3 Housing Allocations in the Public Sector

Transcription

1 3 Housing Allocations in the Public Sector Introduction In this chapter we continue to focus on public sector housing, and consideration is given to the policies and practices of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive with respect to its arguably most important task, the allocation of housing. In the first section of this chapter an account is given of the evolution of the Executive s House Selection Scheme and the allocations process itself is described. This is followed by an examination of various characteristics of the waiting list as it was constituted at the end of A third section considers allocations made during 1987 and some conclusions are arrived at in a final section. Data analysed and interpreted in this chapter was provided by the Housing Executive to PSI s specifications and is drawn from information routinely collected by the Housing Executive for its own management purposes. The House Selection Scheme The origins of the NIHE house selection scheme lie in the few years immediately prior to the founding of the Executive in October Following the report of the Cameron Commission in 1969 which had identified discrimination in housing allocations by some local authorities as one of the main causes of the outbreak of civil disorder, the then Ministry of Development in Northern Ireland drew up a model allocation scheme which was adopted by the third force in housing provision in the Province, the Northern Ireland Housing Trust. The 1

2 Housing Housing Trust was the first authority to be absorbed by the Housing Executive in 1971 and the model sheme used by the Trust was also adopted. The model scheme identified 6 groups of housing need and each application for housing was assessed according to objective criteria laid out in the scheme. After absorbing the Housing Trust, the Executive during took over one by one the housing responsibilities of the various local authorities and the new town development commissions, and by 1974 it had introduced a unitary points scheme throughout the whole of Northern Ireland. The first major review of that new scheme took place shortly afterwards in and resulted in a revised pointings system being established from October 1977 which gave higher priority to applicants expressing a local preference and which introduced 2 principal applicant groups: Group A for unpointed priority cases and Group B for pointed cases. Between 1977 and 1985 some 25 fine tuning amendments were made to the scheme but the overall structure of the pointings scheme remained intact until a further review was carried out in This latest review, which had the benefit of independent research on allocations policy and practice carried out at Queens University, recommended inter alia that questions and reporting on the general housing standard of applicants be dropped and that no points should in future be awarded on this criterion. Another major change was in the recognition given to the growing problem of disrepair by increasing the points available for severe disrepair from 5 to 10. An outline of the current scheme All applicants for NIHE housing register by completing a standard application form which is kept on file in the housing management district in which the applicant resides. Housing and employment details are collected on this form and applicants are asked to indicate first and second preferences for the areas in which they would like to live. There are additional questions on the back of the application form, some of which seek to elaborate on the question of estate preference. The form states: Housing Executive policy is to provide housing for those in need, regardless of political affiliation or religious belief. The Executive recognises, however that at the present time some people will 2

3 Housing allocations in the public sector not want to live in an area where they will be in a religious minority and that these people must be catered for when accomodation is being provided. What is your religion?...are you willing to accept accomodation in a mixed area?... Of those who were on the waiting list at the end of 1987 we discovered that 92% of those registered for Protestant estates, 96% of those registered for Catholic estates and 92% of those registered for mixed estates did not complete this section of the application form. Having registered with the Housing Executive, the applicant receives a visit from the local Housing Assistant. The main function of this visit is to verify the information provided on the application form, to check out the applicant s current circumstances and, where relevant, to award points to the applicant. During the visit the assistant will also seek to clarify the type of housing the applicant requires, and find out about areas which the applicant would find unacceptable. At the same time the assistant will be able to inform the applicant of his housing chances, given the requirements he has stated and his housing need. At this stage the applicant may be informed that his chances can be improved by modifying initial preferences or requirements, and in this way the visit by the housing assistant serves to match up needs and preferences with availability. We describe later on in this chapter the system of pointing applicants and the criteria for inclusion in the non-pointed or priority groups. What we would like to do here is to draw attention to the main principles which underpin the house selection scheme and the constraints which affect its operation. First, we can note that, given the controversies that surrounded the allocations practices of the local authorities, the Housing Executive had to pay close attention to achieving a fair and equitable house selection system for Northern Ireland. One indicator of the extent to which it has managed to do this can be gauged by the fact that the Commissioner for Complaints has had no occasion to find the Executive guilty of political or religious discrimination in allocations. It is also true to say that the Executive is seen by the general public in Northern Ireland to go about its business in an unbiased way. Secondly, it should be recognised that the NIHE House Selection Scheme has a high standing amongst housing professionals. Singleton has concluded that on paper the NIHE scheme 3

4 Housing measured up to the Housing Services Advisory Group s model of best practice (see Housing Review, Vol.34 No.1, 1985). The NIHE scheme recognises the existence of those in greatest housing need by awarding them A or priority status when it come to allocations and so the rules for admission to this category have to be tightly controlled. However, the fact that this group has to be housed quickly means that an A applicant s ability to choose is inevitably restricted. The administrative mechanism for restricting choice is to limit the applicant to a maximum of two refusals after which applicants go on to the general or B list and are housed on the basis of points accumulated. However, those in the B group may increase their choice and eventually get the estate they want if they are prepared to wait by virtue of not being in severe housing need. Another factor in the equation is the existence of transfer cases, that is, Housing Executive tenants who wish to change to a new Housing Executive property. On the face of it, it may seem that such tenants (who are not included on either the A or B lists) should have low priority when it comes to rehousing, since their need is obviously less than someone with no house at all. However, judicious transfer of existing tenants can work in favour of finding suitable housing for new applicants. Thus, if a house becomes available it may not be filled immmediately by the person at the top of the waiting list, but there may be a chain of transfers, the result of which is to find a more suitable house at the end of the chain for the prospective tenant. Transfers can solve problems of underoccupancy and overcrowding by moving families whose children have left home to more appropriately sized accommodation and thereby freeing large houses for existing tenants with growing families. It will be appreciated then that the housing allocations process is complex and dynamic; the system has to attend to sudden upsurges in priority housing need, deal with a steady inflow of new applicants onto the waiting list, and make sure that existing tenants have housing appropriate to their changing needs and circumstances. It makes sense therefore to devolve considerable discretion to local housing managers who will be required to seek ways of balancing these different demands within the context of a unitary Province-wide allocations scheme. 4

5 Housing allocations in the public sector Some aspects of segregation in housing in Northern Ireland have been discussed in Chapter 1 and segregation within the public sector is clearly a constraint within which allocations can be made. It seems that the Housing Executive takes no stand for or against segregated or integrated housing. One of its early annual reports expounded the following principle: We believe that people should have the maximum freedom of choice in where they wish to live. The executive does not believe that forced integration is any more desirable than a policy of deliberate segregation. We can only hope that the provision of an attractive mixture of housing and a change of the socio-political as well as the physiological environment may ease the problem of polarisation.... It goes without stating that the Housing Executive did not create the patterns of segregation that exist in housing in the public sector. One feature of residential patterns in Northern Ireland has been the continuity and persistence of the religious divide in specific geographical locations. Such segregation existed prior to the creation of large public sector housing estates. Attempts by the Housing Trust and the Executive to encourage the development of integrated estates seem to have failed (although it should be noted that the Housing Trust had a much more explicit policy of encouraging integration than the Executive) and it may be as a result of such failures that the Executive adopts a policy of indifference to the question of segregation. Some commentators have however pointed out that the Executive s liberal attitude towards housing choice may increase and speed up underlying tendencies which lead in the direction of segregation. As Murray and Osborne pointed out in 1977: The dilemma is that by making it easier for individuals to exercise this freedom of choice, particularly through an emergency housing scheme, a worse situation may be created. People have a right to move to where they feel safer, more comfortable, but in doing this they may make the people left behind feel more insecure. (New Society, 21 April 1977). There seems to be little doubt that a prolonged period of civil disturbance and population movement has put severe strains on the Executive s ability to implement a unitary housing allocations policy. Thus Singleton has commented that segregation of Protestant and Catholics has led to an implicit recognition of the inevitability of allocating dwellings on the basis of two waiting lists, one Catholic 5

6 Housing and the other Protestant. He goes on,...the NIHE has in many instances had no option but to sort its waiting list into Roman Catholics and Protestants and provide separate housing sites in different parts of towns for the two groups. A consequence of residential segregation is that many new housing schemes will have been identified by housing managers as dwellings for Protestants or dwellings for Catholics even at the planning stage. The housing waiting list In this section we analyse various aspects of the the waiting list for Housing Executive dwellings as it stood at the end of December This should be regarded as a recent snapshot and not an account of changes in the waiting list over time. However, by way of introduction to the discussion below it may be helpful to be aware of the underlying shifts in the composition of the waiting list that have been taking place during the 1980 s. First, it should be noted that the waiting list reached an all time high in 1980 and since that time has been declining, but with a recent slightly upward trend. Secondly, the A, or priority, list has seen a greater decline proportionately than the B list and one explanation of this is likely to be a reduced emphasis on urban clearance schemes which in the past necessitated the emergency rehousing of vast numbers of people. In the discussion below, households waiting to be housed have been categorised as Protestant, Catholic or mixed on the basis of information, provided by applicants and recorded on the housing application form, concerning estate of preference. It is not possible to ascertain the religious affiliations of the individual members of households expressing such preferences although it can be inferred that households expressing a preference for either a Protestant or a Catholic estate (as defined acording to the criteria indicated in Chapter 1 and used in analysing house conditions data) do so because they identify with one or other religious grouping. Table 3.1 shows the composition of the housing waiting list at the end of 1987 for all of Northern Ireland and for the BUA. Of the 21,702 households waiting to be housed, (48%) were in the BUA. Whereas the list for Northern Ireland as a whole has almost 35% of households expressing a preference for mixed estates, this has fallen 6

7 Housing allocations in the public sector to under 20% for the BUA with the remainder in the BUA expressing a preference for either a Protestant (49%) or a Catholic (30%) estate. The types of households making up the waiting list for Northern Ireland are considered in Table 3.2. Just over one third of those on the list are single people with another sizeable category being older small households. There are interesting differences between those waiting to be housed on Protestant and Catholic estates. Twenty-five per cent of those waiting to be housed on Catholic estates are small families compared with only 13% in this category for Protestant estates; 30% per cent of those waiting to be housed on Protestant estates are older small households compared with only 13% in this category for Catholic estates. Only 5% of those waiting to be housed are large families indicating that there is not a major problem in finding housing for this group. However, 7% of the Catholic waiting list as opposed to 3% of the Protestant waiting list are large families. The make-up of the waiting list in the BUA is similar to that of Northern Ireland as a whole although there are fewer singles on the list and a greater number of older small households (see Table 3.3). The differences in household type for the Protestant and Catholic lists mentioned above hold good and are indeed accentuated for the BUA: there are far many more Catholic than Protestant small families waiting to be housed and far more Protestant than Catholic older small households. These variations possibly reflect underlying differences in the age structure of the Protestant and Catholic populations in Northern Ireland. They are in any case indications of different patterns of housing need in the two communities. Age structure of housing applicants Table 3.4 provides more information about the age structure of applicants and amplifies the differences indicated above in household type as between Protestant and Catholic applicants. (Age structure data is derived from the age of the head of household at the time the housing application was made.) Applicants waiting to be housed in Catholic estates tend to be younger with over 60% being under 35 compared with just over 40% for applicants waiting to be housed on Protestant estates. The most striking difference is in the over 60 group: over one third of 7

8 Housing the list for Protestant estates is comprised of applicants over 60 years of age. The corresponding figure for the Catholic group is only 16%. Dependent children Table 3.5 shows that those waiting to be housed on Catholic estates are more likely to have dependent children than other applicants although even in the Catholic group those with no dependent children account for nearly 50%. This compares with just over 60% of those waiting to be housed on Protestant estates with no dependent children. Those waiting to be housed on Catholic estates have a greater number of dependent children, but, with the exception of the category comprising those with only one dependent child, the margin of the difference between Catholic and Protestant is not very large. The A list As described above, the housing waiting list is divided into two main categories, the A and B groups. At the end of 1987 the A group stood at 3280 applicants which represented 15% of the total waiting list. Table 3.6 analyses the A or priority list by household type and estate of preference. By comparing Table 3.6 with Table 3.1 it can be seen that the household composition of the A group is different in some important ways from the general list: about 40% of those on the A list are older small households compared with under 25% on the complete list. In contrast there are far fewer singles on the A list and these no longer make up the largest category. While on the complete list those waiting to be housed into Catholic estates make up 26% of the total number of applicants, those waiting to be housed in Catholic estates account for a larger proportion of the priority list (32%). There has also been an increase in those stating a preference for Protestant estates compared with the general list (from 39% to 43%). Thus the proportion expressing a preference for mixed estates has contracted from 35% on the B list to 25% on the priority list. This is perhaps a reflection of the greater bargaining power of applicants on the A list who perceive that the obligation on the Housing Executive to house them rapidly means they can hold out for what they want. However, applicants on the general list who are dependent on the accumulation of points may perceive that their 8

9 Housing allocations in the public sector chances of being housed more quickly will increase if they are willing to be housed on a mixed estate. Another consideration is that A list applicants will include those seeking refuge from sectarian attack and victimisation and for this group being housed with their own religious community will be a high priority. We might therefore expect this particular group of A applicants to express a preference for a segregated estate. We have noted that the main difference between the A and the complete list was a much larger proportion of older small households on the A list and a corresponding drop in the number of singles. This difference is however much more noticeable for those waiting to be housed in Protestant estates: 50% of all those on the Protestant A list are older small households compared with just over 25% of those on the Catholic A list. The Catholic A list is distributed more evenly across all household types. Sixty eight percent of those on the A list are waiting to be housed in the BUA. When we examine the household distribution of the BUA A list we find that it closely resembles the distribution on the A list for Northern Ireland as a whole. In addition the differences noted above between the Protestant and Catholic A lists with respect to variations in household type hold true for the BUA A list as well. Time on the list We have examined length of time spent on the waiting list for Northern Ireland as a whole in Table % of households had been on the list for more than 3 years and a further 30% had been waiting for between 1 and 3 years. There is a lot of similarity between households waiting for allocation into Protestant and Catholic estates except that a smaller proportion of Catholic households have been waiting longer than 3 years. A similar pattern exists for the BUA (see Table 3.8), although here applicants tend to be on the waiting list for longer with 20% having been waiting for more than 3 years. As with Northern Ireland as a whole, there are a greater number of Protestant than Catholic households in the more than 3 years category but the margin of difference is smaller for the BUA than for Northern Ireland. As we have already seen, the household structure of the waiting list is different for Protestant and Catholic estates especially with 9

10 Housing respect to the proportions of older small households and small families. This is reflected in the length of time these two groups have so far spent on the waiting list. Table 3.9 shows that small families with a preference for Catholic estates are more likely to be found in the higher time bands than small families with a preference for Protestant estates. The opposite is true for older small households (see Table 3.10). Sixty-eight per cent of Catholic small families as opposed to 61% of Protestant small families had already been on the waiting list for more than 6 months; 89% of Protestant older small households had already been on the waiting list for more than 6 months compared to 81% of their Catholic counterparts. However it should be noted that all older small households, irrespective of estate of preference, generally spend unusually long periods on the list prior to rehousing. The dimensions of housing need: how points are accumulated We have described above the difference between the A and B lists and noted that, whereas the A list consists of those who are priority cases, the vast majority of applicants, that is, those on the B list can only be housed once they have accumulated sufficient points. In this section we leave the A or priority group and consider the various ways in which points have been accumulated by applicants in the B group. Table 3.11 lists the ten points factors under which points are awarded and indicates the proportion of housing applicants scoring under each factor. It should be noted that applicants can score under a variety of factors and so the column figures do not total to 100. We now consider each factor in turn and by this method will be able to indicate more clearly the various dimensions of housing need. Sharing Points are accumulated when an applicant is sharing facilities such as a bathroom, kitchen or living room with another household. Unmarried sons or daughters cannot in normal circumstances be defined as another household. Points are attached to each type of facility or room shared, and it can be seen from Table 3.11 that on average 1 in every 3 households scores under this heading. However, almost one half of families waiting to be housed in Catholic estates 10

11 Housing allocations in the public sector accumulate points for sharing which is a much higher proportion than in either the Protestant or the mixed group. Lack of amenities Applicants accumulate points if they live in dwellings which lack basic amenities. For example, if the dwelling has no W.C. the applicant scores 20 points, and if there is no electricity supply 10 points are scored. Since 1985 disrepair also wins points although it must be such as to constitute a threat to the health or physical safety of the occupants. It can be seen that 18% of applicants accumulate points for lack of amenities. However applicants seeking dwellings on Protestant estates are almost twice as likely than the Catholic group to accumulate points under this heading. In Chapter 2 we noted that housing on Catholic estates tended to be of more recent construction than housing on Protestant estates and that a higher proportion of Protestants than of Catholics lived in older rural properties. These variations in dwelling type are undoubtedly related to the higher points scored for lack of amenity in Protestant estates. Overcrowding Applicants accumulate points for deficiencies in a minimum standard of bedroom requirements calculated according to the numbers of adults and children in the household. Points can also be gained if families are obliged to live apart due to lack of space. It can be seen from Table 3.11 that just under 30% of applicants score points under this heading. However as with sharing points, those with a preference for Catholic estates are very much more likely to score points under this heading: the figures are 45% for Catholic estates and 22% for Protestant estates. Underoccupation Elderly applicants can accumulate points if the accommodation they are currently living in is too big for their requirements when assessed according to the type of accommodation they would be offered if they were new applicants. A maximum of 15 points can be gained for any excess rooms. About 10% of applicants score under this factor and very few of these are applicants for Catholic estates. But this is not surprising given what we have learned above about the different age structures of 11

12 Housing applicants for Protestant and Catholic estates. To the extent that underoccupation is the obverse of overcrowding, it is to be expected that fewer Catholic applicants score under this factor. Medical and welfare points Applicants suffering from a serious medical condition or disability which makes their current circumstances inadequate may qualify for the A or priority group of applicants. Other applicants with medical or social considerations which are insufficient to justify inclusion in the A group may accumulate a maximum of 15 points (or 25 if they are elderly). From Table 3.11 it can be seen that less than 10% of applicants accumulate points under the medical category. Those seeking housing in Catholic estates are more likely than their Protestant counterparts to score points under this heading but the difference is not a very big one. Under the social (or welfare) heading however those seeking housing in Catholic estates accumulate fewer points than their Protestant counterparts who are three times as likely to score points for social hardship considerations. Local preference points Applicants gain points if they are seeking to be rehoused in the same District Council area from which they make the application. A maximum of 15 points can be scored under this heading. It can be seen that the vast majority of applicants (nearly 90%) score points under this heading indicating that the majority of applicants confine themselves to the vicinity when looking for housing. Those who apply for Protestant estates score local preference points less frequently than those applying for Catholic estates but the difference is not a very large one given the overall high level of points accumulation under this heading. Ex-service points Points can be scored (up to a maximum of ten) for applications made by ex-service personnel within two years of discharge and by former full-time members of the UDR. Less than one per cent of applicants accumulate points under this factor and very few of these indeed are from applicants looking for housing on Catholic estates. 12

13 Housing allocations in the public sector Family support Applicants can accumulate points if they are seeking to be housed near a close relative and if either the relative or the applicant is of pensionable age. As can be seen from Table 3.11 only about 3% of applicants score points under this heading although those applying for Protestant estates do so more frequently than those applying for Catholic estates. Time on list The length of time on the list is itself a factor against which applicants can accumulate points. For each year on the list applicants accumulate three points up to a maximum of 15 points (that is, for 5 years waiting). Forty-six per cent of applicants have accumulated points under this category indicating that this proportion of applicants had been on the list for at least one year. As one would expect this figure corresponds closely with the data in Table 4 on length of time applicants spend on the waiting list. There is very little difference between those waiting to be housed on Protestant estates and those waiting to be housed on Catholic estates with respect to the time on list factor. In summarising the information relating to points factors, it should be noted that those seeking housing on Protestant estates and those seeking housing on Catholic estates differ in some important respects in how points are accumulated. This indicates that housing need manifests itself in different ways within the two communities. Those seeking Catholic estates are more likely to accumulate points for sharing and overcrowding and to a lesser extent for medical reasons and local preference. Those seeking housing on Protestant estates are more likely to accumulate points for lack of amenities and welfare reasons although the margin of difference from the average is not as great for these factors as the margin of difference on sharing and overcrowding with respect to Catholic estates. Finally, Table 3.12 shows the average number of points accumulated for each household type at the end of The average number of points scored was 38 per applicant for Northern Ireland as a whole but this varied from a low of an average of 30 points for small adult households seeking housing on mixed estates to a high of an average of 49 points for older small households and small families seeking housing on Catholic estates. Those seeking housing on 13

14 Housing Catholic estates have accumulated on average more points in every household category than those seeking housing on Protestant estates. This might seem to indicate that those seeking housing on Catholic estates have to score more points before they get housed than those seeking housing on Protestant estates. Although this is the case it does not of itself indicate that the allocations process is less fair towards those seeking housing on Catholic estates. In order to understand more fully how housing need is met we have to examine not only the composition of the waiting list at the end of 1987 but also the requirements for getting off the list. To do this we need to focus on allocations made during a given time period. It may be that Catholics are accumulating more points than Protestants before they get housed, but this may only be an indication that the pointing system is responsive to a greater housing need among the Catholic community. We have therefore to examine whether the house selection scheme is capable of dealing with housing need as identified by the pointing system. Allocations made during 1987 Data in this section is derived on the basis of the estate classification (Protestant, Catholic or mixed) into which the applicant was eventually housed and not as in the previous section according to estate of preference. We are therefore dealing in this chapter with 2 subsets of data which are not directly comparable and which have been generated in slightly different ways. One difference between the two subsets of data is that while all those who have been allocated housing in 1987 will have been on the waiting list at some point during 1987, and will therefore turn up on both data sets, not every applicant on the waiting list during 1987 will have been allocated a dwelling. The category allocations made during 1987 is therefore that section of the waiting list which has accumulated enough points to come off the waiting list and obtain housing. It has to be appreciated that the waiting list is not a homogeneous pool of applicants who are dealt with purely on first come first served basis. One applicant s needs and circumstances may place him at an advantage to another who has been waiting for several years. An applicant may therefore make an appearance on the list for only a short period. The relationship between the characteristics of those on the waiting list at any one time and the 14

15 Housing allocations in the public sector characteristics of those who are housed from the list is complex. In the long run the two should match up. But it should be remembered that those allocated houses in any given time period are those who have, if you like, struck it lucky due to the interaction of a variety of factors such as their own housing needs and current circumstances, their choice of estate and ability to be flexible as regards preference, including here flexibility as to the religious mix of the estate, and the availability at the right time of a suitable vacancy. There need be no correspondence between estate of preference as indicated by an applicant when an application is made and the estate into which the applicant is eventually rehoused. Thus an applicant may have indicated a preference for what has been classified as a Protestant estate, but accepted an offer of housing on a mixed estate due either to changes in preference, or to a realisation that they will have to wait longer than is acceptable for the estate of his choice. Unfortunately we have no way of comparing the correspondence between estate of choice and the actual estate allocated because data is not collated in this way by the Housing Executive. Separate records exist for waiting list registrations and allocations which means that it is not possible for the Housing Executive to know how successful it has been in matching an application to the estate of choice, and not possible for us to know how many applicants applying for housing in, say, Catholic estates have been successful in getting housing on those estates. Thus we cannot know what proportion of those who expressed a preference for housing on Catholic estates got what they wanted nor can we examine differential rates of preference satisfaction as between Protestant and Catholic. Table 3.13 shows the distribution of allocations for 1987 between Protestant, Catholic and mixed estates for Northern Ireland as a whole and for the BUA. There were approximately 9,300 allocations made during 1987 with about 40% of these being into Protestant estates, 20% into Catholic estates and 40% into mixed estates. In the BUA a much higher proportion of allocations was made into Protestant estates (over 60%) and there were far fewer into mixed estates. It should be remembered that there are far fewer mixed estates in the BUA than in other parts of the Province. 15

16 Housing In Table 3.14 we show how allocations were distributed across various household types. The two largest groups are singles which make up just over one third of all allocations, and small families which make over a quarter. Singles account for a higher proportion of allocations into Protestant than into Catholic estates and the reverse is the case for small families. A and B Groups Table 3.15 shows the distribution of allocations between the A or priority list and the B or general waiting list. Thirty two per cent of allocations were A group applicants. The number of A allocations into Protestant and Catholic estates was roughly the same but there were far fewer A allocations into mixed estates. In Table 3.16 we show the equivalent data for the BUA. A higher proportion of allocations in the BUA are A allocations: 44% for all BUA estates but 50% for allocations into Catholic estates. The higher proportion of A allocations into both Protestant and Catholic estates when compared with mixed estates can possibly be explained by the demand for emergency rehousing out of mixed estates and into safe areas due to intimidation or sectarian violence. It is unlikely that applicants needing rehousing on such grounds would be offered accomodation in mixed areas. It will be obvious that in any given time period the Executive s ability to house people on the general waiting (or B ) list will be influenced by the demand for priority rehousing as indicated by the number of applicants on the A list. The more housed from the A list the fewer can be housed from the B list. Thus, if the demand for priority rehousing of, say, Catholics increases due either to redevelopment and clearance or civil disturbance then one would expect fewer Catholics from the general waiting list to be getting rehoused. This might mean that Catholics on the B list would have to wait longer in order to be housed and that they would have to accumulate more points before qualifying for rehousing. The consequences would obviously be the same if there was an increased demand for emergency rehousing in Protestant areas. Table 3.17 examines A group allocations for Northern Ireland as a whole. The A group is further divided by the Housing Executive 16

17 Housing allocations in the public sector into four sub-groups and these are as follows: A1 status is awarded to those who require emergency rehousing and complete priority over all other applications is given to those placed in this group. Typically this sub-group is made up of 2 sets of applicants, those who are homeless (due, for example, to marital breakdown), and those who require rehousing due to civil unrest or intimidation; A2 status is awarded to those with a special health or social housing need and is designed to cover, for example, disabled people whose suffer hardship or stress due to their current housing; A3 status is awarded to those whose dwellings have been vested or are due for demolition, redevelopment or clearance; A4 status is for key and incoming workers. Within the A group there is a descending order of priority: thus A1 has priority over A2 which has priority over A3 etc. From Table 3.17 it can be seen that almost one half of the A group have been awarded A1 status, about one third have been awarded A3 status and the remaining 2 sub-groups together make up about 20% of the A group. It is interesting that a very high proportion (60%) of those A group cases housed on mixed estates are comprised of A1 or emergency applicants compared with between 40 and 45% for those housed on denominational estates. Since the A1 group includes those who are homeless as well as those who are the victims of intimidation etc., it is not possible to know which proportion of these two types is the greater within the A1 subgroup, or to know what the variation is between Protestant, Catholic and mixed estates. We had earlier suggested that victims of sectarian attack or intimidation were more likely to be rehoused in a segregated estates, but due to the high number of A1 cases rehoused in mixed estates, as shown in Table 3.17, this may not be the case. Alternatively, the A1 group on mixed estates may be homeless due to factors other than civil disturbance. But not all mixed estates are intrinsically unsafe for victims of intimidation and, in addition, it should also be borne in mind that, due to the very gravity of their emergency, some A1 applicants will have little to bargain with and may be obliged by circumstance to take what is offered. Table 3.18 shows the distribution of A allocations for the BUA. It should be noted that the total of 1553 A allocations into the BUA represents over 50% of the A allocations for Northern Ireland as a whole. A higher proportion of A allocations in the BUA are due to 17

18 Housing vesting, redevelopment and clearance and fewer were by virtue of having been awarded A1 status. In Table 3.19 we show the household distribution of A group allocations for Northern Ireland. Small families comprise the largest single group of these allocations, closely followed by single persons and by older small households. There is considerable variation between Protestant and Catholic allocations in 3 categories. Both small and large families make up a higher proportion of A allocations to Catholic estates than to Protestant estates, while the reverse is the case for older small households. In the following table (Table 3.20) we present the data on A group allocation in a different format. We have already illustrated in Table 3.15 that A allocations accounted for 32% of all allocations in 1987, but Table 3.20 shows that this proportion varies considerably for different household types: only 14% of small adult households allocated into mixed estates were A allocations but 72% of older small households allocated into Protestant estates were A allocations. Such variations are likely to have knock on effects for B group applicants on the general waiting list. The ability of some types of households on the B list to get the type of housing they want within a reasonable time-scale is better than others (unless there is a surplus of appropriate housing for those households where A list applicants make heavy demands). The data suggests that large families, large adult households and older small households on the B list,in particular may have longer waits than others for housing. Furthermore the data indicates that the problem will be greater for large Catholic rather than large Protestant families and vice versa with respect to older small households. How the B groups get housed In Table 3.21 we show points levels at which allocations were made in 1987 and it can be seen that the majority of allocations (nearly 60%) are made in the middle range band of between 30 and 70 points (see summary in Table 3.22). However, there are considerable differences in points levels for allocations into Protestant and Catholic estates. Nearly 40% of allocations into Catholic estates require those allocated to have accumulated in excess of 70 points. This compares with less than 20% of allocations into Protestant estates requiring this high points 18

19 Housing allocations in the public sector level. At the same time a higher proportion of allocations into Catholic estates are made on the basis of the lowest points levels of less than 30 points. At the lowest points levels, however, the difference between allocations into Protestant and Catholic estates is not as great as at the highest points levels. Do these differences in points levels hold across all household types or is it only for certain types of household that allocations into Catholic estates require a very high points level? Table 3.23 shows, for Protestant and Catholic estates only, the proportion of allocations to each household type requiring 70 points or more. It can be seen that the margin of difference remains about the same for each household type although it is at its greatest for small adult households and for small families. It seems that for every type of household a much greater proportion of allocations to Catholic estates requires very high points levels. We have also carried out a similar analysis for the lowest points levels where it was the case that a higher proportion of allocations into Catholic estates occurred at this level. The results are shown in Table 3.24 where it can be seen that a more varied pattern occurs than at the highest points levels. At the lowest points levels the difference between Protestant and Catholic estates is confined to specific types of households, in the main to large and small families and older small households. Note that about 4 out of ten large adult housholds, irrespective of estate denomination get housed on the basis of 30 points or less. There is however quite a big difference between Protestant and Catholic in the proportions getting housed at this points levels when we focus on large families, with 40% of large families being allocated into Catholic estates on the basis of 30 points or less. Another way of looking at points levels is to focus on the average number of points required for allocation into different types of housing. Table 3.25 confirms the general picture presented above (that is, of allocations into Catholic estates requiring higher points levels), and shows that the average number of points required for housing on a Protestant estate is less, at 52 points, than the average required for housing on a Catholic estate, that is 56. The average for mixed estates is the same as that for Protestant estates. 19

20 Housing Table 3.25 also shows the average points required for 22 household types. Five of the 6 principal household type groupings we have been using in this analysis so far have been subdivided into their constituent parts using Housing Executive definitions. Thus codes 1-4 cover all households comprising single people. Code 1 is single males over 16 but under 40 years of age; code 2 is single males over 40 but under 65 etc. A full list of the codes is given in Appendix B. In Table 3.25 it can be seen that the average points required varies considerably for different household types from a high of 70 points being required by two or more OAP s housed on a Protestant estate, to a low of 39 points which is the average number of points required for both large adult households on Protestant estates and households comprising two adults, one of whom is of pensionable age, on Catholic estates. In 15 of the 22 household categories the average points required is greater on Catholic estates in comparison with Protestant estates. In the 7 remaining categories Protestant estates require higher average points. But in many instances the difference in average points is fairly small and we can consider differences to be large only if they are differences of 5 points or more, that is, a magnitude of difference greater than the 4 points which is the difference between all Protestant and all Catholic estates taken together. When we consider only differences of a magnitude of 5 points or more between Protestant and Catholic estates we find the following: there are 9 instances where Catholic estates exceed Protestant estates and 5 instances where Protestant estates exceed Catholic estates. It is interesting to note that, leaving aside older small households (categories 21 and 22 in particular where Protestant households require much higher average points than their Catholic counterparts), the instances of more average points being required by Protestant households are confined to single parent families (categories 11, 14 and 15). The instances of more points being required by Catholic households are to be found in all 6 of the broad household type groupings. How points are accumulated; points factors We can now consider the various ways in which points are accumulated and look at similarities and differences as between those allocated to 20

21 Housing allocations in the public sector Protestant, Catholic and mixed estates. Table 3.26 examines the proportion of allocations scoring points against various points factors. The main differences are easily recognisable and are confined to three factors: overcrowding, medical and time on list. A considerably higher proportion of allocations into Catholic estates have scored points for overcrowding; more than twice as many allocations into Catholic estates have scored points for medical reasons and allocations into Catholic estates are more likely to score time on list points. Taken together these differences could easily account for why allocations into Catholic estates have higher average points levels than allocations into Protestant estates. They also of course indicate the greater level of housing need amongst those allocated into Catholic estates: two thirds of those allocated to Catholic estates are awarded points for overcrowding as opposed to just over half of those allocated to Protestant estates; one quarter of those allocated to Catholic estates as opposed to only one in ten of those allocated to Protestant estates are awarded medical points. Time on list We cannot regard time on list points as themselves an indication of housing stress since the award of such points is not a comment on the housing conditions of the property from which the applicant was housed nor do such points tell us about the applicant s circumstances. If these points have been awarded it means that the applicant has been on the waiting list for at least one year. Table 3.26 showed that 26% of those housed on Catholic estates and 18% of those housed on Protestant estates were awarded time on list points. This would seem to indicate that not only do applicants housed on Catholic estates need to acquire more points before rehousing (which they do primarily for reasons of overcrowding and due to medical considerations), but they also wait longer before getting housed. Further information about the length of time applicants wait can be found in Table Unfortunately, the data we have relating to time on list is clouded by the inclusion of A group allocations which we must presume will account for a good deal of those allocated in the first two time bands, that is, after waiting for less than 3 months. In fact there is quite a good match between the size of the A group (see Table 3.15) 21

22 Housing and the proportions housed within 3 months. Those housed on Catholic estates within 3 months could account for the whole of the A group housed on Catholic estates. For Protestant estates it seems that another 5% in addition to the A group have been housed in that time band, whereas it is clear that B group applicants stand the best chance of being housed within three months on mixed estates. About the same number of allocations into both Protestant and Catholic estates had been waiting for more than 3 years. In fact, when we set aside the allocations made in less than 3 months on the assumption that most of these will be A group applicants, we can see that approaching 50% of the remaining applicants have to wait for more than 3 years to get housed. On the whole it seems that allocations into Catholic estates have to wait somewhat longer than those allocated into Protestant estates (this can be best seen by comparing the total for the top three time bands with the bottom three time bands), while those allocated into mixed estates wait for shorter periods than the others. Comparing the waiting list with allocations We have already mentioned some of the difficulties of comparing the waiting list itself as it stands at any one time (in this case the end of December 1987) with allocations made from the waiting list over a period of time (in this case during 1987). A crucial difference is that the waiting list consists of those who have not been allocated because their housing need has not yet become acute enough to qualify for the limited number of houses available, while those allocated housing are, if the selection scheme works correctly, those with the most severe housing need. Nevertheless, it is possible to try to compare in a very general way the proportions expressing preferences for estates of different religious composition with the religious composition of the estates where applicants in any one year eventually find housing. We find that on the waiting list at the end of % had expressed a preference for Protestant estates (see again Table 3.1) and that during % were housed in Protestant estates (Table 3.13); 26% had expressed a preference for Catholic estates and 20% were housed on Catholic estates; 35% had expressed a preference for mixed estates and 40% were housed on mixed estates. It could be concluded from this that applicants with a Protestant preference had this met in 22