CHA performance monitoring critical ssessment - Essay Example

?CHA Performance Monitoring Critical Assessment E Management of CHA aims to provide the tenants with high quality services and facilities to consultations with the stakeholders, and in compliance with the Decent Homes Standards, the neighbourhood, and local authorities. It aims to satisfy different parties involved in the maintenance, development, and improvement of housing requirements. To be able to achieve satisfaction, a Market Analysis was done and CHA has been working in partnership with tenants, providers, and local authorities so that the desirable results can be realized to the satisfaction of all the parties involved. In the Market Analysis, high quality design has to be blended with costs, given the situation wherein only 12 % of residents are employed while 18 % lost their employment; 73 % of households receive housing benefits; 43 % receive income support. And the economy might not have affordable mortgage lending available for many. CHA therefore applies for, receives, and utilizes grants from the NHAP (National Housing Affordable Programme). To the Self-Assessment Questionnaire provided for Estate Management by SHR, the answers to all the questions (appended) will be yes. However, Equality for a diverse set of tenants is one of the standards for Estate Management. In relation to the Equality and Diversity elements of Objective # 4 which states that CHA should “ enhance the (CHA) association through a commitment to equality and diversity and value for money” ( in compliance with the government regulation and guidelines to recognize and respect diverse communities, to serve diverse needs, and be accountable to residents, for the receipt of public funds and to give value for money ), we have the facts below. Based on the Key Performance Indicators 2010/2011 – Quarter 2, CHA has the OVERALL Tenant Satisfaction with the service provided by the landlord, but does not segregate the results according to the classifications that can allow for an assessment of each classification as follows: Equality for all in relation to employment, race, religion and belief, gender, marital status, sexuality, disability, and age If there was an itemized disclosure, then the management of CHA would be able to see which category or classification of tenants were actually not served at all or received relatively less services. Even on the overall, tenant satisfaction fell below the desired KPI in two consecutive quarters. KPI of 73 % was attained while the desired KPI was 86 %. Even after considering the views of the landlords, performance was only 60 % which was below the desired 79 %. One of the Self-Assessment Questions by the SHR was, “Have we published documents that clearly and specifically set out our commitment and approach to equalities issues?” The answer is not yet. CHA still has to inform residents about the way the association allocates and prioritizes expenditures for the services intended to meet national standards. CHA still has to communicate how the organization has added value for money and what benefits the residents can expect. The CHA Corporate Plan and Business Strategy disclosed that the organization has yet to “complete and maintain a 100 % tenant profile of the diversity needs of all residents”. In short, even the profiling should conform with the prescribed performance standards by having some information about tenants. According to the KPI, CHA had already reached 80% to over 81% of the project to complete tenant profiling. Perhaps the survey to determine the extent of compliance with the SHR should tap the 81 % available tenant profiling so that there can be some identification of weaknesses and strengths in the matter of satisfying different tenants with diverse situations. This will allow CHA to arrange questionnaires by classification of respondents so that they can be tabulated accordingly. As it is, there was no such tabulation for the diverse groups. Shared owners were surveyed as a whole without categories as to employment, race, religious belief, gender, marital status, sexuality, disability and age. The same was done to all tenants. CHA recognizes the “moral” implication of not meeting the requirements of diverse people with diverse needs. It says that in its Overall Strategy. The Need To Modify The Key Performance Indicators In order for CHA to report with accuracy concerning any claims about whether or not the organization meets the standards set forth by the SHR, it should revise the presentation and broaden the coverage of KPIs. SHR has a self-assessment guide available to all RSLs for Estate Management. It is accessible online @ http://www.scottishhousingregulator.gov.uk/stellent/groups/public/documents/webpages/shr_performancestandardlist.hcsp#TopOfPage . While it is good to know that a CHA Scrutiny Panel is still being formed to determine the priorities, benchmarks, and maintenance plans, as early as the present, it can utilize the self-assessment questionnaire of SHR as guide for the Scrutiny Panel to set the priorities, benchmarks, and maintenance plans for diverse set of clients that CHA serves. This Self-Assessment Guide has been appended. The very first question that should remind all Staff members of CHA who are given the responsibility to gather information from the clients, is “Do we have comprehensive and up to date information on our population and related equalities issues ?” To this, CHA cannot answer yes. Thus, the Scrutiny Panel will be the first to look for the related information. However, the completion of Tenant Profiling has reached 81.36 %, in which case, there should have been consolidation of data gathered from them according to employment, race, religion and belief, gender, marital status, sexuality, disability, and age. Since no information was provided as to who were satisfied with services other than those related to timely repairs, the Scrutiny Panel will probably ask for the breakdown per KPI that is marked RED. In the overall tenant satisfaction rating wherein CHA failed to achieve 86 %, the Staff should gather and tabulate dissatisfied respondents and find out what they are dissatisfied about. Next, the dissatisfied ratings will surely fall under one of the classifications. It will only be after the services (wherein people are dissatisfied) get to be known and after the classification of people who are dissatisfied, is identified, that CHA can be evaluated whether or not it complies with the regulation about equality and diversity. Tenants Since only 73 % was the overall Tenant KPI while the target is 86 %, the process that would have to be taken is as follows: (1) Identify who gave dissatisfaction marks. (2) Identify what they were dissatisfied about. (3) Under each service that received dissatisfaction marks, tabulate the classification of clients. (4) Total how many are married ? How many are employed ? Unemployed ? How many belong to each of the races ? How many are senior citizens ? How many male ? How many female ? How many are Christians ? Muslims ? Jew ? Other religions ? How many are disabled ? Once these questions are answered, CHA will be able to further analyze what is it that made these dissatisfied people say that some services are not done properly. Then the people concerned can be notified how to treat each classification of clients the right way in order to satisfy them. Shared Owners The satisfaction of shared owners was far below the desired target of 69 %. They rated CHA with only 51%. Again, the Scrutiny Panel will probably need the breakdown of dissatisfied Shared Owners according to their classifications. The purpose will be to determine which group of people do not appreciate specific services, and to try to understand why. At the very least, it will prove whether or not equality is being practiced for a diverse set of shared owners. KPIs Are Lacking Indicators To Ensure Compliance With SHR. One of the Self-Assessment questions pertaining to the issue of Equality is this: “Do we link into local planning and information networks on equalities issues and are we represented by Staff at appropriate Senior Levels ?” Obviously, nothing is said about links to “local planning and information networks” in the list of KPI. The CSBP (Corporate Strategy and Business Plans) does say it will “work closely with its support providers” (p. 52). But in the list of KPI, nothing is mentioned about checking for updates concerning any issue involving equality. A second missing indicator is a qualified assessment for each and every Equality Group. CHA will need this because the SHR will be looking for it. On of the Self-Assessment Questions asked, “Have we carried out a needs/requirements assessment for all of the relevant equalities groups covering all aspects of our services ?” At this stage, the CSBP mentioned nothing about it although it said the organization gathers data about diversity of residents. Third, there are no targets pertaining to “Equality Planning/Policy” although there is an objective to achieve the recommended equality in the performance of services. SHR included the question concerning whether or not the objectives have been translated into realistic targets in terms of service outcomes and access to service so that the equality plan/policy will be ascertained to be implemented. In the first place, the priorities, benchmarks, and maintenance plans have yet to be determined by the Scrutiny Panel after receiving a report according to classification of clients. SHR will determine whether or not diverse groups receive equal access and equal service outcomes. Thus, CHA should have targets to make sure this will be achieved. One way is by preparing agreements with service providers concerning the implementation of equality in the provision of services and equality of access. Another way is by identifying the accountable entity or provider that will achieve the objective. If those accountable are employees of CHA, the action should involve providing them with the necessary training to meet the standards. Fourth, equal opportunity indicators cannot be seen in the list of KPIs. One of the Self-Assessment questions asked if the management has “comprehensive systems to monitor equality issues”. Do different groups or classifications of residents receive equal funding opportunities? Or does CHA give priority to selected groups only? SHR protects the interest of tenants and seeks to “ensure the continuing provision of good quality social housing” and also helps gain funders. If it is discovered that there is discrimination in any organization when it comes to providing the quality of housing, and the report reaches the attention of funders, CHA can lose some funding or have less share of the available funds. It is worth mentioning at this point, how SHR can discover hidden or undisclosed information. SHR coordinates with the RAG (Regulatory Advisory Group) and the TRAG (Tenants Regulatory Advisory Group). They meet four (4) times a year. SHR can empower tenants as well as landlord representatives to inspect and discover the facts. If, by chance, there are complaints concerning discrepancies in providing good quality (such as when one tenant was given better quality facilities while another looked inferior), these groups can initiate inspections to verify the complaint. The RAG has a large reprentation made up of SFHA (Scottish Federation of Housing Association), COSLA (Convention of Scottish Local Authorities), CML (Council of Mortgage Lenders), CIH (Chartered Institute of Housing), Audit Scotland, SHRD (Scottish Housing and Regeneration Directorate). Furthermore, Michael Cameron serves as the Acting Chief Executive of SHR. His accountability is to the Scottish Parliament. Hence, a negative finding about CHA in terms of Equality of Opportunities can damage the reputation and credibility of CHA, thereby lowering the performance rating for the organization. Government expects trustworthiness and compliance from all the housing associations that receive funding from the government. While the KPI Tables of CHA will be valuable to the management, it was found that the criteria for assessment do not thoroughly consider what the SHR would like to see as proof of compliance with the regulations involving equality of opportunities in a diverse population of clients. CHA should clearly define those indicators for purposes of being ready when inspections take place. It should not give the impression that there is discrimination in terms of providing less value for money with one group or classification, in order not to lose business funding. Objective 4 is good because it commits CHA in principle to follow SHR guidelines. The Estate Management strategy is however not clear as to how CHA intends to fulfil such a commitment. At best, its management communicated the intention to achieve the objective. There is practically no Key Performance Indicator to guide all those who are working for the accomplishment of objectives how to ensure Equal Opportunity. A clearly defined action plan ought to be prepared for the purpose of letting SHR know there are steps being done towards compliance. A sample Action Plan of management may be as follows: Immediate Corrective Actions: a. Gather feedback from all the residents, tenants, shared owners classified according to their employment, race, religion, gender, marital status, disability, and age. (Deadline should be within one month for the already available documented feedback.) b. List down all the negative feedback according to the classifications. c. Identify the classification of clients who gave such negative feedback. d. Find out reasons why there were such negative feedbacks, so that the management can address their grievance by formulating a plan for implementation that will correct the mistakes that lead to complaints. e. Require the staff to answer the SHR Self-Assessment Questionnaire and to determine what may have been left out by CHA. f. Require the staff to complete the profiling of all the clients. Deadline: Within 2 months. g. Communicate to all tenants the updates about government regulations, opportunities, problems, and gather feedback about such communication. h. Conduct a Needs Analysis for all tenants at least once a year. i. Prepare a program that will meet the needs of the tenants based on results of the Needs Analysis as well as feedback concerning government regulations. j. Require progress reports during the implementation of all programs. k. Act on complaints as quickly as possible so as to preclude a growth in protests against some CHA initiatives, and corresponding leaks of such protests to SHR. l. Require progress reports for the resolution of all complaints and assign accountable persons to handle the successful resolution of complaints or escalate issues if they cannot resolve complaints. m. CHA should have files of tenants with pending complaints and the corresponding actions that have been taken, the effects of those actions, and the updated status of every problem submitted by tenants. These files ought to be ready for inspection by SHR. By being ready with the diversity, equality, and opportunity issues, CHA will be able to prove its genuine concern to satisfy every tenant regardless of the classification wherein he or she belongs. For these immediate action plans, CHA can set for its KPI the targets that can be stated as follows: Availability of profiles __100 % __90 % __80% __70 % __60% Updating of feedback __Current __one month ago __months ago __a year ago 100 % 90 % 80 % 70 % Identification of negative sources of feedback according to customer profile __100 % __90 % __80 % __70 % __60 % Communicated latest and all other opportunities __100 % __90 % __80 % __70 % __60 % Status of Needs Analysis __100 % __90 % __80 % __70 % __60 % Status of Programs to meet needs per classification __100 % __90 % __80 % __70 % __60 % Status of Complaints - % resolution __100 % __90 % __80 % __70 % __60 % Staff awareness of SHR updates __100 % __90 % __80 % __70 % __60 % Short-Term Action Plans A. For opportunity communications to all residents, to be done without any discrimination, CHA must first identify available opportunities as of a given time or as they arise, and then provide a medium of informing everybody who can avail of such opportunities. Each tenant or shared owner should receive a copy. The role of CHA is to collate evidence that the communication of opportunities has been done and received by the people who are supposed to be informed. B. To show SHR that CHA is truly concerned about satisfying diverse classifications of people, there would have to be evidence about CHA having a complete file of Tenant Profile and a tabulation about percentages of people falling under a specific classification, e.g. how many are married. C. There should be reports about whatever issues may need attention coming from each of the classifications. It will help prove that the company is trying its best to look into alternative ways to satisfy every client while complying with the government regulations. In the short-term, the management can at least strive to be ready for possible inspections and reporting of complaints coming from tenants. No one can expect perfect compliance in the sense that all diverse groups will be satisfied as soon as they are informed about opportunities and are treated equally. Evidence of received notification about opportunities, the communication materials themselves, and specific identification of trouble spots or areas for improvement and controversial areas – all these will tell SHR that CHA is working on compliance. Progress reports should likewise tell SHR that some problems were already resolved. There are others that are pending. Then explanations should be in black and white. By having such documentations, instead of getting a negative mark from SHR, CHA will be able to provide SHR with meaningful updates about some actions in need of follow ups, changes, and/or clarifications. Estate management is an ongoing process of improving housing facilities for people who need to be served the way they prefer to be served and in accordance with government rules and regulations. In the case of CHA, there is an objective to meet the requirement of Equality of Opportunities. But there is lack of concrete action plans leading to compliance with SHR insofar as Equality is concerned. It must create additional KPIs that will convince SHR about its sincerity to meet Objective # 4, and show proof that those indicators are gradually being attended to as time passes. Appendix Performance Standard: AS1.10 Estate management Self Assessment (You may wish to ask the following self-assessment questions about your approach to the management of estates and neighborhoods: ) • What do our estates look like? • Do we have a pro-active and strategic approach to the management of our properties, estates and neighborhoods? • Do we have strong links at an estate and neighborhood level with other agencies and service providers, such as education, social services, health, police and welfare benefits? • Do we have clear policies and procedures for the management of our estates and neighborhoods which adhere to legislative requirements and established good practice? • Do we assess management issues for each of our estates or neighborhoods using a range of information sources, including complaints, feedback from residents and our partners, regular environmental audits and service monitoring information? • Do we have local strategies to tackle identified estate management issues, including low demand? • Do we monitor and report the impact of our services on our estates and neighborhoods? • Do we know resident satisfaction levels with our estates and neighborhoods? • Do we have clear service standards and targets for the management of our estates and neighborhoods? • Do we publicize these standards, so that residents know what to expect from our services? • Do we consult residents on the development and review of our estate management service standards? • Do our tenancy agreements, handbooks and general information provision clearly set out tenant and resident responsibilities relating to estate management? Performance Standard: GS2.1 Equal opportunities Self Assessment ( You may wish to ask the following self-assessment questions about your approach to action planning on equality issues: ) • Have we published documents that clearly and specifically set out our commitment and approach to equalities issues? No. • Do we have comprehensive and up to date information on our population and related equalities issues? No. • Do we link into local planning and information networks on equalities issues and are we represented by staff at appropriately senior levels? No. • Have we carried out a needs/requirements assessment for all of the relevant equalities groups covering all aspects of our services? No. • Have we translated the objectives in our equalities planning/policy documents into ambitious but realistic targets which relate to service outcomes and access to services? No. • Do we include objectives and targets relating to equal access and outcomes for all service users in contracts with agents who deliver services on our behalf? Yes. • Do we have agreement on these targets from our partners in any relevant local partnerships? No. • Do we identify responsibility for achieving targets? No. • And do we adequately resource the required action by giving staff appropriate training, support and time to carry them out? Yes. • Do we communicate objectives, targets and actions to staff, actual or potential service users and more widely for public scrutiny? Yes. • Do elected members or governing body members understand and actively endorse our approach to equalities? Yes. • Do we reflect equalities objectives in managers’ individual performance agreements and do we appraise managers against these? No. • Do our staff understand our commitments on equalities documents, and know that they are expected to put them into practice? No. • (For local authorities only) Does our published Race Equality Scheme (from November 2002) address equality issues in our landlord, homelessness and factoring roles? ( You may wish to ask the following self-assessment questions about your approach to consultation and participation on equality issues: ) • Have we made a commitment to ongoing and systematic consultation with service users? Yes. • Do we develop our equalities policies and approach in consultation with a range of individual service-users and/or representative groups? No. • Have we committed resources and support to the set up of standing groups or forums or have we established links with equalities groups in the wider community, to facilitate ongoing contact and consultation? No. • Have we made it easy for all parts of the community to feed in their views about our services and policies? No. • Do we analyse collected information to identify patterns of responses by different groups within the community? No. • Do we feed back to consultees, service-users and the wider community? No. (You may wish to ask the following self-assessment questions about your approach to monitoring equality issues: ) • Do we have comprehensive systems to monitor equality issues? No. • Does the information we collect allow us to assess our ongoing performance against our objectives and targets, including the effectiveness of mainstreaming? No. • Do we collect qualitative and quantitative information from an appropriate range of sources, e.g.: Yes - Information on satisfaction with services across different groups? Yes. - Analysis of complaints? Yes. - Feedback from consultative groups? Yes. - Numerical outputs such as houses allocated? • Do we use self-classification methods wherever possible? Yes. • Do our monitoring systems extend to contracts with agents and partnership arrangements in relation to service access and delivery targets? Yes. • Do we consult with appropriate stakeholder and representative groups about what information will be collected and how it will be used? Yes. • Do we report regularly to relevant staff, elected members/governing body members, partners and agents where appropriate, and service users and the wider community? Yes. • Do we feed back results of monitoring exercises into the corporate and service-planning system? Yes, • Do we regularly review and update objectives and targets using monitoring information? Yes. • Do we use monitoring information to update service-user profiles? Yes. (You may wish to ask the following self-assessment questions about your approach to the review of equality issues in your delivery of services: ) • Have we made a commitment to self-assessment, scrutiny and audit of equalities issues? Yes. • How do we know that we comply with legislative requirements and statutory guidance on equalities issues? CHA gathers updates from government by coordinating with local authorities regularly. • Do we review all areas of service delivery, with reference to the information we hold on: - The profile and diverse needs of the target population? No. - How this compares with the outcomes currently being achieved? • Are our service and policy reviews carried out in consultation with affected service users and the wider community? Yes. • Do we benchmark our performance against other comparable organizations? No. • Do we identify and share examples of good practice in our service delivery? No. • Do we know the demand for information in alternative formats? No. • Do we provide good quality and easily accessible information on the services we deliver and how to access them, in formats, languages and locations which suit the needs of our target population? Yes, but we need improvements. • Is there evidence that we have mainstreamed equalities issues throughout all of our service areas? No. • Have we taken action to identify any actual or potential disparities in service outcomes for equalities groups? Not yet. • Have we given consideration to any possible barriers to access or equal outcomes for individuals belonging to these groups? Not yet. • Can we demonstrate that our services are accessible to all sectors of our community? No. • Can we demonstrate that there are no systematic or unjustifiable differences in quality of service provided to any particular group of service users? No. • Have we taken action to respond to any gaps, disparities and concerns identified? No. • Have we taken action to remove or reduce the impact of any barriers to access or equal outcomes? No. • Do we have quick and effective procedures to respond to any incidence of discriminatory behaviour, harassment or attack on any member of an equalities group? No. ( RSLs may wish to ask the following self-assessment questions about how their staff, governing body and wider membership reflect the communities they serve: ) • Do our published policy and strategy documents on equalities issues include a commitment to equal recruitment and employment practices? Yes. • Are our recruitment and employment practices in line with legislative requirements and the CRE’s Code of Practice on Employment? Unknown • Do we advertise information about vacancies in ways which do not unfairly restrict the range of applicants? Unknown • Are our staff who are involved in recruitment and human resource management appropriately trained on equalities issues? No. • Do we have good information about the composition of our existing staff, governing body and wider membership and how this compares with our local population profile? Unknown. • Have we established targets and objectives designed to reduce or remove any disparities identified between the equalities profiles of our staff, governing body or membership and our local population? No. • Have we agreed a course of action to achieve these targets and provided appropriate resources to support the implementation of these actions? No. • Do we monitor our achievements or progress against our objectives and targets? Yes, part not much with Equality Regulations. • Do we report regularly on our performance in relation to these targets and objectives to staff, governing body members, the wider membership and service users? No. • Do we review and revise targets/objectives and the action which is being taken to achieve them? Yes, but not thoroughly. Read More