The implications of policy reform for profit motives of social housing actors in England Charles Jarvis Post Graduate Researcher

Introduction Aim and objectives of the research Modernisation of the housing system The rise of for-profit actors Implications on not-for-profit providers Emergence and importance of bond finance

Aim: To identify the changes in institutional and organisational relationships and responses in the affordable housing market in England following the introduction of for-profit actors Objectives Investigate the role played by the private sector within the affordable housing market, with particular reference to for-profit providers in supporting the development of new affordable housing, and the management of existing and new affordable housing stock. Review current financial models and management strategies used by private registered providers in England to assess whether for-profit and not-for-profit providers have different business practices and identify models which are most suitable for developing new affordable housing during a period of protracted economic decline, austerity and retrenchment in public finances; use these results to develop a typology of affordable housing providers

Objectives ….. (continued) Use the interviews and case studies to analyse the entry barriers, both external and internal, to the successful delivery of private registered providers’ business plans and the government’s wider objectives of developing new affordable housing. Through the case studies, consider the extent to which these barriers can be overcome under the current legislative and regulatory structures. Develop policy thinking on affordable housing finance and development through a series of policy propositions for future affordable housing provision for central government and its agencies, using a workshop.

Modernisation of the housing system

Three sequential waves of financialization in social housing 1.Demunicipalisation 2.Contracting of services 3.Opening the market to for-profit providers

The rise of for-profit PRPs 29 registered for-profits 3 types of for-profit providers: Legitimizers Opportunists Aristocracy Issues with scale

Implications for not-for-profit PRPs Commercialization Shift from counter cyclical to cyclical business cycle Un-registered parents Business diversification

Traditional washing line, group structure of not-for- profit PRPs Group Parent HA one Another HA Local HTPlace HA Stock Transfer More HAs A new Group member DeveloperHA two

Example 1: of new PRP business models GROUP BOARD Unregulated Board Regulated Board Direct Works (contracts) Development Treasury Place Making Social Housing CBL Estate Mgt Direct works (contractor) Consultant Services Training Provider Health Centres PRS Lettings Asset Mgt Loans Bonds Private Placements Affordable Housing Shared Ownership Out Right Sales PRS

Example 2: New PRP business model Social Housing Landlord Facilities Management Developer Charity NON REGISTERED PARENT COMPANY Group Services Customers £ Profits recycled £ Profits

The rise of bonds in social housing

Questions Charles Jarvis Centre for Urban Policy Studies (CUPS)

References Gibb, K., Nygaard, C., Transfers, contracts and regulation: A new institutional economics perspective on the changing provision of social housing in Britain. Hous. Stud. 21, 825–850. Gibb, K., O’Sullivan, A., Housing-led Regeneration and the Local Impacts of the Credit Crunch. Local Econ. 25, 15. HCA, 2012a. Statistical Release: Statistical Data Return Homes and Communities Agency. HCA, 2012b. Sector Risk Profile. Homes and Communities Agency. HCA, 2012c. The regulatory framework for social housing in England from April Homes and Communities Agency. HCA, GLOBAL ACCOUNTS OF HOUSING PROVIDERS. Malpass, P., Victory, C., The Modernisation of Social Housing in England. Int. J. Hous. Policy 10, 15. Moody’s, Moody’s downgrades 29 English housing associations; outlook stable [WWW Document]. Moodys.com. URL (accessed ). Mullins, D., Czischke, D., van Bortel, G., Exploring the Meaning of Hybridity and Social Enterprise in Housing Organisations. Hous. Stud. 27, 405–417. Standard and Poor, U.K. Social Housing Sector: Credit Ratings Stable Despite Fundamental Changes In Funding Regime. Standard and Poor. Stephens, M., Whitehead, C., Munro, M., Lessons from the past, challenges for the future for housing policy. Communities and Local Government.