In this blog we share our key takeaways from the most recent NPSS conference, now the largest conference in the UK for practitioners working in housing options, allocations and homelessness. We are now fifteen months into HRA implementation and there was a notable shift in mood from last year. The focus was no longer getting to grips with the new law but how to deliver it in the spirit intended and continuously improve frontline services.

What a difference a year makes

 Entering its fifth year, the NPSS Annual Conference is now a regular fixture in the calendar with over 350 practitioners descending on Warwick University’s campus on the 1st & 2nd July this year. It is always a great opportunity to share common challenges, identify good practice and learn from each other. This year was no different and it provided a good chance to reflect on fifteen months of HRA implementation. Whilst last year was a mixture of early lessons and apprehension, there was a real sense that most authorities have mastered the fundamentals of the post-HRA world and are now looking to improve and deliver the HRA in the spirit intended.

The importance of strengths-based practice

Through a combination of Phil Turner’s (Head of Housing and Environmental Health, Test Valley Borough Council) great keynote and the “promoting culture change through motivational interviewing” masterclass I attended, strengths-based practice was a clear theme to emerge for me.

Strength-based practice starts from the position that everyone has positive personal, social and community assets and resources. Working with people's strengths can make their experience of services more dignified, useful and empowering - and lead to better outcomes. The purpose of a strengths-based assessment is to identify how the housing authority can best assist to prevent or relieve homelessness - not “solve a problem”. It’s a subtle shift but important. Housing authorities moving to this way of working have found they collect more useful information from clients, and officers are more engaged with the process. It is also a core part of motivational interviewing, introduced in our previous blog.

Starting the journey

The approach is only hinted at in the code of guidance so it is great to see it being discussed, debated and applied in frontline housing options services. Paragraph 11.10 suggests the applicant’s wishes and preferences should be considered and 11.11 highlights the need for assessments to be holistic and comprehensive, with staff able to tease out particular aspects of need when applicants may be reluctant to disclose them.

Unfortunately many standard assessment and PHP processes still follow a deficit-based model i.e. “What’s the problem”, “Why are you here today”, “What do you need”. This is reflected in many of the tools and templates used. If there is nowhere for officers to record strengths-based conversations, with prompts on what to ask, then the familiar route will be followed. That’s why it’s great to see the likes of Test Valley and Lewisham amending their PHP questions and templates to reflect strength-based values. As with any change, this needs to be supported by regular training, engagement and reflection with staff but there is no time like the present to start this journey.

Please get in touch if you want to discuss further and we’d be happy to put you in touch with some of the local authorities already doing this. It would be great to hear more success stories at next year’s conference. Remember you can sign up for email updates when a new blog is posted at the bottom of our project page.

Other notable mentions

• Powerful speech from Jim Strang, CIH President, on his personal experiences and the Make a Stand pledge to tackle domestic abuse
• Always useful case law update from Liz Davies, Barrister, Garden Court Chambers
• Interesting update from Neil Mackay, Investigator, Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. They have had some HRA-related complaints and will produce a focus report soon
• Great to hear from Dr Julie Rugg, University of York, about the PRS review and its emerging role as a “proxy for social housing”