social housing 'consensus' is proof of its professionalism

It is without doubt that Guardian Housing Network Editor Hannah Fearn is one of the most innovative and passionate people in housing.

Hannah asks the questions that others in housing think but don't ask and offers support to the sector when others fail to. Her questions can sometimes be uncomfortable for the sector though, and that's whether you are a government minister or a housing association, but undeniably they are necessary and a breath of fresh air.

It is for these reasons that I have asked Hannah to be my guest blogger about the social housing 'consensus'.

I’d also highly recommend that you sign up to the Guardian Housing Network here though if you work in the housing sector and care about your profession I’m sure you will have done so already. With no further delay then over to Hannah………

social housing 'consensus' is proof of its professionalism

Pictured: Housing Minister Grant Shapps

Earlier this week, at a seminar organised by the Guardian Housing Network, the discussion turned to professionalism. With no accredited course or series of examinations to mark us out, how do we know that housing professionals are meeting a basic set of standards in their work? How can we be sure they are striving for an agreed common good, rather than simply "pushing paperclips"?

One of the most frustrating soundbites to catch the public attention, largely thanks to the concerted efforts of housing minister Grant Shapps and his slick team of PRs, is the idea that housing professionals are caught in the quagmire of a "lazy consensus".

Lazy? Certainly not. Housing staff have shown an admirable resourcefulness, faced in the past five years with untold changes to the structure of their sector, continual cuts to government support for their work and the need to innovate to stay afloat. The speed and dexterity with which housing associations responded to the introduction of Affordable Rent is illustration enough of the appetite for working hard to make change.

But is there a consensus in housing? I would argue there is. Another frustrating message currently touted by Shapps and others, including Westminster council, argues that housing is not a right but a privilege. We, as a professional group, disagree. Maslow's hierarchy of needs, that great cornerstone of undergraduate study, tells us that shelter comes right up there with food and water as a basic human necessity. Without it we cannot function, let alone flourish.

Those working in housing don't need Maslow's colourful pyramid to tell them this basic fact of life. We know that without a decent home, all other social outcomes are compromised. A chance at an education requires a quiet and safe place to concentrate; children in very over-crowded living conditions are least likely to thrive in school. Good health is predicated on a safe, warm home; living in a damp property increases the risks of respiratory disease, while poorly maintained homes are a major risk to elderly and frail residents.

So if there is one consensus in the housing sector it's this: housing is a human right, and one that professionals will strive to provide for those who cannot, for whatever reason, meet this need for themselves. This is the essence of professionalism in housing.

Speaking at this week's seminar, Abigail Davies, assistant director of policy and practice of the Chartered Institute of Housing, pointed out that if we do not like a phrase such as the "lazy consensus" we should not spend time repeating it. But while it's already in the public sphere, let us turn it to an advantage and celebrate the positive consensus that we share.

Hannah Fearn – Editor of the Guardian Housing Network

This article first appeared in the Guardian Housing Network Editors blog on 10/02/12 here

Many thanks Hannah for agreeing to be my guest blogger.

Statistics and figures - an estimation of an estimation.

Settle yourself down - this will be a bumpy ride/blog. Let's examine the criteria and statistics recently attributed to "troubled families" and where they come from. Estimations of estimations or just figures plucked from the air? I hope you have the patience to wait and ponder occassionally.

So we’re told there are 120,000 "troubled families" in the UK and we assess them as such by their ability to meet a minimum five of seven criteria. This will be simple to understand then right?

But haven't we heard these figures and criteria before?

As politicians scrambled to explain why rioting and looting was rife back in August 2011, didn't some blame 120,000 "problem families?" But wait...that wasn't the first time was it? It’s a recurring number but where does it stem from?

When the coalition published their Child Poverty Strategy in April, they referred to an "estimated 120,000 families in England with multiple problems”.

But wait.... let's not go deep into the 120,000 without exploring the five in seven criteria....
A 2007 Cabinet Office report stated: “Having multiple problems is defined as having five or more problems from a basket of seven indicators including being in a workless household, overcrowding, maternal mental health problems, long-standing limiting illness, low income and ability to afford basic items of food and clothing.”

Now, wait again....doesn't that ring a bell? Meeting five out of the seven criteria anyone? Hmmm....

* No-one in the family is in work.
* The family is living in poor or overcrowded housing.
* No person has any qualifications.
* Mother has mental health problems.
* At least one parent has a long-standing illness or disability.
* The family has a low income.
* The family is unable to afford a number of food or clothing items.

No that’s not the same thing put differently (honest) but the markedly different 2011 version provided by David Cameron in his announcement on how to tackle "troubled families." Convinced?

A disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act by the Department of Education reveals that the 120,00 figure is an approximation of the 140,000 in the UK. The 120,000 is an estimated figure for England rounded up from an estimated 117,00 families. So, it's an estimation based on an estimated number - "good job" as my 5 year old likes to say when pleased with himself for tidying away his Power Rangers. Trouble is he has usually missed the rest of his toys scattered around his room. So what has been missed in providing these statistics?

On one regional radio show I heard the Head of Children Services for that area calculate they had 2% of the 120,000 families and claimed that equated to one, to one and a half, thousand families. Shouldn't that be 2,400 if correct? A career at the Department for Plucked from the Air statistics awaits you ma'am.

Now, wait again...can these figures be right?
The population in England mid 2007 was estimated at 51.1 million. In 2011 it was estimated at 52.2 million. That's an estimated 2.15% increase.

Back to the "facts"...
Apply this increase to the original 120,000 families and there has been a relative decrease in the number of “troubled families” in the UK in the last four years. Had it risen in line with the percentage increase in population, as you’d expect, there would now be an estimated 122,580 "troubled families" no doubt rounded up to an estimated 125,000 "troubled families."

Result! 5,000 fewer "troubled families" than we could have had.

Wow, we're good at sorting out issues in the UK - we just estimate our estimations and it all makes sense, right? Glad I was able to clear all that up for you.