The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

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

section two CHR Models

6 CORE FUNCTIONS OF A CHR

What is the best CHR for you?

Any CHR must provide three essential components - a single route of access for applicants, a single database of all those seeking housing, and a shared housing advice and information resource. However, there are many choices to make about the style and scope of the CHR. It is up to local CHR partnerships - and within that, individual participating landlords - to decide what type of CHR model they want to develop. In doing so they will need to consider how key services should be delivered within the CHR, and how they want to be involved.

No model is by definition better than another, and it does not necessarily follow that the more comprehensive the CHR, the better it is. Different features will be regarded as advantages or disadvantages in different areas, and one model will work better than another in a particular local context. The task for new local CHR partnerships is to decide what type of CHR will work best in their area. Indeed, working groups would do well to begin by considering how to deliver CHR objectives at minimal cost. While it may be tempting to develop an 'all singing, all dancing' CHR, this can be unnecessarily complex and costly. Working groups should instead start off considering simpler models.

Building a CHR for your local area will involve making choices based on:

• what is deemed to be most appropriate in your local housing context. (Start with simplest options first - don't overcomplicate! You can always enhance your CHR later.)
• what is acceptable to partners and how much of the applications and assessment process you can agree (remember that the more you can agree, the simpler and more cost-effective the CHR will be).

Decisions about the style and scope of the CHR will have an impact on time and costs resources, and on existing partner practices. Some types of CHR will require partners to change the way they operate from day to day, and this may influence preferences about the type of model to adopt. The ability to compromise is essential.

For more detailed information on choosing a model, see chapters 7 and 8.

THE CORE FUNCTIONS

Although a CHR provides three essential components, it can be broken down into a series of functions which we have called core functions and other features. Each one can be provided in a number of different ways. Core functions make up the basic structure of the CHR. Once core functions have been agreed, partners will need to consider how the CHR will incorporate the other features ( see chapter 9). However, as most other features can be adopted without affecting the basic structure of the CHR, decisions on core functions will come first.

Advice on housing options

One of the three essential components of a CHR is the development and delivery of a shared resource for housing information and advice, which covers all social housing stock in the area. An applicant for housing using the CHR service should be able to approach any partner provider to complete a common application form and gain access to a consistent housing advice service.

It is now recognised that housing advice is one of the most challenging issues in CHR development to agree upon. Prior to the establishment of a CHR, staff will have been trained to deliver housing advice on their own service only, reflecting their own area of specialism and the needs of their local area and organisation. However, once a CHR is established, the same organisations will need to adjust to providing the agreed level of advice within the CHR.

Partners must be clear about what information and advice they propose to provide and what they expect staff to be able to do. This should be in line with the Scottish National Standards for Housing Information and Advice ( see chapter 10). Information must be clear and client-focused and staff should be properly supported to provide it. There are several options for delivering such information and advice:

• All or some partners are equipped and trained to provide a holistic housing advice service covering providers using appropriate tools (such as a housing options guide). This would include stock type and location, turnover, and any specialisms
• Partners provide a more limited level of housing options advice covering all stock, but have access to a referral process for more detailed or specialist information
• One-stop shop for housing advice. (Remember: if you have a one stop shop you must ensure that anyone who may have difficulty using the shop because of accessibility, mobility, language or other issues can access the same quality of information in other ways)
• Combination of the above.

For more on information and advice see chapter 10.

Application form

In order to operate a CHR, landlords will need to identify all information required by participating landlords in order to let a house, and then decide how to collect it. Will it be collected in a single application form, or part in a follow-up home visit? Information must be collected consistently and made accessible to all partners through the CHR system. The CHR data collection process must include trigger questions that identify where a further assessment under homelessness, support or other special need is necessary.

The main options for data collection are:

• Comprehensive application form collecting all data required by all partners in order to assess the applicant's priority for housing

OR

• Shorter application or registration form collecting partial data required for assessment, PLUS a single home visit on the point of registration to collect additional information using a common form to complete the application. Information collected on the form and home visit make up the application and all of this information is shared on the CHR system.

Step-by-step advice on developing a common application form is provided in chapter 13.

Home visits

Home visits can have different functions:

• applicants visited on the point of registration to collect further information
• applicants visited prior to or on the point of offer to verify information provided on the application form
• applicants visited as a result of change of circumstance
• no home visits carried out - other methods used to collect and verify applicant information

Visits can be carried out on behalf of the partners by a central home visiting team or officer or by staff in some or all of the partner organisations.

If home-visit information is collected using a shared form, this means the information is consistent and is accessible to all partners. If it is collected using individual partners' own home visit forms, this means that even if the information is made available to other partners, it may be difficult for them to use if it does not meet their needs.

Administration (processing, assessing, updating and reviewing applicant information)

Administration options will be one of the key decisions for new local partnerships in defining how they would like their CHR to operate in practice. These options will determine whether all the application forms and updates of information are undertaken by one organisation in one location, or whether this task is shared. However you organise administration, you will need to consider how you store paper-based information, and how it can be accessed, moved or shared.

In summary, there are three choices:

• central administration unit
• one partner responsible for administration on behalf of all the partners
• shared administration amongst several partners

The choice between central or shared administration has resource implications, principally in determining whether partners will contribute cash to run a central unit or will provide staffing resources from within their own organisations if they are to take an administrative role. If the CHR is to involve a central administration unit, then it must be physically accommodated and adequately staffed, and it is likely that the cost will be shared amongst the partners. On the other hand, it may be possible to rotate the staffing of the unit using staff seconded from the partner organisations. If administration is shared, the technology must be capable of remote data input and an agreement will be needed to ensure that the share of inputting by partners is equal to their share of the housing stock covered by the CHR.

Allocations policies

Within a fully-automated CHR, landlords will prioritise and select applicants according to their own allocations policy. However, this requires fairly complex and costly software. A number of other options - all acceptable under the Single Regulatory Framework - are also worth considering. The main options for allocations within the CHR are:

• partners allocate using own policies
• one or more partners allocate using choice-based lettings within the CHR
• partners take referrals according to another partner's policy
• partners agree a common allocations policy
• shared allocations policy for initial shortlist of applicants; partners may re-order according to own policy
• partners take 100% nominations according to local authority's allocations policy

Health assessments

Partners need to agree whether or not the CHR will incorporate a single health assessment process where:

• partners continue with own individual procedure on health assessment for own use only. This means that applicants may undergo more than one health assessment
• partners continue with own individual procedure but make this information available to all partners, ideally reducing (but not replacing) duplicate assessments
• partners agree to include health assessment as part of the shared CHR assessment process and all have access to the information but may award different levels of priority
• as above, but incorporating a common policy on assessment and prioritisation of health needs
• partners agree to adopt one organisation's policy, procedure and prioritisation of health assessment as part of a common allocations policy

They will then need to decide how this information will be collected. Options include:

• all questions relating to health are included on CHR application form
• secondary questionnaire on health triggered by question(s) in CHR application form
• home visit is made to undertake health assessment, triggered by question(s) in CHR application form

Handling post-application enquiries

Applicants who have submitted a form to the CHR will need to know how they can find out about the progress of their application, or update circumstances. Partners will need to decide how to handle an applicant's enquiries within the CHR. Possibilities include:

• any partner can handle enquiries about the progress of an application
• applicant is referred back to the point of original contact, eg the landlord that first took their application/enquiry
• all enquiries are taken through a single point of contact where partners have no direct access to the system

Information and communications technology (ICT) requirements

The more complicated the CHR model you choose, the more sophisticated and expensive the information and communication technology requirements will be. The two primary considerations are the capability of the software to point applicants under one or more allocations policies, and the nature of the access partners have to the system. There are several options for access to the system:

• full electronic access to CHR database. Partners with this level of access can:
  - input, update, change circumstances
  - view all applicants for all lists
  - process their own nominations
• partial electronic access to CHR database
  - input, update, change circumstances
• minimal electronic access to CHR database
  - view only
• manual link with CHR database
  - manual shortlisting of applicants for a particular vacancy provided to the landlord by the organisation managing the CHR database, or by a buddy if you have chosen a buddying system

ICT capability will also affect the ways partners match applicants with vacant properties. Partners have the choice of matching and shortlisting applicants manually or electronically. For more, see chapter 14.

OTHER FEATURES

Core functions form the basic shape of the CHR. A number of other features follow on from the core structure. These (listed below) will be dealt with in chapter 9.

7 FOUR SAMPLE MODELS

Drawing on experience of operational CHRs in England and Scotland, four sample models have been drawn up for you to consider. Using different combinations of options for each of the core functions, the models illustrate some of the main differences between CHRs. Local working groups may like to use these as a way of progressing thinking about what type of CHR they see as most suitable for their area. These have been created as an illustration of possible combinations of core functions. Chapter 8 will lead you through a process of creating your own model which meets the needs of your area.

WHAT EACH MODEL OFFERS

You will notice great differences in scope and style from one model to the next. While some are 'all singing, all dancing' CHRs, others - while still delivering the three essential components (common application form, common database of applicants and shared framework for the delivery of housing information and advice) - are far less sophisticated.

As explained in chapter 6, each model is made up of eight core functions. These are:

It is the way that each of these functions is delivered - as well as the combination of the options - which make up the unique CHR model as these four examples show.

Model 1 (complex).

The system is capable of producing shortlists of applicants for any vacancy, according to any of the partners' allocations policies. All partners have a direct electronic link to the database and so can seek their own shortlists themselves.

All applicants to the CHR are visited on the point of registration by a central home visiting team, using a shared home visiting form. The information collected at the home visit is then entered onto the common database which can be accessed by all the partners. Because more detailed information about an applicant's circumstances are routinely collected at the home visit, this enables the initial application form to be shorter and simpler. CHR application forms, home visit forms, and change of circumstances are all processed at a central data processing unit.

Model 2 (complex).

Shared administration allows a range of participating landlords to take a role in inputting and updating applicant information. Under this model, partners with a large stock profile in the area could have an administrative role. This would give applicants a choice of several different landlords and offices to approach; their chosen organisation would then act as 'gatekeeper' for that particular applicant, and would deal with updating and changes of circumstances. That organisation would also be the first port of call for applicants seeking information about the progress of their application. Shared administration of this type is only for partners who have remote access to the central database so that they can undertake data input from different locations. Housing information and advice is delivered via a one stop shop, although all partners are trained to provide some advice drawing on a shared resource for information (such as a housing options guide) to applicants who are unable to use the shop.

Models 3 (simple).

This model delivers all the CHR benefits but within more reasonable timescales and costs. Partners agree a shared allocations policy to identify applicants they would all consider to be high priority under their own policies. This policy is then used to create a shortlist of applicants, which partners may then reassess and reorder under their own allocations policy.

Model 4 (simple).

RSLs with a vacancy request a manual shortlist of applicants according to the council's allocations policy, and may then re-order that shortlist according to their own policy. They undertake a home visit - using their own home visit form - to make their final selection. Effectively, this operates much like a 100% nominations agreement. Though this may be an unpopular model for many RSLs, it is nevertheless worthy of consideration as it fulfils basic CHR requirements efficiently and at reasonable cost.

These models demonstrate the range of possibilities, but bear in mind that the Scottish Executive wishes to encourage consideration of the simpler models first (3 and 4). In some areas, these can achieve same objectives at lower cost and within shorter timescales.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE DIFFERENT MODELS

Simpler models

Simpler models of CHR are much quicker and cheaper to establish, and deliver all the key benefits of a CHR. They involve less change for individual partners and may therefore be less onerous, time-consuming and costly to establish.

Model 3 demonstrates how a single application form and a single database for all those seeking housing can be provided without complex software. Participating landlords use the CHR to generate a shortlist of applicants prioritised according to a new, shared policy. They then apply their own allocations policy and procedures (including home visits in most cases) in order to select the applicant for offer.

Simpler models which leave more responsibility with individual landlords reduce the burden of negotiation upon them as fewer definitions and tasks need to be shared and agreed. This allows RSLs to identify suitable applicants for vacancies without maintaining a waiting list in an area where they have a small stock. This arrangement is cheaper and more practical than either full, electronic access to a sophisticated, 'multi-pointing' CHR, or maintenance of their own list.

The simpler CHR option will also allow regional and national RSLs to participate in CHRs without significant changes to the structure of their organisation, or to their assessment and allocation processes. It may also require less participation in the developmental phase as a greater proportion of tasks will be retained by individual partners. Tapping into the CHR should mean that regional and national RSLs are more likely to find a suitable applicant for their vacancy, and are reaching the applicant in greatest need, because they are sourced from a single list. If this option is to work, the CHR must ensure that it is able to identify suitable applicants who wish to be housed in the RSL's areas of operation, so that appropriate referrals can be sourced from the single list.

More complex models

Models 1 and 2 show how levels of partnership will vary according to the model of CHR chosen. For example, a full partner would have their own allocations policy loaded onto the system, so that they can obtain a shortlist of applicants for a vacancy in their own stock, prioritised according to their own allocations policy. Full partnership gives them remote electronic access to this database, so they can obtain this shortlist themselves without seeking the assistance of another partner. If the CHR involves shared administration, then a full partner could also take a role in accepting, inputting and updating applications on the central database from its own office.

However, landlords with relatively small amounts of stock could have their allocations policy loaded onto the CHR system without remote access. Partners without an office within the area of coverage (for example a regional or national RSL) can choose not to take an administrative role. When such a partner has a vacancy, they can request a shortlist from the CHR administrator according to their own allocations policy. They may then visit and reassess two or three applicants to make their final selection. Ideally, where an applicant is visited but not housed, this information should be shared with other partners as this may remove the need for a further visit.

Within model 2, it is likely that only the larger partners would be full partners, with their allocations policies on the system, with remote access to that system, and with an administrative role. Smaller organisations with little stock in the area would be unlikely to have their allocations policy on the system, to have remote access to that system, or to have an administrative role. Instead, they would select one of the full partners and become their 'buddy'. This organisation then acts as an agent for them. When a buddy organisation has a vacancy, it approaches the organisation acting as agent and seeks a shortlist of applicants prioritised according to the agent's allocations policy, which is loaded onto the system. One of the attractions of this approach is that small organisations can decide which of the full partners' allocations policies is closest to its own, and then choose to have a buddy arrangement with them.

Cost implications

The cost of participating in simpler models (3 and 4) are minimal, and in some cases nonexistent. This is of course largely because partners have been able to agree upon a simpler model. However, because the CHR covers a smaller part of the process (taking applications, basic assessment and shortlisting) the participating landlord will need to undertake a more detailed assessment of their own on shortlisted applicants, which may include a home visit. Therefore while the participating costs under model 3 may be low, the ongoing staffing costs within individual organisations will probably not be reduced once the CHR goes live. In fact, they may increase.

Under model 1, the revenue costs of participating in the CHR will be relatively high, not least because this model includes a one-stop shop for housing advice and a central administration unit. Additionally, under this model most partners would have their allocations policy on the CHR system and would have direct access through an electronic link, both of which have cost implications. On the other hand, individual organisations will no longer need to provide staff to offer housing information and advice, nor will they need to spend time taking applications and maintaining a waiting list.

Under model 2, core functions are delivered in other ways, and this affects not only the costs each organisation is asked to share, but also the workload and therefore internal costs of individual landlords. For example, every applicant receives a home visit at the point of registration. If this is delivered by means of a central home visiting team, then this will add considerably to the cost of participation. If on the other hand each partner takes a role in carrying out home visits, their contribution will be in kind (using existing staff resources) rather than cash. Also, under model 2, administration (inputting and updating applications) is shared. Again, this is resourced through existing staff resources in individual landlords rather than through cash contributions to a central administration unit as in model 1.

8 BUILDING YOUR CHR MODEL

In order to assist you and your CHR partners to think through the basic structure, scope and style of your CHR model, we have devised an exercise you can do together. It is simple, but it will lay the foundations for much more detailed discussion on the features you want to incorporate in your CHR model and how the model will work in practice. It is a good idea to invite a wider audience to participate in this exercise, and this should include relevant voluntary organisations, advice agencies and end users (such as tenants representatives).

The Building Blocks exercise deals only with the CHR's core functions. Once you have identified how you will deliver these core functions, you can begin to explore how the 'other features' of the CHR (introduced in chapter 9) will fit in.

THE BUILDING BLOCKS EXERCISE¹

On the next page you will find a chart representing a selection of building blocks for the core elements of a CHR. Each row offers two or three options from which you can choose the model you want to build.

The exercise

Take out the selection of 'building blocks' representing the key elements of a CHR and look at them with your working group. For each block, a number of different options have been suggested. This is not an exhaustive list, and the working group may identify different options, or even combinations of options, suitable to your model.

1. Ensure that all participants have a common understanding of the terms and definitions used.

2. Divide into two groups. The first group takes the role of the applicant (or tenant seeking transfer) while the second group takes on the role of the landlord.

3. Each group is given a complete set of 'building blocks' (each representing a CHR feature) which includes at least two options for each of the functions. These options are separated by a perforated rather than a solid line.

4. The group must choose between the alternatives presented for each of the building blocks. For example, for core function no.4, a choice must be made between a central administration unit and shared administration.

5. Each group must then justify their decision to the larger group. The whole group then discusses their preferred options for each of the building blocks.

6. It can be useful at this point to decide which are the 'essential', 'desirable' and 'debatable' building blocks for their own CHR.

7. Eventually, firm decisions must be made about the 'desirable' and 'debatable' building blocks, but at the moment note comments and conclusions and defer decisions until further discussion has taken place.

Using the building blocks as a basis for local discussion you can create a unique CHR for your area by combining options for each of the core functions. There is an almost limitless number of combinations, so you will find this exercise focuses thinking and perhaps produces surprising new ideas. Use the 'T cards' in the back cover of this guide to remind you of the CHR model you are working towards. Select the cards which represent your chosen options, and insert these into the template provided. If your preferred option changes later in the process, you can replace it with the card representing your new favoured option.

9 OTHER FEATURES OF A CHR

In addition to the core functions of the CHR models set out in previous chapters, several other features must also be delivered by your CHR. Whatever model you are working towards, you will be able to choose different ways of delivering the other features, and the combinations of core functions and other features are so varied there will be a 'right fit' for every CHR area.

Different levels of partnership

CHRs as they develop should be encouraged to offer a wide range of partnership options. Local authorities and RSLs must take this on board during the early planning stages, if they are to make participation by all RSLs practical. While many RSLs may be involved in more than one CHR in the future, a small number of RSLs will have to address their involvement in a large number of CHRs. However, generally speaking, RSLs with dispersed stock holdings have the majority of their stock in a small number of areas and may be able to operate differently in those areas where they have little stock.

If the CHR structure offers the possibility of centralising or sharing key tasks, this choice should be offered to individual partners on a task-by-task basis. They should then be able to choose where to play a direct role. This flexibility should be of particular benefit to regional and national RSLs.

Once discussions are underway about the management and administration of the register, partners will begin to see that the type of relationship they choose to have with the CHR will be determined by factors such as:

• the capacity of their organisation
• whether they are a locally-based RSL, or a regional/national landlord
• whether or not they have a local office in that area
• the amount of stock and/or level of turnover they have within the CHR area

Decisions about operational participation in the CHR will also depend on:

• whether their own allocations policy is loaded onto the CHR system
• whether they have remote, shared or manual access to the central database
• whether they have an administrative role

Some landlords with limited stock in an area may choose to work with a 'buddy' landlord who can undertake part or all of the applications/letting process on their behalf under contract.

Landlords' choice also extends to involvement in the process of developing the CHR. For example, if a landlord with limited stock in the area chooses to take referrals from the CHR through another partner, they may also opt for that partner to act as their representative or 'agent' during the development process.

Although the way in which partners are linked with the CHR will have implications for their day-to-day lettings activities, it should not impinge upon the delivery of the core functions of the CHR.

The main partnership options for participation in a fully-automated CHR are:

• full partner with allocations policy on system and direct electronic access
• partner with allocations policy on the system but no electronic access
• partner participates through a 'buddy' arrangement
• partner takes nominations or referrals from another partner

Depending on the model of CHR chosen (ie. which functions are centralised and which are shared), partners must decide whether they want an active role in functions such as inputting, changing circumstances, housing advice, health assessments, home visits either for themselves or on behalf of the partnership. The CHR structure must be flexible enough to include different types of partners in practical ways.

Nominations

Nominations were devised in the mid-seventies as a way of maximising access to the growing range of housing options. They also provided a useful tool for local authorities by transferring tenants into more suitable housing, thereby freeing up housing for new applicants.

However, nominations need not be retained within a CHR because the CHR itself serves to maximise access. Nominations can therefore be handled in a number of ways:

• nominations retained - RSL can take their own nominations directly from the system because they can access the local authority's list
• nominations retained - local authority makes a nomination from its own list. Depending on level of access partners have to system, they may be able to draw down data themselves; otherwise they will be forwarded the information by the Council
• nominations redundant because CHR acts to maximise access

Verification of applicant information prior to offer

Landlords should accept information provided by applicants at the time of making the application to ensure there is no unnecessary delay in processing an application form. Verification of this information is not necessary at the point of application. However, all landlords will want to check information prior to offer to ensure that it is correct.

Verification can be obtained by home visit, or by requesting documentation. In both cases, the information must be shared amongst partners.

Property matching

Partners will need to decide how they will match applicants with vacant properties. It will only be possible to match through an automated process if the CHR includes a comprehensive property database. The main options for matching and shortlisting are:

• entering dummy properties onto the system to match properties
• matching properties manually without using the system
• entering shortlists of applicants, produced by the CHR, onto their own allocation system for the purposes of matching
• shortlisting and matching from the CHR system, then duplicating details to their own management system to provide interface with all management facilities

The offers process

Partners will need to decide what happens to an applicant if they are being considered for an offer. The main options are:

• applicant is 'suspended' from register if one partner is considering for offer
• applicant is allowed to consider/choose between multiple offers within a set time period

Managing the register

As noted in chapter 4, a successful CHR must be based on effective partnership. No individual partner should be seen as having exclusive rights or ownership over the CHR. However, one organisation may be contracted to manage the CHR on behalf of the partnership, or it may be common sense for the local authority to provide overall management of the CHR where the local authority is the largest partner, where it has funded the development of the CHR, or where its own software is capable of hosting the system.

However, the CHR could be managed by a separate organisation set up as a development partnership, and jointly managed by all the CHR partners, or an RSL might manage the CHR under contract from the council on behalf of the CHR partnership. Three options for management - all of which must be underpinned by a legal agreement - are:

• CHR is managed by an independent body and can be registered as a Limited Company
• CHR is managed by a Board or Committee made up of representatives from the partners
• CHR is managed by one of the partners, on behalf of the partnership

¹ This has been adapted from an earlier version included in Common Housing Registers: Considering the Options' Scottish Executive, 2001

« Previous | Contents | Next »