Home work

Regeneration & Renewal, 29 February 2008

"Get a job or you're out on your ear." According to the tabloid press, that was the message delivered by Caroline Flint in her inaugural speech as housing minister (R&R, 8 February, p3). The reality, of course, was more nuanced: Flint used the wide-ranging speech to initiate a debate on what can be done to break the links between social housing, unemployment and poverty. But one message did come through loud and clear: social housing should no longer be seen as a free meal ticket.

"Social housing should be based around the principle of something for something," Flint said. "If we are giving tenants a stronger voice, greater support and a better service, then it's only right that we have higher expectations in return." Of the ideas Flint went on to outline, the most contentious was the idea of 'commitment contracts': agreements between unemployed tenants and housing providers that a tenancy is granted on condition that the tenant will seek employment, with the help of the landlord and other agencies.

Flint's proposals were greeted with fierce criticism from many in the regeneration sector. But the problem she highlighted - the link between social housing and unemployment - is real. Last year, a government-commissioned review by London School of Economics professor John Hills found that areas of social housing contain some of the country's worst concentrations of poverty, with only 32 per cent of England's adult social housing tenants in paid work, and half of all social homes located in the country's 20 per cent most deprived areas. Hills' findings may be unsurprising, given that social landlords are obliged to prioritise the neediest. But with unemployment and poverty both growing trends among social housing tenants, Flint was drawing a specific link between living in social housing and long-term unemployment: the so-called 'no-one works around here' syndrome.

Refurbishment programme opportunities

With responsibility for 50,000 homes across the country, Riverside Housing is in a position common to many registered social landlords (RSLs). "Unemployment is a big issue for us: fewer than half our tenants of working age are in full-time employment," says Hugh Owen, Riverside's director of policy. "And 52 per cent have a net household income of less than £200 a week."

For the past five years, along with other Merseyside-based RSLs, Riverside has been running Fusion 21, a scheme that matches up unemployed tenants and job opportunities arising from the associations' various construction and refurbishment programmes. Candidates are offered vocational training and then helped into a job with one of the associations' contractors. So far, the scheme has found employment for 456 tenants.

The programme is part of a growing trend among social landlords, several of which are moving beyond the core business of providing shelter for needy tenants to become involved in other aspects of their lives. And it's an area of work that Owen believes can only grow. "There's certainly mileage in housing providers being involved in tackling worklessness, and it's an issue we're involved in and want to do more about," he says. Yet, pressing as worklessness is for Riverside and its tenants, Owen says there is a limit to what the association can do. "While we try to do as much as we can, fundamentally we're housing providers," he says.

Vulnerable tenants

Consequently, Owen is wary of Flint's proposals. His big fear is that the policing of any commitment contracts would inevitably fall to housing associations, and that this could undermine their relationship with difficult and vulnerable tenants. "We're in a good position to help with worklessness because we can establish long-term relationships and win trust. If we become part of a coercive system, we'll lose that," he says.

But was Flint suggesting such a coercive approach? Mike Emmerich, chief executive of economic development agency Manchester Enterprises, believes she raised issues that cut to the heart of attempts to tackle unemployment in its most entrenched strongholds. He cites the example of Wythenshawe in Manchester, home to the country's largest council estate. The estate is located right next to Manchester airport, and should benefit from the airport's demand for labour and the wealth of nearby south Manchester and Cheshire. "It's potentially one of the most prosperous parts of the UK," says Emmerich. "And yet we have the most stubborn worklessness. What I think Flint is doing is saying to public sector professionals: 'Come on, this is something we've all got to look at tackling'. She's saying that perhaps some of our assumptions need challenging."

The thrust of Flint's argument, Emmerich suggests, is the underlying notion that to tackle entrenched worklessness in areas of social housing, different parts of government - such as those handling housing, employment and skills - need to be brought together in a more coherent fashion. And as part of this, he sees no reason why some kind of voluntary contract between housing providers and tenants shouldn't be introduced.

"Even housing professionals think something has to be done about the 'no-one works around here' syndrome," he says. "This is about balancing rights and responsibilities - and because housing is such a scarce resource, it strikes me as eminently sensible to talk about voluntary contracts for some tenants so as to provide better incentives and a clearer set of responsibilities."

So, how might such contracts work? One clue can be found in London, where the Notting Hill Housing Trust is piloting a new form of tenancy contract under a programme called Moving Forward. Under the terms of the contract, tenants agree to look for work, much in the manner suggested by Flint. In return, they get a home, but they also receive targeted help from the trust's neighbourhood officers, who are trained to advise them on employment matters.

What the arrangement doesn't include, says housing director John Baldwin, is a coercive element. "There's a lot of aspirational stuff in the contract, which is about motivating people to change behaviour. We don't think people will be encouraged or motivated by a punitive approach. What we're saying is that it's a two-way agreement: we will house you, but we will expect something in return."

Even if Notting Hill wanted to pursue a more coercive policy, Baldwin believes it would be difficult to enforce legally. "You'd have to completely redraft the tenancy agreement, and come up with some other form of tenure," he says. "But the problem is that the only power we've got is to take someone's home away from them, which doesn't solve anyone's problems."

Short of new legislation, then, there are limited options for implementing the sort of approach mooted by Flint. And there are also the thornier questions of whether her proposals were simply the political kite-flying of a new minister trying to make her mark and, even if not, how much appetite there is in other parts of government for such radical policies.

What Flint does seem to have exposed, however, is that - despite the hysterical reaction her proposals elicited in some quarters of the housing and regeneration sectors - many within the regeneration sector sympathise with her stance. And with the clear and growing links between social housing and worklessness, this is certainly not a debate that is likely go away any time soon.

Big Issue founder John Bird, who has experienced first hand the effects that the benefits trap can have, believes that an element of conditionality in social housing is a potentially effective way of getting people into work. "There has to be conditionality in everything in life," he says. "If you go into a shop and say: 'I want that Mars Bar,' there's conditionality - you have to pay for it. Equally, it can't be right if you go into the housing market and say: 'I want that place' and someone gives it to you, and you say: 'I'm never going to pay for it, I'm never going to work and support myself, and I'm going to bring my children up stuck there without giving them the tools and opportunities for social transformation.' How can that be right?"

- "The conditionality bit (of Flint's speech) was seized upon by some to rubbish the whole thing - which is a shame, because it's a debate that's much needed and we do need to challenge the status quo" - Drew Thomas, chief executive of Manchester-based employment agency, Work Solutions

- "It came across as a fairly crude argument. The idea of 'earning' your home - that you don't get a roof over your head unless you do this or that" - Lynn Spencer, chief executive, Kensington Regeneration

- "Landlords would be seen as policing government policy rather than being there to give you a decent home to live in. It could be very counterproductive if it goes ahead, so it needs to be on a voluntary basis" - Rebecca Pritchard, head of neighbourhoods, National Housing Federation

- "We've already got a conditional job seekers' allowance, where if you don't look for work you lose benefits. So what's going to be gained by people losing their homes? This is the wrong way of getting people into work" - Tom Crawshaw, policy officer, Shelter

- "It doesn't quite stack up for me. People's responsibility to look for work should be determined by the benefits system, not whether or not they need housing" - Chris Melvin, managing director, Reed in Partnership.