Hybridity and Diversity in the Australian Non-Profit Housing Sector Dr Tony Gilmour Elton Consulting ENHR Toulouse - 7 July 2011 Brisbane Housing Company (Brisbane)

Presentation Overview Background - Australian social housing and policy shifts Research findings - developing a new typology Analysis - Australia’s place within international developments City West Housing (Sydney)

Background Melbourne – Australia’s second city

An urbanised, developed, medium sized (22 million) country influenced by housing innovations in EU and US Similar level of owner occupation of homes (c.70%) to UK and US. However, small social housing sector (c.5%) like the US Federal political system with split of housing policy/regulation between National and State levels - often a contested relationship 85% of social housing remains run by public sector State Housing Authorities - vast, largely un-reformed organisations Small but growing non-profit (housing association) sector:  c.1,000 organisations manage around 50,000 homes  most organisations very small and localised with largest provider running 3,000 homes  largest 45 organisations growing rapidly, mainly through new building and occasional stock transfer Australian Context

Need to address significant housing affordability issues, for both low and moderate income households Social democratic national government elected in 2007 pursuing a ‘hybrid’ mix of both US and EU style policies:  National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS), based loosely on US tax credits, aims to provide 50,000 rental homes for low/moderate income households at <80% market rents (€3 bn)  Nation Building Stimulus, EU style government investment in 19,300 new social housing for lower income rental housing with most transferred to non-profit providers (€3.8 bn)  Professionalisation & commercialisation, expanding policy since 1990s of strengthening management of non-profits, and encouraging raising private bank finance - as much of EU Above policies led to significant growth of hybrid organisations Housing Policy Initiatives

Research Findings CHC Affordable Housing (Canberra)

Desk based/interview research by Tony Gilmour & Vivienne Milligan First application of hybridity concepts in Australia Use of a typological approach (similar to Gilmour, 2009) Assessment of types based on five categories - ownership, governance, priorities, people and other resources (Billis, 2010) Method

Research proposes 5 organisational non-profit hybrid types: * Enacted hybrids Typology 1Entrepreneurial traditional Older housing associations turned more commercial in outlook Older hybrid + used NRAS 2Entrepreneurial welfare * Hybrid aged care and homelessness providers moving into affordable housing NRAS 3State sponsored vehicles * Established by State/City Governments in Sydney, Canberra and Brisbane Older hybrid + used NRAS 4Private sponsored vehicles * Established as vehicles to retain non-profit tax treatment. Some commercial, some altruistic NRAS 5Non-profit sponsored * Finance and development vehicles set up by older housing and trade associations NRAS

Given the small number of Australian housing organisations that exhibit hybridity, they are remarkably varied The diversity is part explained by a policy setting borrowing from EU and US roots. Adoption of tax credits has led to a flowering of intermediate hybrid organisations - just as in the US Diversity is also due to the sector expanding at a time when there was weak regulation of housing providers. This is changing The 5 types share accountability challenges. Membership structures often closed, and tenants or local communities play little direct role The clearest differentiation between the 5 types is between non- profits who have become hybrid, and ‘enacted hybrids’ Findings

Analysis Adelaide

Main drive to growth of Australian hybrid housing providers has been public policy (especially fiscal imperatives) rather than push by providers themselves However, the handful of housing providers that have become hybrid have become vocal advocates in support of policy innovation Large influx of senior housing staff from Britain has led to support for British-style policies. Many believe (incorrectly) that Australia can raise vast sums of private finance Some CEOs use the language of social enterprise. One CEO is studying for a Masters’ degree in social entrepreneurship Some evidence of contestation of the move to hybridity by more traditional housing providers and welfare groups (for example during debates over move to national housing regulation) Housing Providers in Hybridity Debate

All identified hybrid types in Australia can be said to operate within the space between these three poles (Brandsen et al, 2005) However, their positioning differs. Longstanding housing providers generally retain close links to civil society, whereas many of the ‘enacted hybrids’ have more of a market focus Links to civil society appear weaker in Australia than the US, with little use of volunteers. There are also no known examples of establishing ‘social enterprises’ as seen in both US and EU Issues have emerged about the use of tax free vehicles for organisations engaging in commercial like activities (Blessing, 2010). Charity law is struggling to keep up with organisational change and innovation During last 5 years the professionalisation of senior staff and board directors has been significant. Many new staff entrants are not from a housing or social sector background Market, State and Civil Society

In contrast to (say) Britain and Netherlands, there is little comment in Australia about hybrid housing providers losing touch with their communities, despite clear evidence of this happening The 5 organisational types differ in their attention to social mission. Entrepreneurial traditional and welfare organisations retain a clear social drive, the other types are more economic outcomes focused. Tax credit scheme (NRAS) allows organisations to ‘cream’ moderate income tenants. Evidence that some hybrids are moving more to this tenant group, driven by economic imperatives Hybrids that have most heavily focused on property development tend to be more economically driven - pure tenancy managers often remain closely linked to the State. Some evidence of Australia following US approach and being less vertically integrated between housing production and tenancy management Reconciling Confliciting Logics

Billis’s (2010) hybridity model has been a useful lens for conceptualising different organisational types Key finding from Australia has been the importance of Billis’s idea of ‘enacted hybrids’:  state established hybrids are probably the most dynamic, entrepreneurial organisational type (Canberra and Brisbane)  parallel developments to Britain’s Large Scale Voluntary Transfer enacted hybrids Limitations of hybridity approach in Australia are:  only 5% of non-profit housing organisations can be classified as being hybrid. Why do organisations choose not to be hybrid?  complex group structures (such as BlueCHP) have led to a mixed structure where the tenancy management companies remain traditional and a development subsidiary is hybrid How Useful is Hybridity Analysis?

Diversity of hybridity approaches in Australia has led to a complex, heterogeneous sector.  some evidence of convergence - isomorphing - of organisational types, though limited compared to some EU countries (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Mainly due to coercive isomorphism through regulation, though some mimetic isomorphism - and normative isomorphism through resource dependency  the diversity may limit how fast the sector can grow Efforts to introduce private bank debt and institutional equity finance have been modest, and below expectations. High levels of direct public grants are still required Unlike in the US, political consensus has not been obtained for the tax credit scheme (NRAS). Perceived failings of ability of hybrids to produce housing quickly led to a policy reversal earlier in 2011 Policy Implications

Hybridity and Diversity in the Australian Non-Profit Housing Sector Dr Tony Gilmour