Transition Housing: an answer to homelessness in Brighton & Hove?

When I first came to England in 1979 my first home was a room in a shared house. This is not uncommon for many in Brighton and Hove, not least our student population. It will become more common as housing benefit changes restrict anyone under the age of 35 to benefit levels equivalent to a room in a shared house. Coming into force on January 1^st, the change will see 820 men and women now competing for shared housing, creating greater competition for families looking for homes.

A few years later, having moved into other shared housing, I secured a tenancy for a bedsit with my own kitchenette and bathroom and my own front door. It felt like a palace. In reality the total floor space was less than my office at BHT, but it was mine.

I was a good tenant, paid my rent on time, didn’t disturb my neighbours, and helped keep the common ways clean and tidy. I got to know my landlord and a year or so later when a two bedroom flat in the same block became available, I was offered the tenancy. It was my home for the next seven years.

I was also able to make a recommendation to my landlord about who should be offered the tenancy of the tiny bedsit. I nominated someone who is amongst my oldest friends and for the past 26 years my colleague at BHT, John Holmström.

And it is to John that BHT owes many of its best ideas. It was his vision that saw the transformation of the Phase 1 Project that had previously been the Regency House Hotel, one of the most run-down, flea and rat-infested hovels inBrighton. John brokered the partnership that brought in the money and expertise to make the vision a reality.

John also came up with a solution to the lack of accommodation for men and women in psychiatric hospitals. He saw the opportunity to bring together private sector housing, health services and welfare benefits, and from his understanding the award-winning Route 1 Project was created. It now forms an invaluable part of the strategy for housing solutions for those with mental health problems.

John has now coined the phrase “Transition Housing” to encapsulate an idea to resolve the tensions between housing availability, affordability, standards, density, lack of land supply and financially viable developments. The immediate challenge is to have a conversation in the City to achieve consensus around his vision.

He explained the concept: “At the heart we need to come to terms with single people having to live more densely so we can free up as much space for family housing as possible. For this we have to be smarter about how successful denser living can be achieved. If we have less private space for example, we need to look at how communal spaces can be better used.

“For those without a study area for a computer we need to ensure better and greater use of libraries, schools and other community spaces. Rather than everybody having their own washing machine, we need shared laundry facilities in blocks of flats.  Such lifestyle adjustments will also help residents be more environmentally friendly.

“Where space is too small to have overnight visitors, we would need a spare guest flat that could be used for occasional visitors.”

John said to me that he knows that “there will be a million and one questions” but that should not hold us back from doing something imaginative, something bold, something “very Brighton” to address one of the obvious and immediate needs in the City.

I believe John has come up with something very exciting that must be taken forward.  In the very near future I hope to see Transition Housing become a widely endorsed concept. And if you don’t like the name, could I suggest ‘Holmström Housing’?

The age of social media is giving way to smarter ways of influencing and networking

For much of the last year I have been trying to persuade colleagues at BHT of the importance of social media. I have had limited success which must be more to do with my power of persuasion than the power of media such as Twitter! A few colleagues said to me, “Andy, we know you are into all of this, but it’s really not for us”.

However, the penny dropped a few months ago when I said to some colleagues, “Imagine if there was a meeting with key stakeholders present, debating the issues of the day that effect the City and the work we do. And imagine if you decided it wasn’t really for you and didn’t go. You would expect to be disciplined for negligence. Well the same is true for the ongoing, online debate that is happening right now”.

My colleague, John Holmstrom, got it and is now a regular contributed to Twitter and I am sure that many will learn much from his writing on his recently launched blog.

Having banged on about social media ad nauseum, I recently dropped a bombshell by saying that, while social media would continue, we had to move to something new – hyper local networks.

When you think how most of us operate, it is within small groups whose membership is controlled and where we trust those we influence and are influence by. While I might share some trivia through Twitter (my sad devotion to Stoke City, for example), I am not likely to share deeper, more important information. But there are those with whom I do such confidences.

Jason Schwartz has recently launched an iPhone App, Matchbook, that lists places, websites and other areas of interest. He decided not to incorporate social functions where your ‘friends’ can see your areas of interest. He said, “The age of social sharing [and broadcasting everything] has pretty much reached its end. I think moving forward we will see a new era of more classy social sharing that’s more indicative of people’s real social interactions in the real world. Social interactions online aren’t like the real world at all.”

This doesn’t mean that I will be retiring my Twitter account. No, Twitter remains mportant, but when it comes to influencing we all need to become smarter and, more time efficient when networking.

My approach remains one of Thought Leadership. I don’t profess to have any kind of monopoly on good ideas, but perhaps if I share my ideas with you, and you reflect back your ideas, based on your experience and wisdom, then hopefully I will see my ideas improved and strengthened.

But when it comes to influencing, I approach it on a hyper local basis. As a leader of an organisation part of my role is to align and motivate people in order to achieve the change we are seeking. It can be done by broadcasting through Twitter or this blog, but it is more likely to be achieved through small groups and, most likely, through one to one encounters.

Combatting homelessness leading to change, or promoting change to combat homelessness?

A colleague of mine, Phil Oakley, recently said to me that BHT has its Mission Statement completely the wrong way round. He said that it should read “promoting change, creating opportunities, combating homelessness” rather than “combating homelessness, creating opportunities, promoting change”.

On Twitter I follow Felicity Reynolds, the chief executive of the Mercy Foundation which works towards ending homelessness through affordable housing and support. I have never met Felicity. She lives and works in Sydney, Australia. Such is the value of Twitter (5 years old today, I understand) that it enables me to follow the work of colleagues in different parts of the world.

Earlier today , Felicity wrote, “Housing solves homelessness. Ongoing support, when needed, sustains people in housing.” She continues, “‘Housing First’ isn’t ‘Housing Only’ . Housing comes first, but ongoing support needs to focus on client choice. I’m working towards a time when none of our fellow citizens are consigned to living long-term on a street”.

The different positions taken by Phil and by Felicity demonstrates the chicken and egg dilemma for those of us working in the world of homelessness. Should our first priority be to get somebody housed or should we be looking at the underlying causes of why they became homeless in the first place? 

Most people say you should do them at the same time. I know that part of my experience has been that when someone is housed before the underlying problem is addressed, the likelihood of addressing that problem becomes harder. 

The counter argument is that it is impossible to address an alcohol or drug problem or mental health issue while someone is still living on the street. I absolutely agree with that, but I’m not sure whether providing someone with a permanent home is the immediate answer. We need to get people off the street at the very earliest opportunity, but then we must address the causes of homelessness and actively promote the pace and scale of change.

That is why I like the approach taken by Phil. He says that by promoting change it allows individuals to make the most of the opportunities that exist to tackle homelessness themselves. That approach asks the question: is BHT a homelessness organisation or a change organisation? I don’t see them as mutually exclusive, but we must ensure that we don’t merely provide accommodation and support, we must continue to build on our growing reputation for promoting change.

I am interested in what others think about the pace and scale of change. At what point do we accept that sufficient change has been made that means that a tenancy is sustainable? And what consequences should there be for those who choose not to change (as opposed to those not able to change)?

In a world of decreasing resources, how do we prioritise our financial resources and efforts while at the same time, as Felicity says, reaching “a time when none of our fellow citizens are consigned to living long-term on a street”.

Twitter is more than ‘celebrity’ gossip; it is where real debate is happening in Brighton & Hove

A man sat on a bar stool in the middle of a pub and announced loudly “Gather round, gather round, come and listen to the fascinating insights I have on all the issues I find interesting”. Needless to say, the only attention he received was abuse from the resident drunk who alone thought his own views would be of even greater interest to anyone who would give him the time of day.

In the corner of the pub was a group of friends discussing an issue of the day. The discussion was good humoured, sometimes passionate, clearly enjoyable. After a while, the man on the bar stool moved across and sat on the edge of the group of friends. After a while he chipped in with a view that was well received. He soon was part of the conversation. It felt much better than being berated by the resident drunk.

I sometimes feel that blogging is a bit like the man on the bar stool. Take this blog, I post things that are of interest to me and I believe relevant to BHT. I may find the themes fascinating, but does anyone else? I hope so, but is there a different discussion going on elsewhere? I know from the number of people who view this blog that I must be doing something right, but from the number of people who leave comments (very few) I must be doing something not right.

A year ago I found the idea of Twitter shallow, to be avoided if at all possible. But in the last few weeks I ‘got’ Twitter. It is the conversation that is going on in the corner of the pub and all over the place. And the discussion involves people who we may rarely see or hear from.

The key to Twitter are hashtags that allow you to follow a stream of tweets building up a debate.  For example, #citycampbtn allowed me to follow a wider debate about issues and initiatives at the recent City Camp Brighton event.  While in one session, I was able to see what was emerging in other groups.  Since then, #myurbanangel has allowed people to follow how the ‘winning’ idea from City Camp Brighton is being taken forward.

Twitter can be dismissed as no more than celebrities, who we will never meet, sharing with their adoring public that they are walking down the road scratching their bum! How wrong is that view. Most celebrities can be avoided (thank goodness) simply by not following them. There is a huge amount of informed discussion out there, not just ‘celebrity’ gossip. Join the debate.

Why being ethical is good for business

I am contemplating the statement “Why being ethical is good for business”. My initial reaction was “Of course it is” but it is a more complex issue than that. At BHT we would like to think we operate throughout our work with uncompromised ethics. We have had a Code of Ethics for 22 years which is reviewed and updated. I introduce the Code to all new members of staff as part of their induction.

But the moment one becomes complacent, immediately the risk increases.  A corner cut here, an oversight there, a compromise or two.  It can be a slippery slope.  There are things I have done in my role as Chief Executive of BHT that I never thought I would have done.  I can justify my actions to myself, but do others see things in the same light.

The biggest ‘compromise’ I have made regarding my own personal ethical base was to review (the reality was cut) staff salaries a couple of years ago.  It was a compromise I never dreamed I would make, but I did.  Faced with unpalatable choices because of the worsening financial outlook - closing services, making staff redundant, or cutting salaries, I recommended that we should follow the least worst option – salary reductions.  I can justify it to myself (and others) saying that the loss of a service was the worst option.  Afterall, that is why we exist. The next worst option was making redundancies.  I appreciate the impact that redundancy causes to households, and the loss of staff does impact on our ability to deliver quality services.

Salary cuts, of course, hit morale, and resulted in understandable anger.  It was to the credit of BHT staff that they were able to separate out their professional commitment to their clients from their feelings towards the employer and, in particular, me.

Was what we did unethical? I think we let down our staff on one level.  On the other hand, while many charities are facing having to make redundancies and even closure, BHT can look towards the next three to five years with confidence. The decision was driven, I would argue the ethical base for the decision, was based on our ethical commitment to our clients.

Ethical standards must run throughout an organisation – conduct, respect, competence, confidentiality, standards of work practice, integrity. I expect, no demand, the highest ethical standards from BHT staff. We must model such standards if we expect others to be ethical in their dealings with us. 

Next Friday (18th March 12.30pm to 5.15pm) there is a conference being organised by the Business Community Partnership, funded by Social Enterprise South East and the Cabinet Office, on the theme Why being ethical is good for business.  I will speaking at this conference on BHT’s experience of Social Enterprise.  My hope is by being part of events such as this I will deepen my understanding and, best of all, be challenged in order to avoid complacency.

The Community and Voluntary Sectors must engage in new media or risk being left behind

Earlier this week I blogged about City Camp Brighton, an amazing event that took place over last weekend. But there has been something that has been troubling me with a couple of people noted on Twitter: where was everyone from community and voluntary organisations? I may have missed someone (if so apologies) but I think that there were just a small handful of us from the community and voluntary sector: Mark Walker from SCIP, Cat Fletcher from GreenCycle Sussex, Sally Polanski and Emily O’Brien from the Community and Voluntary Sector Forum, and Paul Sweeting and me from BHT.

Whatever you think of new media and technologies, failure to engage will result in individuals and organisations being left behind. And if we are being left behind, there will a knock-on impact on our clients.

The City Council, the Police, the NHS and the private sector are there, and new media and technology is beginning to dominate agendas. The pace of change is rapid and it will be an extra challenge to play ‘catch up’.

So why are voluntary and community organisations so noticeable by their absence? The first, and most obvious, answer is how busy everyone is. Events such as City Camp Brighton can be seen as yet another forum, meeting or conference, and don’t we do so many of those already? Perhaps, but maybe we should be looking at dropping other things to make capacity.

A second possibility is that many organisations are so taken up at the moment with reacting to budget crises that something such as City Camp Brighton is seen as a distraction, possibly an indulgence.

Thirdly, there is an attitudinal problem. We in the community and voluntary sector boast of being innovative, at the cutting edge, being in the front line. But when it comes to new ways of engaging or using technology to innovate and evolve solutions, it is the City Council, the police and private businesses that are in the forefront. Often community and voluntary organisations are not just following up in the rear, we aren’t even on the same journey.

At BHT, several of my colleagues have dismissed my enthusiasm for new media and technology, saying that they know it is something I am into but it’s not for them. I’ve let it go …… until now. I’m still learning the tricks of this trade and recognise how far I have to go to become an effective communicator through blogging and Twitter. There appears to be an expectation, backed up by strong leadership within the City Council, that community engagement through new media is required. BHT can learn a lot from our Council colleagues.

The Blogosphere: enhancing and damaging reputations

For reasons I won’t go into, I have been reflecting on the issue of organisational reputation this week. Most organisations spend a great deal of time, energy and money on building an image. Often it is based on years of positive practice, continuous improvement, and customer satisfaction.

But reputation can be lost overnight, through negligence, error, omission, accident, or false allegation. At present, reputations are being damaged because of ‘non-dom’ status, a footballer sending of photos of himself, alleged bullying in high office, and an another footballer’s alleged infidelity with the former partner of a former teammate.

It may reflect on individuals moral standing, but none of these reflect on how well one does one’s job.

In the past, when most information was circulated through the mass media, greater challenges existed for individuals to be critical, or positive, about an organisation, whether justified or not. With the emergence of new media, it is relatively easy for an individual, or group of individuals, to start a campaign to undermine the credibility and reputation of another.

Fortunately, BHT has not been subject to criticism other than a couple of blogs that made some inaccurate comments regarding the industrial dispute that took place in BHT last year. The blogosphere offers great opportunities, and pose significant risks, to organisations and individuals.

In BHT we are encouraging staff and service users to block, to talk about issues impacting on themselves, on BHT and on how we can make communities within which we work better places to live. The intention is that in ‘BHT bloggers’ make a constructive contribution to resolving problems, answering questions, and exploring issues.

What I hope I never read in a BHT related blog is criticisms of another organisation or individual. If you think we have not maintained that standard, please let me know.

Teaching an old dog new tricks – blogging and tweeting!

My colleague, Lucy Enever, has just begun blogging.  She is one of several members of staff who I have been encouraging to start blogging.  As my PA, I spend time with her most mornings, discussing the day ahead and reflecting on issues in the news and issues that impact on BHT. 

Often she has really a interesting perspective on issues, and it triggers my thinking.  Since I started blogging more consistently at the beginning of the year, our conversations have led to a number of posts.  (I have another blog, separate from work, on cricket, but I have spectacularly failed to blog consistently – it isn’t easy for someone at my age to learn new tricks!).

Because of her original thinking it was only natural that Lucy was one of the first members of staff I encouraged to start blogging, so I am delighted she has taken the plunge.  Her first post was about how she has been encouraging people in BHT to embrace new media, and how her pleadings had fallen on deaf ears.  What she didn’t say was the dinosaur was me!

I had played with my cricket blog, and was persuaded by Lucy to try Twitter. I originally found Twitter the most shallow networking forum in the world.  I was useless on Facebook, and appalled at the jargon (closing a Facebook account is called “Facebook Suicide” – disgusting).

Then over the Christmas holidays I read a couple of books that opened my eyes to the new reality of “new rules” for communication, PR and marketing.  While BHT has been quite successful in its PR output, the approach we were taking was PR of the 1980’s and 90’s.  We had to change, and new media is at the heart of it.

So, staff at BHT are being encouraged to blog, Tweet (I don’t think I will ever be comfortable with the jargon), and other things that I am yet to grasp.  By embracing a Thought Leadership approach, we don’t have to censor, restrict or police what is being said.  There are the normal expectations on personal conduct that apply to letters, emails and conversations. Of course racism, sexism, and other abusive behaviour is not ok, nor is commenting negatively about other organisations and individuals, directly or implied.

So, in 2010 I have entered a brave new world.  I am not sure if I am doing it right, but I guess this old dog is learning new tricks.  Thanks, Lucy.

Board meetings open to all members of staff helps produce healthy debate

There is an interesting article in this week’s Third Sector magazine which debates whether members of senior management teams should attend meetings of Trustees / Boards of Management.

Valerie Morton writes: “Some actively encourage senior staff to attend. Others go to the opposite extreme and have only the chief executive in attendance, and even then not at every meeting. The middle ground is for senior staff to be invited to present specific agenda items”.

At BHT, other than when it is considering sensitive commercial or personnel matters, we have an ‘open’ approach to Board meetings.  Not only is there an expectation that senior managers attend, there is an open invitation to all members of staff to attend.  Copies of Board papers are made available to staff before the meeting through the BHT Unison group. Like the tide, attendance ebbs and flows.  Last year, when we undertook a contentious resetting of salaries and terms & conditions, attendance increased.

The benefit of wider attendance is to allow members of staff (and in the case of BHT, the recognised trade union) to be exposed to wider views, perhaps one could call it the ‘mood music’, that lies behind contentious decisions. Formal consultation meetings are important, but it is helpful if there is a wider audience who can understand how decision evolve, rather than merely hearing or reading about a stark decision. 

Where misunderstandings can occur is when a member of staff comes for just one meeting, hears an individual Board member express and opinion, and goes away believing that is representative of the Board or, even, that individual’s views. That is why regular attendance is a good thing.

Sometime new Board members express surprise when 15 or 20 members of staff arrive at the start of a meeting.  Most Board members realise that having ‘an audience’ will ensure that a more informed debate on issues can be held within the organisation.

Board and Trustee meetings are the forums for formal decisions to be made, but often it is where the ethos of an organisation is entrusted.  I know that Board members at BHT found the recommendations I brought to them personally very difficult to decide on.  Our Board members are unpaid, and generously give of their time because they believe in what BHT stands for and the services we deliver.

I don’t envy their role, and anyone who watches the BHT Board in action over a period of time will appreciate the integrity that they bring to their office.

Never attack others, a key expectation of Thought Leadership

In the next weerk or so, we will be launching a number of new blogs, written by members of staff at BHT, and some by current and former service users.  This is part of BHT doing Thought Leadership.

Some colleagues are, understandably, concerned about where Thought Leadership might lead BHT.  They are concerned that, by giving licence to colleagues to express themselves freely, the reputation of the organisation might be damaged.  Some have suggested we should have strict rules about what can and can’t be said.

Regarding reputation, I think the opposite is true. I think that most people, when they hear about our ‘experiment’ (it’s more than an experiment) will respond positively.  Some have said that this approach is corageous,  Again I disagree.  We have little to lose.

Some say we should have clear rules about what people can and can’t say.  In the spirit of encouraging debate, I would want to keep rules to an absolute minimum.  I would rather call them expectations. I would expect that other organisations and all individuals are never attacked or criticised.  I would hope that reference to other organisations would be nothing but positive, for example, by acknowledging good practice or interesting innovation or good join working. 

I would expect that blogs should not be a ‘brochure for BHT’.  There is nothing so boring, and even unconvincing, than someone just saying how wonderful they and their organisations are.  I should know, I’ve done it for long enough!  

I would expect that those blogging should use their blogs to articulate their thinking, and to invite others to add to our collective knowledge, to help us to evolve solutions to problems and better answers to questions.

One of the most frustrating things about someone in my position within an organisation is that some people tell you what they think you want to hear.  Fortunately, others tell me what they really think or what their experiences have been.  The former is less than useless, the second can lead to learning and improvement.  I look forward to reading what me colleagues have to say.

Others will, I hope, look at BHT and what we are doing with Thought Leadership, and what our staff and service users are blogging about,and conclude that BHT is an interesting organisation, one that is worth doing business with.