Audit Commission report on Homes for Islington

More documents

Recommendations

Info

p 58 London Borough of Islington - Homes for Islington (ALMO) Because all associate directors are residents it is an important way in which residents influence the services they receive and as these meetings are public it allows any resident to see performance on a comparative basis, hold staff to account for this and make suggestions for improvement. These meetings are well publicised in the local press, website and area offices, attendance at the sub board for contracted services attracted around 20 people. Reports on the agendas of meetings are available on line three days before. 367 When we attended the sub-boards we considered that there was challenge to services and poor performance. For example there was an IP to deal with poor performance by the PFI contractor delivering refurbishments, this was being closely monitored. 368 The council has effective arrangements in place to monitor HFI's performance at officer and member level. The partnership officer receives regular performance monitoring information and has a range of meetings with HFI to monitor performance. Monthly joint meeting focus on the quality of service provision, financial issues and other relevant issues, such as performance against the council’s key objectives as set out in the performance management requirements in the contract. HFI also <strong>report</strong>s progress on equalities to the council departmental equalities action group. 369 However, VFM was a key weakness identified in our last <strong>report</strong> and has not been given the priority we would have expected. HFI have concentrated on improving quality and service delivery with VFM as secondary and not consistently being carried out for all new initiatives. There are plans for future assessments of services based on risk that follow the same principles as SLA reviews in terms of VFM. 370 There is a need to ensure resources are prioritised to meet HFI’s objectives and this has not yet been done for tenant participation. We considered the progress of attaining level 2 of the government’s equality standard has been slow, HFI are beginning to formulate their own equalities strategy and an interim equalities manager has been appointed to co-ordinate and map current activity and to gather information to inform the strategy. There are some high risk areas for example the governance arrangements for a number of TMOs are weak and some may be unsustainable, these organisations need intensive support to ensure they can function effectively and deliver service improvements. There are also some issues around the capacity of some TMOs to manage HR issues and negotiate with unions. 371 HFI are unable to build up surpluses and as a consequence they are unable to build up resources to deliver their own priorities unless they can agree growth funding through the council, therefore there is a need to ensure long term plans are agreed with the council for future funding needs. 372 We also considered improvements could be made to plans by both HFI and the council. From the SDP it was not clear how some of the council’s corporate objectives translated into targets and therefore what the outcomes the council expect from HFI and although the SDP provided details of achievements in 2002/03, it did not identify original targets nor any explanation of why some targets were missed, for example the gas servicing target. We also found that the council’s housing end of year performance <strong>report</strong> fails to <strong>report</strong> on all BVPIs, specifically non decent homes. Consequently it is difficult for residents to measure performance from these documents. There are still some inconsistencies in service delivery, VFM is not at the forefront of improvements and feedback from informal sources is not always being used to inform improvements. In addition we still had some concerns about the contract management of one or two major works sites.
Summary London Borough of Islington - Homes for Islington (ALMO) p 59 373 We consider that HFI have excellent prospects for improvement because: there has been a consistent drive to improve that has made significant improvements that residents recognise; there is a consistent upward trend on all key BVPIs and the turn around time for repair and re-letting properties is very good and appointments made and kept is top quartile; there are systems to capture internal positive practice and learning through secondments and shadowing, staff conferences and workshops with TMOs; service improvements are identified through feedback from residents, performance management and the BVR process; residents are dominant in key strategic reviews such as the tenant compact group; HFI is self aware and plans realistically address service weaknesses, they take account of current and forthcoming legislation, positive practise elsewhere and are customer focused; there is a clear and timely business planning process and the board have clearly prioritised plans and resources; the council is supportive of the ALMO’s independence; the board works well, provides clear leadership and members are visible to staff and residents; there are clear and challenging ambitions and targets and service standards support these; the board are committed to investing in staff and ensuring a diverse workforce; the organisation has restructured to improve capacity, meet business needs and improve service delivery and uses partnerships effectively; the board, staff and council are clear about their respective roles and responsibilities; there are robust performance management arrangements in place, both between the council and HFI and within HFI; and there is a clear and robust risk management strategy. 374 However, we identified the following weaknesses in relation to prospects for improvement. Some more recent improvements have yet to show clear and demonstrable outcomes. Not all sources of feedback are being used to drive improvement. There are too many plans and the alignment of plans is not comprehensive. Benchmarking is not being fully utilised to assess VFM and VFM assessments are not consistently carried out. There are opportunities for conflict of interest within the current governance arrangements. Not all resources are aligned to meet organisational and user focused objectives.
Page 1 and 2:
Inspection report
Page 3 and 4:
Summary London Borough of Islington
Page 5 and 6:
London Borough of Islington - Homes
Page 7 and 8: Recommendations London Borough of I
Page 9 and 10: © Audit C
Page 11 and 12: The service London Borough of Islin
Page 13 and 14: How good is the service? London Bor
Page 15 and 16: London Borough of Islington - Homes
Page 45 and 46: Service charges London Borough of I
Page 57: London Borough of Islington - Homes
Page 61 and 62: Documents reviewed London Borough o
Page 63 and 64: Gary Doolan GMB London Borough of I
Page 65 and 66: Positive practice London Borough of
show all

Audit Commission report on Homes for Islington

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?