And Camden isn't alone in failing to have captured residents' imaginations. In recent months, ballots from Islington to Gateshead and Milton Keynes have seen turnouts around the 30% mark or less. With little hope of an alternative solution when tenants reject all three stock options, councils will have to fight hard to reverse the trend and follow the example of those such as Sunderland and Peterborough, which have succeeded in getting tenants' support.
"The lower the turnout, the more likely a 'no' vote," warns Nigel Minto, head of membership and projects at the National Housing Federation. The statistics bear this out: 77% of Camden tenants who did bother to vote rejected the council's plans; Sunderland, on the other hand, won a resounding 88% "yes" for its transfer in November 2000, when three-quarters of residents turned out to tick the boxes.
"Often, residents don't believe their vote will make any difference, so a lot of ballots are lost on apathy rather than resistance," says John Craggs, group strategic executive at Sunderland Housing Group.
Stock transfers tend to get higher turnouts than ALMOs: compare transfer ballots in Sunderland (73%), Peterborough (65%) and the Tollington estate in Islington (69%) with ALMOs in Camden (30%) and Gateshead (28%). But the NHF's Nigel Minto suggests this is not because of ALMOs themselves, but because "the ALMO process tends to happen a lot quicker".
The apathy stems from the public's feeling that they no longer have any real influence or a meaningful choice, as Lesley Carty of Camden Defend Council Housing explains: "An awful lot of people didn't vote in Camden because they felt the council would take no notice and go ahead anyway," she says. According to Carty, many binned their ballot papers in protest. She admits that she expected more tenants to vote, but argues that "getting 8500 tenants to vote 'no' was a magnificent achievement, whatever the turnout".
From apathy to antipathy
A strong campaign by DCH can be a major factor in turning tenants against a council's plans to transfer or set up an ALMO, and this is particularly the case where voters are otherwise disinclined to get involved. Sunderland's John Craggs says that when there is apathy and a strong "no" campaign "some are motivated to vote 'no' and others don't vote".
Camden is a case in point. Certainly, DCH made a difference there. "We set out very clearly that the ALMO is part of the government's privatisation strategy," Carty says. "We produced broadsheets giving the arguments and had a network of volunteers to put them out on estates." DCH, she says, spoke at tenants' association meetings, used vans with loudspeakers and wrote to local papers. But even for such energetic campaigners, persuading people to vote at all was no easy task. "I suspect a lot of people were genuinely torn," says Carty. "They could see there was an issue with privatisation but they wanted improvements to their homes."
On the "yes" campaigners' side, Cilla Karron, chair of Camden Federation of Residents' Associations, says there will be some serious soul-searching on why turnout was so low. But she admits there was none of the clarity that more successful boroughs say is so essential to getting it right (see Beating apathy, page 20). "There was a lot of confusion. I wish it hadn't been just about bathrooms and kitchens, as it's really not about that. It's about tenant participation, and I wish that had been at the forefront.
"DCH was saying it was about privatisation and I don't think it was. I think it could have been explained better." How Sunderland got it right.
For Sunderland, too, apathy was an acknowledged enemy from the start and the dangers of failing to involve tenants were well known from an earlier bad experience.
DCH was saying the vote was about privatisation and I don’t think it was. I think it could have been explained better
Cilla Karron, chair, Camden Federation of Residents’ Associations
"In the late 1980s, the Conservative government announced a housing action trust in Sunderland," says Craggs. "Tenants got a letter one morning saying that £40m would be spent on modernisation. They voted against it despite the investment."
So when transfer became a possibility, Sunderland planned two years in advance. "The ballot was held in November 2000 but we already knew what would happen because we were out a year earlier consulting with people, and a year before that we asked what they would like us to do with the money."
A survey of the city's 38,000 tenants gained 18,000 responses and, says Craggs, proved very useful. "We quantified how much we were short of people's aspirations and spent a year working things out and talking to the council. Transfer was the only way to deliver."
Sunderland explained this to residents in 1999 and then embarked on an extensive campaign of local consultations, knocks on doors, getting housing staff on side, kitting out show homes, talking to the press. Clarity, says Craggs, was everything: DCH did try to run a campaign but it foundered when the "yes" camp produced clear, factual rebuffs.
Peterborough's turnaround
There was no DCH threat to Peterborough's ballot in December, says Nick Leggett, head of housing management services at the city council, but the authority did run a year-long "yes" campaign. From meagre initial support there was such a successful rallying that by December 2003, 65% of tenants turned out to vote and a resounding 82% of them voted in favour of stock transfer.
"From the outset, the big issue was that we had problems on revenue and on meeting decent homes," explains Leggett. The council needed £50m to meet the decent homes target and there wasn't, he says, political unity right from the start. Independent consultants were brought in to back up the figures and by January last year it became apparent that there was no other route out. The team then set about engaging with tenants and bringing local politicians on side. "We avoided a great public debate because we thought it was important to talk directly to tenants," says Leggett.
In January 2003, only about 7% of tenants were in favour, and feedback was along the lines of: "What's the point if it's the same people running the housing?" So, says Leggett, the council used the major repairs allowance to improve the repair service and invested a lot more on the planned programme and stock. A turning point was a stock condition survey in July that "went high-profile in the local press". Then came the show house with a new kitchen and bathroom and a secure front door. By September, feedback was "gobsmackingly positive".
Politics and paper
Whether the ballot is for a transfer or an ALMOs, are there other things to be taken into consideration? Is it all about tenants' politics, for example, or is it because paper ballots are out of date?
The NHF's Minto is adamant there isn't an issue with political leanings. "You can't construct an argument to say that more Tory authorities are voting in favour, for example.
I don't think that would hold at all." The impact of the political arena is very much at local level, in terms of the clarity of the view from local leaders.
Beating apathy: 10 steps to a successful ballot
- Get tenants involved well in advance
‘Involve tenants and tenant leaders as early as possible, so they do not feel an option has been parachuted on them.’ – Nigel Minto, head of membership and projects at the National Housing Federation - Avoid a mixed message
‘Boroughs that have voted in favour have had a clear lead [from local authorities and politicians].’ – Nigel Minto - Keep it simple
‘Housing is bloody complicated if you work in it, so it is even worse if you are a tenant out there listening. It is about simplifying but with background information for those who want more.’ – Nick Leggett, head of housing management services at Peterborough council - Explain the decision
‘We went to residents and said “we’ve found a way of meeting your aspirations, it’s called stock transfer”. Most of the ballots we’ve seen go wrong go straight to tenants and ask what they think of a stock transfer or ALMO.’ – John Craggs, group strategic executive, Sunderland Housing Group - Stick to facts; rebut rumours
‘The best strategy is to clearly rebut something that is clearly incorrect.’ – Nigel Minto. ‘We had Defend Council Housing sticking their nose in and we stuck to these points: rights, rents, repairs, renovations.’ – John Craggs - Show tenants what they will get
‘We had a show house to show what we could do. About 600 tenants went to see it.’ – Nick Leggett - Be imaginative
‘There are a variety of ways to engage tenants – holding meetings, some [councils] were producing videos to engage local people.’ – Harbinder Dhaliwal, senior project officer, Local Government Association - Involve tenant reps
‘Tenants tend to gravitate to tenant reps. There’s a bond of trust there. It’s fundamental they get involved.’ – Nigel Minto - The direct approach
‘All the knocks on the door, all the information. Do you understand it? Are you going to vote?’ – John Craggs - Coordinate communications
‘We choose a member of staff who was brilliant at communicating with tenants and it became her job for two years. I think this was key.’ – John Craggs
Source
Housing Today
No comments yet