BOROUGH OF POOLE

HOUSING CONSULTATIVE PANEL

17TH NOVEMBER 2004

ESTATE MANAGEMENT BEST VALUE REVIEW

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

To inform the Housing Consultative Panel of the findings of the Estate Management Best Value Review, as attached (Appendix A), in a report initially written for the PHP Ltd Board in October 2004.

RECOMMENDATION

That the report at Appendix A be noted.

REPORT

The findings of the Estate Management Best Value Review are included in the attached report (Appendix A), which was written for the October 2004 meeting of the PHP Ltd Board.

The Housing Consultative Panel is asked to note the findings of this report.

David Mullany

Housing Officer, PHP Ltd

17th November 2004

1

APPENDIX A

Poole Housing Partnership Ltd

Estate Management Best Value Review

Final Report

October 2004

Purpose of Report

The report summarises the conclusions of the Best Value Review of Estate Management. The Estates Team are responsible for providing tenancy management services and for looking after the physical environmental of the estates. The report draws conclusions from the review, and highlights the main themes that have emerged.

Background

The Best Value Review of Estate Management resulted from the introduction of the Arms Length Management Organisation in April 2004.

An indicative inspection by the Audit Commission in October 2003 highlighted areas for future development within the Estate Management Service. The review had two main strands:

  • The organisation of tenancy management services and in particular the role and remit of the Housing Officers
  • A review of the policies and procedures for this area of work.

Scope of the Review

The review included the following areas:

Estate Management services:

  • The role and remit of the Housing Officers
  • Performance monitoring and management
  • Consistency in service provision
  • Estate management services for the physical environment

and

Estate Management policies and procedures

The review did NOT include:

  • Sheltered Housing
  • Voids
  • Disabled adaptations

(These services have already been reviewed)

  • Tenancy Support (undergoing development and scheduled for a Supporting People review next year)
  • Hostels & Caretaking(to be reviewed separately)

Methodology

A variety of methods were used to carry out the review:

  • A SWOT Analysis of the service at the start of the review
  • The Four ‘C’s of Best Value to assess the role of the Housing Officer
  • Review and development of policies and procedures
  • Analysis of the findings

SWOT Analysis

A desk top analysis of the Estates Team’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats was carried out:

  • Strengths

Dedicated & enthusiastic staff

Proactive and positive approach to dealing with ASB

High levels of satisfaction amongst tenants

Well organised programme of estate inspections

A new IT system in place

Good working relationships with other teams and outside agencies

Good control of the Estate Budget

Consistent representation on multi agency groups

  • Weaknesses

Pressure of workload had prevented proactive policy development

Performance management needs developing

Lack of clarity of the role of Housing Officers for tenants and outside agencies leading to unrealistic workloads. This formed the starting point of the review.

More detailed analysis of costs and value for money required

Acceptance of long established working practices

  • Opportunities

Future ALMO funding

Recognition amongst staff that things need to change

BV Review as a driver for improvement

Development of the PHP Helpdesk

Developments in the approach to Tenant Participation could promote increased resident involvement

Commitment to innovative thinking and continuous improvement

Staff keen to train and develop their skills

Independence from Council structure and greater flexibility

Possibility of providing services to other organisations in the long term

  • Threats

Over reliance on service development of other sections

Continued over-reliance on the Housing Officer as first point of contact Lack of resources to promote excellent relationships consistently

Missing the opportunity to implement change and drive improvement could harm the organisation’s reputation

Right to Buy sales could threaten viability of the housing stock

Failure to achieve ALMO funding

Relationship with Local Authority could be adversely affected by greater independence

Review of Estate Management Services

  • The stock options appraisal provided the challenge element of the review. The outcome was a resounding vote of support for the ALMO option.
  • Creating generic officers instead of separate teams of Housing Officers and Rent Recovery Officers was briefly discussed but we concluded that the success of the current specialist approach to rent recovery precludes any serious consideration of a move to a generic service.

The best value review of estate management services, therefore, focussed on the role of the housing officer and included the following:

  • A ‘Challenge Day’ during which an audience of critical friends addressed questions to a panel made up of Estates Team Staff. The results of this session can be found in Appendix 3.
  • The Best Value and Performance Manager spent a day shadowing a Housing Officer to assess time pressures, the nature of the work, the nature of interruptions and effectiveness of the service.
  • Visits were undertaken to two other comparable housing authorities. These were New Forest District Council and Carrick Homes, an ALMO that scored three stars when assessed by the Audit Commission.
  • A visit to Portsmouth City Council Anti Social Behaviour Unit was also carried out, to investigate the way in which they deal with ASB and to look at their good practice.
  • Three focus groups were arranged to seek the views and opinions of tenants. Approximately 30 tenants attended. A summary of results can be found in Appendix 1.
  • Tenants and leaseholders were invited to comment on the service provided and any areas of concern through an article in ‘At Home’. The results can be seen in Appendix 2. Over two hundred questionnaires were returned
  • An analysis of the results of the Tenants Satisfaction Status Survey was carried out.
  • Housing Officers were interviewed to seek their views on the service they currently provide and the service they would like to provide.
  • Benchmarking through Housemark is underway to enable us to compare our costs to other organisations and measure value for money

Review of Estate Management Policies and Procedures

  • The review covers all aspects of policy and procedure covered by the Housing Officers area of work. The specific topics are detailed on the Implementation Plan.
  • The review of policies and procedures takes account of legislative requirements, recognised good practice, and PHP’s specific needs.
  • Comparisons have been made with other authorities’ policies and procedures, as well as sourcing good practice from the CIoH Good Practice Unit and the Housing Management Standards Manual.

Outcome of the Best Value Review

The review has been overseen by the Best Value Review Board consisting of representatives from PHP Board as well as tenants and leaseholders. Meetings have been held four weekly throughout the period of the review, with the Review Board asked to consider, comment and discuss each aspect of the review. Minutes of the meetings are available from the Performance Team.

The findings from the two strands of the review, tenancy management and policy and procedures, were brought together and considered with the outcomes of the other reviews that have taken place in particular the reviews of Tenant Participation and Sheltered Housing.

Estate Management Services

The review captured and highlighted various issues relating to the Housing Officer role which require careful attention and analysis before definite recommendations can be reached.

It is clear there is considerable pressure on Housing Officers from different directions to meet a wide range of expectations. Housing Officers are expected to be out and about on the estates as much as possible, but tenants and other stakeholders also want to be able to contact them at the office by telephone.

The final recommendations will have to address this fundamental tension and take into account the following feedback:

  • The role and remit of the Housing Officers needs to be clarified and publicised both internally and externally.
  • Housing Officers need to have a more visible presence on the estates. The focus should be on visiting tenants in their own homes to enforce tenancy conditions and provide advice and support.
  • The focus should be on pre-transfer visits, visits to new tenants, tenancy audit visits, specific support/enforcement visits
  • Housing Officers should be working in a more proactive and less reactive way.
  • Tenants need receive better feedback on progress on their queries and of our activities on the estates.
  • Housing Officers need to more active in promoting tenant participation.
  • Tenants feel they could contribute more in terms of liaising with Housing Officers over estate based issues.
  • Housing officers require an excellent ‘toolkit’ comprising clear procedures, information and training
  • Value for Money needs to be explored further though a tentative analysis suggests costs are competitive
  • Performance management needs to be further developed. At present a ‘shopping list’ of performance indicators exists but little information yet provided
  • Administrative support is required to empower Housing Officers to undertake more proactive work out on the estates
  • The role of the Helpdesk needs to be considered.

The above presents a difficult challenge. Proposals to meet the challenge should be in place by mid November.

New policies and procedures will go some way towards ensuring that Housing Officers have the necessary tools and working environment to meet the challenge. More detailed proposals are required however and these might include some of the following:

  • A review of patch size
  • Increasing administrative support
  • Developing the expertise and capacity of the Helpdesk
  • Changingthe role of the Housing Officer with an emphasis on visiting tenants, tenant participation and community development.
  • A greater role for other units and sections of the council.

Development of Estate Management Policies and Procedures

Progress achieved so far includes:

  • CRE Code of Practice compliance has been achieved through a variety of methods including the PHP Equality Scheme and Minority Group Harassment Policy, as well as an Equalities Working Group and Action Plan, and reporting on Performance Indicators.
  • A new sign up procedure has been introduced
  • New tenant visits have been introduced
  • A selection of leaflets are being produced for tenants outlining policies and giving useful information
  • A new tenant’s handbook has been produced.
  • Resources have been diverted to develop physical estate improvements.
  • Consistency of service delivery has been improved though policy and procedure development, including a new succession policy, and a Tenancy Title Changes policy.
  • We are on target to meet the 30th December deadline to publish an ASB policy and procedure.
  • The interface and working relationships between the estate management team and voids team has been improved. A voids working group has developed more efficient voids procedures.

Other policies and procedures will be developed in line with the implementation plan.

1

Appendix 1

Focus Groups

Three focus groups took place, each consisting of 10 – 15 tenants representing a cross section of our tenant population. The focus groups were recruited and run by Bournemouth University Market Research Group to maintain independence in the research. Each group were asked the same questions. The main themes emerging were:

The Role of Housing Officers:

  • There is a lack of awareness of who Housing officers are, and how to contact them.
  • Tenants did not have clear ideas of the Housing Officers duties
  • Tenants wanted Housing Officers to have more direct contact with tenants
  • It was felt that communication needed to be improved between Housing Officers and Tenants
  • Tenants liked the concept of One-stop-shops
  • Tenants felt that tenant representatives should be used as a ‘go between’ between Housing Officers and tenants.

Enforcing Conditions of Tenancy:

  • Breaches of tenancy should be categorised to classify serious and less serious breaches
  • Serious breaches should be treated as zero tolerance
  • However individuals circumstances should be taken into consideration
  • Support should be available, such as parenting classes, and advice
  • Most breaches should be given 28 day timescale

Performance Monitoring & Feedback:

  • Tenants would like our estates to be monitored through Estate Inspections.
  • Tenants would like feedback on the conditions of the estates through ‘At Home’.
  • Flyers could be included with ‘At Home’ to give specific information to certain areas when appropriate.

Anti Social Behaviour:

  • Tenants see young people and children as the main cause of ASB
  • Verbal abuse, drinking, staying out late and lack of disciple were identified as the main ASB experienced
  • Tenants also experienced litter, dog fouling, alcohol, drugs, vandalism, condition of gardens and lack of management of waste land.
  • The main areas where ASB is experienced are Turlin Moor and the Bourne Estate.
  • ASB could be reduced and prevented through better parental discipline, an improved Police presence, a Curfew for children, improved recreational facilities.
  • Tenants would like increased action to improve tenants gardens
  • Tenants would like to know about current ASB problems, which problems have been resolved and how. They would like this information published in ‘At Home’.

Demoted and Introductory tenancies:

  • Think they are a good idea
  • Split in opinion about which to use

Housing Officer or Community Warden responsible for ASB on estates?

  • Tenants feel both should have a responsibility and would like Community Wardens to be more visible on estates, while HO’s should deal with the more serious cases.
  • Tenants would like to see more Community Wardens.

Housing Officer Interviews

The Housing Officers and the Senior Housing Officer were interviewed. The results showed that:

  • Officers enjoyed the variety of work
  • Would like to work more proactively and less reactively
  • Would like to be out on their estates more than they are able at the moment
  • Feel there are constant interruptions by the mundane and inappropriate when in the office
  • Would like to see the Helpdesk take a more active role in fielding phone calls and providing information and answering straightforward questions for phone calls/callers to reception
  • Feel their role needs clarifying both internally and externally

Day with a Housing Officer

The Best Value Manager spent a day observing a Housing Officer. He observed that:

  • The Housing Officer was overwhelmed by phone calls and queries from the Helpdesk whilst trying to do a sign-up
  • Most phone calls received were simple and straightforward
  • Felt that there was a barrier between the Housing Officers and the Helpdesk

1

Appendix 2

Results from ‘Tell us what you think’ in the ‘At Home’ magazine

An article was placed in the June issue of At Home inviting tenants to reply on the slip provided and tell us what they think about the Estates service we provide.

In particular the results showed that:

  • Many tenants do not know who their Housing Officer is, and some confused their House Manager was their Housing Officer.
  • Relatively High Satisfaction levels
  • Issues for attention: Repairs

Landscaping/gardening

ASB

  • Low concern expressed about:Cleaning

Rubbish (except on Turlin Moor)

Car Parking (except in Poole Town)

1

Appendix 3

Challenge Day Results

A ‘Challenge Afternoon’ was held, with an invited audience of critical friends asking questions of a panel of Estates Team Staff. The audience included representatives from tenant and leaseholders, Dorset Police, a Housing Association, Consumer Services at BoP, the Anti Social Behaviour Co-ordinator from BoP, elected members, and the Chairman of the PHP Board.

The panel addresses questions such as:

What are our links with partner agencies like, and how well do we work with them?

Is the best use being made of Housing Officers time and skills?

Are we getting the best use out of the computer system?

How do we ensure the standard of service from one patch to another is consistent?

The conclusions from the afternoon were that:

  • There was slight concern over the ownership of problems within the section
  • There was concern over how easy it is for Tenants to contact us
  • Performance management is not sufficiently integral to our work
  • Little use of off-site technology
  • Lack of satisfaction over issues about trees and grounds maintenance. Communication links with Leisure services need clarifying
  • Strengthen our complaints procedure and feedback to queries so we know how far a complaint or issue has got
  • Two estate inspections a year should be a minimum. An annual Housing Tour with Senior staff was popular
  • Mixed views about the accessibility of Housing officers
  • Multi agency working is positive and it was felt that we are proactive in this area but need to continue to develop its effectiveness.

1

Appendix 4

Visits to Other Housing Organisations

Visits were carried out to two other organisations with comparable stock numbers to PHP. These were New Forest District Council (NFDC), a well regarded local authority and Carrick Homes, a three star ALMO in Truro in Cornwall.

Areas of similarity:

  • Varied nature of work is enjoyed by all
  • Role of Housing Officers similar in all three agencies
  • All organisations have good links with partner agencies and are well represented on multi agency groups

Differences:

  • Both organisations have a strong emphasis on procedures and in particular policies to ensure consistency. PHP’s policies and procedures at the time were still requiring further development
  • Both organisations have more staff overall delivering the tenancy and rent recovery service than PHP.

(PHP has 7 fulltime posts and 1 part time for a stock of 5200, Carrick has 10 full time posts for a stock of 4000, and NFDC has 9 full time posts of staff for a stock of 5200).