Agenda item

The H&F Poverty and Worklessness Commission recently completed its review of poverty and worklessness in Hammersmith and Fulham.  The final report contains a programme of ten recommendations and is presented to the PAC for scrutiny and public debate.

Councillor Vaughan welcomed Tom Conniffe, Principal Policy Strategy Officer and Programme Manager, supporting the work of the Poverty and Worklessness Commission.  He was accompanied by Christina Smyth, Chair of the Commission.  The resident-led Commission had been established in November 2015, and comprised of a total of 15 local representatives drawn from a wide variety of backgrounds which included voluntary, third sector public organisations as well as local individuals.  The Commission had met eight times, with their final meeting taking place on 18^th January 2017, and followed a broad work plan that aimed to formulate recommendations for interventions and/or services redesign, to deliver better outcomes for local people living in, or on the edge of, poverty and/or worklessness.

 

Formal constitution of the Commission was followed by a design phase, analysing data sources.  Bespoke work was commissioned regarding work and social interventions in the Borough, and undertaken by the New Policy Institute, who were also part of the Commission’s lifespan.  The qualitative research included working directly with residents of the Borough and the draft report was signed off at the final meeting of the Commission in January, following consultation with officers and Commission members.  This was the first public debate on the draft report, and will eventually be considered at Cabinet on 27^th March. 

 

Christina Smyth, Chair of the Commission, explained that the executive summary of the report provided an overview, with the detail of the work contained in the body of the report, which still required finessing.  Referring to the Root Causes section (page 15 of the report), the correlation between worklessness and poverty in six root causes included high levels of poor mental health and well-being, and, few affordable housing choices.  This included those individuals accommodated in poor quality housing or employed in low paid work, challenging common assumptions about the profile of individuals experiencing poverty or worklessness.  These were increasingly, groups of people who had been left behind and who found it difficult to engage. 

 

Christina Smyth observed that in the past few decades, little had changed in the Borough.  Historically, the Borough had always had areas of extreme wealth, alongside areas of deprivation, with the relative positions remaining unchanged.  Despite the level of income in the area, the value had decreased.  The Commission was intended to empower residents, with a strong lead from the Council acting as an enabler, to develop something which was sustainable and cohesive.

 

Co-optee Patrick McVeigh welcomed the report and observed that services should have to go to people, rather than the other way around, given the challenges of social housing.  He supported the development of community hubs and greater resident involvement, with volunteering opportunities, training advice and the chance to develop skills and experience. 

 

Co-optee Bryan Naylor also welcomed the concept of local hubs and the report itself, but noted that that the report did not recognise the poverty experienced by older, isolated people.  Referencing the work of Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) and AGE UK volunteer advisors, who were under considerable pressure to provide assistance with form filling, the concept of community hubs would meet a particular need for advice and information provision.   Christina Smyth agreed, confirming that the Commission had identified older people as a priority group and concurred that the top 10% of deprived groups comprised of older people.  More trained advisors were needed, in particular to help with navigating social welfare bureaucracy. 

 

Councillor Sue Fennimore, Cabinet Member for Social Inclusion added that data analysis had indicated that the percentage of older people in poverty was increasing.  This was recognised in the loneliness and isolation strategy, which will be taken forward by Cabinet, with the intention of ensuring full engagement across the Council.

 

Councillor Vaughan suggested that it would be helpful if Members were guided through the 10 recommendations set out in Chapter 6 of the Commission’s report (Agenda page 257):

 

Recommendation 1: Develop community hubs to deliver resident-led change and holistic support

 

Councillor Natalia Perez enquired if community hubs could be a focus for social housing, expressing concern about those caught in private sector housing, being forced to move out of the Borough because of increasing rents.  Christina Smyth responded that there were those were individuals who were able to afford the rents, but these were the exception. The aim had been to prioritise those identified at particular risk.  Bryan Naylor reported that in a survey of the Older People’s Consultative Forum, consisting of 400 respondents, 40% described themselves as in poverty.  60% of respondents also indicated that they were in private housing, with the rest in social housing.  Christina Smyth indicated that while she could not dismiss the survey’s conclusions, she took the view that the robust data analysis provided by the New Policy Institute may be qualitatively better.

 

Recommendation 2: Transforms the borough’s volunteer offer

 

Reiterating earlier comments, Christina Smith explained that local residents who were skilled, experienced and motivated to assist others within their local community were a highly valuable resource.  It was suggested that the Council should fund the co-ordination of volunteering with development funding and provide strategic oversight. 

 

Recommendation 3:  Work with borough experts to reduce the cost of living and improve personal money management

 

This was based on the premise that astute budgeting, being economical and avoiding exploitative companies, would help reduce poverty and the cost of living, thereby improving quality of life.  Christina Smyth indicated that this was complicated.  It was feasible that volunteers could be trained to check benefit forms and help apply for funds.  Patrick McVeigh highlighted concerns regarding the prevalence and influence of high street loan and betting shops.  While Councillor Brown concurred with this perspective, compliance with planning usage might make this difficult and challenging.  He added that there was pressure to change the national framework and that this would have a big impact. 

 

A rent a room scheme could potentially have a huge impact by generating a significant tax free income.  Christina Smyth expressed the view that this should be further incentivised as it would not only be a source of entrepreneurial income but also utilise assets.  Councillor Fennimore observed that that while there were planning regulations that prevented the Council’s ability to curtail the activities of loan and betting shops, it may be possible to negotiate an agreement that might protect vulnerable people.  It was recognised that the rent a room scheme was open to those in social housing and for those in private accommodation, this would depend on the terms of their leasing agreement.  It was confirmed that such a scheme would be open to social tenants and would not create an additional tenancy as a lodger would be restricted to a license to use and was not a tenant.  Councillor Brown observed that this would have positive impact on social isolation and loneliness.  Councillor Fennimore concurred, adding that that the Poverty and Worklessness report covered a vast area but linked into other strands such as the recent work undertaken on social isolation and loneliness.

 

Christina Smyth commented that the ability to work to help support oneself was important but appropriate ideas to implement this were required.  Imperial and other large employers needed to be included to develop proposals that would help ensure training and work placements, that would be appropriate, for example, for those with learning disabilities. 

 

Councillor Perez referred to the example of Westfield and the intention to recruit from the local population, enquiring if this had been successful and if it was possible to encourage planners and developers to target local residents for recruitment.  She asked if planning conditions to encourage this could form part of development permissions, encouraging the global market to support a local market.  It was noted that while there had been some success in Westfield, current market conditions meant that the appointment of non-borough residents to positions had a related impact on opportunities to relocate into the area, given the lack of affordable housing options. 

 

Recommendation 4: Employment support

 

In terms of supporting residents seeking employment, Christina Smyth highlighted concerns around supporting those for whom English was a second language and how the Council could address this gap.  It was noted that 43% of residents were born outside the UK.  While there was good provision, people required encouragement to learn.  Volunteers, family and friends could help navigate obstacles to work like language barriers.  Intergenerational work was invaluable in helping develop literacy and numeracy skills and Christina Smyth strongly supported the nurturing facet of community based, social support.  Patrick McVeigh agreed, supporting partnership working with local people, particularly helping those with severe learning disabilities.  He highlighted the need to access college based work placement schemes that would provide support in the form of internships.  Councillor Brown added that a targeted training scheme would be helpful but to scale it up and make it more widely accessible was difficult.  Councillor Fennimore confirmed that this was being further developed and that two new providers had been brought on board.

 

Briefly, rejecting the suggestion that the Borough should actively discriminate in favour of local residents, Members explored ways in which the Council could actively help residents seeking employment opportunities by hosting recruitment fairs and open days. 

 

Recommendation 5: Increased housing tenure options

 

Christina Smyth expressed the view that this was one of the more difficult aspects to address.  It was very difficult for residents who wished to progress from social housing or move into private ownership.  Recommendation 5 was a general recommendation, that when a housing policy is reviewed, the Council should adopt the Supplementary Planning Guidance from the Mayor of London.  Increased provision for shared ownership tenure should be promoted.  This acknowledged the lack of housing options for poorer residents and students, who did not have the same chances.  This was an important concern in terms of developing social cohesion, given the absence of a middle option between private ownership and social renting.

 

Recommendation 6: Community-led estate improvement

 

Christina Smyth explained that people in social housing, living on estates, did not have sufficient resources to repair, maintain or improve their physical environment, which caused frustration.  This was about empowering residents to shape and influence their physical environments, a chance to have greater self-determination about the way in which they were accommodated. 

 

Recommendation 7: Supported tenancies

 

Christina Smyth explained that this referred to providing greater support to vulnerable people in social housing in the form of a key worker.  Councillor Joe Carlebach welcomed the report and expressed support for the concept of a designated key worker for vulnerable people in social housing.  He made particular reference to the limitations placed on the transfer of tenancy ownership between immediate family members, and the hardships this caused.  Councillor Fennimore acknowledged the difficulties but noted the corresponding issue of addressing the lack of affordable housing and the needs of others who also require social housing.  It was suggested that this could be a matter that could be further explored by the Economic Regeneration, Housing and the Arts Policy and Accountability Committee.  Members also noted that further clarification as to the legal implications would need to be sought and that improved guidance or advice might also be offered to individuals at risk of losing their tenancies due to issues around the transfer of ownership. 

 

Action: Refer to ERHAPAC

 

Recommendation 8: Developing more preventative services

 

Noting that the Council’s Smarter Budgeting financial planning initiative had identified a proposal for a floating support service led by the Housing and Regeneration Department, Christina Smyth commended its holistic approach, underpinned by predictive data.  This suggested that, instead of treating a missed payment as just that, it would be more helpful to identify the factors leading to the missed payment.  An initiative in the London Borough of Camden was to save money by not evicting, but by using predictive data to find ways of supporting tenants, identifying underlying issues, for example, looked after children, identifying possible triggers or risk factors, that might have led to a missed payment.

 

Recommendation 9: Council to take strategic lead in implementing this Poverty and Worklessness Strategy across all local sectors

 

Christina Smyth commented that this was an opportunity for the Council to take a strategic lead and was important, given how difficult it was to prioritise from amongst the number of JSNA’s informing the Council’s decision making to shape a programme of work. 

 

Recommendation 10: Council to lead on discussion of a package of policy enablers

 

Briefly, it was noted that this referred to the eventual devolution of powers to local residents, empowering them to make autonomous and informed decisions to support and enhance the development of independent and flourishing communities.  The image of Townsends 1960’s depiction of social poverty was replicated in the Borough, which in 2010 showed that a third of the Borough’s residents experienced poverty.  Christina Smyth observed that the increasing polarisation between the wealthy and the poor left a thinned out middle ground, with more individuals less likely or able to participate in society.  It was acknowledged that while the definition of “poor” was relative, the poorest cohort had become poorer.  Councillor Perez expressed concern about future trends and the impact of current social policy in respect of poverty, social welfare and housing, leaving vulnerable people at increasing risk of eviction.  Councillor Fennimore commented that the Administration was helping to develop or provide support to a number of initiatives such has having CAB advisors located in foodbanks, and while there remained work to be done, there was evidence of positive progress.

 

Christina Smyth suggested that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) should looking at delivering such initiatives, encouraging practical participation. She reiterated the value of training skilled residents, who could advocate for those at risk or vulnerable.  Councillor Perez concurred, emphasising the importance of working inclusively with the voluntary sector, developing contingency measures to help vulnerable people.  Councillor Brown agreed and welcomed the refreshing honesty of the Commission’s report.  He added that the approach extended beyond simply volunteering to help vulnerable people but could include practical support to develop life skills such as improving a person’s curriculum vitae (CV).  Christina Smyth reported that one of the key data findings was that vacant jobs in the borough outnumbered unemployed residents.  Ensuring support for those seeking employment was essential but not limited to practical support. It was also important to encourage and build up confidence, acknowledging individual strengths and weaknesses.

 

Continuing the discussion, Councillor Carlebach added that support for individuals dealing with different departments was essential.  He suggested that it would be helpful to ensure greater communication between different departments to avoid silo mentalities and encourage a more holistic approach.  Christina Smyth referred to her earlier comment regarding the idea of “floating support” although she acknowledged the inherent difficulties of achieving this well, giving the nature of siloed, government thinking.  She reported that a third of people in the Borough were owner occupiers and that it would be helpful to establish a process by which people could receive advocacy support and guidance on how to navigate form filling, referencing her earlier point.

 

Councillor Brown commented that the Commission’s report provided an apolitical, local perspective set against a national context and welcomed the concept of relative poverty, concurring with the view of poverty levels experienced by older people.  He observed that the issues were complex, recognising the uncertainty around demographics and the value of assets in relation to income.  Christina Smyth commented that it was about what was acceptable, observing that there were some social housing estates where you would not voluntarily choose to live and asked what was being done to help alleviate these conditions. 

 

In response to a question from Bryan Naylor, regarding measurable outcomes, Christina Smyth indicated that it was difficult to formulate a measure of success but that if she had to select a specific outcome then it would be to see the 50k figure of those indicated as in poverty, residing in the Borough reduced by 50%, which she acknowledged was a broad ambition.  She continued that while this was an independent and neutral report, it was fully supported by the Cabinet Member for Social Inclusion.  It was now a matter for the Council to examine the report and consider how to take it forward. 

 

Councillor Fennimore commended and thanked Christina Smyth and Tom Conniffe for the work undertaken in producing the Commission’s report, in addition to the invaluable contributions made by the Commission members, support officers and the New Policy Institute. 

 

Councillor Vaughan thanked Christina Smyth and Tom Conniffe for their joint presentation, and for guiding Members through the recommendations of the Commission’s report.  He commended the depth of detail in the report and the data analysis, which had been extremely helpful in understanding the conclusions and recommendations.  He commended the enthusiasm and passion for the subject in the presentation and anticipated the report being taking forward and endorsed by Cabinet. 

 

RESOLVED

 

1.      That PAC’s comments and findings on the Commissions Poverty and Worklessness Report are noted and provided to the Commission;

2.      That the PAC endorses the Commission’s Report; and

3.      That the report be noted