tenant scrutiny panel report anti-social behaviour · 4. review initial template letter, removing...

Tenant Scrutiny Panel

Report

Anti-Social Behaviour

Hackney Homes

December 2015

Tenant Scrutiny Panel – Hackney Homes

Table of Contents

1 SCRUTINY SCOPING 1

2 SCRUTINY FINDINGS - ONE PAGE SUMMARY 2

3 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 3

4 METHODOLOGY 4

5 DETAILED FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 10

APPENDIX A: DEFINITION OF RECOMMENDATION GRADINGS 16


1

1. Scrutiny Scoping

Scrutiny Area Anti-Social Behaviour

Scrutiny Objectives 1. To investigate Hackney Home’s performance in responding to reports of ASB and the impact of poor performance on customer satisfaction

2. To compare Hackney Home’s response target times with that of other housing providers

Chairperson Angela Austin

Independent Mentor Richard Tomkinson, TPAS

Hackney Homes Lead Officer Coralie Francis, Resident Training & Initiatives Officer

Milestone Date

Scoping & Request for Information 2nd October 2014

Desktop Review 5th March 2015

Start on site (Reality Checking) 8th April 2015

Finish on site 20th April 2015

Evidence Collation 4th June 2015

Draft report issued 10th December 2015

Management responses provided 15th February 2016

Final report issued 16th February 2016

Board meeting 15th May 2016


2

2. Scrutiny Findings: One Page Summary

Assurance on effectiveness of service

Strengths Considerably Outweigh Areas for Improvement

Priority Number of

recommendations

HIGH 2

MEDIUM 5

LOW 2

TOTAL 9

Risk management

From the work completed, we have taken the view that the approach to addressing reports of anti-social behaviour in place is appropriate and effectively manages the requirements of Customers, Hackney Homes and Partners in this area.

Value for money

Value for money is a key objective for the organisation, and cuts across all areas of the business. The TSP were informed that the cost of the service is £33 per property per year, though this does not include work undertaken by neighbourhood teams. If calculated according to the specific formula used by Housemark, we anticipate that this figure would rise and we are unable to assess overall VFM as a result. Upper quartile performance for 2014/15 is £35.61 and we would welcome a like for like comparison. We are, however, of the view that the approach to ASB is well resourced and delivering an effective service for residents of Hackney Homes. In turn, providing Value for Money for Hackney Homes.


3

3. Summary of Recommendations

Finding Recommendation Finding Recommendation

1. Align the initial process for both ‘high level’ and ‘low level’ reports of ASB. a. Ensure all staff are fully appraised of the process and are able to utilise Universal Housing.

6. Review the approach to collecting customer insight and ensure time and costs are not duplicated.

2. Review and update all customer facing literature and ensure policy & procedure is updated regularly to reflect working practises and regulatory changes.

7. Regularly publicise innovations and successes.

3. Develop clear service standards for dealing with

complaints and incorporate into existing performance

management framework.

a. Publicise lessons learned and service changes &

improvements that are derived from customer

insight/feedback (both complaints &

compliments)

8. Ensure all staff are fully briefed on the role and function of the noise panel and are aware of how to refer cases to it.

4. Review initial template letter, removing the paragraph referring to ‘talking to the alleged perpetrator and other neighbours’ and ensure all staff are made aware of their ability to personalise the auto-generated template letter.

9. Review current arrangements and ensure a clear framework of outcome-based performance management is in place.

5. Include timescales in agreed action plans.


4

4. Methodology

4.1 Background

Tenant scrutiny is a key aspect of modern co-regulation of the national housing standards framework consumer standards (the services that residents receive). Benefits include:

Continuous monitoring of performance, allowing residents and Hackney Homes to improve the services residents receive

Residents being empowered to play an active role in assessing the quality and effectiveness of landlord performance, challenging to improve and holding to account if they fail to do so

Residents offering a valuable perspective on their actual experience, and landlords using this insight to help shape and improve services.

The Panel is supported by an independent mentor, Richard Tomkinson (TPAS), with Coralie Francis providing internal liaison and supporting the panel to achieve its’ aims. The Panel was established in late 2012 and was re-established with new and additional terms of reference in late 2014. The Panel aims to:

Provide an independent check of the services provided by Hackney Homes and where needed challenge the delivery of services, the performance of the landlord, and the value for money for residents, making recommendations for improvements in service delivery, performance and resident satisfaction.

Support Hackney Homes to embed the National Standards and Co-Regulation, providing assurance that it is well managed and viable putting, customers at the heart of its decisions.

The role of the Panel is to:

Take an independent view of Hackney Home’s performance.

Establish priorities for Scrutiny Reviews based on a number of triggers (see programme of work Section 4).

Influence the priority for internal service based reviews and contribute customer experience evidence within a context of co-


5

regulation.

Oversee all resident scrutiny activities.

Co-ordinate scrutiny activities and ensure other residents can contribute through a range of evidence gathering activities.

Hold the Executive Management Team and Board to account where performance fails to meet agreed and published standards.

Utilise best practice from other organisations as part of the scrutiny reviews to ensure Hackney Homes delivers excellent sector-leading services.

Make recommendations for improving performance and customer service.

Consider Value for Money and Social Value gains and savings in all aspects of its activities. The Tenant Scrutiny Panel met to discuss and decide which areas of Hackney Homes to scrutinise for the coming year. The Panel considered Hackney Homes Performance Reports, and the abridged Tenant Scrutiny Performance Report from March 2014. A longlist of potential topics was considered, as detailed in Table 1:


6

Table 1:

Topic Source

Rent Arrears Arrears increasing, welfare reform, current outstanding amount £4.6M.

Repairs a. Making & keeping appointments b. Tenant satisfaction c. Right first time d. Contact centre call handling

Performance in all these identified areas was considered by Panel members to be poor.

Complaints Handling Performance was considered to be poor and the Panel were intrigued by the recent improvements in performance.

Voids & Lettings Performance in respect of re-let times and was deemed to be a potential link to low levels of new tenant satisfaction. The Panel were also intrigued to understand the recent improvements in performance.

Anti-Social Behaviour (with an emphasis on tenant awareness)

Performance was considered to be poor and the Panel were keen to explore tenant awareness of Hackney Homes approach to dealing with ASB.

The Panel felt that the scoring system used during the previous review would not provide any benefit this time, as a number of Panel members were unable to be present, though the principles of it were included in considerations and all suggestions were discussed at length. Following service presentations in respect of Voids & Lettings and Anti-social Behaviour, the TSP chose ASB as their topic of review. Their principal reasoning being the poor performance in respect of response target times.


7

4.2 Methodology

Desktop Review Having made a formal request for information to increase understanding of the service area and identify potential further areas of investigation, the TSP undertook a desk top review. The key findings of this review included:

1. The budgetary information provided was insufficient as it appeared to cover only expenditure on specific project based activity.

2. The TSP felt that the current procedure is too long and repetitive, and question whether frontline staff will have read and digested it. The TSP resolved to test awareness and application during reality checking phase.

3. The TSP felt that the range of pro-active interventions (e.g. ASBAP’s, Roadshows etc.) was a strength of the service and resolved to test frontline staff awareness of such innovations

4. The Hackney toolkit looks useful in understanding partner agency roles and appears to be comprehensive, and the TSP felt that this was a strength and resolved to test staff awareness and use of the toolkit during reality checks.

Staff Interviews Staff interviews were conducted with:

David Saxon – Head of ASB Service

Wayne Hylton – ASB Manager

Harpal Dhaliwal – Team Leader Staff Focus Group A staff focus group was conducted, incorporating six members of staff:

Mariam Mulla – ASB Caseworker

Ismail Pirbhai – ASB Caseworker

Dawn Henry – Estate Safety Officer

Dipo Damunyi – ASB Officer

Momodu Haddi – Estate Officer


8

Deanne Jean-Marie – Estate Officer

Tenant Questionnaire The TSP developed a survey which was constructed in Survey Monkey, and the link emailed to those residents whose email addresses were held by the Resident Participation & Communities Team. 48 responses were received, of whom 31 respondents had ever reported ASB to Hackney Homes. Results cannot, therefore be considered to be statistically valid and do not meet sector confidence levels. Results have therefore not been relied upon for the purposes of informing findings or making recommendations. Results can, however, be made available to service managers for information/interest only, by request. Partner Interviews The TSP had hoped to interview a number of partners in order to establish the views of key partners regarding the effectiveness of Hackney Homes approach to both dealing with ASB and partnership working. Unfortunately, we were unable to interview a member of the Police, but were fortunate enough to be able to conduct an interview with Barry Scales, Community Safety Manager at London Borough of Hackney. Observation of ASBAP (Anti-Social Behaviour Action Panel) Meeting Our Mentor, Richard Tomkinson attended to observe the approach taken to case management through the ASBAP. Website Research Members undertook individual website research of both Hackney Homes and other housing providers website’s to establish:

1. Accessibility of information 2. A comparison of the standards and timescales for response/actions to that of Hackney Homes.

The other housing providers considered as part of the review were:

Waltham Forest – Asham Homes

Lambeth Living


9

Brent Housing Partnership

LB Camden

Tower Hamlets Homes This research found that the information was easily accessible via a link on Hackney Homes’ homepage, and that the target response times were broadly aligned with that of other London housing providers.


10

5. Detailed Findings & Recommendations

5.1 Strengths

The TSP found strong evidence of noticeable improvements in Hackney Homes’ ASB performance over recent years, including the prestigious Housemark Accreditation. It is clear that Hackney Homes have invested heavily in this area and that there is a large staffing team and considerable financial resources dedicated to dealing with ASB.

Staff throughout the review were able to demonstrate a strong understanding and application of the procedure.

The approach to staff straining was considered to be a considerable strength, including accredited training at Level 3, BTEC in Community Safety, Crime & Nuisance Management for Practitioners.

Staff spoke highly of the overall level of support provided and were particularly complimentary about the support received from their line managers.

The process of undertaking a harm risk assessment at initial reporting, coupled with the referral to ASBAP (Anti-Social Behaviour Action Panel) for cases assessed at or above a certain threshold (27) was considered by the TSP to be a strength.

The ASBAP multi-agency meetings, affording information sharing and ensuring that the right agency leads on specific cases was considered to be a particular strength, highlighting the effective partnership role played by Hackney Homes. The TSP felt that this partnership approach should be noted as best practise.

The TSP found the Noise Panel to be a good innovation, although they did identify a lack of awareness amongst estate based staff that they are able to refer cases to it.

Joint procurement of external mediation services was considered to be a strength, although the review did identify some issues with the management of this service, which should be addressed.

The Police Officer located in LB Hackney’s Community Safety Team offering support and advice for ‘designing out crime’ was found to be well utilised by Hackney Homes staff, and this was considered to be a strength.


11

5.2 Areas for improvement No organisation is perfect and the TSP were able to identify a number of areas for improvement which are detailed in the next section of this report.

Findings Recommendation Priority Management Response

Timescale / responsibility

1. Currently, ASB is dealt with as ‘high level’ or ‘low level’ with dedicated ASB staff dealing with high level cases and estate based staff dealing with low level cases. The TSP found evidence of an inconsistent approach and were concerned to learn that estate based staff do not currently have access to the same ‘Universal Housing’ system, despite them addressing 60% of all reports of ASB. There was some evidence that this was due to change during the review. The TSP consider that this should happen as a matter of priority. There was evidence that staff at different levels are not always aware of what others are doing and some evidence that the current process is open to interpretation, leading some staff to interpret it in different ways.

1. Align the initial process for both ‘high level’ and ‘low level’ reports of ASB.

a. Ensure all staff are fully appraised of the process and are able to utilise Universal Housing.


12



2. Much of the customer facing literature (and the current policy & procedure) was found to be out of date or under review. There was evidence that the proactive work which has been undertaken to promote the approach to ASB has not been effectively evaluated for the outcomes achieved.

2. Review and update all customer facing literature and ensure policy & procedure is updated regularly to reflect working practises and regulatory changes.

3. There was evidence of a lack of consistency in dealing with complaints about the service. Staff responses were often vague and there was a general acknowledgement that this area could be improved.

3. Develop clear service standards for dealing with complaints and incorporate into existing performance management framework.

a. Publicise lessons learned and service changes & improvements that are derived from customer insight/feedback (both complaints & compliments)


13



4. The initial correspondence (letter) provided to customers reporting ASB contains a paragraph informing customers that ‘investigations may include talking to the alleged perpetrator and other neighbours’. The TSP have concluded that this paragraph could result in reportees choosing not to progress their case, and whilst we recognise the need to manage expectations, are of the view that this information should be imparted during face to face or verbal communications in the first instance. Additionally, the TSP found contradictory evidence regarding the ability of staff members to amend the initial template letter, which is automatically generated. Whilst the TSP recognise the need for auto-generation of letters, we feel that it is vital in such a sensitive service area as ASB, that staff must be afforded the opportunity to personalise them for each individual case.

4. Review initial template letter, removing the paragraph referring to ‘talking to the alleged perpetrator and other neighbours’ and ensure all staff are made aware of their ability to personalise the auto-generated template letter.


14



5. The TSP found that timescales are rarely included on action plans agreed with customers reporting ASB, though there was contradictory evidence as to whether this was a service failure or a planned approach to ensure expectations are managed effectively. Given that the service has clear timescales for action as part of its overall policy & procedure, the TSP have concluded that timescales should be included in action plans to assist customers in evaluating the service they receive.

5. Include timescales in agreed action plans.

6. There was evidence of duplication in respect of customer satisfaction surveys, which are completed by both KWEST and the Contact Centre.

6. Review the approach to collecting customer insight and ensure time and costs are not duplicated.

Additional Recommendations Flowing from Identified Strengths: 7. Whilst the TSP have noted the

improvements in service over recent years, there is evidence that Hackney Homes is not publicising success.

7. Regularly publicise

innovations and successes.


15



8. Estate based staff awareness of the noise panel.

8. Ensure all staff are fully briefed on the role and function of the noise panel and are aware of how to refer cases to it.

9. Issues relating to the management of external mediation.

9. Review current arrangements and ensure a clear framework of outcome-based performance management is in place.


16

Appendix A: Definition of Recommendation Gradings

Recommendation Priority

Definition

HIGH

High Priority recommendations represent significant weaknesses, which expose Hackney Homes residents to particularly poor service and require immediate action.

MEDIUM Medium Priority recommendations represent weaknesses which expose Hackney Homes to a moderate degree of unnecessarily poor service and require actions to improve within 3-6 months of submission of this report.

LOW Low Priority recommendations show areas where we have highlighted good practise and/or opportunities to implement a good or better practice, to improve efficiency or further improve services to residents. Actions to be implemented as resources allow.

tenant scrutiny panel report anti-social behaviour · 4. review initial template letter, removing...

Documents