1. Dr Kim McKee km410@st-Andrews.ac.ukkm410@st-Andrews.ac.uk; @kim_mckee C OMMUNITY ANCHORS & CCHA S

2. OUTLINE Localization of Housing Policy in UK context Emergence of ‘Community Anchors’ in policy CCHAs ideal type of anchor organisation? Strengths & challenges of this idea 2

3. UK POLICY CONTEXT ‘Localism’ & the ‘Big Society’ buzzwords featuring high on UK political agendas Strong emphasis on: – Social action & community engagement – Volunteering & philanthropy – Place-based social capital & community-led solutions – Co-operative & mutual traditions & community assets Continuities and discontinuity with New Labour – Anti-state agenda; not same support TS 3

4. P OLICY CONTEXT : S COTLAND More scepticism towards in Scotland: ‘banner under which number right-wing policies are being pursued’ Long legacy of community ownership in both rural & urban settings (of which HAs good example); Community empowerment echoed by Christie Commission (2011); 2015 Community Empowerment Act 2015 Differences in language & emphasis, BUT local communities being mobilized across the UK (housing key) 4

5. R ELEVANCE FOR HOUSING “Social housing is one of the largest capital investments by the state in our poorest communities. [Housing Associations] therefore have a critical role in the delivery of major public services and managing a robust and growing asset base. They […] have immense potential as catalysts and anchors for community enterprise, as a focus for approaches to tackling worklessness and building resilience, and as vital sources of social capital and asset wealth” (Respublica 2011: 2). 5

6. K EY ROLES FOR HA ’ S Established, well-performing social businesses operating at local scale Track record of investing in people & communities through neighbourhood action Lead agents local community development & regeneration Imagined as ‘community-anchors’; idea first coined 2004 Home Office report 6

7. “Strong sustainable community-based organisations can provide a crucial focus and support for community development and change in their neighbourhoods and community. We are calling them ‘community anchor organisations’ because of the solid foundation they give to a wide variety of self-help and capacity building activities in local communities, and because of their roots within their communities” (Home Office 2004: 21) 7

8. K EY C RITERIA Controlled by local residents Committed to involvement of all sections of community Address needs of their area in a multi-purpose holistic way Facilitate development of communities in their geographical area of focus 8

9. V ALORIZATION OF THE LOCAL Thinking on community-based approaches to service provision now transcends housing sector Underpinned by presumed benefits of communities leading the regeneration of low-income communities Not new ideas; BUT seen resurgence in period of constrained public spending Both in UK, as well as Scottish, public policy debates 9

10. V ALORIZATION OF THE LOCAL “[O]ur collective approach is not on the deficits of an area but rather the assets that communities have. To support communities to be sustainable we must identify the assets that exist – economic, physical and social – and use these assets to deliver sustainable, positive change” (SG 2011: 12). “Our evidence demonstrates the need for public services to […] become transparent, community- driven and designed around users’ needs. They should focus on prevention and early intervention [and] […] work more closely with individuals and communities to understand their circumstances, needs and aspirations and enhance self-reliance and community resilience” (Christie Commission 2011: 22). 10

11. CBHA S : IDEAL TYPE ? Idea of community anchors chimed with housing professionals Keen to emphasise associations: – Local asset-base – Place based focus – Positive relations with the community – History partnership working – Add value existing statutory & voluntary services Recurring theme: CCHAs were “more than just landlords” 11

12. CCHA S IDEAL TYPE ? “CCHAs are much more than just landlords: they are an integral part of the communities they serve, delivering a multitude of services with the support of their partners and subsidiaries. The sheer scale and diversity of their activities …. provides the ‘social glue’ that holds communities together” (McKee 2011: 12) 12

13. G EOGRAPHY OF DECISION MAKING Being ‘controlled by local residents’ pivotal to anchor organisations Anchors premised on communities place & local geographies of decision making Emphasis on local control makes CBHAs ideal example of anchor organisations Larger associations lack the resident-led management committees & small-scale of CCHAs 13

14. B ARRIERS Nonetheless, barriers fulfilling potential highlighted: – Funding constraints (not cost free + threats to income) – Lack of institutional support from gvt (nationally & locally) – Tensions with regulator (mergers, payments, housing & regen) Bigger questions around: – Need a new label to dress up what you do? – Blurring of boundaries between voluntary & public sector – Limits to what can be achieved at local scale 14

15. Hand over to Colleen ………. 15