Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Ealing HomesGovernance and maintenance
Draft findingsNovember 2004
Debby OunstedPaul Ferrari
Housing Quality Network Services
Purpose of HQNS’s mock inspection
Reality check
Identify strengths and weaknesses
Focus on repairs and governance (ALMO) other service covered by previous mock inspection
Prepare for the real inspection
Ground Rules
What we see is what you get – at the time of the inspection
Staff have been honest, there has been no varnish
We must be more rigorous than the real thing
We will offer praise where it is due, we will criticise where it is necessary
We must motivate you to improve
We must tell you what to prioritise in the time available
Up to date approach - KLOEs
The questions askedQuestion 1 – How good is the service?
Diversity
Access
Value for money Performance management
Question 2 – What are the prospects for improvement?
What is the evidence of service improvement?
How good are the current improvement plans?
Will improvements be delivered? incorporates governance
Scope of previous mock inspection
Customer Care & Complaints
Resident Involvement
Anti-social Behaviour & Nuisance
Tenancy and estate management
Equalities and diversity
Lettings and Allocations
Income collection
Leasehold services
Covered approach to BVRs, improvement performance management and strategy
Headline issues raised by previous mock inspection
Ground work has been done but you need to demonstrate improvements in the service
Consolidate and bed down the changes
Focus on improving estates, offices, access to services
Equality and diversity is a big issue for you
You cannot achieve this on your own. Involve and get the support of others – Corporate, residents (not just the involved) and other partners
The JudgementService areas Current
PerformanceProspects
Customer Care & Complaints ZERO/ Uncertain
Resident Involvement Promising
Anti-social Behaviour & Nuisance Promising
Tenancy and Estate Management Promising
Lettings & Allocations Uncertain
Equalities and diversity Uncertain
Income Management Promising
Leasehold Promising
Overall Promising
Just
Just
Context
What is the Audit Commission saying about efficiency?
New focus on efficiency at inspection (previously it was quality)
VFM is The relationship between economy, efficiency and
effectiveness
High when there is an optimum balance between all three: Relatively low costs (economy)
High productivity (efficiency)
Successful outcomes (effectiveness)
Source: A Modern Approach to Inspecting Services, AC 2004
Is Ealing Homes board already considering VFM and efficiency? Yes. Board aware. Looking to partnership with joint
procurement with West London sub-region
Board would want where possible to see procurement savings being recycled back into housing
Maintenance partnership-Mears/Kiers being looked at with Council
Board has revised Human Resource provision and SLA being negotiated with Council
Legal services provision also being reviewed post BVR
Focus group with residents on repairs
Organisation
1 evening focus group on repairs
A good mix of tenants involved and uninvolved
representation from BME communities
Most tenants had lived in their current accommodation for a relatively long period of time
Overview on repairs
Views on the whole were rather negative
Some good news stories about particular members of staff or particularly good contractors
Greatest consensus around customer focus and customer care
Participants from Northolt and Ealing generally more critical of the service than others
Reporting a repair Relatively easy to report by telephone. Appreciated free-phone
number, easy to get through before 9.30. Mondays and later one gets bus
People do not give names - luck of the draw whether you get someone helpful on the end on the line
Staff are not always seen as ‘customer focused’
Possible to e-mail your repair request and one participant favoured this approach as it meant that you had a record for the future
Some residents preferred to report repairs in person at the office
Repair receipts are issued - give an approximate completion date and job number. They do not make an appointment at this stage
Perception that special needs and needs of elderly appear to be taken into account in determining priority
Making an Appointment Not given at the time of reporting a repair although it is
possible to make an appointment with the contractor after a card has been left
Appointment slots - morning or afternoon and weekend and evening appointments are also possible
One participant felt that they were happy to come out during the weekend since they could charge premium rates others were very pleased that this flexibility was offered
One participant described hearing a card being quietly deposited through the letter -box and the contractor failing to knock. Some participants suspected that contractors were probably paid for no-access visits
The process – responsive repairs Surveyors - came in for particular criticism
“Some times you have to wait for a surveyor to visit first
They are supposed to come within 10 days but this does not happen”
Getting hold of a surveyor is a particular problem
Surveying staff seem to change - 7 different surveyors over one repair
Out of hours service - described as good One participant felt some jobs don’t get treated as
emergencies when they are
Participants believed pensioners given particularly prompt service
The process – responsive repairs … (cont’d)
Operatives - polite but not always skilled and professional
Failure to locate a stop-cock serving her property
Nailed a piece of rubber to the bottom of an ill- fitting door
New bathroom fitted but taps are still not working properly
Tiles “fitted the wrong way round” was another example
One operative asked the tenant for food and later left the job to pick a friend up from the airport, brought the friend back and then asked for food for the friend!
Follow-up repairs
Highlighted as a particular matter of concern
Leak took one and a half years to remedy
Kitchen units that were badly fitted and did not match properly
Gas service checks
Residents confirmed that they have an annual gas check
One resident said that this was the only repair she had had done, but that it was carried out regularly each year
There were no specific complaints about gas operatives
Major repairs and improvements Sometimes told repairs will be included in the programme but
they are not given an indication of when that might be On lady had ongoing problems with a boiler, she suspected
the boiler had already cost as much to repair as it would do to replace. Informed that it was “in the pipeline” but there were not enough defective boilers in the area at the moment to justify a replacement programme
None of the participants including those involved in TRAs aware about what was included in the improvement programme
Mixed views about whether choice can be exercised in terms of fixtures and fittings. One participant had been consulted on a type of from door. Another had not been consulted about double glazed units. Windows were now impossible to clean from the inside
Communal Repairs Graffiti described as being regularly removed by the
caretaker and through a steam cleaning service. Residents did not see this as a particular problem
Communal repairs including communal lighting is more of a problem
Lack of lighting posing a security risk was not attended to for 3 or 4 days. Two lights on an estate have not been working for over two years. There are no evening inspections of estate lighting according to participants
No receipts issued for communal repairs, even to the person who reports the work, so they are difficult to track
Regular estate inspections (quarterly) take place in some areas involving residents. Defects are recorded and some are dealt with
Resident Feedback Satisfaction slip that can be filled in but the job has to be
completed before you can give that kind of feedback as you are signing to say the job has been done
Several residents had been contacted by telephone after a repair had been carried out to check that work had been done to their satisfaction
Several participants aware of an invitation to take part in tender evaluation panels. Training had been offered
Several also aware of mystery shopping and were keen to take part
Problem arises when you need to contact someone because a job has not been done, “you have to keep explaining the problem to different people, I explained the same problem to five different people on the same day”. “They should be able to look these things up on the computer”
Contract Management
General feeling - contracts are not adequately monitored and payments are often made to contractors when the work has either not been done or not done to a satisfactory standard
None of the residents had had any experience of post inspection of work even for larger jobs apart from improvement programme work. “They have a three year term and they think they can do what they like”
Residents have received a list of jobs and priorities this was set out in the local newsletter and has been provided as an A4 list
Leaseholders
One of the leaseholders stated that leaseholders are not given receipts and only find out the cost of work 18 months later
Jobs sometimes seem very expensive
Tenant priorities and final comments Get better quality workers and make sure the quality of
workmanship is properly checked Stop using contractors and use people within the community. Go back to direct employment Service Team were not very good. “I caught one of them
sleeping on the estate and they took two hour lunch breaks” Named people in each team so that you know who you are
dealing with No continuity. Such a lot of time is spend dealing with
different people 8 or 9 for one job. As contractors sub contract to someone else
No payments for leaving cards Never had any really big problems, they service the gas
boiler every year
Tenant priorities and final comments … (cont’d)
Customer service course they are not customer focused enough
They are never available usually “on leave” I never seem to be able to go directly to the right person first time and staff change a lot
None of the surveyors seem to call back Experience of the repairs service has been very good. I had
a new bathroom fitted and the supervisor came and checked. They did a good job
People seem to be put on the telephones from their first day they should be trained properly. People don’t give their names
Get more surveyors and make sure that people can get hold of them
Governance
Participants asked about governance, whether they had received information about how decisions are made
Several said there had been attempts to explain this over the last 2 months but only really the Association Chairs were getting to grips with it at this stage
Nobody was sure how new committee structure worked or what the committees were
Some were aware Tenants would be represented on the Board and that training
would be available
Councillors would no longer have the same role
Mystery shopping
Key findings 25 calls and one email
Promptness in replying Average waiting time overall – 7 rings Average waiting time for Repair link – 9 rings Only half the calls to Repair link answered within 15
seconds Average waiting time for area offices – 5 rings Some problems
One call to the Western area office got no reply In one instance the caller was cut off Some difficulties in getting through to Repair Link Out of hours calls to the area offices received no reply
Key findings … (cont’d)Technical quality of responses In most instances calls to Area Offices were referred to
Repair link, knowledge of repairs was poor in the Area offices. Unable to provide even basic information on priorities
Appointments offered but lack of clarity about Saturday appointments
limited information provided on gas servicing – importance etc
Knowledge of right to repair non-existent No special priorities for elderly – replacement of broken WC
seat Email response fast and informative and in line with the
customers service standards
Access to office Westec office accessible for visitors
Modern, bright, stylish
Only easy to reach by car or tube
Poor access by foot
No clear Ealing Homes signage outside
No clear branding of Ealing Homes inside
If leaflets etc available, they are not on display
An alien environment for customers?
Key findings
Customer care
All calls to the area offices were answered politely, all saying Ealing Homes and giving their name
No name was given in any of the calls to Repair link
Attitude varies – some positive helpful others disinterested
Overall rating of fair/poor
Western area Repair link the strongest, Eastern area office the weakest
Maintenance
Issues Covered
Background
Asset Management
Maintenance
Planned and Cyclical
Gas Servicing
Voids
Responsive Repairs
Repairs Reporting
Customer Satisfaction
Value for money
Summary
Background
Asset Management – What the Inspectors will be looking for:
Robust Asset Management and Procurement strategies with clear linkages to Corporate Plan and Business Plan
Detailed proposals for meeting the Decent Homes targets set by Government
Statistically significant and robust stock condition information which is used to inform stock investment priorities and is updated on a regular basis
Procurement – What the Inspectors will be looking for:
An over-arching Procurement Strategy
Movement towards procurement based on Best Value and Egan Principles
Procurement approaches that encourage innovation and continuous improvement
Extensive use of Information technology to support and contribute to the delivery of greater procurement efficiencies
Service Delivery – What the Inspectors will be looking for:
Financially resourced plans for regular regimes of planned and preventative maintenance that support service delivery objectives
An effective and flexible responsive repairs and void service
Clear service standards
Procedures which ensure tenants receive a consistent service
Resident Involvement – What the Inspectors will be looking for:
Involvement of residents in:
Shaping the service
Agreeing priorities
Setting standards
Contractor/Consultant/supplier selection
Monitoring budgets and performance
Project/service reviews
Customer Satisfaction – What the Inspectors will be looking for:
Valid methods of seeking, capturing and reviewing satisfaction information across all maintenance activities
Evidence of how feedback is being used to improve the service
Continuous Improvement – What the Inspectors will be looking for:
Regular reviews of service delivery targets
Procurement arrangements that encourage the “ratcheting up” of contractor performance
Use of benchmarking to identify potential areas for improvement
Headline Figures – What the Inspectors will be looking for: Number of emergency repairs to represent the no more than 10%
of the total responsive repairs carried out. Urgent repairs no more than 30%
Expenditure on responsive repairs to equate to no more than 40% of all revenue expenditure on repairs and planned maintenance
Timescales to meet the regulator’s requirements and to be calculated in calendar days where applicable:
Emergency Repairs – 1 day
Urgent – 7 days
Routine – 1 Calendar Month
Post inspections to be minimum of 10%
Pre inspections to be less than 10%
Asset Management
Business Plans and MaintenanceWhat are the Inspectors looking for? Corporate Strategy and Business Plans
Asset management strategy linked to Business Plan
Maintenance strategy based on a recent condition survey that also meets requirements of Decent Homes Standards
Financially resourced short, medium and long term programmes of work developed in conjunction with tenants
Procurement strategy and movement towards Egan compliance
Mechanism for updating condition survey
All of these elements are in place
Asset Management Strategy What will they expect to see?
A formal and transparent process in place by which
stock is categorised in terms of condition and demand
and the aspirations of current and future tenants
stock in poor condition with low demand is identified and a formal option appraisal carried out for improvement/repair, remodelling, demolition or disposal
the evaluation process involves tenants throughout and is not based solely on financial modelling, but also takes tenants concerns and aspirations into account
The current approach to asset management needs to be further developed before it could be said to fully meet these criteria. The asset management strategy focuses strongly on the technical issues. Consideration of housing issues needs to be made more explicit
Stock Condition Survey 2003
100% external stock condition survey and 17% internal survey
The updated survey is used to develop the works programmes and budgets in line with the business plan
The information collected is designed to enable an assessment to be made as regards meeting the current Decent Homes standard and includes the information for the new standard when it comes in
It also designed to enable the recalculation of the average SAP rating for the stock
Information stored on NBA database system Challenge: What steps are Ealing taking to validate the
survey findings?
Condition Survey Results
Average SAP 58
36% dwellings below an “acceptable” SAP target
3.1% (425) Unfit
40% (5,598) Non-Decent
46% potentially Non-Decent
Condition Survey ResultsMaintenance Costs-First Pass
£340 M over 10 years, £600M over 30 years
14% (£46M)= Backlog
19% (£66M) = Improvements
69% (£236M) =Element renewals within an aging stock
The above includes an estimated £167M to meet sustainable Decency Standards
Decent Homes Strengths
The size of the problem is known, and the resources required have been identified
Five year programme to bring all properties up to decent homes standard by 2010 in place
Programme to be procured through use of partnering contracts
Programme being effectively monitored and tracked using a mix of in house project managers and external consultants
All indications are that the decent homes programme will hit the 2010 target and will be delivered in inside budget
Major risk here is achievement of two star rating--however fall back positions have been factored in to deal with this
Procurement Strategy
Construction industry is overheating and suffering from skills shortages and building cost inflation is high
If the investment programme is to be met, Ealing Homes will be procuring professional and contract services worth £50 millions a year
The strategy it follows in procuring these services will have a significant impact on total cost of delivery, quality and timeliness
Inspectors will want to see that Ealing Homes has a strategy designed to take these factors into account and optimise procurement performance
Procurement/Partnering
Ealing Homes has an agreed Procurement/Partnering Strategy in place
Is using external consultants to assist in developing partnering contracts and has already put a number of these in place
Tenant involvement in developing approach to partnering and in selection of partner contractors.
Open book approach with risk sharing Development of supply chain partnering Consideration being given to joint purchasing with
other ALMOs to obtain benefits of scale
Procurement/Partnering Action Points
Inspectors will want to test that this approach has delivered value for money and increased levels of service and tenant satisfaction
They will be looking for evidence of benefits gained from these partnering initiatives
They will also want to see evidence that in developing these procurement initiatives you have taken positive steps to promote Diversity & Equality issues, local employment, sustainability, etc.
Procurement is a key component of the Egan agenda. Inspectors will also want to see evidence of progress here
Ealing Homes is in the process of developing a framework for the procurement of consultancy and contractor resources
Staff are also developing an Ealing Homes procurement strategy to work alongside the Ealing Council Strategy
Tenant InvolvementWhat will they expect to see?
Prioritising budgets Setting standards Selecting contractors and consultants Agreeing project briefs Letting contracts Monitoring budgets/contract performance/service delivery Delivering feed back on completed schemes Introducing individual and group choice in schemes
There is clear evidence of tenant involvement in these areas----but is there clear evidence of improved outcomes as a result, that can be demonstrated to inspectors?
Involvement of tenants in
What is driving maintenance?
Currently the documentation gives the impression that maintenance is being driven almost exclusively by the condition of the properties rather than by the needs and aspirations of the residents
There is a need to redress the balance
Maintenance is as much about people as the homes they live in, so there is a need to
Introduce a greater degree of resident involvement in the whole process
Increase choice Improve feedback to residents Show that resident involvement has made a difference
This approach is in fact implicit in everything Ealing Homes does, but needs to be made explicit to ensure you get full credit for it
Maintenance
Planned and Cyclical MaintenanceWhat will the inspectors be looking for?
Programmes linked to asset management strategy
Effective and pro-active project management
Procurement in line with Egan
Use of long term and call down contracts
Smoothed workflows
Effective management reporting and control
Delivery to programme, budget and specification
60:40 split---- (planned+cyclical): reactive spend
Most, if not all, of these elements are in place or are being developed
Inspectors will look at spend against budget and delivery against programme
Works planned to be carried out in 2003/04
Works carried out in 2003/04
Dwellings £000s Dwellings £000s
Rewiring 150 £ 678 75 £ 81
Roof Structure 273 £ 0 0 £ 0
Roof Covering 450 £ 565 355 £ 789
Chimneys 273 £ 216 0 £ 0
Windows 850 £ 2,631 652 £ 3,260
Doors 1000 £ 2,347 642 £ 1,401
Structural Works 70 £ 2,696 140 £ 1,812
Central Heating 1000 £ 3,702 738 £ 2,608
Insulation 330 £ 116 227 £ 138
Kitchens 144 £ 2,098 289 £ 1,825
Bathrooms 135 £ 1,319 59 £ 563
Common Areas 750 £ 847 637 £ 680
Environmental Works 500 £ 1,633 369 £ 451
Other 1000 £ 3,420 1525 £ 3,761
£ 22,270 £ 17,369
Is there a track record of programme delivery, inside budget?
£ 0
£ 5
£ 10
£ 15
£ 20
£ 25
£ 30
£ 35
2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04
Mil
lio
ns
Imp
rove
men
ts &
Co
nve
rsio
ns
Bu
dg
ets
Original Budget Revised Budget Out turn
Capital Work Programmes and BudgetsStrengths
Work programmes prepared using information from condition surveys and local knowledge of stock.
Tenant involvement in developing work programmes
30 year investment profile
Partnering contracts in place for programme delivery
Capital programme managed by investment team in Ealing Homes using external consultants
Effective monitoring and reporting systems in place with regular formal reports to SMT
Customer satisfaction surveys showing high satisfaction levels and being used to feedback information into later works
Gas ServicingWhat are the Inspectors looking for?
Quality systems in place backed up by documented inspection regime IT system in place to manage work Appointment system in place “No access” procedures in place. Age profile of “no access” cases being monitored CP12s correctly filled in. Proof of provision to tenants Innovative measures to deal with “no access” Need to show procedures are being implemented up to and including
taking legal action Evidence that letters to tenants issued under “no access” arrangements
are available in the appropriate range of languages. Need to show that the “no access process” is being managed as a
whole
Gas Servicing
Strengths Contract recently tendered in competition, covering gas servicing
and repairs Tenants involved in tender evaluation process Two contractors being used 96% of gas services carried out inside 12 month period Area based programme for servicing Nominated officer responsible for delivery of service Quality systems and procedures in place Contractor offering evening and weekend appointments to clear “no
access” jobs “No access” information being entered into repairs reporting
system to enable appointments for access to be made Block on non-urgent repairs being appointed, unless agreement is
made to provide prior access for gas servicing
Gas Servicing
Weaknesses
Backlog of “no access” cases still being cleared
No age profile of “no access” cases
Stand alone spreadsheet used to control process pending implementation of OHMS module
No one person managing whole “no access” process from start to finish across all departments
Gas Servicing Recommendations Make a nominated officer responsible for monitoring and
managing the “no access” procedure from start to finish across all departments
Check and report on age profile of “no access” cases as a local PI and clear any backlog as matter of urgency
Include Gas Servicing performance figures in Ealing Homes management information reports
Ensure all documentation sent to tenants to carry standard strapline on language and communication
Ensure final warning letters are available in a range of community languages
Revisit “no access” procedure with contractors and solicitor to ensure it represents best practice
Review decision not to attempt to gain entry through court proceedings
VoidsWhat will the Inspectors be looking for?
Strong links between tenancy management and the repairs service Relet standard, negotiated with the tenants, published in plain
English, linked to the business plan /asset management strategy
Void work carried out in accordance with that standard
Dedicated voids teams for contractor and client
Cost reductions for working in void properties
Clear and demanding targets being set and achieved for voids
Innovative approaches to reducing relet periods
Performance management of process as a whole
Supported by appropriate management information systems
Improvements in performance over time
Number of minor voids decreasing and major voids increasing
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Qtr
2
Qtr
3
Qtr
4
Qtr
1
Qtr
2
Qtr
3
Qtr
4
Qtr
1
Qtr
2
Qtr
3
Qtr
4
Qtr
1
Qtr
2
Qtr
3
Qtr
4
Qtr
1
Qtr
2
Qtr
3
Qtr
4
Qtr
1
Qtr
2
Qtr
3
Qtr
4
Qtr
1
Qtr
2
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Nu
mb
er o
f V
oid
s P
er Q
uar
ter
Minor Voids
Major Voids
Void budget exceeded year on year
£ 0
£ 500,000
£ 1,000,000
£ 1,500,000
£ 2,000,000
£ 2,500,000
1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04
Spend Budget
£ 0
£ 500,000
£ 1,000,000
£ 1,500,000
£ 2,000,000
£ 2,500,000
1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04
Spend
Budget
Average void cost in 2003/04 was £2,366
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
£0-£499 £500-£999
£1000-£1499
£1499-£1999
£2000-£2499
£2500-£2999
£3000-£3499
£3500-£3999
£4000-£4499
£5000-£5499
£5500-£5999
£6000plus
Nu
mb
er o
f vo
ids
There is no correlation between cost of void and time taken to carry out works
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
£ 0 £ 1,000 £ 2,000 £ 3,000 £ 4,000 £ 5,000 £ 6,000 £ 7,000
Cost of Void
Tim
e w
ith
Co
ntr
ac
tor
Average void time target time for contractor was 15.3 days
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
1 day
2 day
s
3 day
s
4 day
s
5 day
s
6 day
s
7 day
s
8 day
s
9 day
s
10 d
ays
11 d
ays
12 d
ays
13 d
ays
14 d
ays
15 d
ays
16 d
ays
17 d
ays
18 d
ays
19 d
ays
20 d
ays
21 d
ays
22 d
ays
23 d
ays
24 d
ays
25 d
ays
26 d
ays
27 d
ays
28 p
lus
days
Contractor Target in Calendar days
Per
cen
tag
e o
f V
oid
s in
200
3/04
Average void time with contractor was 16.6 days
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
1 day
2 day
s
3 day
s
4 day
s
5 day
s
6 day
s
7 day
s
8 day
s
9 day
s
10 d
ays
11 d
ays
12 d
ays
13 d
ays
14 d
ays
15 d
ays
16 d
ays
17 d
ays
18 d
ays
19 d
ays
20 d
ays
21 d
ays
22 d
ays
23 d
ays
24 d
ays
25 d
ays
26 d
ays
27 d
ays
28 p
lus
days
Actual time with contractor
Per
cen
tag
e o
f vo
ids
in 2
003/
04
Where is the time being spent?
Time to get keys30%
Time to Inspect15%
Time to complete work55%
Average relet time for minor voids is reducing and nearing top quartile
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1999
/00
2000
/01
2001
/02
2002
/03
Apr-03
May
-03
Jun-0
3
Jul-0
3
Aug-03
Sep-0
3
Oct-0
3
Nov-03
Dec-0
3
Jan-0
4
Feb-0
4
Mar
-04
Apr-04
May
-04
Jun-0
4
Jul-0
4
Aug-04
Sep-0
4
Nu
mb
er o
f d
ays
to r
elet
min
or
void
s
Average Relet Time for Minor Voids
Ealing Homes now hitting top quartile performance against Housemark peer group
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
Vo
id R
elet
Tim
e in
Day
s
What are the top quartile performers doing right?
One person managing whole process Effective integrated voids IT system Working to agreed voids procedure and relet standards Involving tenants in setting relet standards and void monitoring Working in parallel rather than sequentially Using “fast track” turn round procedures Pre-allocation of properties Pre-termination visit by housing manager Managing recharges effectively Carrying out landlord’s repairs before tenant leaves Carrying out minor repairs with new tenant in occupation Using contractors with dedicated voids teams Garden clearance and cutting
VoidsStrengths
Void relet standard developed in consultation with tenants
Standard made available to prospective tenants
Computer system in place to monitor whole process
Dedicated voids teams for contractor and client
Performance nearing top quartile
Use specialist cleaning firm for voids cleaning
Applying recharge policy
Introducing good practice procedures following mini review
Weaknesses
Need to set more demanding performance targets
Budget setting/ budgetary control
No fast track procedure
Recommendations
Make a nominated officer responsible for monitoring and controlling whole void process and delivering the targeted performance
Develop SMART action plan to achieve top quartile performance
In consultation with partner contractors develop tighter performance targets
Make one performance target to minimise overall cost of void works and rent loss due to voids, taken together rather than separately
Optimise use of “fast track” procedures
Introduce effective recharge procedure
Revisit the budget setting/control process to eliminate overspend
Reactive repairsWhat will the inspectors be looking for? Service standards agreed with tenants and published
Delivery in accordance with those standards
Budgets built up from maintenance drivers
Performance management systems in place, supported by appropriate quality management processes
Effective use of IT to support service delivery, including robust systems for repairs reporting with electronic links to contractors
Appointments for non urgent repairs
High levels of customer satisfaction
Success in achieving top quartile performance
Action on E&D issues
Responsive budget increasing year on year, but why the overspend?
£ 4
£ 6
£ 8
£ 10
£ 12
£ 14
£ 16
1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05
Mil
lio
ns
Responsive Budget Responsive spend
68,000 repairs per year on average.But 12% being reported out of hours
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05
Nu
mb
er o
f Jo
bs
tick
ets
Issu
ed
Response Voids Communal Outhours
High percentage of job tickets being varied, with impact on final costs. Why?
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05
Per
cen
tag
e o
f ti
cket
s va
ried
Percentage cost variation Percentage of tickets varied
Why the downward trend in 2004/05?
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
110.00%
1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05
Per
cen
tag
e o
f jo
bs
com
ple
ted
in
sid
e ta
rget
Emergency Urgent Routine Overnight
% of emergency and urgent repairs still above AC guidelines
52.0% 53.1% 55.8% 57.5%
48.0%
36.1%
9.2% 10.3%9.7%
12.1%
15.4%
11.7%
27.3% 23.9% 21.1%18.0%
23.1%
36.6%
11.5% 12.7% 13.4% 12.5% 13.5% 15.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05
Per
cen
tag
e o
f jo
b t
icke
ts i
ssu
ed
Emergency Overnight Urgent Routine
Planned : Responsive ratio for revenue is 15:85 well outside A.C. guidelines
77.9% 76.2%80.8% 80.7% 82.9% 85.0%
22.1% 23.8%19.2% 19.3% 17.1% 15.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of
Re
ve
nu
e S
pe
nd
on
Ma
inte
na
nc
e
Responsive Maintenance Planned Maintenance
Responsive RepairsStrengths
Tenant participation in setting service standards
Tenant involvement in setting up partnering contracts and selection of contractors
Partnering contracts in place and performance bedding down, continuing tenant involvement in performance monitoring, regular meetings between tenants and contractors
Regular core group meetings with contractors to develop partnership working
Introduction of appointment system
Extended hours for repairs reporting
Multi trade operatives providing handyperson services
Inspectors working out of contractors’ offices
Responsive Repairs
Weaknesses
Problems with producing validated performance information for BV KPIs and contract KPIs
Not yet hitting all performance targets
Not yet top quartile across PIs
Customer satisfaction only average
Low levels of leaseholder satisfaction
Lower levels of BME satisfaction against some service elements
Planned: responsive spend ratio
Percentage of emergency and urgent repairs
Responsive RepairsRecommendations
Consider building up future maintenance budgets from the budget drivers rather than from “last year plus inflation”
Put in place SMART action plans to:
Reduce the number of jobs issued out of hours
Reduce the number of jobs prioritised as urgent and emergency
Increase the planned and cyclical revenue spend and reduce the responsive spend in line with the AC guidelines
Hit top quartile performance against BV KPIs
Carry out gap analysis to identify reasons for areas of low customer satisfaction with particular emphasis on BME tenants and leaseholders
Note: An action plan is already in place for resolving the problems related to the production of the KPI information and is being monitored by the SMT
Pre and Post Inspections
Strengths
Targets set for pre and post inspections, and the need to reduce percentage of pre-inspections and increase number of post inspections recognised
Post inspections targeted at high cost, high risk jobs in line with best practice
Systems in place to monitor performance against pre and post inspections with results being formally recorded and fed back to contractors
Weaknesses
Delays in carrying out inspections --impact on KPIs?
Question mark as to how many post inspections are done other than by telephone
Question mark as to the number of abandoned jobs being recorded by inspectors and contractors
Pre and Post Inspections
Recommendations
Continue to reduce the number of pre-inspections and increase the number of post inspections
Improve training of Repairlink team to reduce the number of unecessary pre-inspections
Consider letting the contractor take responsibility for diagnosing day to day repairs--calling on Ealing inspectors when technical input required
Set up joint quality management systems, including post inspection regimes with contractors and pool results
Repairs Reporting
Repairs ReportingImportance
The telephone is the main and preferred method of contact for most tenants. (71%)
Repairs is the most frequently cited reason for tenants to make contact. (71%)
The impression gained when reporting repairs largely shapes the tenant’s perception of the repairs service
Repairs reporting is the entry point to the repairs service. If mistakes are made here, then the whole transaction fails
Spending an extra 30 seconds to get full and complete information can save hours of work down the line and make the difference between a satisfied and dissatisfied customer
Repairlink staff deal with over 100,000 calls a year and 68,000 responsive repairs
Repairlink performance is improving, but still some way to go
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43
Nu
mb
er o
f C
alls
Calls Answered Calls Lost
Typical Week Incoming calls: 2060 Answered calls: 1507 (Average Duration 3.39mins) Voice Mail: 220 Calls made out: 390 (Average Duration 2.19 mins) Percentage answered : 75% (68% within 15 seconds) Percentage Voice Mail: 11%
Jobs issued: 1242
Repairs ReportingStrengths
Well managed and committed staff with strong customer focus
Flexible staffing arrangements to cover for peaks
Call monitoring system used to provide feedback on performance
Escalation procedure with support from technical and administrative staff
Feedback from surveyors and contractors on quality of job tickets
Computer linkages to
Contractors and appointment slots
Special customer data
Gas servicing “no access” data
Planned/cyclical works programme
Warranties
Repairs Reporting
Weaknesses
High number of lost calls
High levels of job tickets being issued as emergency or urgent
High number of out of hours jobs being raised
High levels of variations to job tickets
Need for training in using the Schedule of Rates to improve diagnostic skills and job prioritisation
Repairs Reporting: Recommendations
Carry out frequency analysis of schedule of rates usage and produce reduced schedule for repairs reporting staff
Provide refresher training based on a reduced schedule of rates and supported by regular site visits
Continue with feedback system from maintenance officers and contractors to help eliminate any problem areas in job tickets
Introduce quality assurance checks on job tickets
Carry out analysis of emergency and urgent job tickets to validate prioritisation. Feedback as part of ongoing training
Carry out analysis of variations to identify reasons for such high percentages. Feedback as part of ongoing training
Repairs Reporting: Recommendations
Analyse traffic through call centre, both in terms of numbers of calls (received and made) and purpose
Check workload (including all tasks other than call handling) against capacity
Review arrangements for taking out of hours repairs request
Consider introducing appointment system for inspectors
Customer Satisfaction
Tenants: 41% net satisfaction with condition of property but wide variation across areas
37%
41%
48%
27%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Southall
Greenford/Northolt
Ealing/Hanwell
Acton
Net satisfaction with condition of property
Leaseholders: 58% net satisfaction with condition of property
49%
71%
40%
48%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Southall
Greenford/Northolt
Ealing/Hanwell
Acton
Net Leaseholder satisfaction
But little improvement over time in net satisfaction with the repairs service overall
-11%
-28%
-24%-22%
-34.00%
33%
25%
32.00%
29%27.00%
-40.00%
-30.00%
-20.00%
-10.00%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
1997 1998 1999 2000 2004
Net
Sati
sfact
ion
Rati
ng
Leaseholdes Tenants
Tenants: 33% net satisfaction with repairs service but wide variation between areas
17%
39%
30%
33%
38%
26%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Southall
Greenford/Northolt
Ealing/Hanwell
Acton
White
BME
Net Satisfaction with Repairs Service
Net leaseholder satisfaction with repairs to communal parts is - 11%
-25%
-28%
6%
-5%
-35% -30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10%
Southall
Greenford/Northolt
Ealing/Hanwell
Acton
Net Leaseholder satisfaction with communal repairs
Leaseholder: Net satisfaction with components of communal repairs service
28%
14%
7%
12%
5%
-9%
-15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Attitude of workers
Keeping mess to minimum
Speed of work
Quality of work
Being told when workerswould call
Time taken to start work
Tenant: Net satisfaction with components of responsive repairs service
81%
70%
63%
62%
48%
46%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Attitude of workers
Keeping mess to minimum
Speed of work
Quality of work
Being told when workerswould call
Time taken to start work
Net tenant satisfaction with work element
Customer Satisfaction SurveysStrengths
Responsive Repairs Telephone surveys due to start shortly Customer satisfaction cards Contractors carry out satisfaction surveys Satisfaction surveys for voids
Capital and Planned Customer surveys carried out at end of each scheme Tenant involvement in surveys and feedback
Equality and Diversity Satisfaction surveys allow for analysis in terms of E&D
Weaknesses Little evidence of improvement as a result of carrying out surveys
Recommendations In line with the Status survey recommendations, develop
SMART action plans to Improve overall quality of work
Improve the appointment system
Reduce the time taken before work starts
Increase the number of jobs completed in one visit
Take positive steps to manage customers expectations of the service by reviewing and restating service standards in consultation with the tenants
Identify each of the customer groups you serve and ensure that the service offered matches their specific needs
As part of this process carry out a gap analysis of the current service to see where it needs to be changed to meet those needs
Value for money
Operation of Planned Maintenance Partnering Contracts
This has been dealt with in an earlier section, but for the sake of completeness, in order to demonstrate value for money from the partnering contracts the inspectors will want to see not only reductions in cost, but evidence of continuous improvement in performance and increased levels of customer satisfaction
The contract KPIs and the tenant satisfaction data should assist in this process
They will also be looking for evidence of value for money procurement down the supply chain, with evidence that Ealing HA is working to obtain best value through economies of scale, both on its own and through consortium working
Commissioning Costs One measure of value for money is the cost of commissioning
and managing contract works
Planned maintenance commissioning cost ?%
Responsive Maintenance commissioning cost ?%
As always, it is very difficult to get benchmarking data for these costs that can be used with confidence, however it is important that Ealing should know what these costs are and be able to demonstrate that they offer value for money
It would be worthwhile to benchmark your figures against comparable organisations--Housemark should be able to help here
Summary
Summary of findings The findings support those of the work already carried out by Ealing
Homes and largely add flesh to the bones of the work already being carried out
Well motivated and committed staff , with strong technical leadership
Customer focused Developing performance management culture, with structured
appraisal and target setting systems being put in place Performance indicators and satisfaction surveys show that there is
a need to improve performance in a number of areas. The responsible officers have identified most of the problems and
their solutions Positive action is already being taken in many areas There is no reason why the key problem areas should not be turned
round inside six to twelve months
Will you improve?
Need to show Inspectors
Ownership of problems and willingness to change
A sustained focus on what matters
The capacity to deliver change and performance improvement
Resourced performance improvement plans
Evidence of delivery in accordance with those plans
You cannot do everything at once
Focus on what makes a difference to the tenants
Prioritise, identify key areas for action
Consolidate advances in those key areas
Complete implementation in those areas
Link to the business plan
Allocate tasks to named individuals
Be measurable and monitored
Roll out over a sensible time frame
Be ambitious but believable
Use SMART targets and milestones
Issues to address before the inspectors arrive
Audit and verify your figures. (Lessons from validation pilots)
Use check lists from the Audit Commission report “Learning from Inspections” to help staff prepare for inspection
Take on board the Audit Commission “Key lines of enquiry”
Have SMART action plans in place and being implemented to deal with
All areas covered by the repairs continuous improvement group
All the recommendations that you decide to take on board from this report
Make your documented submissions and supporting evidence easy to read and easy to follow
Clearly identify innovation and good practice
Provide evidence to show where these have resulted in improved levels of service in your tenants’ eyes
Our Judgement
Inspectors subject this service area to rigorous scrutiny. Currently inspecting “work in progress”
But clear evidence of major improvements over last two years and every indication that this will continue to be the case
Excellent prospects for improvement
Governance review
How does governance fit with inspection Key Lines of Enquiry?
Not a separate function
Mainly under Judgement Two
Close links to Resident Involvement KLOE
Also links to “underpinning” themes Customer care and focus Access, equality, diversity Value for money
Audit Commission KLOE Judgement Two
What is the evidence of service improvements? Track record Learning Best Value principles
How good are the current improvement plans? Improvement plans-content and quality
Will improvements be delivered? Ambitions Prioritisation Capacity (much about governance) Performance management
What we said in June 2004about your improvement prospects
Track record
Positive response to previous inspection
Recognition of the need to change
Improvements plans cover key issues
But not all reports/inspections/audits have been actioned e.g. equalities
What we said in June … (cont’d)
Service user benefits delivered in previous 2 years
Examples of various improvements – service and physical improvements
But have you the PIs to demonstrate higher customer satisfaction?
Many changes planned. Some implemented but changes are recent and lack qualitative evidence to demonstrate significant level of change
What we said in June … (cont’d)
Learning – implementing improvements as a result of learning
Examples of benchmarking – Housemark, shopping syndicate, ALMO benchmarking, Locata
But little evidence (as yet) of having a learning culture and acting on – complaints, customer feedback, staff suggestions
More evidence required of how the benchmarking is being used
Ethos of customer care is developing – but early stages
What we said in June … (cont’d)
Use of best value principles
Developed with tenant input but not through robust BVRs
Reviews have been undertaken but not thorough BVRs
Weak on wider tenant consultation/involvement, challenge and competition
Quality of the plans
Currently a plethora of plans, being combined into one but this is still in draft form
What we said in June … (cont’d)
Ambitions – how strong is the leadership?
New ALMO, clear plan and direction, clear structure
Partnership arrangements are still being developed:
Will the relationships and service level agreements be robust?
Will there be the support of key stakeholders?
Prioritisation – are priorities clear?
This will be clearer once the Performance Plan for the ALMO has been finalised
Recognition that 2 star is important
What we said in June …(cont’d)
Capacity
Clear acceptance of previous AC findings and action taken to address these
Staff buy in
Staffing structure is new and bedding down
Performance management
Performance management systems (with training) being established
Restructured with clear lines of accountability
But recent problems with IT – no track record
What we said in June … (cont’d)
Will the service improve?
Based on the infrastructure that has been put in placePROMISING
Based on best value reviews
UNCERTAIN
Based on the plethora of existing improvement plansUNCERTAIN
Based on the intentions in the ALMO delivery plan
PROMISING
Scope of November governance review
Document review, including board papers
Interviews with Chair and Vice- Chair
Focus group with Board members
Observed Board meeting
Interviews with staff from Ealing Homes
Interview with strategy and finance staff from Ealing Borough Council
Strengths
Setting up
Shadow board ran for 6 months Recruitment completed before going live September 2004
Recruitment of independents through advert/interview led by tenant members with professional external help
Tenants also recruited via interview against person spec
2 leaseholders as well as 5 tenants (one vacancy)
Commitment, shown by attendance levels at fortnightly meetings during set up
Originally felt they were officer led but growing leadership culture-staff now see board as very much in charge: board also feeling more in control
Strengths … (cont’d)
Current position
Good spread of age, ethnicity as well as experience and skill of all members
Members interviewed showed real dedication to success of Ealing Homes
Clear about immediate responsibilities
Working well as a group: Gelled well from early on: No “constituency” baggage-members do not act as ‘Council representative’ or ‘tenant representative’
Intelligent questioning and challenge
Strengths … (cont’d)
Skills audit Skills audit weekend run by external consultants Individual development profiles for the eight
members who attended Good range of relevant experience and spread of
skills from all “constituencies” Good working relationships within Board and with staff
based on mutual respect and trust Excellent understanding demonstrated of risks inherent
in delegation to Area Boards Board willing to meet without officers on occasion
Strengths … (cont’d)
Networking/ learning Some contact with other ALMO board members London Housing Federation, LGA Involved with National Federation of ALMOs Plenty of contact with Ealing Homes outside board
meetings e.g. staff conference, tenant conference
Some basic training delivered early Some induction with staff Formal external presentation from Lord Burns on good
governance Two sessions run internally on housing finance
Strengths … (cont’d)
Core documentation
Mem and Arts properly considered and changes made to template
Management Agreement properly considered and changes made to template
Some core governance documentation in place before start e.g. Code of Conduct, Terms of reference for board, Delegations/Financial Regulations, fraud, whistleblowing. Declarations of Interest taken at each meeting and register kept
Strengths … (cont’d)
Strategic relationship with Council Constructive (harmonious, but mutually changing) Frequent and regular review Shared aims with clear links into Council six big
objectives, particularly on Social exclusion/Community plan issues, community cohesion, customer care
Input into housing strategy by Ealing Homes Good handover arrangements between Directors of
Finance EBC Finance Director on EH board (but watch this
space ...)
Recommendations
Strategic relationship with the Council
Members aware that Decent Homes programme priorities need coordinating with Council’s regeneration priorities
Discussion continues with Council on use of capital receipts from RTB-board clear about impact of RTB on management fee
Close joint working on business plan
Evidence of working with other partners at strategic level (e.g. police on ASB)
Strengths … (cont’d)
Performance information
To Board bi-monthly
Includes local as well as national indicators
PIs to include HR and finance from 2005
Work in hand on Balanced Score Card (start in 2005)
‘No surprises’ culture
Members can drill down into detail through Performance Framework, but have set own preferred high level PIs
Strengths … (cont’d)
Resources
Company Secretary post in house in addition to resident involvement team
£40K for all direct board costs (training, development-and food!)
Supplemented by TP budget which funds two tenants on Oxford Brookes TP course each year
Board members not completely IT supported, but papers emailed where required
Strengths … (cont’d)
Three not two members to serve on committees (not just minimum of two as per Mem and Arts)
Audit Committee not just for ‘financial’ members
Residents “bring something unexpected”, will bring innovation, over time
Resident members clear about need to deliver- “our street cred on the line”
Residents believe Ealing Homes is listening
Weaknesses
Size of board: 17 is too big a group for all to contribute; could lead to ‘inner cabinet’
Only half board attended skills audit weekend
Not all board have completed skills audit
Comprehensive training plan not yet in place, and learning styles not assessed
Not all Councillors are able to attend/participate as regularly as desired
Board reporting not yet well developed or consistent, minutes could be shorter, clearer
Weaknesses … (cont’d)
Have found it hard to fill tenant vacancy: why, when 14,000 tenants and strong resident involvement structure?
Gender diversity lacking on board ( 3 female members)
Structure for Committees/ Area Boards not yet agreed, but will start in January 2005 (note- agreed 2.12.04)
Board does not yet seem to have had a formal overview report on government’s Value for Money agenda
Weaknesses … (cont’d)
Unclear exactly how and when transition to Area Boards is to be achieved
My impression is that some of board development is evolving organically rather than driven….do you have time for this approach when inspection due in May?
Recommendations
Structure
Exercise great care over terms of reference for new area boards and Committees
Ensure good communication with AHACs on changes to structure
Consider resource implications for area managers who will service Area boards which will have more formal and greater powers than the AHACs
Consider whether one board member only on area boards is sufficient for proper communication/control (two agreed 2.12.04!)
Recommendations … (cont’d)
Recruitment/ succession planning
Introduce ‘hopper’ of tenants who can be trained up for board member role
Look at the wider diversity aspects when recruiting, not just ethnicity
Consider offering a board member person specification to the Council when nominations are next due
Clarify with Council whether nomination of Ealing Director of Finance is in personal capacity or as post holder
Recommendations … (cont’d)
Develop induction programme for new members (can be used as refresher for others)
Consider buddying/ mentoring arrangement for board members
Board procedures Consider a protocol for running meetings, in addition
to comments made in code of conduct Ensure that letters of commitment are in place from
each board member Consider and formalise how board would deal with
any disciplinary issues for board members if they were Councillors (ie how do arrangements in code of conduct link to Council’s procedures?)
Recommendations … (cont’d)
Ensure all core policies and procedures on governance properly signed off, dated
Code of conduct compliance letter could be broadened to include responsibility to uphold the visions and values of the ALMO (and perhaps to act as an ambassador at all times Introduce job brief for chair of board, to apply to committees and area boards
Urgently complete board members’ handbook (look at others for good practice)
Make sure that reports and presentations are jargon free, so that technical issues are easily understood by all members
Recommendations … (cont’d)
Review Expenses policy to cover costs of IT, phones
Review style, content and timing of board papers, minutes, especially when meetings become open
Consider approach to policy issues on governance horizon eg smaller boards, terms of service, age limits, succession, payment
Recommendations … (cont’d)
Website will be crucial communication tool: aim to make it interactive as well as informative
Ensure earliest possible consideration by board of Value for Money agenda (note- all asset management reports will have V for M comment from now on)
And consider how to evidence that board brings added value to the operation of Ealing Homes
Nurture current constructive relationship with Council Ensure clarity of consultation and decision making on
DHS/priority estate regeneration programmes Review carefully progress on AC recommendations
(Nov 2004)
Summary assessment against Judgement Two KLOE as relates to governance Track Record
Too soon to tell, but most targets relating to governance delivered on time so far
Not all recommendations from previous reviews fully implemented yet, but have delivered ahead on programme
Follow up meeting to recent inspection held with AC tracks implementation of previous inspection recommendations
Office move and ALMO set up well change managed: “As I walk through the doors it’s very business like”
KLOE … (cont’d)
Benefits to service users
Too soon to be sure, but some performance rates improving eg call centre response times, and anecdotal feedback to board members getting better
Satisfaction levels being tested and upwards trend e.g. ASB
Status survey due out before May 2005 (fieldwork Jan/February-is this optimum timing?)
KLOE … (cont’d)
Learning
Some, but not convinced that there is a real learning culture within EH yet
No evidence of systematic capturing/spreading of learning across and within EH
Did not see evidence of coherent and strategic approach to continuous improvement
But linking in with Council’s revised coordinated approach to complaints
KLOE … (cont’d)
Use of BV principles
PI reporting to board not routinely benchmarked with the best, though clear and easy to understand
Procurement partnership paper to December board
Value for Money on HR to July Board
Legal services, SLAs to be V f M tested
Joint procurement with Council being considered- not yet with other bodies
Very good deal on new office!
KLOE … (cont’d)
Ambitions Good local knowledge Challenging targets based on residents’ needs Board challenges staff performance Board aware of risk management responsibilities
therefore ambitions are realistic (eg asset management paper)
Focussed on 2 *, and on delivery What about longer term ambitions?
Prioritisation Some evidence of sensible prioritisation Board clear on priorities under delivery plan
KLOE … (cont’d)
Capacity
Good balance of skills on board, and senior management team now established
Good board mix, intention to train further, based on proper analysis of needs
Principle of review of performance established at outset
Clarity about Area Boards’ role and Committees’ roles not yet achieved
KLOE … (cont’d)
Clarity on delegations and decision making between board and staff in place: financial regulations to be reviewed
Addressing question of open meetings at December meeting (agreed 2.12.04, staged start)
Links between HRA and Ealing Homes Business plans will be developed as part of business plan project team development work (Council in the team)
Early days for formal partnerships with other bodies, but procurement to December meeting
Staff recruitment not thought to be a major problem, nor is ICT
KLOE … (cont’d)
Website not yet available- on target for February 2005
Better PR/marketing strategy being developed
Members aware of importance of reputation and of enhancing ambassadorial role
KLOE … (cont’d)
Performance management Clear framework in place Revised with Council November 2004 Pretty SMART, no milestones Evidence of one to ones, targets in place for
individuals Chair/MD regularly review progress Board members involved in recruitment/selection Audit Commission positive that performance
management now well embedded right through Ealing Homes including front line and staff clear about where their contribution fit in
And finally…
Governance aspects of Judgment
Promising prospects
Provided new Area Board structure is carefully handled and provided ALL members sign up to personal
development and board assessment
Poor Fair Good Excellent
Excellent
Promising
Uncertain
Poor
Prospects for improvement?
A good service?
Where does that place Ealing?
Learning points and headline issues Board’s progress towards firm leadership of ALMO, and
performance management to be maintained and boosted
ALL members to be involved in personal development work not just eager minority
Terms of Reference for Area boards need careful planning, agreement, implementation
Terms of reference for new committees (due to be in place by January 2005) will benefit from a mini review of how well they are working before May 2005
Size of board should be kept under review
Thank you!
