Public Policy: Using Market-Based Approaches - Department for ...

Public Policy: Using Market-Based Approaches
Flexibility could take the form of applicants no longer bidding for properties
where they did not meet key criteria, widening the area they would consider,
bidding for different property types, dropping requirements, looking for less
popular properties and looking outside of the social rented sector. There is some
evidence of applicants using feedback information to alter their initial
preferences and bid for different areas or property types to increase their chance
of success. For example, some pilots reported an increase in the number of bids
for previously unpopular property types, such as maisonettes, and a
corresponding reduction in bids for more popular property types, such as
houses. Similarly, one pilot observed that of the 94 properties let in one quarter,
29 were awarded to applicants bidding for a property one or more bedrooms
smaller than their assessed need. 143
Consumer flexibility has been relatively limited so far, particularly in
geographical scope. The BMRB research found that some applicants were
willing to remain in inadequate and unpleasant circumstances rather than move
to an area they felt to be undesirable. 144 Furthermore, evidence on transfer
activity in one pilot area found that 22 per cent of moves were to an area of
higher demand and only 15 per cent to areas of lower demand. 145 However, these
data are not necessarily representative of all choices because households
entering the social rented sector rather than transferring within it may base their
decisions on different criteria. Greater flexibility is expected to emerge in the
longer run.
The main driver behind CBL was not to improve efficiency, but to create
sustainable communities. It was hoped that empowering users by offering them
greater choice and encouraging them to take greater responsibility for their
outcomes would help achieve this. Most pilots believed it to be too early to
comment on the impact of CBL in this area, although there has been some
positive evidence to date. One pilot cited a sharp reduction in transfer requests
among those who had been re-housed through CBL. Another pilot reported that
its turnover rate for the stock of its lead landlord fell from 6.34 to 5.77 per cent
in the first quarter of operation, and then to 4.4 and 3.23 per cent in subsequent
quarters. A pilot operating a partial-borough programme observed that
abandonment rates dropped more sharply in CBL areas than non-CBL, falling
from 11.86 and 9.66 per cent in the CBL and non-CBL areas respectively to 4.25
and 4.75 per cent between September 2001 and September 2002. 146
However, as one pilot project manager observed:
140
It is difficult to say at this stage whether or not [CBL] has helped contribute
towards sustainable communities. Recent evaluation reports have looked at
this issue and have given positive feedback. Certainly the void turnaround
143 See Marsh et al (2004), Op.Cit., p.71.
144 BMRB for ODPM (2004) Applicants’ Perspectives on Choice-Based Lettings, London: The Stationery Office.
145 See Marsh et al (2004), Op.Cit., p.121.
146 See Marsh et al (2004), Op.Cit., p.161-62.