holistic and person-centred approaches.
11.3. Service evaluation As funding for support services and projects may be for only a few years, these should have built into them clear remits to carry out evaluations of effectiveness, so that key learning opportunities are not missed. For instance, the BEAT service (Blaby Employment and Training) closed at the end of March 2016 after 1 year; a closing report is to be produced. What can LHSP learn from this service and how can it ensure that the lessons learned are not lost and are able to inform other services or bids for funding?
11.4. Monitor impact Common approaches to metrics used for outcome and effectiveness monitoring can simplify data collection and free further resources for front line services. As there will be increasing pressures on commissioners’ budgets, there are likely to be tough decisions regarding future services, inevitably it will be those which can demonstrate most effectively that there are delivering the best outcomes. London Borough of Croydon (Grant Thornton 2015) has a set of key performance indicators used to direct strategy and measure progress. They include child poverty, average household income, the number of households in possession of a bank account and the average value of debt per household. Leicestershire County Council’s Statistics and Research Service uses Tableau to share and show data, which could be employed in monitoring impact of welfare reform. Manchester City Council has developed a Welfare Reform Dashboard to monitor and track impact of welfare reforms utilising a range of metrics (see case study below).
63 | Page
Case study – Manchester City Council Welfare Reform Dashboard Manchester City Council Economic Scrutiny Committee utilise a dashboard which pulls together a raft of indicators which enable it to track and measure the impacts of Welfare Reform as they continue to take effect. Data is drawn from the Council’s own performance data and business systems, along with data provided by a focus group of Social Landlords. This is then grouped into three key areas ‘People’, ‘Place’ and ‘Services’ and reported quarterly: actual data for that quarter; and also quarterly and annual change. Place
• Manchester Housing Register - new registrations (General & Transfer) • Homelessness Presentations – total and those owed a full duty • Live applicants on Manchester Housing Register • Social housing transfers and exchanges • No of lettings made • Empty residential properties
• Turnover of school places • Private sector rents – Average asking rents by size, and numbers of properties advertised available for rent
• Households affected by Benefit Cap – by area, and % change • Working age social housing tenants in under-occupation – by area, and % change
• Density Map of Social Housing tenants in under occupation • Change in number of LHA Claimants People
• Social housing rent arrears – totals and numbers of cases Social housing notices and evictions – Notices of Seeking Possession, Court • Orders obtained and Evictions carried out • No of targeted interventions with tenants (financial & debt advice by RPs) • Landlord Possession Orders (Outright & Suspended) • CAB enquiries – separated into Debt, Benefits & Tax Credits, and Housing • Vulnerable Children – No of Looked After Children, and Children subject to a child protection plan. • Density Map of Households Affected by the Benefits Cap
Services
• Council Tax collection rates • Housing Benefit claimants – Private rented sector, Council/ALMO, no of claimants in work (social and private rented) • Discretionary Housing Payments – New DHP awards, total spend • Council Tax support scheme – total of those with support, Net amount awarded • Unique number of views on webpages for accessing support online – Work out benefits, make a claim, Helping Hand Advice & Support, Rehousing and housing options. Local Welfare Provision (replacement scheme for crisis loans and community care grants) – Number of applications accepted, number of awards made, total expenditure.
See Figure 37 below
64 | Page
Figure 37: Manchester City Council Welfare Reform Dashboard
LHSP may wish to look to stress test existing support measures. What if the national DHP budget was halved or removed altogether, would this money be found from elsewhere? Blaby DC suggest that should central government funding for DHPs be removed, that there may be the potential to fund some locally, however with much tighter criteria, less money offered and for much shorter periods.
11.5. Partnership Working Partnership working is a challenge, and not necessarily easy, different organisations with different priorities need to focus on areas of shared goals and outcomes. LHSP members will need to make clear and demonstrate appetites for joint working in the different areas of recommendations included in this report and whether this is at officer and/or Member level. There is certainly evidence of learning from what works elsewhere and replicating it. An example is the Melton BC’s Me and My Learning; Blaby DC introduced the BEAT service (Blaby Employment and Training) following successes in Melton.
11.6. Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD) Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD) has as its central premise the replacement of needs-driven approaches with a capacity-focused development. The approach highlights the basing of policy and practice decisions around individuals’ and communities’ strengths, skills and aspirations. It looks at ways in which ordinary citizens can help to create self- sustaining communities that build on the resources already available. The Local Area Coordinator model (see Case Study below) is built on this premise and could be extended to
65 | Page other areas of need. ABCD is increasingly seen as a positive way to improve resilience in communities and in individuals. The provision of services based on needs is problematic due to the limited availability of financial resources. As a consequence of austerity measures, some previously statutory or publicly funded services will not be available in the future. At the individual level, the approach recognises people’s skills and capacities, especially those who are marginalised due to their ethnic or religious background, sexual orientation, physical and mental disabilities and age, and is seen as vital in bringing in the expertise that will help to build communities from within. At the level of civil society, the relationships and bonds that make up the social interconnections of communities are suggested to be indispensable tools for development, capable of flexing to address individuals’ future demands and expectations. Finally, it is put forward that formal institutions such as hospitals, social service agencies, schools, police forces, fire stations, libraries and all other services at the disposal of public can become hubs to weave strength into the social fabric of the community. The approach suggests that Coproduction (which demands that public services be designed and delivered by the people who use them, alongside, with or instead of, those who traditionally provide them) is vital for achieving significant and sustainable outcomes. The second suggestion is that the connections between individuals who care about each other and the community in which they live can become the basis of collective resources to draw upon. With ABCD, individuals and communities are involved in identifying where the gaps are in current social welfare provision, thinking creatively about how to fill them and asking for investment where needed. This citizen-led knowledge can then be instrumental in making the investments that will be most valued by the members of the community.
66 | Page 11.7. Working with Health There are already extensive relationships and joint working with health that can be built upon. The Lightbulb, First Contact and Local Area Coordinator services all are driven from Better Care Funding and can greatly assist in addressing needs arising from the impact of welfare reform and housing legislation changes.
Case study - Lightbulb Project The Lightbulb project aims to integrate housing support into one easy to access service across Leicestershire, which demonstrates a clear, positive impact on health and wellbeing. In September 2014, the County and District Councils signed an agreement and made a partnership bid to the Department for Communities and Local Government and were successfully awarded a £1m Transformation Challenge Award grant to develop the Lightbulb concept. Lightbulb’s target operating model centres around: • A single access point into a range of practical housing support solutions • A common, holistic housing needs assessment process • A broader, targeted offer of practical housing support The shared objectives of this integrated approach are to: • Support health and social care integration and deliver savings by making the most of the part that housing support can play in keeping people independent in their homes; helping to prevent, delay or reduce care home placements or demand for other social care services, avoiding unnecessary hospital admissions/readmissions or GP visits and facilitating timely hospital discharge; • Improve the customer journey; making services easier to access and navigate and ensuring the right support is available at the right time with the right outcome; • Provide cost savings in service delivery (particularly in relation to the delivery of Disabled Facilities Grants) through service redesign; capitalising on opportunities to realise economies of scale, more effective working practices, and improved processes. Ensuring specialist skills are targeted effectively and that staff are empowered to make appropriate decisions will be fundamental to this service redesign A number of pilot projects have been implemented to explore aspects of this model and develop an evidence base to support the transformation required to deliver the Lightbulb ambition: Pilot 1 Blaby & North West Leicestershire – adaptations processes Pilot 2 Hinckley & Bosworth – focused around GP practice Pilot 3 Melton – cost benefits of remedying poor housing Pilot 4 Charnwood – focused on GP practice and linked to Older Person’s Unit Loughborough See Figure 38 below
67 | Page
Figure 38: The Lightbulb Project
Case study: First Contact + First Contact Plus A service targeted at vulnerable adults, First Contact acts as a conduit for referrals from a wide range of professional agencies and channels people to the most appropriate service so that easily get access to the right information and/or support. The key areas covered are: Health and well-being including falls prevention or local support services; Safety & Security, including keeping the home warm; and Money and Benefits including benefit maximisation and help with bills. First Contact plus is not a service provider itself and relies on local district resource directories to assist with directing people appropriately. Referral can be made from a very wide range of professionals, including the police, fire service, health, housing, adult social care and volunteers from Age UK. With regards to health, 95% of GPs have awareness of First Contact and 10% are using it on an on-going basis. GP wraparound services such as Integrated Care Team and Clinical Care Coordinators utilise First Contact a lot. Health referral cases are being followed up to feedback case studies demonstrating the service’s value to health. The team also run the Crisis Line following the end of Community Care Grants, some of the most common reasons people need help are money for fuel, money for food, or money for transport to get to sign on, and often as a result of sanctions. The service is funded by the Better Care Fund and is managed from within the Public Health at Leicestershire County Council. In September 2016 First Contact will become First Contact Plus and will be an open public-facing service, with its own web presence. To improve and
68 | Page maintain relationships with partners, a 9th member of staff will be a Partnerships Officer will be added to the team. http://www.leicestershire.gov.uk/adult-social-care-and-health/protecting-vulnerable- adults/first-contact-scheme-for-practitioners
Case study: Local Area Coordination
Local Area Coordination is a long term, integrated, evidence based approach to supporting people with disabilities, mental health needs, older people and their families/carers. It is a “a model of support for vulnerable people which focuses on identifying and supporting those who need help before they hit crisis, and working towards building an inclusive resilient community around them”. Rather than waiting for people to fall into crisis, assessing deficits, testing eligibility and fitting people into more expensive (and increasingly unaffordable) services, it works alongside people to:
• Build and pursue their personal vision for a good life
• Stay strong, safe and connected as contributing citizens
• Find practical, non-service solutions to problems wherever possible, and
• Build more welcoming, inclusive and supportive communities.
Based in Public Health at the County Council, the service is a significant element of the Unified Prevention Offer and is incorporated in the Better Care Fund plan. It is currently operating in the following areas: • Blaby: Braunstone & Thorpe Astley and Enderby • Charnwood: Hastings Wards and Thorpe Acre • Hinckley & Bosworth: Barwell and Newbold Verdon & Desford • Melton: Melton Town and Asfordby http://www.leics.gov.uk/lac
Further work may be possible to build upon the Leicestershire Health and Wellbeing Board’s report Housing Offer to Health (2013) in terms of potential further areas to act upon. The LHSP may wish to examine how to calculate social value and cost effectiveness of housing and the role of preventative services that demonstrates health outcomes?
69 | Page Appendix 1 - Proposals from the focus groups / online survey
Managing Poverty and Debt
Theme Subtheme Impact Proposal How this might be Origin achieved
Welfare Managing Whilst it is not possible to That free training is made available for Existing training providers Young people Poverty and replace lost income, young people on budget management to run sessions Reform individuals and families Debt Changes to may be supported and advised on services welfare Young people available to help them Furniture/equipment store for people To be organised through benefits moving into independent donations make the most of their accommodation, even if in the private Universal Credit remaining income rented sector
Reduction in Welcome pack of basics for people To be organised through Young people Working Tax moving into independent donations and run through Credit accommodation even if in the private food banks(?) Potential rented sector changes to If food banks are not Support the development of additional LHSP to progress Sitra Pension Tax located close to food banks communities without Credit Young people access to transport, Food banks to provide more food for To be proposed to local people without access to cooking food banks Reduction in individual and families will equipment or limited fuel Work Allowance find it difficult to access Changes to Fuel poverty results in More work on community switching? 38 LHSP to progress Young people exemption from families having to pay Degrees have had some success with NHS costs more than others per unit this (including of fuel https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/pages/t prescriptions, he_big_switch_phase2 dental care and Support individuals and Work with credit agencies in the LHSP to progress Sitra travel costs) families to avoid using County to further publicise their work high cost loan agencies and to support their development Theme Subtheme Impact Proposal How this might be Origin achieved
Cost for self-payers at Make costs more affordable Make charges cheaper Young people leisure centres at off-peak times
Access to Information and Interpretation
Theme Subtheme Impact Proposal How this might be Origin achieved Universal Changes to • Claimants not in possession of That LHSP works together More information for Young people Credit welfare information about welfare benefit to run an “entitlement” people on income Reduction in benefits • changes do not know what to campaign, helping support about Universal Working Tax expect, are disadvantaged when claimants and potential Credit and claimant Credit dealing with DWP officials and may claimants to understand options, to equip people • Potential not be equipped with the necessary their entitlement to welfare to self-advocate changes to information to challenge sanctions benefits Pension Tax or other actions Landlords to check on Young people Credit people on benefits and • Reduction in to offer help and advice Work Allowance Conflicting advice re. Detailed information to Older • Changes to benefits – new claims vs explain what it all People/Tenants’ exemption from existing claimants is means, how it’s going to group NHS costs causing confusion: affect the individual and (including the help available prescriptions, dental care and travel costs) Total Benefit People with children exclusively Detailed information to To be included within an Older Cap affected by the cap across the explain what it all means, entitlements campaign People/Tenants’ Districts how it’s going to affect the group family and the help Theme Subtheme Impact Proposal How this might be Origin achieved available
Housing/Council Claimants not in possession of Detailed information to To be included within an Older Tax information about Housing Benefit explain what it all means, entitlements campaign People/Tenants’ Benefit/Housing changes do not know what to how it’s going to affect the group Support expect, are disadvantaged when individual and the help dealing with Benefits officials and available may not be equipped with the necessary information to challenge Landlords to check on People on benefits to be Young people cancellation or other actions people on benefits and to invited to register with offer help and advice the landlord for regular updates by text, email or RSS feed.
Councils could work with Sitra, private landlords to developing on cascade information, the proposal which would benefit above them by preventing arrears
Removal of “Bedroom tax” impacts on tenants’ Better information for Landlords to continue to Older “spare room wellbeing e.g. people moving tenants on the criteria for work with tenants to People/Tenants’ subsidy” properties (downsizing) impacts on determining spare room: prepare for the time group wellbeing re. community support participants in possession when they may become and distress of inaccurate information liable on what constituted a spare room
Changes to Fixed term Short term tenancies – less Tenants should be Detailed information to Older tenure tenancies commitment to community – less prepared for the end of the explain what it all People/Tenants’ volunteering; people uprooted from fixed term tenancy long means, how it’s going to group their homes; people forced into before it ends so that they affect the family and the Theme Subtheme Impact Proposal How this might be Origin achieved unstable tenancies in the private do not have to move in an help available sector unplanned way
Wider Access to The most effective way out of Further information on Detailed information to Sitra Context employment poverty is through optimising opportunities offered by the explain what it all individuals’ opportunity to become City Deal to be promoted to means, how it’s going to economically active residents affect the individual and the help available
Spending Impact of comprehensive spending Partners need to maintain Volunteers to be Older Review review on local government services by doing more recruited and trained to People/Tenants’ finances: Total funding for local with less: geographic cover reception in local group authorities to fall by 2.8% (average) impact: rural areas will offices to ensure that in 2016-17, this will mean a real have fewer businesses to they can remain open terms cut of 6.7% over the generate business rates spending review period. Lack of Residents do not access all the LA/Partnership to have More two-way Older services that they need information more contact with communication People/Tenants’ about services communities group
Improve awareness Circulate information Older about services with People/Tenants’ council tax bill group Improve promotion of services Include info in tenant newsletters Promote information on location of registry office Wider Access to Advocacy
Theme Subtheme Impact Proposal How this might be Origin achieved
Welfare Changes to Claimants not in possession of Expansion of Neighbourhood Older Reform welfare benefits information about welfare benefit advice/advocacy services volunteers to be People/Tenants’ changes do not know what to through a Neighbourhood recruited (possibly from group Universal Credit expect, are disadvantaged when Advisor pilot tenant activists) and Reduction in dealing with DWP officials and may trained on the detail of Working Tax not be equipped with the necessary welfare benefits, to give Credit information to challenge sanctions basic information to help or other actions people to keep out of Potential changes debt and to signpost to to Pension Tax other services for more Credit complex cases Reduction in Work Allowance Advocacy/CAB having Older expertise People/Tenants’ Changes to group exemption from NHS costs (including prescriptions, dental care and travel costs)
Use of sanctions Research shows that although Independent advocates to Trained volunteers to Young people sanctions have reduced since be placed in Job Centres to support claimants: this
2013, the impact on the individual help people in dealing with could benefit Job Centre can be significant, including perceived “unhelpful” staff staff by reducing increase in debt, increased stress/aggression: LHSP likelihood of suicide, increased to raise with local Job likelihood of participation in illegal Centres activity. People with disabilities most likely to be subject to “Kinder” staff in Job Young people to address Theme Subtheme Impact Proposal How this might be Origin achieved sanctions. Centres who are more staff in Job Centres as to sympathetic the reality of life on benefits
More reliable Job Centre LHSP to raise with local advice phone lines: Job Centres claimants and their advisors report that long time spent on hold/being cut off
Conflicting decisions causing Independent advocates to Trained volunteers to Older hardship – appeal takes time and support people in dealing support claimants: this People/Tenants’ distress with perceived “unhelpful” could benefit Job Centre group staff in Job Centres staff by reducing stress/aggression: LHSP to raise with local Job Centres Wider Indirect Negative impact on mental health Reducing resources in LHSP to consider how it Older Context consequences due to loss of income, stigma. statutory services is can engage with third People/Tenants’ Greater demands on other increasing the threshold for sector infrastructure group departmental budgets such as the accessing assistance. organisations to develop Older NHS, GPs, Social Care People in the County under a growth strategy People/Tenants’ stress need to group Impact on ability to support others maintain/increase access in community, as need to have two to voluntary groups offering wage earners support services
Moving/downsizing – loss of social networks Lack of Residents feel disenfranchised Improve awareness More targeted promotion Older Theme Subtheme Impact Proposal How this might be Origin achieved information on Increase People/Tenants’ advocacy and number/awareness of group advice services – social/community not feeling centres listened to Provide social activities
Preparation for Work
Theme Subtheme Impact Proposal How this might be Origin achieved
Helping Participants were The most effective way out of Detailed information to Further information on Sitra individuals unaware of the poverty is through optimising explain what it all means, opportunities offered by into work Leicester and individuals’ opportunity to become how it’s going to affect the the City Deal to be Leicestershire City economically active individual and the help promoted to residents Deal available
The need for Job Centre work preparation Training centre to help Existing training Young people more support in sessions not viewed as very people to gain skills and providers to run sessions preparing to effective experience compete in the jobs market Scheme to provide LHSP to work with local Young people claimants with work businesses to set up a experience scheme to help people gain work experience
Appearance is very important when Help with interview clothes Collection of office Young people attending an interview, and many clothes from donations people do not have the money to to be made available to buy interview outfits that they would people going to interview be unlikely to wear at other times Access to Affordable Homes
Theme Subtheme Impact Proposal How this might be Origin achieved
Access to Rent reduction in Reduction in development of new Creative ways of Reuse derelict Older Affordable social housing, affordable homes, which will limit developing new homes properties using council People/Tenants’ Homes focus on providing access for people in need, compulsory purchase group starter homes for including homeless people/rough powers sale sleepers Reuse brownfield land Reduction in warden operated Many older style local sheltered housing authority homes were built with large gardens With the reduction in care homes, for growing food: some people moving into sheltered of this land could be housing re needing more and reclaimed for building more care and norms. Residents new homes are feeling that they need to show more responsibility. They shouldn’t have to
Housing/Council Lack of awareness about the If councils or housing Change rules for bidding Young People Tax changes to Housing associations that had any on common housing Benefit/Housing Benefit/Housing Support for young two bedroom properties registers Support people on Universal Credit means would allow two single that some will not be able to access people aged under 35 independent accommodation years who both had housing applications in to bid on the property jointly?
“Matching” service to help No liability noticeboard Young people people under 35 meet where young people someone to share a could advertise for property sharers Theme Subtheme Impact Proposal How this might be Origin achieved
Making best use In 2013, the National Fraud Make sure properties are More inspections of Older of existing stock Authority estimated that 98,000 inhabited by the people property to verify who is People/Tenants’ social housing properties were who applied for it. The living there and the state group fraudulently illegally sublet, with an LHSP should start of property annual cost across local enforcing their rules! government at £1.8 billion (representing 2% of all properties Ensure no fraudulent outside London, and 4% in the occupation of properties – capital): a potential total in excess subletting/void of 330 properties across the County.
In 2015, there were 2,268 vacant Empty derelict house – properties across the County of all reuse them for homeless tenures
Managing the Impact on Local Services
Theme Subtheme Impact Proposal How this might be Origin achieved
Wider Spending Review Impact of comprehensive spending Partners need to maintain Volunteers to be Older Context review on local government services by doing more recruited and trained to People/Tenants’ finances: Total funding for local with less: geographic cover reception in local group authorities to fall by 2.8% (average) impact: rural areas will offices to ensure that in 2016-17, this will mean a real have fewer businesses to they can remain open terms cut of 6.7% over the generate business rates spending review period. Indirect Impact of cuts on front line staff consequences dealing with claimants’ distress/worries Theme Subtheme Impact Proposal How this might be Origin achieved
Local Cemetery/ Difficult for older or less mobile Open gates to allow Community groups or Older services crematorium people to visit parking inside “Friends of….” groups People/Tenants’ parking could be established to group assist Street cleaning – Appearance poor in some areas. If Bring all areas to a Target substandard Older variable standards the streets are already dirty, consistent standard areas People/Tenants’ residents will not take care not to group Reduce the amount of litter Education for litterers drop litter Enforce penalty for perpetrators Recycling – Rubbish escapes and makes a Consider wheelie bins for One bin for mixed Older inadequate mess recycling recycling People/Tenants’ containers group Grass cutting Contractors don’t seem able to Make the contractors more Be more flexible in Older respond to what is needed at each responsive schedule People/Tenants’ visit group Cemeteries look uncared for Improve care without Community service to increasing cost help tidy cemeteries Cuttings left on the grass look Remove cuttings Collect cuttings and unsightly recycle as compost Leisure facilities At some times the pool is too Make better use of opening Encourage young people Older crowded times to use during school day People/Tenants’ group Cost of some facilities is prohibitive Make costs more Make entrance cheaper Young people affordable at less busy times Refuse collection Bins left outside after collection Better monitoring Residents to be Older reminded to take in their People/Tenants’ Litter escapes Catch/latch to secure bin bins promptly group Theme Subtheme Impact Proposal How this might be Origin achieved
Salting/gritting Potential health and safety hazard Better use of available Target key pathways in Older resources main town/village People/Tenants’ centres group Lack of Potential for duplicated services Improve coordination Streamline ‘red tape’ e.g. Older coordination Those needing services have to tell between agencies forms user friendly/less People/Tenants’ between agencies their story numerous times computer generated group LA/Partnership to have More two-way more contact with communication communities Lack of Residents do not access all the Improve awareness Circulate information Older information about services that they need about services with People/Tenants’ services council tax bill group Improve promotion of services Include info in tenant newsletters Promote information on location of registry office More targeted promotion of services Lack of Residents feel disenfranchised: not Improve awareness More targeted promotion Older information on feeling listened to People/Tenants’ Increase group advocacy and number/awareness of advice services – social/community centres Provide social activities Community meals Those in need unable to access Improve awareness Improve awareness of Older Theme Subtheme Impact Proposal How this might be Origin achieved – pressure on Increased isolation provision People/Tenants’ provision* group Poor nutrition Assist most vulnerable to Transport to increase attend participation Increase services without Recruit volunteers using extra resources Insufficient car Inconvenience for residents More spaces Double yellow lines on Older parking one side of road. People/Tenants’ Residents have parking group permits. Visitors using car parks to pay – revenue for parking spaces by using grass verges Dog fouling Potential health and safety hazard Dog watch scheme In progress with dog Older watch – keep dogs on People/Tenants’ lead so keeper can see group where fouling is Drains flooding Potential health and safety hazard More regular cleaning Concentrate between Older September and October People/Tenants’ to clear leaves from group drains, less cleaning needs to be done in the summer months Prevent leaves blocking Strong mesh type cover Older the drains to allow water through People/Tenants’ but not waste group Hedges Potential health and safety hazard More regular cutting Cut right back to hedge Older overgrown stalks then cover with People/Tenants’ either mesh or chicken group wire to prevent loss of Theme Subtheme Impact Proposal How this might be Origin achieved view to drivers
* social care responsibility, but additional services could be provided locally using voluntary groups
Appendix 2 – Estimated Impact of Welfare Reform: Sheffield Hallam study
Universal Credit tapers and Tax Credits (new reforms) - Mortgage interest support - thresholds - anticipated impact to 2020-21 anticipated impact to 2020-21 anticipated impact to 2020-21
No. of Estimated Financial loss No. of Estimated Financial loss No. of Estimated Financial loss Local households loss £m per working households loss £m per working households loss £m per working Authority affected per year age adult £ affected per year age adult £ affected per year age adult £ Name per year per year per year
Blaby 4,100 4 74 2,400 2 42 200 0.3 5
Charnwood 7,300 8 68 4,500 4 39 400 0.5 5
Harborough 2,800 3 56 1,700 2 34 100 0.2 4
Hinckley and Bosworth 4,400 5 70 2,600 3 38 200 0.3 5
Melton 1,900 2 64 1,200 1 36 100 0.1 4
North West Leicestershire 4,500 5 80 2,800 3 48 200 0.3 6
Oadby and Wigston 2,600 3 80 1,600 2 52 100 0.2 6
'Pay to stay'- LHA Cap in social rented sector - Employment and Support Allowance anticipated impact to 2020-21 anticipated impact to 2020-21 (new reforms) - anticipated impact to 2020-21
No. of Estimated Financial loss No. of Estimated Financial loss No. of Estimated Financial loss Local households loss £m per working individuals loss £m per working households loss £m per working Authority affected per year age adult £ affected per year age adult £ affected per year age adult £ Name per year per year per year
Blaby 200 0.1 3 400 0.5 8 200 0.1 3
Charnwood 500 0.4 3 1,100 1.4 12 500 0.4 3
Harborough 200 0.1 2 300 0.4 7 200 0.1 2
Hinckley and 300 0.2 3 600 0.8 12 300 0.2 3 Bosworth
Melton 200 0.1 4 200 0.2 8 200 0.1 4
North West 300 0.3 4 600 0.8 13 300 0.3 4 Leicestershire
Oadby and 100 0.1 2 300 0.4 11 100 0.1 2 Wigston
Benefit Cap (extension) - Benefit Freeze - Total anticipated Total anticipated loss anticipated impact to 2020-21 anticipated impact to 2020-21 loss by 2020/21 from by 2020/21 from pre post-2015 welfare and post-2015 welfare reforms reforms
No. of Estimated Financial No of Estimated Financial Estimated Financial Estimated Financial households loss £m loss per Households loss £m per loss per loss £m loss per loss £m per loss per affected per year working affected year working age per year working year working Local Authority age adult adult £ per age adult £ age adult £ Name £ per year year per year per year
Blaby 140 0.3 6 10,000 4 69 14 230 30 510
Charnwood 300 0.7 6 18,000 8 69 27 240 56 490
Harborough 110 0.3 5 8,000 3 53 10 180 22 410
Hinckley and 180 0.4 6 12,000 5 73 16 250 35 520 Bosworth
Melton 70 0.2 6 5,000 2 66 7 220 15 470
North West 200 0.5 8 11,000 5 81 17 280 35 590 Leicestershire
Oadby and 110 0.3 7 6,000 3 79 9 280 20 570 Wigston
Bibliography
Alfredo Sánchez-Castañeda, L.S.& S.F. et al., 2013. Leicester and Leicestershire City Deal. , (April 2016), pp.1–13. Available at: https://public.tableau.com/profile/r.i.team.leicestershire.county.council#!/vizhome/Unem ploymentBulletin/HeadlineData [Accessed June 19, 2016]. Beattie C; Fothergill S, 2016. The Uneven Impact of Welfare Reform 2016, Available at: http://www4.shu.ac.uk/research/cresr/sites/shu.ac.uk/files/welfare-reform-2016.pdf. Bishop’s Commission on Poverty et al., 2015. How do you get by?, Leicester. Available at: www.foodfoundation.org.uk. Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research and Ipsos MORI, 2014. Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy: Interim report., London. Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion, 2013. The local impacts of welfare reform An assessment of cumulative impacts and mitigations, London. Available at: http://www.local.gov.uk/web/guest/publications/- /journal_content/56/10180/4098780/PUBLICATION. Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion & Rocket Science, 2015. The impacts of welfare reform on residents in Brighton & Hove, Brighton. Chartered Institute of Housing, 2016. Mind the Gap, Available at: http://www.cih.org/resources/PDF/Policy free download pdfs/Mind the gap.pdf. CIPFA, 2015. Local Authority Accounting » TISonline » CIPFA’s online resource for public sector finance. Available at: http://www.tisonline.net/localauthorityaccounting/default.asp?content_ref=18907&doc=i ssues. Department for Work and Pensions, 2016. CG201511, London. Available at: http://tabulation-tool.dwp.gov.uk/NESS/BEN/iben.htm. Department for Work and Pensions, 2015. Welfare Reform and Work Bill: Impact Assessment to remove the ESA Work-Related Activity Component and the UC Limited Capability for Work Element for new claims, London. Available at: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/impact-assessments/IA15-006B.pdf. Emmett, R. & Adam, V.L., 2015. Starter Homes - will they be affordable?, London. Available at: https://england.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/1183790/Starter_Homes_FIN AL_w_Appendix_v2.pdf. Fitzpatrick, S. et al., 2016. Destitution in the UK, York. Available at: http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/destitution.pdf. Gibbons, D., 2015. Developing a Fair Finance Strategy for Leicester and Leicestershire Draft evidence base , proposed priorities , and work streams, Available at: http://www.responsible-credit.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/A-Fair-Finance- Strategy-for-Leicester-and-Leicestershire.pdf. GL Hearn, 2014. Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) for Leicester and Leicestershire, Available at: http://www.charnwood.gov.uk/files/documents/strategic_housing_market_assessment_ 20141/Leicestershire SHMA Report June V7 reduced.pdf25527/Leicestershire\nSHMA\nReport\nJune\n2014.pdf. Grant Thornton, 2015. Easing the burden, London. Available at: http://www.grant- thornton.co.uk/Global/Easing-the-burden-welfare-reform-report.pdf.
86 | Page HM Treasury, 2016. Core Spending Power- Explanatory Note, London. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/core-spending-power-final-local- government-finance-settlement-2016-to-2017. HM Treasury, 2015. Spending review and autumn statement 2015. , (November). Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/479749/5 2229_Blue_Book_PU1865_Web_Accessible.pdf. IPSOS MORI, 2013. Disabled People and Financial Wellbeing, London. Available at: https://scopesblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/disabled-people-and-financial- wellbeing.pdf. Leicestershire Statistics & Research, 2016. Unemployment Bulletin Leicestershire 2013 16. Available at: https://public.tableau.com/profile/r.i.team.leicestershire.county.council#!/vizhome/Unem ploymentBulletin/HeadlineData [Accessed June 19, 2016]. Local Government Association, 2016. Final Local Government Finance Settlement 2016/17 10 February 2016, London. Available at: http://www.local.gov.uk/documents/10180/7632544/LGA+Briefing+- +Local+Government+Finance+Settlement+-+09+February++2016.pdf/227cd56d-735f- 47a8-8b3b-277b6b9885dc. Local Government Association, 2015. Rewiring public services - BRR, National Housing Federation, 2015a. Employment Support Audit 2015 : key findings, London. Available at: http://s3-eu-west- 1.amazonaws.com/pub.housing.org.uk/Employment_Support_Audit_Report.pdf. National Housing Federation, 2016. Using integration and partnerships in the provision of employment support, London. Available at: http://s3-eu-west- 1.amazonaws.com/pub.housing.org.uk/Integration_report.pdf. National Housing Federation, 2015b. Welfare reform impact assessment: Final report - January 2015, London. Available at: http://www.housing.org.uk/publications/browse/welfare-reform-impact-assessment-final- report/. Perry, J. et al., 2014. Emergency Use Only: Understanding and reducing the use of food banks in the UK. Child Poverty Action Group, The Church of England, Oxfam andThe Trussell Trust, pp.1–8. Available at: http://www.cpag.org.uk/sites/default/files/Foodbank Report_web.pdf. Power, A., Provan, B. & Herden, E., 2014. The impact of welfare reform on social landlords and tenants, York. Savills, 2016. Policy Response Starter Homes, London. Available at: http://pdf.euro.savills.co.uk/uk/residential---other/policy-response-starter-homes- 2016.pdf. Savills World Research, 2016. Policy Response The impact of new housing measures on development, London. Available at: www.savills.co.uk/research. Sheffield Hallum University, 2014. Welfare Reform 2016. , p.2014. Available at: http://www4.shu.ac.uk/research/cresr/sites/shu.ac.uk/files/welfare-reform-2016.xlsx. Taylor, A. & Loopstra, R., 2016. Too Poor to Eat Food insecurity in the UK, Available at: www.foodfoundation.org.uk. University of Hull, 2016. Mapping Hunger, Salisbury. Available at: https://www.trusselltrust.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/04/Mapping-Hunger- Report.pdf.
87 | Page Wilson, W., 2013. Under-occupying of social housing : Housing Benefit entitlement, London. Available at: http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN04887#fullreport.
88 | Page Further Reading
All Party Parliamentary Group on Health in all Policies, 2016. Inquiry: Child Poverty and health - the impact of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill 2015-16, Available at: http://www.fph.org.uk/uploads/APPG_on_Health_in_All_Policies_inquiry_into_child_poverty_ and_health_2.pdf See also: http://www.fph.org.uk/welfare_reform_bill_could_create_a_‘lost_generation’_of_children_gro wing_up_in_poverty,_says_report_by_the_appg_on_health_in_all_policies Blaby DC, 2015. Lightbulb, Keep you and your home healthy, Available at: www.blaby.gov.uk/EasySiteWeb/GatewayLink.aspx?alId=12423 CASE – Consortium of Associations in the South East, 2012. The impact of welfare reform on housing, Available at: https://www.moat.co.uk/policypubs/ CIH, 2016. Reductions in social rents, Available at: http://www.cih.org/publication- free/display/vpathDCR/templatedata/cih/publication- free/data/Reduction_in_social_housing_rents CPAG, 2013. Welfare Reform: what it means for families at risk of poverty, Available at: http://www.cpag.org.uk/sites/default/files/CPAG_factsheet_the%20cuts_May13.pdf HM Government, 2015. National planning policy: consultation on proposed changes, Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/national-planning-policy-consultation-on- proposed-changes HM Government, 2015. The Benefits of the Troubled Families Programme to the Taxpayer https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/benefits-of-the-troubled-families-programme-to- the-taxpayer-report HM Government, 2016. Starter Homes Regulations: technical consultation, Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/starter-homes-regulations-technical- consultation HM Government, 2016. Department for Communities and Local Government’s consultation on national planning policy, Available at: https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons- select/communities-and-local-government-committee/inquiries/parliament-2015/dclgs- consultation-on-national-planning-policy-15-16/ HM Government, 2016. The Recovery of Capital Grant: Proposals for change, Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/the-recovery-of-capital-grant-proposals-for- change Homes and Communities Agency, 2016. Shared Ownership and Affordable Homes Programme 2016 to 2021: prospectus, Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/shared-ownership-and-affordable-homes- programme-2016-to-2021-guidance Leicestershire County Council, Crisis and Emergency Support: Advice and information leaflet, Available at: http://www.leics.gov.uk/crisis_and_emergency_support_leaflet.pdf Leicestershire Health & Wellbeing Board, 2012. Leicestershire’s Health and Wellbeing Strategy 2013-2016, Available at: http://www.lsr-online.org/joint-health-and-wellbeing- strat.html
89 | Page Leicestershire Health and Wellbeing Board, 2013. Housing Offer to Health, Available at: http://politics.leics.gov.uk/Published/C00001038/M00003837/AI00036448/$HousingOffertoH ealthAppAf.pdfA.ps.pdf Leicestershire Rural Partnership. Leicestershire Rural Framework 2014-2020, Available at: http://www.oakleaves.org.uk/ruralframework.html Leicestershire Statistics & Research. Leicestershire’s Public Health Outcomes Framework, Available at: http://www.lsr-online.org/public-health-outcomes-framework.html Leicestershire Statistics & Research, 2006. District Community Profiles, Available at: http://www.lsr-online.org/reports/694488/download/1/blabyweb_all-2.pdf Leicestershire Statistics & Research, 2015. Leicestershire 2015 Joint Strategic Needs Assessment, Available at: http://www.lsr-online.org/leicestershire-2015-jsna.html LG Inform – The Impacts of Welfare Reform in Leicestershire – Health & Wellbeing in Leicestershire: A focus on Housing – Health & Wellbeing in Leicestershire: Demographics and Determinants of Health http://lginform.local.gov.uk Local Government Association, 2016. Local Government Association briefing, House of Commons debate, final Local Government Finance Settlement 2016/17, Available at: http://www.local.gov.uk/finance/-/journal_content/56/10180/7686499/ARTICLE Melton Borough Council, 2014. Universal Credit Pilot Final Evaluation Report, Available at: http://www.melton.gov.uk/downloads/file/1856/download_evaluation_report Nottingham City policy alert, 2014. Welfare Reform One Year On, 2013-14, Available at: http://www.onenottingham.org.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=50488&p=0 Policy in Practice, Melton Borough Council, 2015. The Cumulative Impact of Welfare Reform in Melton Resolution Foundation, 2016. Universal Challenge – making a success of Universal Credit, Available at: http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/publications/universal-challenge-making-a-success-of- universal-credit/ Shelter, 2015. Starter Homes: Will they be Affordable? Available at: https://england.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/1183790/Starter_Homes_FINAL_ w_Appendix_v2.pdf Social Rights UK, 2016. Discretionary Housing Payment Expenditure, Available at:http://socialrights.co.uk/project/blog/discretionary-housing-payment-expenditure/ Warwick University, 2016. Reports of the impact of Public Spending Cuts across the UK, Available at: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/research/centres/chrp/spendingcuts/resources/report s-uk The Welsh NHS Confederation, 2015. The impact of welfare reform on people’s health and well-being: How frontline health and social care professionals can support people affected by the benefit changes, Available at: http://www.nhsconfed.org/~/media/Confederation/Files/Publications/Documents/Health%20I mpacts%20of%20Welfare%20Reform.pdf
90 | Page Figures
Figure 1 Income profile of respondents to online survey N=176 ...... 13 Figure 2 Age profile of focus groups N=36 ...... 13 Figure 3: Total Population Leicestershire Districts ...... 14 Figure 4: Population and housing tenure by District ...... 15 Figure 5: Employment in Leicestershire 2011-2014 by District ...... 16 Figure 6: Claimants by District 2013-2016 ...... 17 Figure 7: Source: Housing Benefit Case load statistics February 2016 ...... 17 Figure 8: Financial impact of reforms by category 2015/16 ...... 18 Figure 9: Estimated level of Affordable Housing Need (per annum) ...... 19 Figure 10: proportions impacted by each housing measure expected to mitigate impacts by finding work or moving home ...... 27 Figure 11: Working age claimants N=32,030 ...... 29 Figure 12 Financial impact on online survey participants N=33 ...... 30 Figure 13 Loss of weekly income due to the household benefit cap N=13 ...... 30 Figure 14 Household profiles: claimants in Leicestershire receiving lower benefits as a result of the cap on household welfare benefits to 2015 ...... 31 Figure 15 Weekly loss of income as a result of the removal of the "Spare Room Subsidy" N=16 ...... 32 Figure 16 Loss of weekly income as result of changes to ESA/PIP N=14 ...... 33 Figure 17 Overall impact of pre and post 2016 welfare reform, Leicestershire districts ...... 34 Figure 18 Wage reductions in real terms, Leicestershire 2010-2015 ...... 35 Figure 19 Participants who have received benefits, money or debt advice N=98 ...... 38 Figure 20 Online participants’ awareness of Discretionary Housing Payments N= 29 ...... 38 Figure 21 UK Profile of sanctioned claimants December 2012 - December 2015 ...... 39 Figure 22 Incidence of sanctions by Job Centre 2012-2015 ...... 40 Figure 23 JSA and UC Claimants aged 16-24 by District 2013-16 ...... 41 Figure 24: Discretionary Housing Payments by District ...... 42 Figure 25 Perception of impact of Local Housing Allowance N=31 ...... 44 Figure 26 Comparison of weekly rents with LHA 2014/15: Blaby ...... 45 Figure 27 Comparison of weekly rents with LHA 2014/15: Charnwood ...... 45 Figure 28 Comparison of weekly rents with LHA 2014/15: Harborough ...... 46 Figure 29 Comparison of weekly rents with LHA 2014/15: Hinckley & Bosworth ...... 46 Figure 30 Comparison of weekly rents with LHA 2014/15: Melton ...... 46 Figure 31 Comparison of weekly rents with LHA 2014/15: NW Leicestershire ...... 46 Figure 32 Comparison of weekly rents with LHA 2014/15: Oadby & Wigston ...... 47 Figure 33:Loss of “Spare Room Subsidy” N=16 ...... 48
91 | Page Figure 34: Relative affordability of Starter Homes by District and income group ...... 54 Figure 35: Shift in local government income source ...... 59 Figure 36 Impact of on local authority spend per household in Leicestershire to 2019/20 .... 60 Figure 37: Manchester City Council Welfare Reform Dashboard ...... 65 Figure 38: The Lightbulb Project ...... 68
92 | Page Statistical sources
Page Figure/ Source Table
15 1 Online survey data https://www.dropbox.com/s/qhl3sods580co4v/Data_All_160619.zip?dl=0
15 2 Online survey data https://www.dropbox.com/s/qhl3sods580co4v/Data_All_160619.zip?dl=0
16 3 http://tabulation-tool.dwp.gov.uk/NESS/WACG/WARD/cg201511.xls http://www.lsr-online.org/2011-leicestershire-census.html * Source: 2011 Census Data 17 4 http://public.tableau.com/profile/r.i.team.leicestershire.county.council#!/vizhome/LAPopulationPyramid-QuinaryAge/Dashboard ** Source: Department for Communities and Local Government statistical data set April 2015 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-dwelling-stock-including-vacants#history 18 5 Leicestershire Statistics and Research: https://public.tableau.com/views/BRESData/BRESDashboard?:embed=y&:display_count=no:showVizHome=no
19 6 https://public.tableau.com/views/UnemploymentBulletin/HeadlineData?:embed=y%20&:display_count=no:showVizHome=no#
19 7 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/benefit-cap-number-of-households-capped-to-february-2016
20 8 http://www.local.gov.uk/web/guest/publications/-/journal_content/56/10180/4098780/PUBLIC
21 9 http://www.charnwood.gov.uk/files/documents/strategic_housing_market_assessment
28 10 http://www.local.gov.uk/web/guest/publications/-/journal_content/56/10180/4098780/PUBLIC
30 11 http://tabulation-tool.dwp.gov.uk/NESS/BEN/iben.htm
93 | Page Page Figure/ Source Table
31 12 Online survey data https://www.dropbox.com/s/qhl3sods580co4v/Data_All_160619.zip?dl=0
31 13 Online survey data https://www.dropbox.com/s/qhl3sods580co4v/Data_All_160619.zip?dl=0
32 14 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/benefit-cap-number-of-households-capped-to-february-2016
33 15 Online survey data https://www.dropbox.com/s/qhl3sods580co4v/Data_All_160619.zip?dl=0
34 16 Online survey data https://www.dropbox.com/s/qhl3sods580co4v/Data_All_160619.zip?dl=0
35 17 http://www4.shu.ac.uk/research/cresr/sites/shu.ac.uk/files/welfare-reform-2016.xlsx
36 18 Following the methodology used in (Gibbons 2015), (table derived from ONS data releases for the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, 2010 & 2015 * (*provisional), and the Bank of England Inflation Calculator. Inflation adjustment calculated by the author).
39 19 Online survey data https://www.dropbox.com/s/qhl3sods580co4v/Data_All_160619.zip?dl=0
39 20 Online survey data https://www.dropbox.com/s/qhl3sods580co4v/Data_All_160619.zip?dl=0
40 21 Source: Decision Making and Appeals System (DMAS), via Stat-Xplore https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/jobseekers- allowance-and-employment-and-support-allowance-sanctions-decisions-made-to-december-2015
41 22 Source: Decision Making and Appeals System (DMAS), via Stat-Xplore https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/jobseekers- allowance-and-employment-and-support-allowance-sanctions-decisions-made-to-december-2015
42 23 https://public.tableau.com/profile/r.i.team.leicestershire.county.council#!/vizhome/UnemploymentBulletin/HeadlineData
43 24 Source: Social Rights UK, using raw data from the Department for Work and Pensions http://socialrights.co.uk/project/blog/discretionary-housing-payment-expenditure/ https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/use-of-discretionary-housing-payments-financial-year-201516
94 | Page Page Figure/ Source Table
45 25 Online survey data https://www.dropbox.com/s/qhl3sods580co4v/Data_All_160619.zip?dl=0
46- 26 - 32 Data extracted from https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/local-authority-housing-statistics-data-returns-for-2014-to- 48 2015 ; https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/statistical-data-return-2014-to-2015 ; https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/private-rental-market-statistics-may-2015 ; https://lha- direct.voa.gov.uk/SearchResults.aspx?LocalAuthorityId=302&LHACategory=1&Month=6&Year=2016&SearchPageParameters=true
49 33 Online survey data https://www.dropbox.com/s/qhl3sods580co4v/Data_All_160619.zip?dl=0
55 34 https://england.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/1183790/Starter_Homes_FINAL_w_Appendix_v2.pdf
63 35 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/core-spending-power-final-local-government-finance-settlement-2016-to-2017
61 36 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/core-spending-power-final-local-government-finance-settlement-2016-to-2017
66 37 http://www.manchester.gov.uk/meetings/meeting/2394/economy_scrutiny_committee
69 38 www.blaby.gov.uk/EasySiteWeb/GatewayLink.aspx?alId=12423
95 | Page
Sitra Sitra is the leading charity in the housing, care and support sector providing training, consultancy and advice with a membership of nearly 500 practitioners. Sitra has operated across the housing, support and health & social care sectors for over 30 years. It offers training, consultancy and advice, leads on policy development and plays a key representative role as the voice of the sector, contributing to emerging policy and promoting best practice. Sitra has a strong consultancy service for members, providing support to organisations ranging from the largest to the smallest. Sitra staff and our bank of associates nationwide support members across the spectrum of their activities from the operational - such as policies and procedures - right through to the strategic - strategy development, new ways of commissioning and workforce development and, of course, everything in between. Some examples of our consultancy work are set out in section 5 and showcases both projects relevant to this work and a range of other work to show the scope of our consultancy team. In 2016 Sitra merged with Homeless Link. Having always enjoyed a close and empathetic working relationship, the merger brings together the combined knowledge and experience of over 50 staff and 800+ members. It creates an exciting opportunity for both organisations to work together even more closely to benefit members, customers, and partners and to ensure a stronger voice for our sectors. Our incorporation of the Health and Social Care Partnership (HSCP) this furthers Sitra’s wider agenda of integration of health, social care, housing and public health. As well as our active consultancy work, Sitra is a leading training provider delivering both in- house and public courses around the country and to a variety of customers including local authorities, large registered housing providers, third sector and charitable organisations across housing, support, health & social care and criminal justice services. Sitra and Homeless Link are recognised and consulted by Government departments and other bodies, including the Department of Communities & Local Government (DCLG), the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), Department of Health (DH).and the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA), as representatives of the sector.
The linking of our policy and representative role with our detailed work providing technical support for specific organisations makes for a strong combination. It means that our work on good practice and policy and procedural development draws on the strength of our large membership base and on our role in discussing and developing policy to respond to merging issues at a national level. We carry out work both on a policy level and in providing specific support for individual organisations. We are a leading training provider, running both public programme and tailored in-house courses for clients around the country. We also provide a range of seminars and conferences on housing with support and care themes.
@sitrapolicy Like us on Facebook
Sitra, Gateway House, London SE11 4AP 020 7840 4441 www.sitra.org
96 | Page