Scottish Government

chr guide: building a common housing register
a practitioner's guide

foreword & Executive Summary

FOREWORD

I firmly believe that the development of common housing registers across Scotland will make a real difference to people who need housing.

Creating a combined application form for all landlords in an area removes some of the obstacles which can make the process of applying for housing difficult. Working in partnership to deliver a CHR also offers real strategic and operational benefits to local authorities and registered social landlords.

I have been impressed by the growth of interest in CHRs around the country during the last three years. To me, this is evidence of genuine commitment to the principles of simplifying and maximising access to housing amongst housing staff and committees.

Over the next two years (2004-6) the Scottish Executive will be providing an extensive programme of support to develop CHRs through our 3 million funding package.

The Scottish Executive's CHR team is also central to this initiative. Hilary Third (National Co-ordinator) and Yvonne Wemyss (National Development Officer) will be out and about providing ongoing advice, support and guidance to local CHR working groups throughout the next two years.

I have very great pleasure in commending this guide to you. Building a Common Housing Register charts a course through the tricky and often lengthy process of developing a CHR. Written for practitioners, it provides advice on the wide range of tasks you will need to undertake as you develop your CHR. I very much hope that you will find it helpful.

All that remains is for me to offer you my support for your hard work over the next two years.

Mary Mulligan MSP
Deputy Minister for Communities

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank all the organisations and individuals who took time to contribute to or comment on the guide. In particular:

Susan Mooney, City of Edinburgh Council (MGF pilot)
Emma Taggert, Homechoice (Aberdeen) Ltd. (MGF pilot)
Gavin Smith, Fife Council (MGF pilot)
Graeme Russell, Canmore Housing Association
Eleanor Clark and Michelle Campbell, HomePoint, Communities Scotland
Michael Cameron, Regulation and Inspection, Communities Scotland
Keith Skeaping and Colin Gillespie, Communities Scotland
Scottish Housing Best Value Network
Dominic Conway, Homes For You, Bolton
Jenny Tate

We are grateful to Laure Paterson for editorial assistance and to Astron for design work.

Last but not least, we also wish to thank the other MGF pilot CHRs in Scotland (Renfrewshire, Scottish Borders and Stirling), and many operational CHRs in England whose experiences form the basis of this guide.

March 2004

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 INTRODUCTION

'Building a Common Housing Register' leads CHR working groups through the process of developing a CHR. It broadly follows the six stages of the Scottish Executive's CHR 'pyramid for progress' set out in the National Framework for CHRs, but offers more detailed advice on the activities to be undertaken throughout the development process. It is a practical guide which draws on the experiences of the MGF-funded pilot CHRs and shares the lessons learnt.

Developing a CHR can be a challenging and lengthy process. The aim of the guide is to reduce the length of time it takes to move from inception to implementation, while also reducing frustration along the way.

CHR PRAMID FOR PROGRESS

2 BACKGROUND

The aim of a CHR is to provide simpler and fairer access to housing by creating a single application form on which anyone in an area can register their need and apply for housing to a group of landlords. Landlords then select applicants from a single pool, improving use of housing stock and more effectively meeting local need. Benefits to landlords include improved use of housing stock, tools for strategic planning and better operational efficiency.

The Scottish Executive has allocated 3 million over the period 2004-6 to local authorities working in partnership with Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) to set up CHRs. The Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 sets out powers which require local authorities to submit proposals for establishing a CHR, with implied duties on RSLs. In the future it is hoped CHRs will contribute to a better service for applicants and tenants in Scotland.

3 ESTABLISHING WORKING GROUPS

Establishing a CHR involves setting up a working group (or groups) composed of representatives of the local authority and registered social landlords with stock in the area. The working group structure will be agreed among them. It will be important to match member skills to tasks so the right people sit on the right groups, including staff of appropriate seniority who can make decisions on behalf of their organisations, to ensure that progress is not delayed. Clear decision-making structures and lines of communication are essential. No member of the group should be given authority to make unilateral decisions on behalf of the group.

4 BUILDING AN EFFECTIVE PARTNERSHIP

Successful CHRs, like many joint endeavours, are built on effective partnerships. Partnerships are underpinned by trust, willingness to change and ability to compromise. Within the partnership, progress will be smoother where dedicated staff drive the initiative and where lead officers possess appropriate knowledge and skills for the job. Confidence and ability to motivate staff to change, as well as commitment to identifying shared solutions, are useful qualifications. A link to online partnership toolkits is offered.

5 FIRST KEY TASKS FOR THE CHR PARTNERSHIP

First tasks for the partnership group will be to look at the wider context to identify issues affecting CHR development, agree common vision, goals and benefits, and to draw up a development plan. The development plan is essential in establishing aims and objectives, allowing partners to reconsider the appropriateness of their goals at each stage and make changes as required. In drawing up a development plan partners should ask what tasks need to be carried out, why, who should perform the tasks, and when. Achievable targets form an important part of good planning and ability to keep to agreed implementation times.

6 CORE FUNCTIONS OF A CHR

Three essential components will be common to all CHRs: a single access route for applicants, a single database of all applicants seeking housing, and a shared housing information and advice resource. However, there are eight core functions which make up the basis of any CHR, and for each of these functions there are different methods of delivery.

• advice on housing options will be delivered through all or some of the partners, or by some partners through a referrals process. A one-stop housing advice shop may be established as a shared resource for information and advice
• the application form will collect data required by CHR partners. The form can be combined with a home visit to collect additional information. Data collection must include questions to identify potential risk of homelessness
• home visits on the point of registration can be used collect a second tier of information to make up a complete application, or later in the process to verify application information. If the application form is comprehensive, no home visits may be needed if information can be verified in other ways
• administration will be either central or shared. If central, partners might second staff to the administration unit, or share the cost of employing staff centrally. If administration is shared, organisations will need technology capable of remote data input. One (sizeable) partner may wish to be responsible for all administration on behalf of the group
• allocations will be made either by each partner using their own policy, or by partners agreeing a common policy. Partners may take 100 per cent nominations, or referrals according to another partner's policy
• health assessment will be done according to each partner's procedures or as part of a shared assessment process. Information can be collected either by means of the CHR application form, a secondary questionnaire, or home visit, and can be shared with partners in a variety of ways
• post-application enquiries must enable applicants to find out easily about the progress of their applications. Partners may decide to handle all enquiries from any applicant themselves or refer applicants back to their original point of contact. It is also possible to direct all enquiries to a single point of contact, such as a central processing unit if there is one
• ICT requirements will be determined by the complexity of the CHR model chosen. Full electronic access to the CHR database will be more costly than partial access, and a manual link with the database is least costly. Choice of how to match and shortlist applicants will also affect ICT needs

A number of other features also need to be incorporated within the CHR and these are dealt with later.

7 FOUR SAMPLE MODELS

While discussing the different arrangements of core functions within their proposed model, partners are asked to look at four sample CHR models given as hypothetical examples to demonstrate the main similarities and differences. These models vary in complexity. Simple models are recommended where possible because they require fewer partner resources whilst still effectively delivering quality service.

Model 1 is complex and is capable of producing shortlists of applicants for any vacancy according to any partner's allocation policy. All partners are directly linked electronically to the database. All applicants are visited at point of registration by a central home visiting team and application, home visit and change of circumstances information are processed on a common data processing unit. An agreed level of housing information and advice is provided by all partners.

Model 2 is also complex and allows participating landlords to take a role in inputting and updating applicant information. Partners may share an administrative role and act as gatekeepers for individual applicants. This model requires remote access to the central database. An agreed level of housing information and advice is provided by all partners, and there is also a one-stop shop for housing advice.

Models 3 and 4 are simple and deliver all the CHR benefits at less resource cost. Model 3 involves shortlisting of applicants according to a single allocations policy agreed amongst the partners, and re-ordering of shortlists by each partner according to their own policies. Some partners make a home visit to determine final selection. Model 4 is similar, although the initial selection of applicants is according to the local authority's allocations policy, rather than a shared policy. ICT needs for models 3 and 4 are low because the software does not need to point according to different policies, and because partners do not have electronic access to the system.

The four models are broadly compared for complexity, levels of shared information, and cost of resourcing including ICT requirements. The more information is shared at a central point, the more costly the system will be. Simpler models which leave more responsibility with individual landlords reduce the burden of agreeing common definitions and tasks, and this may prove more practical for many participants.

The other features in chapter 9 will be included in all models and are not affected by the choice or complexity of model selected.

8 BUILDING YOUR CHR MODEL

An exercise is presented here to assist partners to discuss and agree the best CHR model type for them. The exercise asks partners to use a pack of 'CHR building blocks' to begin to sketch out a CHR model for their area. Participants will be asked to make choices between what they consider to be essential, desirable and debatable building blocks, discussing how and why one model might suit their needs better than another. All models will share core functions and other features, but the choices of how to combine them will be so varied it is possible that no two models will be exactly alike.

9 OTHER FEATURES OF A CHR

Levels of partnership will vary according to model agreed, and where administration is shared, a full partner generally takes a role in administrative processes, including the running of one or more allocations policies.

Once core functions are agreed, partners need to decide how the other features will be delivered. The combination of core functions and other features will provide a wide number of choices in structuring the CHR. In deciding how they will deliver a range of 'other features' through the CHR, partners must:

• agree how they will manage the register
• choose their level of partnership and how active they wish to be in some or all functions
• decide how they will match applicants with vacant properties
• choose how they will deal with nominations
• agree a method of verification of applicant information
• decide how to make offers.

10 THE ROLE OF HOUSING INFORMATION AND ADVICE

Provision of information and advice is an essential component of a CHR and ensures that the applicant is able to make informed choices on needs, preferences and aspirations on the common form. Partners must therefore equip staff to provide a high level of information and advice, or to refer applicants to appropriate advice from other providers. Partners must be clear about how they propose to manage the change from providing local advice about their own service to providing the same level of advice about any service within the CHR. Staff training may be required to give all partners the skills necessary to provide an equivalent level of housing advice to any applicant who approaches any partner.

11 INTEGRATING YOUR CHR WITH OTHER STRATEGIES

Establishment of a CHR will require careful integration with a range of other strategic and operational initiatives partner landlords are involved in. This is particularly important when deciding on levels of shared ICT. For example homelessness strategies will have an impact on the construction of the application form, and support and adaptation needs must be identified in order to join up the CHR with the Supporting People programme. Special needs of minority ethnic groups must be considered in applications and advice processes.

12 REVIEWING YOUR CHOSEN MODEL

In comparing existing policy and practice with proposed new services, feasibility studies may be necessary to look at similarities among partners' policies and procedures, compare allocations policies, cost the existing allocations service, and check comparative costs of CHR delivery.

Changes to the chosen model will almost certainly be necessary as development progresses. Partners must become aware of each others' organisational structures and decision-making processes and their impact on completing each stage in the time agreed. They must ensure all procedures conform to legislative requirements. Compromise and awareness of the wider picture will assist in streamlining the review process. Any feasibility work must be completed before final agreement stage so partners can agree best options for delivery.

13 THE APPLICATION FORM

A list of questions for collecting applicant data based on the EdIndex application form is provided as Appendix 2. This is because 25 partners - many of which are regional and national RSLs and some of whom offer specialist housing - worked together to develop this form, and all are able to point applications based on this form under their own allocations policy. It therefore seems likely that most other Scottish landlords could work with this form without having to collect additional information, or the same information in a different way. Using this as a basis for the application form in developing CHRs across the country will reduce development time amongst partners, while at the same time increasing operational consistency. A step-by-step guide to developing a common application form is included.

14 INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY (ICT)

ICT does not decide function; it merely delivers it. Before identifying the system's ICT needs it is vital for partners to decide what they want the CHR system to do. Partners should firstly set objectives, secondly scope the model, thirdly define policy and practice, and finally, consider their ICT requirements, accepting that decisions may depend upon financial restrictions. Considering ICT too early in the process can lead to wasted time and money, so detailed consideration of ICT needs, along with appointment of ICT consultants, should not be done too early in the development process.

Most CHRs are likely to require some computerisation. This will have an impact on how the points or prioritisation system is administered and how allocations are made. It is simpler to design ICT that holds details of every applicant and has a single pointing system than to design a register to cater for all partners' policies, with direct electronic access. All partners must have a key role in drawing up the specification according to shared business objectives, and they can then decide to add onto existing systems, create a new system, or purchase a system off the shelf.

Deciding on ICT system specification will mean agreeing who has access to the system, eligibility and assessment criteria, landlord and property details, requirements for making offers, customer information, waiting list review, creation of letters, management information, data confidentiality and audit parameters. Matching and offers will require additional ICT features. Specifications should also include requirements for data back-up facilities, audit trails and complaints logging.

It is highly recommended that ownership of the system be managed by one lead partner with clear aims. Likewise, partners must be committed to the same views on staffing, system needs and financial resources before committing to specification of an ICT system.

15 COSTS

Overall cost is determined by choice of CHR model. Budgets for projected costs will need to be drawn up annually and agreed by all partners. These will include development costs (staff, research, ICT, publicity, hardware, security, and central office administration if chosen), and revenue costs (rents, overheads, contracts, and reviews). The service provider will need to include VAT on costs. In some shared contracts VAT will not apply. It is advisable to check your position carefully.

Costs can be shared according to total stock, number of tenancies held by each landlord, or how much each landlords uses the CHR over a set period, or a combination of these factors. These costs, shared in cash or in kind, should be covered in the legal agreement. It is important when making costing decisions to distinguish between new and transferred costs, as some new systems will require an outlay which may bring savings in others. For example, resources may be shifted from the home organisation to a central environment, incurring a financial contribution but saving labour and staff time. When partners have agreed how costs will be distributed they must decide how to collect payments and what sanctions will be applied against default. Simpler models generally accrue lower costs.

16 LEGAL AGREEMENTS

There are vital reasons for underpinning any CHR with a legal agreement which ensures all partners understand their obligations and responsibilities. All partners should sign the agreement before implementation. Content of a legal agreement depends upon the type of model chosen, but all functions of the CHR must be covered.

Core components of a legal agreement are:

• who the parties to the agreement are
• how long the agreement will stand
• rules under which parties can resign after the initial period
• obligations parties are held to
• liability for all parts of the CHR
• review and audit
• rules governing disputes
• administration and its contractual obligations
• financial matters like costs, payments and budgets
• security and data protection.

To accommodate the need for amendment of agreements or procedures from time to time, schedules can be attached to the legal agreement. Schedules may cover things like performance targets, ICT delivery and security, application forms, the housing advice service statement, and procedural guidelines holding partners to consistent quality in service delivery. Further schedules may include customer care (particularly for centrally administered projects), the health assessment process, the budget document, delivery of reports, the constitution covering how the CHR will be managed, and standing orders. A schedule can be changed far more easily than a legal agreement.

17 GOING LIVE

When preparing to go live with the CHR, partners must be certain they are ready for the transition. They should have signed off all agreed policies, implemented ICT solutions, tested procedures, signed the legal agreements, approved their branding and printed up all necessary forms. They must send out publicity alerting applicants and stakeholders to the changes. They must also prepare staff through training. Partners should bear in mind it is important to avoid raising public expectations too high in initial publicity, though it is important to reassure applicants that coming changes will be beneficial.

Transition can take the form of an initial pilot project in one area, a phased transition by different landlords over weeks or months, or a 'big bang' approach where the CHR goes live on a set date with all landlords.

In the transition from multiple lists to a single housing list, partner landlords must ensure no applicant falls between systems. Partners may wish to ask existing applicants to complete a partial new application form to make up the information required on the new register. Perhaps more efficient, partners may instead ask applicants to complete a new form entirely in order to register on the CHR and to ensure that all the information held is up-to-date. This ensures complete data is held on the new CHR system. Though this option requires new forms for all applicants and partners, it creates a single list of all applicants with duplications removed. This exercise could be carried out by one partner, shared by several, or sub-contracted to another organisation altogether. This task, along with the subsequent data entry, must be sufficiently well-resourced to avoid bottlenecks at the launch of the programme.

18 POST-IMPLEMENTATION: MONITORING AND EVALUATION

After implementation, the new culture and way of working must be recognised throughout partner management structures. Resourcing commitments must be firm and monitoring and review cycles agreed in order to determine where improvement is necessary. Sharing lessons with other CHR areas will make the whole process easier for everybody. Wider housing strategies will inevitably be informed by the improved service delivery and forward planning will encourage development opportunities. Above all, applicants will have a more streamlined route to a wider range of landlords, housing areas and house types.