The ability of a social landlord to deliver Value for Money is arguably the single most important factor in measuring its success and yet the social housing sector still has not been able to give the issue the attention it deserves.
The debate recently has centred round the HCAs action in downgrading a small group of landlords for failing to publish a transparent, robust and timely value for money self-assessment as required under the regulator’s rules. The HCA also warned a further larger group of landlords that they hadn’t met all of the requirements and must do better next time.
It has since emerged that many landlords claim they were uncertain of what was expected of them and that the approach taken by landlords varied significantly. Despite having failed to give any real guidance on what was expected, the HCA attempted to justify their approach saying that ‘there will no doubt be some who say that we weren’t specific enough … but our requirement captures things an effective board should be doing’ – a typical bureaucrat’s response.
The real issue that this huffing and puffing disguises is that neither the HCA nor the bulk of social landlords seem capable of understanding what Value for Money means to the majority of people who are not Housing Nerds. Of course it is important to ensure that assets are used to maximum benefit and that should include the budgets for salaries as well as property assets and borrowings. Landlords are also expected to demonstrate that they are delivering high tenant satisfaction and it is here that most fall down.
Most landlords will be able to point to figures showing that tenant satisfaction is high on a range of measures and probably that it has increased over the last period. The reality is that most of these figures will not be giving an accurate assessment of the feelings of a majority of tenants. This is not to say that landlords are massaging or manufacturing the figures, just that the methodology used to collect figures does not get to what tenants really think. Most Housing staff will be familiar with the disbelief they are faced with when the headline performance information is shared with tenants.
The other main problem I have with satisfaction data is that it is measuring the wrong thing. The measures that tenants are asked to give their views on are, usually, the ones that the Housing Nerds have decided are important and very often, when you ask tenants what is important to them, they come up with different factors altogether.
The answer is simple. Let the Housing Nerds go on collecting data on performance the way they want to but as well as the landlord’s self-assessment of Value for Money, the HCA should require every landlord to support their tenants to produce an annual Residents’ Value for Money Report assessing how they believe the landlord is, or is not, delivering value for money on a range of issues including those that are important to them. This will require landlords to genuinely engage with both tenants and leaseholders to enable them to evaluate their landlord.
Now, I can already hear housing professionals up and down the land screaming that tenants are not capable of understanding the complexities involved in value for money assessments and more than that, they don’t want to either. This is complete rubbish and is just a way of rationalising their own unwillingness to genuinely engage with their residents.
Further than the Residents’ VfM Report, I would require landlords also to carry out and report on an annual Quality of Life assessment with their residents. The Guardian, on Monday 17th March, suggested that only 28% of Housing Associations are currently measuring the social impact of their activities and identified the potential beneficial effects of investment in insulation – a dry, draft free living environment, reduced energy bills, fewer money worries and a better quality of life.
ENCAMS, the Environmental Campaigning arm of Keep Britain Tidy, published a report in August 2007 titled Measuring Quality of Life: Does Local Environmental Quality Matter? As far as I am aware, this report hardly registered with the social housing sector. The report was based on annual research carried out by ENCAMS since 2001 and identified nine different factors that people used to determine their quality of life. Neighbourhoods and the Local Environment played a big part in their assessment and my guess is that, for social housing residents, the standard and suitability of their homes will also feature large. There is also a clear link here with the Social Value Act and whether the ‘Value’ identified in procurement has been delivered.
The concept of measuring resident quality of life is supported by a report from Family Mosaic which was reported by Inside Housing to argue for a ‘more sophisticated index, incorporating a range of measures around health, wealth and well-being’. Are the HCA and other social landlords ready to embrace Value for Money fully and look at how their expenditure, policies and operations are actually delivering for residents? Your guess is as good as mine but don’t hold your breath.
