Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Rethinking & Valuing Social Housing – brief outline Dr Judy A Kraatz Senior Research Fellow, Urban Research Program, Griffith University Giles Thomson, Curtin University Sustainability Program 1 Valuing social housing: the team • Core partners: o Western Australian Housing Authority – Sarah Mewett o Queensland Department of Housing and Public Works – Heidi Roberts o NSW Land and Housing Corporation – Kathy Roil and Catherine Stuart o Griffith University – Dr Judy Kraatz o Curtin University – Dr Giles Thomson; Prof. Peter Newman • Project Partner: National Affordable Housing Consortium Qld • Project Affiliates: o Judy Yates - Project Steering Group Independent Chairperson o Access Housing - Lyn Brun o Logan City - Andre Brits o Common Ground Brisbane - Sonia Keep o Brisbane Housing Company – Roxy Hotton o KPMG - Tina Davey 2 Rethinking Social Housing - scene setting Government - cross-agency focus National, state & local engagement Address housing &non-housing outcomes Policy, regulation & contract management Build productivity in housing network Independent research Analysis of existing research Facilitate engagement to develop: • Objectives, outcomes & indicators • Methodologies for ROI & causal links • Systems dynamic modelling Community housing providers Grounding research in the sector Place-making Social & affordable housing provision & delivery Long term sustainable provision Fiscal policy perspective – revenue increases if social housing has positive productivity benefits Macroeconomic impact of housing intervention – incl. productivity and growth Strategic Evaluation Framework (E6) Person-Community-Place-Specific Diverse and unique characteristics Test-cases to: contribute past data; & test selected criteria in pilot framework Emergency Shelter Transitional Housing Government Housing Assistance Social Housing Affordable Rental Non-Market (Community) Housing Private Rental Home Ownership Market Housing Rethinking Social Housing - Conceptual Framework 4 Developing the Strategic Evaluation Framework Outcomes & Indicators Community Develop Strategy 1.31 Reporting Develop methodologies Case studies Applicable to future innovative delivery models Education Employment Financial Health Housing Consider timescale & locality, geography Enable assessment of productivity benefits: •Macro-economic •Tenants benefits •Fiscal benefits •Non-economic – environ & social Draft framework Industry Reports & Media Journal / conference papers Associations and Causal links – drawing on ecosystems health models NSW/Qld and NAHC - framework integration into current practice Social Return on investment – Social Cost Benefit Analysis and WellValuation Analysis WA Housing – data integration Social Urban Well-being Elements: - Associations & Causal links - ROI: social & econ - Data SBEnrc Project 1.31 Rethinking Social Housing Aug 14 - Sept 15 ARC Linkage submission Nov 15 SBEnrc Project 1.41 Valuing Social Housing Feb 16 - Mar 17 5 Elements of the strategic evaluation framework Outcomes &Indicators Matrix Associations / Causal links analysis ROI allocations Data sources •for each of the 9 objectives: community engagement; education; employment; environment; economic; health & well-being; housing; social; urban amenity •extablish methodology •identify existing verified links •gap analysis •future expert panel to establish associations and/or causal links •social and economic •housing and non housing •using SROI, SCBA and WVA initially as basis for gap analysis (see Section 3) •identify existing secondary sources •gap analysis •indentify future primary data gathering opportunities 6 Domains & Outcomes @ 14/9/15 Community Employment (31 indicators) (5 indicators) (8 indicators) Rights & empowerment Equitable opportunities Community connectedness Social capital and cohesion Culturally rich Strong neighbourhood Perceptions of disorder Increased participation Mobility Improved physical & mental health Reduced service demand Improved access to services Active & healthy living Improved productivity Improved access to healthy living Housing (30 indicators) Education (20 indicators) Increased participation Enhanced performance Access Environment (19 indicators) Urban Amenity (21 indicators) Place-making Neighbourhood resources Socialising Area regeneration Access to community activities Cultural heritage & identity Urban design Health & Well-being Reduced resource consumption Reduced resource waste Bldg & site design appropriates & quality Quality of life +ve impact on environment Appropriate density Improved access Ability to maintain tenancy Appropriate targeting & provision Effective provision Higher levels of inclusion Improved amenity Effective asset management Adequate insurance Social (17 indicators) Improved social wellbeing Reduced antisocial activity Reduced drug & alcohol dependence Improved family relationships Economy/Productivity (33 indicators) Property values ROI Business Agility Economic stimulation Industry & personal productivity Long term savings Financial flexibility Reduced financial stress Housing affordability & Availability Balanced supply and demand Reinvestment in housing & services Drawn from: AIHW 2011; Randolph and Judd 2001; Bridge, Flatau et al. 2003; Judd and Randolph 2006; Bridge, Flatau et al. 2007; Milligan, Phibbs et al. 2007; Monk and Whitehead 2010; Ravi and Reinhardt 2011; Bröchner and Olofsson 2012; Wood and Cigdem 2012; Fujiwara 2013; Fujiwara 2014; Trotter and Vine 2014; Pawson, Milligan et al. 2014; Carboni 2014, GRI 2014; Green Star; Steering Committee 2013; and others. 7 Draft indicator matrix – under development Both quantitative and qualitative; understanding economic, environment and social return on investment critical Provide narratives for these to build understanding and assist with consistency Impacts/Benefits/Dis-benefits Outcome Indicator Locale / region Timefra Macrome economi S/M/L c Fiscal Measured Return on Investment & value to whom Tenant Track outcomes over time location specific data and relevance State & Federal Territory Local Gov. (stamp Gov. Other Comm- (Monetar duty, (planning e.g. unity y& land tax, process CHO Fiscal environm charges) policy) ent Data Source/ Tools Survey, Quantit- QualitDatasets ative ative etc. Determine availability/applicability of available of data from existing sources. For each objective: community - education – employment – environment – financial – health – housing – social - urban 8 Some ROI evaluation frameworks/tools Systems Social Return on Investment (SROI) Authors / Commentators (Ravi and Reinhardt 2011) Social accounting Well-being valuation analysis (WVA) Social Impact Value Calculator (Fujiwara 2014) Financial feasibility analysis, post-occupancy evaluation Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) (Milligan, Phibbs et al. 2007) Social Cost Benefit Analysis Cost consequence analysis (CCA) Cost effectiveness evaluation (CEE) (Campbell Collaboration 2014) (Parkinson, Ong et al. 2013), (Pawson, Milligan et al. 2014) (HM Treasury 2011) (Parkinson, Ong et al. 2013), (Pawson, Milligan et al. 2014) (Parkinson, Ong et al. 2013), (Pawson, Milligan et al. 2014) Key Features Maps the value of the work of an organisation by placing monetary values on social outputs; represented by a ratio of social gain from $1 of investment Approach to reporting - relates to the social, environmental and financial impact which an organisation has had - considers the extent to which an organisation is meeting its (usually pre-determined) social or ethical goals Builds on cost-benefit & SROI analyses UK examples, metrics and calculator available Simple excel tool to provide support to apply the values in the Social Value Bank to community investment activities Ratio of housing costs to value of housing benefits Assess the net value of a policy or project to society as a whole Housing costs per tenant year Disaggregated housing costs and tenant outcome measures 9 Two tiered approach to ROI? TIER 1 – SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT (SROI) Industry level ROI e.g. inform government policy; service level agreements; social bonds Method Tools Data See Social Value 2012 Guide to Social Value Invest Other This is a critical element. Issues to be considered: • Availability of data • Comparability of data – geographical, personal • Time based • Sectional data • Statistical bias • Frequency of data updates Comprehensive Outcomes & Indicator set across nine domains: Attribution or causal links (plausible connection) to be determined by expert panels for each indicator, if possible. Community Economy Education Employment Environment Health & Well Being Housing Social Urban Amenity Self-reported well-being estimates impact of a service on subjective well-being - then calculates the amount of money that would produce equivalent impact TIER 2 – WELL-BEING VALUATION ANALYSIS (WVA) Agency level ROI e.g. service deliverer Method Self-reported wellbeing - estimates impact on subjective wellbeing – then calculate the amount of money to produce equivalent impact Tools Survey templates Trotter, Vine et al. 2014) Calculation Tool http://www.hact. org.uk/valuecalculator Data 10 Causal links and associations (1) Butterfly Model of Health for an Ecosystem Context (VanLeeuwen, Waltner-Toews et al. 1999) 11 Causal links and associations (2) The modified DPSEEA Model (Morris et al 2006 in (The Scottish Government 2008)) 12 Determining when and what to invest to receive greatest return on/benefits from investment ? – for example (outside current scope): Manage move from support to wage earner For example: chronic condition, long term support likely Or Capacity for moving along housing, employment, education continuum Nature & Extent of support Determine real cost of delivery $ Invest $X in appropriate service at key time Time line of support Y$ benefit in long term 13 IMPACT MAPs – may be effective communication tool From UK Cabinet Office SROI Guide 2009 – aligned with SBEnrc Projects 1.31 and 1.41 OUTCOMES & INDICATORS BUSINESS INTEGRATION ASSOCIATIONS RETURN ON INVESTMENT LITERATURE ARC / FINANCING SOCIAL HOUSING / Stakeholders Inputs Description Financial proxy Deadweight • • • • • • Who do we have an affect on? Who has an effect on us? Outputs • Change • What do they invest? What do you think will change for them? What is the value of the inputs in currency? How would the stakeholder describe the changes? Indicator • How would you measure it? Source • Where did you get the information from? What proxy would you use to value the change? Value in currency Displacement • • What is the value of the change? Attribution • • Where did you get the information from? • • How much change was there? ACROSS NINE DOMAINS : community economy education employment Does the outcome drop off in future years? Impact • How long does it last after end of activity? Outcomes • Who else contributed to the change? Drop off Duration Check Scottish and Australian methods What activity did you displace? Source Quantity • What proxy would you use to value the change? Quantity times financial proxy, less dead-weight, displacement and attribution Does it start in period of activity (1) or in period after (2) environment health & well-being housing social Urban 14 amenity Valuing Social Housing - Case Studies 1. Data Sharing • WA Dept of Housing & Access Housing (TBC) 2. Integration with performance and outcomes based frameworks • Qld Dept of Housing & Public Works, • NSW Land and Housing Corp • National Affordable Housing Consortium 15 NEXT STEPS - DATA , INFORMATION & KNOWLEDGE SHARING UNDER DEVELOPMENT COMMONWEALTH STATE GOVERNMENT LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVIDER PERSON / FAMILY POLICY - Policy affecting supply and demand; quality control; flow on macroeconomic and productivity impacts; fiscal considerations DATA – Quantitative – ABS - population and housing; income and housing costs; health; investment; disability and aging; demographics; occupancy; HILDA – income, labour market and family dynamics; AURIN – health and wellbeing, economic and environmental SERVICE IMPACTS - POLICY – supply models ……….. DATA – Quantitative – Valuer General datasets re housing and neighbourhood characteristics and value over time SERVICE IMPACTS - POLICY - Planning; services; community engagement DATA – Quantitative SERVICE IMPACTS - POLICY DATA - Quantitative SERVICE IMPACTS - Asset management; service management; tenant management DATA – Qualitative ( integrate living knowledge) SERVICE IMPACTS – health and well being; access to employment, education and health facilities; social integration 16 NEXT STEPS - INTEGRATION WITH PERFORMANCE & OUTCOMES BASED REPORTING Longitudinal data required Across housing &non-housing outcomes Identify relevant outcomes & indicators on a cohort or case by case basis TENANT OUTCOMES direct & indirect impacts of secure housing MACROECONOMIC BENEFITS Of productivity improvement & growth FISCAL BENEFITS Revenue increase through increased tenant engagement NON-ECONOMIC BENEFITS Environment, resource & social capital 17 THANK YOU Full reports available at: http://www.sbenrc.com.au/research-programs/1-31-rethinking-social-housingeffective-efficient-equitable-e3/ 18