Social Housing Policy

complaisant caparison indemnityIn their term Welf ar Safety Net or Tenure of election? The Dilemma Facing Social house Policy In England, Fitzpatrick and Pawson (2007) explain and reflect upon the changing environment of amicable caparison in England. This prove provide provide a summary of the article before analysing the position of sociable accommodate in Scotland comp bed to that depict in England. Key similarities and differences amidst the two countries with imagine to loving housing will be provided with evidence from the current literature. Finally, the conclusion will attempt to assess if the positions of social housing are existently that different in Scotland and England.The key questions asked by Fitzpatrick and Pawson (2007) are who and what is social housing for? Through an analysis of the onetime(prenominal) 30 years and a description of the current social housing policy in England, the article explores the question of attack. The underlying parad ox of future policy and thitherfore bother to social housing in England is explained as the continuing commitment to the safety net role emphasised in the 2000 accommodate immature Paper and the explicit ambition to provide a more mixed tenure of excerption frankincense widening the possible market.Fitzpatrick and Pawson refer to the work of Stephens et al to define the key element of social housing as a question of access determined on the basis of administrative criteria rather than reasonable pricing rationing. They then go on to describe the changing environment of social housing in England, housing associations increasing share of stock, the falling number of rented properties in general and the change of age structure within the sector as important factors.The history of the call for-based allocation systems using the development of objective evince scoring prioritisation is explained as the progressive orthodoxy of the 20th Century which still remains prevalent in to days edict and guidance. A concise case against needs-based allocation is then provided with the key points including residualisation and the coercive nature of such a system leading to points chasing behavior. This background provides an excellent backdrop for the changes that occurred in the late 1990s when the standard sire it or leave it social housing allocations model became increasingly difficult to defend in slatternly of rising aspirations and expectations of consumer choice (Mullins Pawson, 2005, p138).Choice-Based Letting (CBL) Schemes are provided as current government response to develop and diffuse up the sector by placing more emphasis on the customers choice, and as a means of cost change magnitude for otherwise unsuitable or unwilling participants in social housing. Initial findings show that defenceless groups are not cosmos excluded by the new system although there are certainly questions around the suitability and impact of a more choice led approachs ef fects on the poorest. In considering the position of Social Housing in Scotland, the social housing sector in Britain has historically been centralised and therefore genuine variation in policy and practice has been limited. However, devolution and the enactment of legislation to set up the Scotch Parliament have led to the opportunity for divergence within both (Walker et al, 2003, p177). Let us at a time consider some of the similarities and differences within the Scotch and English social housing sector as described by Fitzpatrick and Pawson. It is important to mention here that it is impossible to detail all of the similarities and differences and therefore only the more or less clear and important have been chosen for this discussion. There has been a global move towards private housing provision in government policy and therefore it is unsurprising that there are clear similarities between the English context described by Fitzpatrick and Pawson and the Scottish context. An important similarity is that housing has risen on the agenda and has been revived in both England and Scotland (Stirling metalworker, 2003), this may be due to its importance in addressing and conflict new evolving community needs in todays societies when so much emphasis is placed on dwelling ownership and stability. Another similarity is that both Scotland and England are facing a crossroads (CIH, 2006) as the purposes of their social housing sector differ from those in the 20th Century. The CIH, (2007) describes this crossroads as a choice to every continue providing for the housing needs of the most vulnerable or diversify to meet some of the wider needs of the community with a range of tenure options. This is exactly the same situation described by Fitzpatrick and Pawson which resulted in the CBL schemes in England. Finally, and key to the need for an evaluation of housing policy, is the changing demographic whom it is serving. Fitzpatrick and Pawson articulate that in Eng land more than a quarter of all council inhabits in 2003/2004 were at least 70 years old whilst in Scotland, single pensioners are the most common type of household found in the sector (CIH, 2006). correspond to statistics, this will change in future years, as the next generation is largely a family line owning population who will not need the support of social housing. Both sectors are facing an increase of younger people as the new entrants into social housing and with that come new needs and mobility patterns. Fitzpatrick and Pawson state that commonly older renters will have lived in the sector their whole lives, their low propensity for mobility modify their local neighborhoods and tenure as a whole. This will change in both England and Scotland and the chess opening of a more transient need in social housing as discussed by Fitzpatrick and Pawson (2007) will be applicable. This development has been criticised as a reinforcement of the view of social housing as but for the poorest and most vulnerable groups and as a last resort for housing (Glynn, 2007). Adding to this hollowing out of those participating in the sector in both England and Scotland, is the Right to Buy policy which encourages and supports households who wish to purchase their homes through correct schemes. The Right to Buy means that the economically able are moving away from social renting, resulting in the poorest and most vulnerable making up larger percentages of the social housing sector (Satsangi and Dunmore 2003, p202 and CIH, 2007, p7).With regard to differences in Scotlands social housing sector, Midwinter et al (1991) state that there has been acceptance in Whitehall that Scotlands housing needs are both qualitatively and quantitatively different from Englands (p92). This is perhaps more evident since the devolution of parliament and in the difference in policies that are now emerging. Only one difference has been selected for this discussion due to its significance. Althou gh the tenant basis of both England and Scotland are changing in similar slipway, the starkest difference lies in the allocation process in the social housing sector. In England, as already mentioned, the CBL scheme is being piloted and successes are being reported (Fitzpatrick and Pawson, 2007). However, Scotland is being much more cautious in its approach and is keeping to its rights based traditions (Stirling and metalworker 2003, p156). The Homelessness Task Force explain we are concerned that (CBL schemes) do not operate in ways which deny homeless people the opportunity of participating, or in ways which restrict the stock of housing available for homeless people (CHI, 2002).One of the main purposes of CBL schemes is to introduce choice.The Scottish Government is enhancing applicant choice through Common Housing Registers (CHR) that will ensure people have fair and open access to housing lists and assessment processes whilst working with landlords to encourage choice, respons e to need and the use of stock in lettings (Stirling and Smith 2003, p151). At the same time, the Homelessness Act 2002 removes the duty of authorities in England to have a register at all (Stirling and Smith 2003, p156).Fitzpatrick and Pawson close up that in England whatever the governments ambitions, in high demand areas at least, social renting will remain a safety net tenure catering mainly to those in greatest need. The social housing allocation policy may differ between England and Scotland but the outcomes here are the same in essence, the safety net is still available for those who need it most. They further conclude that social renting performs different functions in different areas of England, with the delivery of choice being more lucky in the North and Midlands and that this is the congenial outcome of these policy endeavors (Fitzpatrick and Pawson, 2007). Scotland is also being encouraged to diversify its social housing policy in order to widen the target population and bring regeneration to areas woefulness from residualisation (Glynn, 2007) and that this will be more appropriate in some areas than in others.Therefore, in conclusion, this essay has move to summarise the Fitzpatrick and Pawson (2007) article regarding social housing policy in England, with some key similarities and differences given with regard to Scotland. Although there are significant differences in the social housing sector in England and Scotland, there are also significant similarities most prominently and importantly is the desire to provide housing to the most vulnerable members of society.References Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH) (2002) Strategic Approaches to Homelessness A Good Practice Briefing. (Coventry, CIH).Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH) (2006) The future for Social Renting in Scotland. (Coventry, CIH).Fitzpatrick, S. Pawson, H. (2007) Welfare Safety Net or Tenure of Choice? The Dilemma Facing Social Housing Policy in England. Housing Studies, 22, (2) pp.163-182).Glynn, S. (2007) Safe as Houses. Scottish Left Review, Issue 42. http//www.scottishleftreview.org/php/upload/slr-140-I42SG.htmMidwinter, A., Keating, M. Mitchell, J. (1991) Politics and Public Policy in Scotland (Basingstoke, Macmillan).Mullens, D. Pawson, H. (2005) The Land That Time Forgot reforming access to social housing in England. Policy Politics, 33, pp135-148).Satsangi, M. Dunmore, K. (2003) The planning System and the Provision of Affordable Housing in Rural Britain A Comparison of the Scottish and English Experience. Housing Studies, 18 (2), pp.201-217).Stephens, M., Burns, N. Mackay, L. (2002) Social Market or Safety Net? British Social Rented Housing in a European Context (Bristol The Policy Press).Stirling, T. Smith, R. (2003) A Matter of Choice? Policy Divergence in Access to Social Housing Post-devolution. Housing Studies, 18 (2), pp.145-158).Walker, R., Mullins, D. Pawson, H. (2003) Devolution and Housing Association in Great Britain Enhancin g Organizational Accountability Housing. Housing Studies, 18 (2), pp.177-199).BibliographyChartered Institute of Housing (CHI) (2007) The Future of the Social Housing Sector in Scotland in Delivering Successful, involved Communities CIH in Scotland Position Paper. (Coventry, CIH).Jellinek, D. (2006) Social Housing In Scotland Tenant Participation and Community Cohesion. (Authority Forum Report, CIVICA).