Compounded Disadvantage in Social Housing: The Impact of Anti-social Behaviour Policy

Simon Hoffman, Peter Mackie, John Pritchard

The Research• Integrate empirical investigation of housing cases involving ASB with issues of

housing governance (policy) and housing rights (law).

• To contrast aspects of ASB cases dealt with through enforcement with those dealt with by supportive intervention.

• To consider which best meets with policy objectives in Wales. • To provide evidence for Welsh Government to take action.

• Part I – inter-relatedness of ASB policy to social housing.– Aspects of social housing and social disadvantage

• Part II – data obtained from case file records (Shelter Cymru).– data from an evaluation of an intervention project in Wales (Shelter Cymru), as well as

published evaluation results from similar projects elsewhere.

• Data from different sources• Different methodological approaches and research objectives• Limited claims – relevant thematic areas

Aspects of ASB policy: UK• ‘Lazy logic’ - Lack of recognition of social cause.

• Links to crime and criminality.

• Policy discourse - derogatory narrative.

• Negative assumptions about social housing.

• Welfare issues set-aside - focus on enforcement, coercion and punitive responses.

• Highly legislative approach: new tools and powers.

• Intervention often directed at control of tenants - housing rights weakened.

• Conditionality is a feature of access/occupation.

• Issues of social control and social welfare are confused.

A New Approach to ASB?• Re-introduction of welfare concerns.

• Informed by the work of practitioner led projects - intervention projects target ‘very disadvantaged families’.

• Respect Action Plan, 2006: setting out a ‘New Approach‘ focusing on families and young people.

• ‘Twin track’ strategy - anti-social tenants discussed in derogatory terms.

• Emphasis on public protection and community safety and enforcement

• ‘Protection of communities must come first’.

• Authorities should make use of available criminal and civil sanctions.

• Recent Home Office press release - ‘crackdown on out-of-control families’

Policy Divergence: Wales

• Pressure for convergence from the Home Office.

• Community safety agenda underpinned by notion of social justice and inclusion.

• Approach to ASB which breaks with the direction of crime and disorder reduction in England.

• Welsh Government committed to inclusivity to support marginalised populations to re-engage with the wider community.

• In housing - Welsh Government has encouraged social landlords to

use less coercive remedies.

Policy Divergence: WalesRespect Standard:

• (England) refers to support but also need to protect communities through swift enforcement.

• Welsh Government Standard repeats English standard but includes requirement to encourage community tolerance of activities which might be ‘misconstrued as anti-social behaviour’.

• Wales standard, social landlords who will need to ensure that: – staff awareness of available support provision. – staff have understanding of how support links to other measures. – policies are clear on how support will be accessed and when it will be

provided. – focus is on delivering support by linking this to enforcement at an early

stage before problems escalate.

• Wales Standard includes commitment to social justice.

ASB Policy: Disadvantaging the Social Tenant

Occupation:• Contractual governance: occupation of social housing is made conditional on behaviour.• ‘keeping their home is dependent on their behaviour not ruining whole communities’.• Statutory grounds for possession enlarged.• Probationary tenancies – only available to social landlords. • ‘Demotion order’ - reducing security of tenure for existing social tenants.• Tenure-based devices are coercive and disciplinary modes of social control.

Access, Local authorities:• Statute requires ‘reasonable preference’ for certain groups of people.• Applicant may be ineligible where there has been unacceptable behaviour - including ASB. • Homelessness – statutory responsibility - ASB leading to eviction may lead to exclusion.

Housing Association:• Housing associations - guidance emphasises importance of dealing with ASB.

Context• Community safety partnership agenda - exclusion policies as part of a strategic approach to

tackling ASB. • Applicants and tenants are subject to conditionality as an aspect of housing management.

Pre-exisiting DisadvantageTenure disadvantage:• Residualization - ‘spatial concentration of vulnerability’, disadvantage and social exclusion.• Social housing estates have become ‘poorer places’ - problems or poverty and joblessness. • Strong links between worklessness, poverty and social housing.

Income disadvantage• [1] lower income levels; [2] higher levels of worklessness; and [3] higher levels of economic

inactivity. • Percentage of tenants living in poverty is greater for those in social housing than other tenures. • 2006/07 nearly 50% of tenants in social housing had incomes below 60% of the median income. • Wales, 88.3% of working local authority households (84.9% HA) earn less than the median

household income.

Access disadvantage:• Housing as a welfare service - local authorities and housing associations – available to

vulnerable groups. • Significant social housing shortfall. • Market allocation is competitive. • Income poor or those reliant on state provision (income) unable to compete.

Health disadvantage:• Impact of poor housing on health is well-established.• In UK tenure has been found to have an impact on longevity and health – including anxiety and

depression. • Studies have revealed the link between housing condition, tenure and health, and poor quality

social housing and ill-health.

ASB Enforcement: Compounding Disadvantage

• 2007-08: social landlord 4,442 actions which resulted in outright or postponed possession orders.

• 141 for ASB • All cases: outright possession orders made in 39% of all cases.• ASB cases: outright possession orders in 63% of cases.• 964 evictions – statistical data does not link order to eviction.

• Actions resulting in loss of security: 2007-8 there were 34 demotion orders made against social tenants in Wales.

• Intrusive actions to remedy ASB: 2007-08 there were 13 Anti-social Behaviour Orders (whole population) obtained by social landlords against tenants.

• Intrusive actions to remedy ASB: 2007-08 there were 107 Anti-social Behaviour Injunctions (social housing only).

ASB policy:• Tenants facing ASB possession action at greater risk of eviction (cf other grounds).• ASB actions resulted in loss of security affecting only social tenants.• Social tenants facing tenure specific intrusive action.

Research Data.

Available evidence

• Review of Shelter Cymru cases - January 2008 and March 2009 (14 months). • 66 households in social housing alleged perpetrators of ASB and threatened with legal action and

homelessness. • In all cases only limited efforts were made to address underlying cause. • None of the households offered intensive support. • Desk top review:

– Shelter inclusion projects (x2)– DCSF sponsored review of 53 FIPs

Analysis• Analysis of comparable data. • Thematic approach.

Household Profile

Case File Review

• Single Parent (F) 35%

• Single Women 24%

• Couple + children 14%

• Couples 35%

• Adult household 3%

• Shelter Projects (no restriction)– Lone parents 45%– Lone adults/adults sharing

30% – Couples with children 25%

• Review of 53 FIPs (families)– Single parent (F)

households 70%– Couples with children 30%

Tenure

Case File Review

• Local Authority Secure 38%

• RSL assured 30%

Precarious• Assured shorthold 17%

• Introductory 11%

• Temporary 5%

• Shelter Projects– 85% in local authority

accommodation – 15% in housing association

housing.

Precarious– No information

• Review of FIPs– 70% in secure or assured (inc.

private sector)

Precarious– 7% in introductory or starter

tenancies– 2% in some form of demoted

tenancy.

EmploymentCase File Review

• Employed full time 5%

• Employed part time 6%

Ec. Inactive• Unemployed 67%

• Sick/ill 12%

• Carer 8%

• Trainee 2%

• Pensioner 2%

Shelter Projects

Ec. Inactive• Unemployed 95%

FIP Reviews

• In work 12%

Ec. Inactive• Workless 62%

Health

Case File Review

• Mental ill-health 20%

• Physical ill-health 18%

• Mental and physical ill-health 69%

• None reported 53%

Shelter Projects• No Data

FIP Reviews

• Problems with comparing data (complexity and multiple response)

• 63% of households reported physical and mental health problems

Type of ASBCategories – From FIP• Disregard for community/personal well

being, includes:– Noise. – Animal related nuisance.

• Environmental Damage• Misuse of Public Space

– Drug misuse• Acts Directed at People

Case File ReviewDisregard for community/personal well being• Noise nuisance 32%• Problems caused primarily by dogs 6%• Total 38%

Acts Directed at People• Alleged criminal assault 2%

Misuse of Public Space• Drug offences/problem 23%

Shelter Projects• Most common -disregard for

community/personal well-being• Second most common - acts directed at

people

FIP Reviews • Disregard for community/personal well-

being - 87%• Environment damage 59%• Misuse of public space 59%• Acts directed at people 42%

• Multiple categorization 60%

OutcomesCase File Review

• Proceedings withdrawn 12%

• Change to security status 23% (-ve)– Suspended/postponed possession

order 18%– Assured shorthold/introductory

extended 5%– Demoted tenancy 6%

• Household left home 20%– Moved due to lack of options 14%– Possession Order 6%

• Other 39%– No further client contact 18%– Ongoing 15%– Landlord not acting on notice 3%– Not known 3%

Shelter Projects• 20% of cases a possession notice had been issued

• Cessation of ASB in 60-70% of cases

• Reduction in ASB in approximately 10%

• 84% of households in secure accommodation on leaving the project

• 7% were at risk of homelessness

FIP Reviews• 27% facing some form of possession action

• 35% of households still engaged in ASB after intervention ended

• 60% of households facing one or more enforcement action

• Reduced to 20% of households.