Yesterday I was at a Risk Management conference. No, don't stop reading yet, because actually, this was a really interesting day with luminaries like Piers Williamson from THFC and soon-to-be one of our new Regulators, Hannah Fearn from the Guardian housing Network and Andrew Cunningham from private sector landlord - Grainger PLC all giving really interesting insights into their worlds. I'd been asked to talk about what a housing association might look like and do if it set out its stall to be an active social enterprise. Not to be a housing association that supported social enterprises, but to turn itself, in its entirety, into one. My conclusions were that it was possible, some organisations were trying to do it (and Trafford Housing Trust is certainly one of them), but it's a hard road to go down, with many barriers in the way.
What was more interesting, I thought, was a straw poll I took at the start of the session. I was following Hannah Fearn from the Guardian Housing Network, who in her talk had contrasted some of the assumptions we might make about the world of housing and its interface with politicians, with what was actually going on. So I decided to try a bit of assumption testing of my own. I took a bit of a risk and asked everyone to stand up. Fortunately, they did (thank goodness we're such a compliant nation) and I explained what was going to happen. I was going to give everyone four sets of paired statements; if the audience believed statement A to be true in each case, they could sit down, but if they believed statement B they could remain standing.
The first pair of statements were about the real, underlying purpose of housing associations. Do we A) exist to protect the most vulnerable, or B) to promote personal responsibility. There was an uncomfortable moment of uncertainty - no-one wanting to be the first to sit, but eventually, after a momentary pause, about 15% of the room sat, with another 10% looking pretty uncomfortable in a "hovering" position, before gravity - or perhaps historical thinking - pulled them chairwards.
The second pair of statements got a more clear-cut response from the 75% still standing. Were we A) there to build houses, or B) there to build communities. Pretty much everyone thought that community building was our raison d'etre, and so only one or two more people sat down. The third pair were more contentious. As a sector was our job to A) "have and hold" our homes - or was it B) to "churn" them - selling where we could release value to re-invest in new.
I have to say I was surprised that another 20% sat down - as I'm pretty sure that the overwhelming majority of Boards in our sector are like mine; poring over any property sales with the utmost care and adopting an "if you can let it, keep it" approach. Finally, I asked people if they supported our sector providing A) homes for life or B) homes only for when people needed them. This was the one I'd expected most people to sit down over, in fact, hardly anyone else moved and so I was left with about 40% of the audience still standing.
This was of course only a straw poll and was far from representative. But the room contained people from forward-thinking housing associations and the proportion still standing at the end was a real surprise to me - in constructing the exercise I'd actually thought there might only be a handful left standing at the end. If it is the case that around half the sector believes we should churn property, house people only when they need our subsidised product, build communities and have a focus on promoting personal responsibility, an awful lot of business models and business practices within housing associations are going to need to be turned on their head - because sure as eggs are eggs - that's not how we operate now.
Is it what's needed? Will we do it? In the infamous Geordie words of the Big Brother narrator: "You decide..."
 |
| Path A or Path B? You decide... |
What was more interesting, I thought, was a straw poll I took at the start of the session. I was following Hannah Fearn from the Guardian Housing Network, who in her talk had contrasted some of the assumptions we might make about the world of housing and its interface with politicians, with what was actually going on. So I decided to try a bit of assumption testing of my own. I took a bit of a risk and asked everyone to stand up. Fortunately, they did (thank goodness we're such a compliant nation) and I explained what was going to happen. I was going to give everyone four sets of paired statements; if the audience believed statement A to be true in each case, they could sit down, but if they believed statement B they could remain standing.
The first pair of statements were about the real, underlying purpose of housing associations. Do we A) exist to protect the most vulnerable, or B) to promote personal responsibility. There was an uncomfortable moment of uncertainty - no-one wanting to be the first to sit, but eventually, after a momentary pause, about 15% of the room sat, with another 10% looking pretty uncomfortable in a "hovering" position, before gravity - or perhaps historical thinking - pulled them chairwards.
The second pair of statements got a more clear-cut response from the 75% still standing. Were we A) there to build houses, or B) there to build communities. Pretty much everyone thought that community building was our raison d'etre, and so only one or two more people sat down. The third pair were more contentious. As a sector was our job to A) "have and hold" our homes - or was it B) to "churn" them - selling where we could release value to re-invest in new.
I have to say I was surprised that another 20% sat down - as I'm pretty sure that the overwhelming majority of Boards in our sector are like mine; poring over any property sales with the utmost care and adopting an "if you can let it, keep it" approach. Finally, I asked people if they supported our sector providing A) homes for life or B) homes only for when people needed them. This was the one I'd expected most people to sit down over, in fact, hardly anyone else moved and so I was left with about 40% of the audience still standing.
This was of course only a straw poll and was far from representative. But the room contained people from forward-thinking housing associations and the proportion still standing at the end was a real surprise to me - in constructing the exercise I'd actually thought there might only be a handful left standing at the end. If it is the case that around half the sector believes we should churn property, house people only when they need our subsidised product, build communities and have a focus on promoting personal responsibility, an awful lot of business models and business practices within housing associations are going to need to be turned on their head - because sure as eggs are eggs - that's not how we operate now.
Is it what's needed? Will we do it? In the infamous Geordie words of the Big Brother narrator: "You decide..."
No comments:
Post a Comment