Can Risk Management boost the supply of Affordable Housing Development and Management?

A shortage of affordable housing is a major problem in Australia today. This is mainly due to the limited supply of affordable housing that is provided by the non-government housing sector. Some private housing developers see the provision of affordable housing for lower income people as a high risk investment which offers a lower return than broader market-based housing. The scarcity of suitable land, a limited government ‘subsidy’, and increasing housing costs have not provided sufficient development incentives to encourage their investment despite the existing high demand for affordable housing. This study analyses the risk management process conducted by some private and not-for-profit housing providers in South East Queensland, and draws conclusions about the relationship between risk assessments/responses and past experiences. In-depth interviews of selected non-government housing providers have been conducted to facilitate an understanding of their approach to risk assessment/response in developing and in managing affordable housing projects. These developers use an informal risk management process as part of their normal business process in accordance with industry standards. A simple qualitative matrix has been used to analyse probability and impacts using a qualitative scale - low, medium and high. For housing providers who have considered investing in affordable housing but have not yet implemented any such projects, affordable housing development is seen as an opportunity that needs to be approached with caution. The risks associated with such projects and the levels of acceptance of these are not consistently identified by current housing providers. Many interviewees agree that the recognition of financial risk and the fear of community rejection of such housing projects have restrained them from committing to such investment projects. This study suggests that implementing improvements to the risk mitigation and management framework may assist in promoting the supply of affordable housing by non-government providers.

Can risk management boost the supply of affordable housing development and management?

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to analyse the risk management process conducted by some private and not-for-profit affordable housing providers in South East Queensland, and draw conclusions about the relationship between risk assessments/responses and past experiences.----- Design/methodology/approach: In-depth interviews of selected non-government housing providers have been conducted to facilitate an understanding of their approach to risk assessment in developing and in managing affordable housing projects. Qualitative data are analysed using thematic analysis to find emerging themes suggested by interview participants.----- Findings: The paper finds that informal risk management process is used as part of normal business process in accordance with industry standards. Many interviewees agree that the recognition of financial risk and the fear of community rejection of such housing projects have restrained them from committing to such investment projects. The levels of acceptance of risk are not always consistent across housing providers which create opportunities to conduct multi-stakeholder partnership to reduce overall risk.----- Research limitations/implications: The paper has implications for developers or investors who seek to include affordable housing as part of their portfolio. However, data collected in the study are a cross-section of interviews that will not include the impact on recent tax incentives offers by the Australian Commonwealth Government.----- Practical implications: The study suggests that implementing improvements to the risk mitigation and management framework may assist in promoting the supply of affordable housing by non-government providers.----- Originality/value: The focus of the study is the interaction between partnerships and risk management in development and management of affordable rental housing.

Affordable housing solutions : affordable housing providers’ perspective

Accessibility to housing for low to moderate income groups in Australia has experienced a severe decline since 2002. On the supply side, the public sector has been reducing its commitment to the direct provision of public housing. Despite strong demand for affordable housing, limited supply has been generated by non-government housing providers. This paper identifies and discusses some current affordable housing solutions which have been developed by non-government housing providers to ameliorate the problem. This study utilises case studies generated from nineteen housing providers during in-depth interviews in South East Queensland in 2007-2008. The case studies are classified into four categories which relate to the nature of their product: affordable rental housing, mixed housing, affordable housing for people with special needs and low cost home ownership. Each category is discussed on the basis of the characteristics typical of that organisation of housing provider, their partnership arrangements and main target market. In addition, the special design and facilities required for people with special needs which include high care accommodation and aged care are highlighted. Finally, this study recommends offering a continuum of solutions to affordable housing for low income people by means of a rent-to-buy scheme.

Affordable housing solutions : affordable housing providers’ perspective

Accessibility to housing for low to moderate income groups in Australia has been experiencing a severe decline since 2002. On the supply side, the public sector has been reducing its commitment to the direct provision of public housing. Despite strong demand for affordable housing, limited supply has been generated by nongovernment housing providers. This paper identifies and discusses some current affordable housing solutions to ameliorate the problem which have been developed by non-government housing providers. This study utilises case studies generated from nineteen housing providers during indepth interviews in South East Queensland in 2007-2008. The case studies are classified into four categories which relate to the nature of their product: affordable rental housing, mixed housing, affordable housing for people with special needs and low cost home ownership. Each category is discussed on the basis of the characteristics typical of that organisation of housing provider, their partnership arrangements and main target market. In addition, the special design and facilities required for people with special needs which include high care accommodation and aged care are highlighted. Finally, this study recommends offering a continuum of solutions to affordable housing for low income people by means of a rent-to-buy scheme.

Sustainable and affordable housing : a myth or reality

The Australian government has released a draft National Building Framework that will likely tighten the building standard for new houses to meet higher sustainability requirements. There are uncertainties about the impact this could have on the cost of housing and the supply of affordable housing. This paper aims to provide evidence-based conclusions on the possibility of delivering sustainable and affordable housing for low income people. The case studies are gathered from Brisbane and Gold Coast. Case studies are analysed by unpacking the features that were included to meet sustainability and affordability goals for housing. This paper outlines the key factors for their success and also challenges for replication of the projects. The study shows that the key success drivers for delivering sustainable and affordable housing are providing planning incentives, subsidies for increased energy efficiency, supportive regulatory frameworks and appropriate allocation of infrastructure charges. It shows that government can prioritise their resources to support affordable and sustainable housing for low income people.

Submission to Senate Economics References Committee, An Inquiry in to Affordable Housing

Developer paid fees or infrastructure charges are a commonly used mechanism for local governments to pay for new infrastructure. However, property developers claim that these costs are merely passed on to home buyers, with adverse effects to housing affordability. Despite numerous government reports and many years of industry advocacy, there remains no empirical evidence in Australia to confirm or quantify this passing on effect to home buyers and the consequent effect on housing affordability. Hence there remains no data from which governments can base policy decision on, and the debate continues. This research examines the question of the impact of infrastructure charges on housing affordability in Australia. It employs hedonic regression methods to estimate the impact of infrastructure charges on house prices and vacant lot prices in Brisbane, Australia during 2005-2011, using a data set of 29,752 house sales, comprising 4,699 new house sales and 25,053 existing house sales and 13,739 lot sales. The regression results for the effect of infrastructure charges on house prices in Brisbane indicated that for every $1.00 of infrastructure charge levied on developers, all house prices increase by $3.69 or a 369% overpassing of these government levies onto home buyers. Thus, this one government levy could be responsible for $877 per month on home owner mortgage repayments in Brisbane, Queensland. This research is consistent with international findings, that support the proposition that developer paid infrastructure charges are passed on to home buyers and are a significant contributor to increasing house prices and reduced housing affordability. Understanding who really pays for urban infrastructure is critical to both the housing affordability and infrastructure funding debates in Australia and this research provides the first empirical data for policy makers to assess their policy objectives and outcomes against.

Submission to the Senate Economics References Committee Inquiry into affordable housing 20 August 2014: De-risking development of medium density housing to improve housing affordability and boost supply

This submission addresses the problem of housing price inflation, the chronic under-supply of new housing stock, and the resultant decline in housing affordability for low and middle income households. It specifically focusses on the supply of medium density housing (multi-unit development) in Melbourne, although we believe that the observations made about housing in supply in Melbourne are relevant in other urban centres and to other types of housing supply. In terms of medium density housing (MDH) our concern also extends to the poor quality and design. Why the market tends to deliver generic apartments of poor quality and design which are uncompetitive with lower density housing and amenity despite planning objectives, and how this apparently intractable problem can be overcome is the topic of this submission...

Building a successful partnership to increase affordable rental housing supply in Queensland

Accessibility to housing for low to moderate income groups in Australia has been experiencing a severe decline since 2001. On the supply side, the public sector has been reducing its commitment to the direct provision of public housing. Despite high demand for affordable housing, there has been limited supply generated by non-government housing providers. One possible solution to promote an increase in affordable housing supply, like other infrastructure, is through the development of multi-stakeholder partnerships and private financing. This research aims to identify current issues underlying decision-making criteria for building multi-stakeholder partnerships to deliver affordable housing projects. It also investigates strategies for minimising risk and ensuring the financial outcomes of these partnership arrangements. A mix of qualitative in-depth interviews and quantitative surveys has been used as the main method to explore stakeholder experiences regarding their involvement in partnership arrangements in the affordable housing sector in Queensland. Two sets of interviews were conducted following an exploratory pilot study: one set in 2003-2004 and the other in 2007-2008. There were nineteen respondents representing government, private and not-for-profit organisations in the first stage interviews and surveys. The second stage interviews were focussed on twenty-two housing providers in South East Queensland. Initial analyses have been conducted using thematic and statistical analyses. This study extends the use of existing decision making tools and combines the use of a Soft System Framework to analyse the ideal state questionnaires using qualitative thematic analysis. Soft System Methodology (SSM) has been used to analyse this unstructured complex problem by using systematic thinking to develop a conceptual model and carrying it to the real world situations to solve the problem. This research found that the diversity of stakeholder capability and their level of risk acceptance will allow partnerships to develop the best synergies and a degree of collaboration which achieves the required financial return within acceptable risk parameters. However, some of the negativity attached to future commitment to such partnerships has been found to be the anticipation of a worse outcome than that expected from independent action. Many interviewees agree that housing providers' fear of financial risk and community rejection has been central to dampening their enthusiasm for entering such investment projects. The creation of a mixed-use development structure will mitigate both risk and return as the commercial income will subsidise the affordable housing development and will normalise concentration of marginalised low-income people who live in a prime location with an award winning design. In addition, tenant support schemes and rent-to-buy incentive programs will encourage them to secure their tenancies and significantly reduce the risk of rent arrears and property damage. There is also a breakthrough investment vehicle offered by the social developer which sells the non-physical but financial product to individual and institutional investors to mitigate further financial risk. Finally, this study recommends modification of the current value-for-money framework in favour of broader partnership arrangements which are more closely aligned with risk minimisation strategies.

New affordable strata title housing solutions : a case study in Surabaya, Indonesia

Accessibility to affordable housing for low income people are one of the housing problems in Indonesia, especially in major cities like Jakarta and Surabaya. Government has provided indirect subsidised on home ownership for low income people through planning instrument such as inclusionary zoning. However, low cost housing has been located in cheaper land which is very far from city and employment centre. This paper aims to discuss recent government initiatives to support low cost strata title housing in prime location which closer to the employment centre. This paper compares the characteristics of existing affordable housing solutions and focus on a new initiative as a case study. Learning from this initiative will allow a recommendation on application of similar scheme in other sites. The land availability, high construction cost, culture barriers and higher risk with lower return have been named as main barriers on repeating this model in other sites. Moreover, the high-rise solution is still very expensive compared to landed houses.

Person-Centred Approaches to Private Housing for People with Disability : Impediments, Difficulties and Opportunities

Objective The main objective of the project was to explore the barriers and obstacles impeding a person-centred approach to planning and private housing for people with disability. Method Methodologically, the project involved explanation building using a multiple case study approach supported by a contextual study. It focussed initially on three organisations and their attempts to integrate innovative and what they regarded as person-centred models of housing into the private housing market for people with disability. It also included a fourth case highlighting the experiences of individuals with disability in accessing suitable and affordable housing. Results Using an ecological framework, the project found that: • Challenges exist within systems (such as the macro cultural, economic, regulatory systems through to local community, family and intra personal systems) as well as with interaction between systems • Reaching across systems is a key role for organisations and individuals but is very challenging with distance from the individual as well as from the policy/funding/service systems being a key aspect of the nature and extent by which they are challenged • In the case of housing for people with disability a ‘disability space’ is assumed and maintained disparately within each system and is separate from the ‘mainstream space’ with the established policy, legal, funding structures making it difficult to move between the two spaces. Conclusions Based on these findings, the project makes recommendations for government, community organisations, the housing industry, people with disability and their families and support networks, as well as for future research. An overarching recommendation is the need to address housing stock availability and suitability by adopting a mainstream approach rather than a disability-first/disability-specific approach.

Barriers to entering affordable home ownership for young people: A preliminary study from university students’ perspectives

Over the last two decades, housing affordability has been a problem for young people, and identified as factor leading to youth homelessness. The National Youth Commission Inquiry into Youth Homelessness developed a roadmap for preventing this problem (National Youth Commission, 2008). The roadmap recommends increasing the supply of affordable housing for young people as an important strategy to reduce the risk of homelessness problems. In addition, understanding the barriers and the needs of young people is a significant part of the development of a national affordable housing strategy. This paper explores issues encountered by young people when they enter the housing market as first home buyers. A short survey was conducted to review the barriers to entry, classified by income levels, housing cost and availability of affordable housing. In the current competitive job market, young people have minimal work experience, relatively low job security and low income. In addition to these barriers, participants also suggested other barriers towards the purchase of their first home, such as lack of knowledge of legal issues and lack of government funding. This study suggests the need for both government and educational support for young people around housing choices and the development of financial strategies to manage barriers towards owning their first home.

Assessing the integrated sustainability of a public rental housing project from the perspective of complex eco-system

Public rental housing (PRH) projects are the mainstream of China's new affordable housing policies, and their integrated sustainability has a far-reaching effect on medium-low income families' well-being and social stability. However, there are few quantitative researches on the integrated sustainability of PRH projects. Our study tries to fill this gap through proposing an assessment model of the integrated sustainability for PRH projects. First, this paper defines what the sustainability of a PRH project is. Second, after constructing the sustainable system of a PRH project from the perspective of complex eco-system, the paper explores the internal operation mechanism and the coupling mechanism among the ecological, economic and social subsystems. Third, it identifies fourteen indices to represent the sustainability system of a PRH project, including six indices of ecological subsystem, five of economic subsystem and three of social subsystem. Fourth, it qualifies the weights of three subsystems and their internal representative indices. In addition, an assessment model is established through expert surveys and analytic network process (ANP). Finally, the paper carries out an empirical research on a PRH project in Nanjing city of China, followed by suggestions to enhance the integrated sustainability. The sustainability system and its evaluation model proposed in this paper are concise and easy to understand and can provide a theoretical foundation and a scientific basis for the evaluation and optimization of PRH projects.

Risk-assessment practices in the private rental sector : implications for low-income renters (Final Report)

This report focuses on risk-assessment practices in the private rental market, with particular consideration of their impact on low-income renters. It is based on the fieldwork undertaken in the second stage of the research process that followed completion of the Positioning Paper. The key research question this study addressed was: What are the various factors included in ‘risk-assessments’ by real estate agents in allocating ‘affordable’ tenancies? How are these risks quantified and managed? What are the key outcomes of their decision-making? The study builds on previous research demonstrating that a relatively large proportion of low-cost private rental accommodation is occupied by moderate- to high-income households (Wulff and Yates 2001; Seelig 2001; Yates et al. 2004). This is occurring in an environment where the private rental sector is now the de facto main provider of rental housing for lower-income households across Australia (Seelig et al. 2005) and where a number of factors are implicated in patterns of ‘income–rent mismatching’. These include ongoing shifts in public housing assistance; issues concerning eligibility for rent assistance; ‘supply’ factors, such as loss of low-cost rental stock through upgrading and/or transfer to owner-occupied housing; patterns of supply and demand driven largely by middle- to high-income owner-investors and renters; and patterns of housing need among low-income households for whom affordable housing is not appropriate. In formulating a way of approaching the analysis of ‘risk-assessment’ in rental housing management, this study has applied three sociological perspectives on risk: Beck’s (1992) formulation of risk society as entailing processes of ‘individualisation’; a socio-cultural perspective which emphasises the situated nature of perceptions of risk; and a perspective which has drawn attention to different modes of institutional governance of subjects, as ‘carriers of specific indicators of risk’. The private rental market was viewed as a social institution, and the research strategy was informed by ‘institutional ethnography’ as a method of enquiry. The study was based on interviews with property managers, real estate industry representatives, tenant advocates and community housing providers. The primary focus of inquiry was on ‘the moment of allocation’. Six local areas across metropolitan and regional Queensland, New South Wales, and South Australia were selected as case study localities. In terms of the main findings, it is evident that access to private rental housing is not just a matter of ‘supply and demand’. It is also about assessment of risk among applicants. Risk – perceived or actual – is thus a critical factor in deciding who gets housed, and how. Risk and its assessment matter in the context of housing provision and in the development of policy responses. The outcomes from this study also highlight a number of salient points: 1.There are two principal forms of risk associated with property management: financial risk and risk of litigation. 2. Certain tenant characteristics and/or circumstances – ability to pay and ability to care for the rented property – are the main factors focused on in assessing risk among applicants for rental housing. Signals of either ‘(in)ability to pay’ and/or ‘(in)ability to care for the property’ are almost always interpreted as markers of high levels of risk. 3. The processing of tenancy applications entails a complex and variable mix of formal and informal strategies of risk-assessment and allocation where sorting (out), ranking, discriminating and handing over characterise the process. 4. In the eyes of property managers, ‘suitable’ tenants can be conceptualised as those who are resourceful, reputable, competent, strategic and presentable. 5. Property managers clearly articulated concern about risks entailed in a number of characteristics or situations. Being on a low income was the principal and overarching factor which agents considered. Others included: - unemployment - ‘big’ families; sole parent families - domestic violence - marital breakdown - shift from home ownership to private rental - Aboriginality and specific ethnicities - physical incapacity - aspects of ‘presentation’. The financial vulnerability of applicants in these groups can be invoked, alongside expressed concerns about compromised capacities to manage income and/or ‘care for’ the property, as legitimate grounds for rejection or a lower ranking. 6. At the level of face-to-face interaction between the property manager and applicants, more intuitive assessments of risk based upon past experience or ‘gut feelings’ come into play. These judgements are interwoven with more systematic procedures of tenant selection. The findings suggest that considerable ‘risk’ is associated with low-income status, either directly or insofar as it is associated with other forms of perceived risk, and that such risks are likely to impede access to the professionally managed private rental market. Detailed analysis suggests that opportunities for access to housing by low-income householders also arise where, for example: - the ‘local experience’ of an agency and/or property manager works in favour of particular applicants - applicants can demonstrate available social support and financial guarantors - an applicant’s preference or need for longer-term rental is seen to provide a level of financial security for the landlord - applicants are prepared to agree to specific, more stringent conditions for inspection of properties and review of contracts - the particular circumstances and motivations of landlords lead them to consider a wider range of applicants - In particular circumstances, property managers are prepared to give special consideration to applicants who appear worthy, albeit ‘risky’. The strategic actions of demonstrating and documenting on the part of vulnerable (low-income) tenant applicants can improve their chances of being perceived as resourceful, capable and ‘savvy’. Such actions are significant because they help to persuade property managers not only that the applicant may have sufficient resources (personal and material) but that they accept that the onus is on themselves to show they are reputable, and that they have valued ‘competencies’ and understand ‘how the system works’. The parameters of the market do shape the processes of risk-assessment and, ultimately, the strategic relation of power between property manager and the tenant applicant. Low vacancy rates and limited supply of lower-cost rental stock, in all areas, mean that there are many more tenant applicants than available properties, creating a highly competitive environment for applicants. The fundamental problem of supply is an aspect of the market that severely limits the chances of access to appropriate and affordable housing for low-income rental housing applicants. There is recognition of the impact of this problem of supply. The study indicates three main directions for future focus in policy and program development: providing appropriate supports to tenants to access and sustain private rental housing, addressing issues of discrimination and privacy arising in the processes of selecting suitable tenants, and addressing problems of supply.

An evaluation of viability of public private partnerships in social infrastructure procurement projects in Queensland, Australia

Public private partnerships (PPP) have been widely used as a method for public infrastructure project delivery not only locally and internationally, however the adoption of PPPs in social infrastructure procurement has still been very limited. The objective of this paper is to investigate the potential of implementation of current PPP framework in social affordable housing projects in South East Queensland. Data were collected from 22 interviewees with rich experiences in the industry. The findings of this study show that affordable housing investment have been considered by the industry practitioners as a risky business in comparison to other private rental housing investment. The main determents of the adoption of PPPs in social infrastructure project are the tenant-related factors, such as the inability of paying rent and the inability of caring the property. The study also suggests the importance of seeking strategic partnership with community-based organisation that has experiences in managing similar tenants’ profiles. Current PPP guideline is also viewed as inappropriate for the affordable housing projects, but the principle of VFM framework and risk allocation in PPPs still be applied to the affordable housing projects. This study helps to understand the viability of PPP in social housing procurement projects, and point out the importance of developing guideline for multi-stakeholder partnership and the expansion of the current VFM and PPPs guidelines.

The conceptualisation, sensitivity and measurement of holding costs and other selected elements impacting housing affordability (Literature review and research methodology for confirmation of PhD candidature)

It is widely held that strong relationships exist between housing, economic status, and well being. This is exemplified by widespread housing stock surpluses in many countries which threaten to destabilise numerous aspects related to individuals and community. However, the position of housing demand and supply is not consistent. The Australian position provides a distinct contrast whereby seemingly inexorable housing demand generally remains a critical issue affecting the socio-economic landscape. Underpinned by high levels of immigration, and further buoyed by sustained historically low interest rates, increasing income levels, and increased government assistance for first home buyers, this strong housing demand ensures elements related to housing affordability continue to gain prominence. A significant, but less visible factor impacting housing affordability – particularly new housing development – relates to holding costs. These costs are in many ways “hidden” and cannot always be easily identified. Although it is only one contributor, the nature and extent of its impact requires elucidation. In its simplest form, it commences with a calculation of the interest or opportunity cost of land holding. However, there is significantly more complexity for major new developments - particularly greenfield property development. Preliminary analysis conducted by the author suggests that even small shifts in primary factors impacting holding costs can appreciably affect housing affordability – and notably, to a greater extent than commonly held. Even so, their importance and perceived high level impact can be gauged from the unprecedented level of attention policy makers have given them over recent years. This may be evidenced by the embedding of specific strategies to address burgeoning holding costs (and particularly those cost savings associated with streamlining regulatory assessment) within statutory instruments such as the Queensland Housing Affordability Strategy, and the South East Queensland Regional Plan. However, several key issues require investigation. Firstly, the computation and methodology behind the calculation of holding costs varies widely. In fact, it is not only variable, but in some instances completely ignored. Secondly, some ambiguity exists in terms of the inclusion of various elements of holding costs, thereby affecting the assessment of their relative contribution. Perhaps this may in part be explained by their nature: such costs are not always immediately apparent. Some forms of holding costs are not as visible as the more tangible cost items associated with greenfield development such as regulatory fees, government taxes, acquisition costs, selling fees, commissions and others. Holding costs are also more difficult to evaluate since for the most part they must be ultimately assessed over time in an ever-changing environment, based on their strong relationship with opportunity cost which is in turn dependant, inter alia, upon prevailing inflation and / or interest rates. By extending research in the general area of housing affordability, this thesis seeks to provide a more detailed investigation of those elements related to holding costs, and in so doing determine the size of their impact specifically on the end user. This will involve the development of soundly based economic and econometric models which seek to clarify the componentry impacts of holding costs. Ultimately, there are significant policy implications in relation to the framework used in Australian jurisdictions that promote, retain, or otherwise maximise, the opportunities for affordable housing.