Review of Tenant Involvement within the London Borough of Enfield. The report, produced by Solon Community Network, was commissioned by the London Borough of Enfield Housing Services. The Federation believes that the report may contain a number of inaccuracies and contradictions and needs to be read carefully to fully understand the implications if the councils' preferred option (3) is accepted by tenants and leaseholders and adopted by the Cabinet when it is due to be discussed at the October meeting.
Review of Tenant Involvement within the London Borough of Enfield June 2005 Solon Community Network Model 1 - Federation Structure This model is illustrated at Diagram 2.
This structure seeks to promote tenant and leaseholder representation both at a local level and at a borough-wide level. Under this model a federation would provide a strategic borough wide forum. This model envisages a federation which acts as a forum for tenant associations, but is not involved in further roles that FECA currently undertakes. The Council would have to review, with FECA, what roles FECA should fulfil if this model were adopted.
Local Level
Tenant associations would provide the basis for local tenant involvement. The reason for this is that they can provide a local estate based forum for debating local issues.
The recognition criteria for tenant associations would be simplified. The recognition criteria for 'level 3 recognition' would become only criteria that would need to be met. However, there would be no requirement for an association to demonstrate support from the wider community, nor will there be any necessity for an association to reapply for recognition on an annual basis. The TIU could provide support for all meetings, including collecting an attendance list and taking minutes (depending on resource). The TIU would be responsible for monitoring the association and ensuring that it complies with its constitution and code of conduct. The Association would hold an annual AGM where the attendees vote on a chair, a vice-chair and a treasurer.
The current system of block representatives would continue. There are a number of areas without tenant association structures and the block representative system presents a good way of ensuring that there is a voice in these areas. The TIU would support block representatives and would liaise with them. The TIU would be responsible for keeping records of how many block representatives there are in a particular area. The idea would be to join representatives together to promote the formation of a tenant association and so ensure that there is a forum for local debate and consultation concerning housing issues. The TIU would have responsibility to undertake capacity building. This will involve a mixture of traditional methods, such as providing support and training to associations and individual representatives and non-traditional methods (as described in section 5.4.4). The TIU officer, together with residents (if possible) and local estate managers, should develop a capacity building programmed for each estate, setting out the activities which will be carried out. The purposes of these activities will be to develop relationships between residents and the local housing office and promote participation. Additionally, the TIU should identify local voluntary sector organisations that can help facilitate capacity building in the area.
The TIU would also be responsible for working with residents (and the Contract Review Panel or Scrutiny Panel, see below) to appoint and train local tenant inspectors, who would be part of the process of inspecting repair works, alongside officers.
Strategic Level
The CHPs would have a different and more limited role than currently. They would continue in their current role of providing a forum for agreeing which environmental and community safety projects should receive funding out of the delegated budget for a particular area. However, their roles would not encompass a consultative role.
Given that the CHPs are currently forums for deciding how money should be spent locally, there is little need for any attendee to be present in a representative capacity. The forum should be thrown open to whoever wishes to attend. Currently a local Councillor chairs each CHP and we would recommend that this continue. Anyone coming can vote on which projects should be funded once they have heard a presentation by its sponsor (whether a resident or an officer). Owing to the limited nature of the budget, it is unlikely that the CHP would need to meet more than twice yearly, unless it meets to review the implementation of the approved projects. The special interest groups would continue as currently. These forums would be consulted concerning issues that apply solely to their membership.
The federation would be a representative forum for debating policy and acting as a consultative body. It would not undertake any other role, its purpose being to provide a forum for representatives to influence housing policy at a strategic borough-wide level.
The federation would be made up of chairs and vice-chairs from tenant associations and would meet quarterly. The chair and vice-chair of each of the special forums should also attend the federation. Block representatives would be entitled to attend the federation where there is no active tenant association. Where there is more than one block representative, then they should appoint one of their numbers to act as an 'estate representative' to attend the federation. The federation should have a clear agreement with the Council as to its role. There should be clarity as to process, what issues the federation will be involved in, the time frame for responding, how it should present its concerns and how it will receive feedback.
The federation will be supported by a dedicated officer from the TIU who will be responsible for ensuring that papers are sent out in time for due consideration.
The federation will be responsible for appointing representatives to the cabinet board, by way of election. This body will be a committee of residents who meet with the cabinet member for housing. This will provide resident input at the highest policy making level. Although not able to make decisions, this body can make representations to the cabinet member, and provide a method for the cabinet to feed back its decision to tenants. The cabinet member would chair it and its purpose would be defined within the tenant compact.
The cabinet board would be formed of no more than 15 members. It would include a nominee from each of the special interest groups. Where possible each of the different housing areas should be represented on the cabinet board and the TIU should seek to ensure that this is achieved through capacity building in under-represented areas. There would be advantages in the cabinet board forming a formal part of the Council's structures, which would mean that it is facilitated by Democratic Services. However, this is not a necessity, and certainly it could be run on an informal basis during a trial period.
The cabinet board could be facilitated by someone with strategic responsibility. If the TIU were to be moved into the Service Development Team, then it may be appropriate that it is facilitated at this level.
The federation would also be responsible for appointing to specialist working groups. There is currently no direct feed into best value reviews. Many local authorities have a number of committees that monitor elements of the housing service in order to ensure quality and promote improvements. These committees also promote tenant involvement as a key strategic concern within the Council, providing a mechanism for ensuring that officers understand tenant involvement in service delivery at all levels. These groups would include:
Tenant Compact Group, which reviews and negotiates the compact, and provides a formal mechanism for ensuring that the compact is being followed and upheld.
Contract Review Panel, which works with Council officers to review how contractors are performing and that residents and the Council are getting a good quality of service. This is a committee to whom tenant inspectors can report. Scrutiny Panel, which would work together with the Council to ensure tenant involvement in the inspection process and to participate in any internal review or mock inspection. Again this panel can provide resident inspectors, who are involved in any internal reviews, to ensure that residents have an active voice in establishing best practice and quality of service. Recruitment Panel, which would be involved in interviewing contractors as part of a tender process and housing officers. The TIU would undertake to support the specialist working groups, including providing training for members.
Review of Tenant Involvement within the London Borough of Enfield June 2005 Solon Community Network
Model 2: Structure without a Federation
This model is illustrated at Diagram 3. This Model is based on the potential of CHPs to provide a more strategic and consultative role at an area or district level. The remit of CHPs would be expanded from their current role, and would replace FECA. This would involve a reconsideration of the way that the CHPs are currently constitutes and chaired. However, this model is perhaps the least suitable given the Council's administrative system. Although many residents identify with very specific areas, at a sub-borough level, the Council has a highly centralised decision-making framework. The current district offices represent a convenient way of organizing the delivery of the service locally, rather than providing a mechanism for dividing budgets or providing a local decision making focus. We also understand that there may be future restructuring of the housing service in order to centralize the delivery aspect of the service. Therefore, as things currently are, it is unlikely that an area focus for strategic input into the Council's decision-making process will prove effective.
Local Level
At the local level the recommendations made in Model 1 concerning tenant associations and block representatives would also apply here. As in Model 1 tenant associations would provide the basic vehicle for local involvement. The recognition criteria would need to be simplified and the TIU would take on a more supportive role.
The TIU would be responsible for capacity building and, as recommended in Model 1, would agree a development programmed for each estate within an area. This would be subject to the recommended review of the role played by the TIU and the capacity of officers within the TIU to undertake this work.
Area Level
FECA would be replaced by the CHPs as the main forums for consideration of strategic issues. The main difference between this model and model 1 is that the CHPs will consider housing management issues in a more focused way at district level. This model follows the way that the housing service is managed, replicating the three housing districts with three strategic resident forums. This will allow the CHPs to establish close relationships with the district housing offices and the district housing managers and influence questions of service delivery in the areas that matter most to residents.
The constitution of the CHP would change. The chairs and vice-chairs of the tenant associations within a particular housing district would sit on the CHPs. Block representatives (or estate representatives where there is more than one block representative for an estate) would also sit on the CHPs, as at present. A resident should chair the CHP. Owing to the change in the role of the CHPs, there should be a resident chair.
The function of the CHPs could be expanded from their current function. The current role of the CHP to fund selected projects could be decided by the CHP members (as described above). This would, however, put an unnecessary amount of pressure on the members who attend the CHP as a formal resident structure. In any event a meeting to consider suitable projects for funding would not leave time to discuss any other matter. Given this, the devolved budget should be dealt with separately. CHPs should have a dual role, each function clear and distinct from the other:
It would meet on a quarterly basis as a formal part of the tenant structure, acting as a strategic district forum.
It would meet on two or (if necessary) four other occasions in its current role. However, as with model 1, the forum would be thrown open to all local council residents and Councillors to attend and vote and, for the purpose of the devolved budget, it would be suitable for a Councillor to chair.
The special interest groups would also nominate to the CHPs. The interest groups act as borough-wide groups. However, they should nominate two members to each CHP, based on residence. The TIU should ensure that these groups are able to do this and should undertake capacity-building works to ensure that there is adequate representation from each district within each special interest group.
The CHPs would be involved in the monitoring of the district housing office. The District Housing Manager would also attend the meetings to provide the liaison between housing management and the residents.
The CHPs would be facilitated by the appropriate area TIU officer, who would be responsible for ensuring that papers are circulated in good time to all the members.
Strategic Level
As in Model 1, there should be a resident board that meets with the cabinet member for housing. The purpose and role of this board is as outlined in model 1. As before, the cabinet member for housing should chair it and it would be facilitated by an officer with a suitably strategic role.
Each CHP would be able to nominate three members to the cabinet board. Additionally, the special interest groups would also have nominations. Who sits on the board would be determined by election within the body nominating the members. As recommended in model 1, there should be no more than 15 members.
As in model 1, there would be additional working groups, responsible for feeding into the monitoring of different parts of the housing service (a scrutiny panel, a tenant compact review group, a contract review panel and a recruitment panel). These panels would be formed from the CHPs and the special interest groups. They would report back to the cabinet board and also to the CHPs and special interest groups. As in model 1, it would be the responsibility of the TIU to provide training to the members of this panel and to support their meetings. The TIU would also recruit and train tenant inspectors.
Review of Tenant Involvement within the London Borough of Enfield June 2005 Solon Community Network
Model 3: Complete overhaul maximizing involvement at all levels
This model is illustrated at Diagram 4. This model questions the assumption that tenant involvement must be seen to be 'representative' to be effective. It is also based on the observation that most participative structures, despite having a veneer of democratic representation, often present barriers to involvement and perpetuate what are often unrepresentative systems because the majority of residents do not choose to participate or vote. This model is designed to maximize opportunities for the individual tenant to participate and focuses on the issues that motivate people to get involved. It has two types of forum – groups operating at a local level, and groups operating at a strategic level, based on people joining as members as opposed to residents being elected.. The approach of this model is far less formal. However, because at local level the issue is about capacity building, this element could be incorporated into either Model 1 or 2. It should be noted that other methods of capacity building should be undertaken, specifically to ensure that there is diverse representation in the structure.
Local Level
Unlike in the previous models, the tenant association is not the main focus for local involvement. In this model tenant involvement focuses on specific local issues. TIU officers would be responsible for identifying local concerns: for instance, street cleaning, community safety, voids or repairs. This exercise could be carried out by liaising with estate managers, local tenant activists and tenant associations, or by door-knocking and leafleting.
Where concerns are identified, the TIU should arrange a resident meeting, involving the appropriate council officers. This will give the opportunity for tenants to establish a collective voice and to engage with TIU officers.
It is clear from some of the interviews we conducted with tenant representatives that they got involved in order to campaign on a specific issue. The TIU can form a group around issues not necessarily related to housing. Such a group may provide the basis for further and more formal engagement in the tenant structure.
Where there is no support for a longer-term group, this method allows officers to identify individuals who may be willing to act as block representatives and who can pursue other residents' concerns at a local level, hopefully promoting the idea of tenant involvement. They may also be encouraged to participate at a more strategic level (see below).
Where there is already a tenant association, then this group would provide the focus for identifying local issues and pursuing them. Meetings held around such issues will promote the tenant association, helping them to engage with other residents and demonstrate that tenants collectively can influence matters on their own estates.
This method also emphasises that one of the main purposes of involvement is to speak with a collective voice to influence change. It is clear from the interviews and door-knocking that there is often confusion as to what tenant associations are meant to achieve and a lack of belief that they can influence anything.
Any resolution that this type of action achieves should be advertised to all local council residents, ensuring feed-back, whether through a newsletter or by a leaflet sent round to all residents on an estate.
Where door knocking reveals a tenant with a particular grievance, then the TIU officer can put that resident in contact with an association or a block representative. Alternatively, where there is no formal structure on an estate to take such issues forward, the TIU officer can ensure that the estate manager engages with that resident. A successful resolution may provide an opportunity for the TIU to recruit a block representative, who can engage with the housing department and the TIU on a number of other matters.
The focus of tenant involvement at this level is on estate or local issues. Most residents are concerned about their local estate or area, but have little practical interest in what may be happening elsewhere in the housing district or the borough. In this model the focus of local groups, tenant associations and block representatives are on local issues and dealing with the local housing office.
Tenant associations, as in models 1 and 2, would only have to meet minimum criteria to gain recognition. The TIU would work alongside block representatives to promote the formation of tenant associations.
Strategic Level
The CHPs would continue, but in the manner set out in Model 1; that is, as an informal forum for agreeing which projects put forward by officers or other interested parties should be supported.
Under this model the more formal strategic structures of a federation or a district panel would not exist. Instead there would be informal forums, open to any resident who wishes to join. The special interest groups already operate in this fashion. In relation to general needs housing, there would be a specific panel to which any tenant can attend, irrespective of whether they are members of a tenant association or act as block representatives. Similar panels would be set up for the special interest groups and would discuss issues relevant to their homes.
This panel would have an elected chair and vice-chair, but any tenant would have the ability to join the forum and attend. The only qualification for joining is that an individual is a tenant (or a leaseholder or sheltered tenant if it is one of the special interest groups).
These forums could also act as a highly effective consultation mechanism. It would actively encourage those who wish to be involved in the decision making process and have a broad interest in housing issues. However, it would also allow those who have very specific interests and concerns to opt in or out of a forum depending on how pertinent they feel that the issues are to them. It also reduces the pressure on individual residents' time. There is greater flexibility to be involved at whatever level a tenant feels suitable (whether local or strategic) given their other commitments. The other structures require federation or CHP members to also be involved at the local level.
The forum would be a membership forum (rather than a representative forum). For practical reasons, anyone wishing to attend and have an active voice would have to join as a member. All members would receive papers and would be entitled to vote on an issue. Anyone not a member would be able to attend as an observer.
These forums would meet on a quarterly basis.
As in models 1 and 2, there would be a cabinet board, chaired by the cabinet member for housing.
Individual members of the forum would put themselves forward for a place on the central committee. They would be voted onto that board by the membership of the forum. The cabinet board would be the same as in the other models, as would the TIU's role.
Additionally, there would be a number of specialist working groups, as outlined in models 1 and 2. These would be elected by attendees at the forums. The TIU would have the same role as outlined above.
ALMO tenant board members and potential conflict if interest.
Solon has also undertaken research on the potential conflict of interest of tenant board members sitting on consultative panels. We have produced a best practice note as a result of this research concerning future tenant structures should an ALMO be put in place:
Tenant board members should not be members of any form of consultative panel or scrutiny panel. The Audit commission, especially in the South East has advised a number of councils that this provides a potential conflict of interest. The same would apply to council members of the board. It depends what form the future structure of tenant involvement would be in Enfield if an ALMO were to be brought in to existence, however, any formal panel which monitors the ALMO or provides resident input would need to be subject to this rule. However, this would not affect any form of liaison panel (such as the cabinet group).
Tenant board members can (and often are encouraged) to attend meetings of the consultative panel as observers
There is no objection to tenant board members also being members of a tenant’s federation, Tenants & Residents Association or other similar body. However, generally, they should not hold any formal position within that organisations. There is no objection to tenant board members voting as members of such an organisations.
Where the main ALMO Board has delegated powers to area boards, there appears to be no conflict of interest if a board member also sits on the regional board.
Tenant board members can also be members of any other tenant group involved in consulting over or reviewing practical areas of the service.
We would recommend, as a matter of best practice, a clear policy to deal with potential conflict and ensure a process for declaring interests. In particular, you need to be clear what could potentially be a conflict of interest or where potential conflict of interest arises. Additionally, Tenant board members need to understand what the policy means and why it is there. It is recommended that there is training on this issue.
With regard to Contract Monitoring Panels, there is a potential conflict of interest. Rent Council for instance has taken the decision that there would be a conflict of interest in any board member being a member of such a panel.
Review of Tenant Involvement within the London Borough of Enfield June 2005
Introduction
This report reviews the tenant participation structure in the London Borough of Enfield in order to advise on possible options to increase tenant involvement in the housing service, make recommendations for the improvements and draft an initial action plan to implement the recommendations and increase participation.
A number of documents have been provided by the London Borough of Enfield concerning the tenant participation service.
We have conducted interviews with residents, Councillors and Council officers. The purpose of these interviews was to canvass views about the current participation structure, its strengths and weaknesses.
Solon has undertaken desktop research concerning the tenant participation structures in other local authorities in order to identify best practice.
Report
The report is divided into the following parts:
The regulatory background to tenant involvement;
An examination of the current situation, with an analysis of strengths and weaknesses and recommendations;
An analysis of tenant involvement elsewhere;
We present a series of models as to how the Council may chose to structure tenant involvement I the future.
Regulatory background.
The review of the tenant involvement structures has to take place against the background of the regulatory requirements of Government and Audit Commission.
The Housing Inspection Report, June 2004
The Housing Inspectors made a number of recommendations and findings in relation to the area of tenant participation. It recommended:
A review of the Council's relationship with FECA in order to resolve communication and perception problems;
Reviewing the overall working relationship with FECA on a regular basis at director and Councillor level.
Additionally the Inspectors report commented that:
The Council has not sustained progress in engaging with and meeting the housing needs of BME communities;
The Council has been slow to address weaknesses in its strategy for engaging with residents and with minority groups in particular.
Background - other local authorities.
The ODPM commissioned a review of participation structures and it published a report entitled Tenant Participation in Transition: Issues and trends in the development of tenant participation in the local authority sector in England by Ian Cole, Paul Hickman, Barbara Reid and Sue Whittle (June, 2001). This report recommended that there could not be a standardised approach to tenant involvement: each landlord should develop its own policies and structures. The report made a number of general observations from studies of a number of local authorities, in particular:
The development of tenant participation had helped to improve the quality of local authority housing policy and provision. However, although tenants have been increasingly drawn into discussions about strategy and resource allocation, this role has still tended to lag far behind involvement in service delivery issues;
Elected members rarely played a prominent role in the development of a strategy for tenant participation;
The best value regime provides a channel to take the emerging role for participation more deeply into service review and strategy development;
Repairs and maintenance issues often generate the most interest from tenants.
With regard to the levels of participation in influencing the quality of the housing service, the report found that there are a number of concerns, many of which are relevant to the experience of Enfield:
Tenants were hardly ever routinely involved in staffing issues or reviews of organisational structures;
There was often a lack of 'fit' between the way the housing service was structured and the parallel structures devised for tenant participation;
The development of tenant involvement was still primarily reactive in character rather than strategic or pro-active;
Local authority documents on participation tended to be 'top-down', rather than the product of dialogue and negotiation;
Although tenants' federations could be an important channel for communication and consultation, there were reported difficulties in securing accepted methods for representation on to such bodies;
There has been a move away from local authorities contacting established tenants' groups as a regular sounding board in favour of more fluid and individualist forms of consultation with representatives;
The value of networking between tenants' groups, both within and outside the local authority, is often neglected in devising support for participation;
There is little evidence of coherent strategies being developed to aid the organisational development of tenants' groups, although a few councils were taking major steps forward in their support for groups.
In relation to the development of tenant involvement the report made the following observations:
While tenants were consulted more than before on strategic issues, their involvement was as yet rarely anchored into local authority processes and reviews;
Some local authorities have developed model constitutions for tenants' groups, but tenants suggested that these could prove restrictive and hinder their development;
Only a minority of local authorities undertook systematic monitoring of their participation activities, in most cases relying on unsatisfactory quantitative measures instead of monitoring tenants' impact on housing policy;
’Progress’ in tenant participation was usually being measured by reference to inputs and levels of activity rather than outcomes.
The report recommended that:
Considerable attention has been devoted to the development of forums, panels, steering groups and other structures, but a 'smarter' understanding is needed of how these will link into crucial decisions about policy and service delivery and these questions will become more urgent then ever in the face of fundamental change to the local authority housing sector in the years ahead;
Other key challenges for tenant participation include broadening participation from core management concerns, developing effective evaluative mechanisms and ensuring long-term involvement in policy and strategy development.
Government guidance for tenant involvement
The Government has produced general guidance for local authorities, based on this research. The guidance (Developing Good Practice in Tenant Participation) makes the observation that good tenant involvement involves a spectrum of activities. There are a range of possibilities for dialogue and negotiation - rather than a hierarchy of options according to a one-dimensional 'ladder'. The spectrum includes practices that are considered 'traditional' forms of collective involvement through to practices that are more 'consumer-based' or innovatory in approach. Both may be suitable, depending on the circumstances, and they can complement and support each other. One method of involvement can also become the springboard to another - for example, a survey can be used as a consultation tool, but also as part of a recruitment drive for a tenants' group. Government guidance promotes a flexible approach to involvement, using a number of different techniques. It states that councils' should develop long-term strategies. In particular it recommends that:
Tenants should be involved in the development of a strategy as equal partners and throughout the process as integral to its development, monitoring and review;
The strategy must have clear (and measurable) objectives. These objectives should be delivery focused and not purely measured on the numbers of residents involved;
The strategy should identify barriers to involvement and potential methods for removing them;
The strategy should be a dynamic process, subject to constant review.
That there is a strong relationship with Best Value and service improvement and residents are integral to this.
The guidance encourages the Council to undertake a review of its services and identify gaps in involvement and the way that it is supported. Residents should be involved in this audit, which may involve 'mapping' the local housing service and other local service providers and ensuring that residents know whom to contact. Additionally, residents themselves should audit their own organisations and identify strengths and weaknesses. In relation to implementing a strategic approach to tenant participation, the guidance notes that lessons from best practice examples illustrate (at page 19):
a commitment to ensure tenants are well-informed so that they are enabled to take decisions on an equal footing with professionals if they choose to;
A commitment to opening up decision-making, even where this means the local authority "letting go" of the process;
Understanding that tenant participation (like the housing service) is constantly changing and developing;
A preparedness to innovate and try new ideas;
An emphasis on setting up structures and initiatives which relate to local circumstances and objectives;
Developing links with other initiatives such as Best Value;
A willingness to respond to the aspirations of tenants, and members of the wider community, even where this involves an adjustment to existing policies.
The Guidance states that tenant involvement should be across the whole of the housing department. This may involve a challenge to the way that the Council works in order to ensure tenants are given real power: There is no need for any part of the housing service to be "out of bounds" to tenant involvement, but some of the more sensitive issues may need extra effort. It is sometimes suggested by officers and members that tenants are just 'not interested' in the broader strategic issues, but often these are not presented in a way which impinges on tenants' direct experience of the housing services. Attention must be paid to building capacity and a sense of independence amongst tenants and, in some cases, to changing staff and organisational cultures in the local authority. (Page 19) Also, of importance is the involvement of traditionally excluded groups: Some groups of tenants have traditionally been less involved than others. These include black and minority ethnic groups, disabled people, residents of sheltered schemes and supported housing, young people and single parents. The research found relatively little evidence that these needs had been routinely incorporated into strategies for participation (page 27) Finally, in relation to monitoring and evaluating the success of tenant involvement, the guidance states: The outcome of an evaluation will depend on what is being measured and who is measuring it. This means that tenants, officers and elected members all need to be involved in evaluation, and also in deciding on the issues to be measured. There must be also be a clear agreement right from the start, agreed between officers, members and tenants, about what constitutes success (page 31) In particular:
Tenants to be involved from the start and at all stages;
Need to allow sufficient time for monitoring and evaluation;
Systems for monitoring and evaluation need to be in place right from the start;
Clear definition of objectives is vital;
Agreement on "what is success" is needed;
The requirement to show Best Value and The National Framework for Tenant Participation Compacts both impose a need to monitor and evaluate tenant participation. Objectives need to go beyond counting how many residents are involved, to demonstrating what they are involved in, how they are involved and what tenant involvement seeks to achieve.
Best Value Performance Indicators
Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPIS) are part of the performance management framework for Local Government. As part of the duty of Best Value, councils are required to seek continuous improvement in their services. Councils are obliged to collect and report on a number of BVPIS that reflect user's perceptions of services every three years, 2003/4 being the most recent report. MORI were engaged to undertake a full tenant satisfaction survey on behalf of the Council. The Council has additionally collected satisfaction indicators for 2000/01 and 2002/03. In relation to overall satisfaction with the overall service provided by the Council (BVPI74): BVPI74 2000/01 2002/03 2003/04 Overall 69 67 64 Non-BME N/A 68 66 BME N/A 65 58 In relation to satisfaction with opportunities for participation in management and decision-making (BVPI75): BVPI75 2000/01 2002/03 2003/04 Overall 46 63 53 Non-BME N/A N/A 54 BME N/A N/A 50 In relation to overall service, almost two-thirds of respondents were satisfied. However, this is less than in previous surveys. MORI found that the most content were tenants over 65 years old. Additionally, MORI found a high percentage of respondents (71%) were satisfied that the Council was good at keeping them informed about things that might affect them as a tenant. In relation to participation, MORI found just over half of respondents were satisfied with their opportunities to participate in management and decision-making. They noted that the overall trend is that tenants would like greater opportunity for involvement. However, the fact that MORI found that only 39% of respondents had heard of the Tenant Participation Compact mirrors the difficulties that the Council has experienced in trying to broaden the numbers of residents involved. As is noted in the Government Guidance, good tenant involvement has positive affects on BVPI scores, especially in overall performance, repairs and maintenance and satisfaction with the neighbourhood.
The Inspectors Key Lines of Enquiry (KLOEs) Tenant involvement will be evaluated by the housing Inspectors in line with the Government's Key Lines of Enquiry. These were created following the revision of the Housing Inspectorate's review of its inspection methods. They present sets of questions and statements around either service or judgment specific issues which provide consistent criteria for assessing and measuring the effectiveness and efficiency of housing services. KLOES are designed to provide inspectors, inspected bodies and others with a framework through which to view and assess services. The Council in reviewing its tenant involvement service will need to judge the service against the KLOES, and what is represented in the guidance by what achieves an 'excellent standard'. THE guidance is attached at appendix 1. In particular the KLOES focus on the following areas:
Access, customer care and service user focus
Diversity
Tenant and Leaseholder (Participation) Compacts
Resources for Resident Involvement
The Impact of Resident Involvement
Value for money.
The Current Position
There are a number of groups within Enfield , forming part of the tenant participation structure. Enfield is a cabinet run Council, the member for housing (currently Councillor Laban) advises the Cabinet. The current tenant structure is illustrated at diagram 1.
Resident Involvement and Empowerment Structures
Tenants and Residents Associations
There are currently 32 tenant groups in the Borough. The Council has 3 levels of recognition. The purpose of the recognition criteria is to ensure that groups that receive support and funding fulfil a certain basic criteria. These criteria are based on democratic accountability and require a tenant association to reapply for recognition each year. The experience of tenant associations within the Borough is mixed, many having very low membership. There are a number of area and estates without active tenant associations.
Special Interest Forums
There are several forums that provide a voice for specific groups of residents. These are:
Sheltered Housing Tenants Forum
Leaseholder Forum - this has been recently established
In addition there have been attempts to set up a forum for black and minority ethnic groups (BME). However, there has been limited success in recruiting for this forum. The Council has also looked at setting up a youth forum. Again this has proved difficult, although we understand that youth groups have been identified on two estates and are receiving support from the TIU.
Federation of Enfield Community Associations (FECA)
FECA is the umbrella organisations for the tenant associations. Currently there are twelve affiliated tenant and resident groups. FECA is currently the officially recognised body with which the Council consults on issues affecting Council residents. It is charged with offering training to resident groups and with assisting and supporting associations to become registered. FECA runs an office and receives an annual grant from the Council, which is worth £47,000 annually. Officers within FECA also take on individual casework and provide housing related advice to residents.
The Tenant Participation Working Party (TPWP)
The TPWP is a partnership group of tenants, officers and members. Each of the three main parties within the Council nominates 2 members each. Tenant representatives are nominated by CHP boards and by FECA. The TIU officers are also members. The TPWP acts as a main debating forum on all new tenant participation issues, initiatives, legislation and policy changes and monitors the Community Housing Partnership Boards. It recommends decisions to the Cabinet and the Director of Community and Social Services for delegated authority. It is also charged with developing and implementing a community halls strategy and to monitor the implementation and development of the Tenant Involvement Strategy and the Tenant Participation Compact
Community Housing Partnership ( CHP )
There are three CHPs representing the three administrative areas for housing within the Borough. The Council set up the CHPs following recommendations by the Housing Inspectors in their report of June 2004. Up to nine tenants and nine local Councillors sit on the Boards. Each Board has a delegated budget of approximately £56,000. This is a budget set aside for financing minor capital works to do with environmental improvements and community safety. There is an additional sum for specialist grounds maintenance. Projects are short listed for consideration by the board. CHPs are also used as consultative bodies; however, this is on an ad-hoc basis. Although the CHPs have potential to act as consultative forums, given the difficulties experienced in recruiting residents to the CHPs and the current focus of the groups, considerable work needs to be undertaken for them to prove effective. Tenant board members are elected from a developing pool of block or estate representatives. Where there is a tenant association, then it can nominate someone to the board. The special interest forums can also nominate. Otherwise, where there is no recognised tenant association, then an individual can become a block representative. This involves the individual getting two signatories to support their application. Where there is more than one block representative, then one of them will be elected as an estate representative. The block representative or estate representative can sit on Board. It was widely acknowledged in the interviews that the current level of involvement in the CHPs is too low.
Tenant Involvement Unit (TIU)
The TIU is a dedicated tenant support team. The team is currently made up of four officers. Three of officers are responsible for each of the three areas and the fourth facilitates the CHP and special interest groups. They are managed as a team by Paul Dawson, the TIU manager. There is a further post (as yet unfilled) for a Community Halls Co-coordinator. There is also an administrative officer supports the team. Responsibility for tenant involvement falls to an Wright, who is a District Housing Manager for one of the three areas. An Wright manages the TIU as a portfolio responsibility.
Strengths of the current system
Significant resources are given to promote and support tenant involvement. A total of £69,000 (including FECA's grant) was available to resident groups in 2004/05. The total cost of tenant participation to the Council in 2004/05 was £375,500 (including the TIU's costs).
The TIU is a dedicated unit giving support to tenants and promoting Tenant Associations. The fact that it is managed as a separate unit means that tenant involvement is well resourced. The TIU operates an office that is be used as a resource centre for residents.
The CHPs have control over a capital works budget in relation to environmental improvements and community safety. Residents who sit on the CHP in their area are able to vote on projects and have an influence in prioritizing works.
recognised tenant associations have a number of resources available to them:
Support by a dedicated TIU officer;
Council fund for paying for meeting rooms;
Training opportunities and information for tenant representatives;
An annual grant;
A stationary allowance for administrative purposes;
Travel and career costs;
A fund for printing costs for newsletters and promotional literature;
Administrative support;
Access to resource Centres in local libraries;
FECA provides a resource for residents, which is connected with the Council, but independent from them.
Block representatives provide an alternative route into participation. Where there is no active tenant association, then there is the alternative mechanism for ensuring that residents are able to attend the CHPs.
The Stock Options Appraisal has successfully engaged residents, both at a strategic level as part of the Stock Options Steering Group and at a local level, through newsletters, door-knocking and discussion at tenant and CHP meetings.
The Housing Inspection Report of June 2004 commented that
‘There is evidence that senior managers and Councillors are willing to challenge the quality of housing management services and the way that they are delivered. They seek to involve tenant representatives in the fundamental review process' (p5).
The Council has a genuine wish to improve the levels of participation and there is a will to improve the tenant involvement structures. It has sought to increase diversity, by instituting a black & minority ethnic strategy. It is also recognised that tenant involvement can bring a number of benefits to the running and future planning of housing services. Following interviews with Council officers, it is acknowledged that the Council needs to adopt a more strategic and long-term approach to the development of tenant involvement in the borough.
Weaknesses: the roles of different groups
A number of the groups have roles that are ill defined or overlap with other groups. It is questionable that the way the service is currently set up provides best value. The Council invests considerable resources in tenant involvement, both in terms of money and officer's time. However, it is questionable whether it is getting sufficient returns from this investment. The Council should undertake a review of the structure and the roles of the groups. It should seek to clarify roles and ensure that it is not financing different groups to deliver the same services.
TPWP
The group monitors the development of tenant management and its implementation. As a group it plays no other role in the running or monitoring of the housing service. At a strategic level, tenant involvement is separated out from the running and monitoring of the housing service, which is one of the key reasons for tenant involvement. This runs the risk that any future strategy will not be seen or treated as a core element of the landlord's service. It is also unclear what actual effect the group has on the tenant involvement programmed. Tenant members are elected from the CHPs and FECA. There have been difficulties recruiting to CHPs. This raises concerns about the sustainability of involvement at the more strategic level. Furthermore any person attending will have a number of other commitments in terms of meetings per year, whether as members of FECA or as members of CHPs (bearing in mind that the formal structures require residents to be members of tenant associations). These acts as a barrier to involvement: access to the strategic level can only be achieved through involvement at the local level, requiring a significant investment of time by representatives. There is also no mechanism for ensuring that representatives from the special interest groups are involved on this panel. It makes recommendations to the Cabinet, but it is unclear what status these recommendations have.
FECA
FECA has a number of roles, which go beyond the normal role of a tenant federation. The purpose of a federation is to act as a forum for tenant associations, where tenant representatives from each association (generally the chairs and vice-chairs), together with representatives from the special interest forums meet with the Council to discuss strategic borough-wide issues affecting the housing service. In some authorities, such as Westminster and Camden, the federation is also funded to provide a resource centre for associations, providing facilities for printing newsletters and flyers.
There is a lack of clarity concerning FECA's role. It operates at several levels at once. Neither FECA nor the Council has a clear view as to the federation's primary purpose. Although FECA is meant to provide training, there appears to be little evidence that this is delivered. FECA is charged with developing tenant associations and capacity building acts as a forum and as a consultative body. There is little evidence to demonstrate that FECA is effectively delivering these roles. The Council and FECA need to agree on clear roles and responsibilities.
There is no written agreement between FECA and the Council setting out its roles and objectives. The only document in place is FECA's own constitution, which sets out very broad objectives.
Much of the time spent by the FECA representative’s concerns individual casework and provides an advocacy and advisory service. Most of the people spoken with thought well of this element of FECA's activities. However, there is an inherent conflict of interest in FECA acting as a strategic body and simultaneously acting as advocates and undertaking casework. The Council and FECA need to review whether this role exposes FECA to potential liability, whether there is an issue concerning liability insurance and how the FECA ensures that it offers a quality service. The Council should review whether this service is necessary and, if so, whether a bespoke voluntary sector group would be a more appropriate to deliver this service.
FECA does not operate effectively as a forum for consultation at the strategic level and it is questionable given its current structure that it can operate as a consultative body.
FECA is not a representative forum; not all tenant associations send representatives to meetings and large areas of the Borough have no tenant associations to represent them.
The number of meetings held is likely to put tenants off getting involved. Membership of the Board puts significant pressure on individual representatives in terms of time.
There is no consistency of approach to consultation, either by FECA or the Council. It is not clear whether FECA is a formal consultative body, involved in the decision making process, or an informal mechanism used on an ad-hoc basis. This needs to be clarified by a clear agreement between FECA and the Council.
Despite the fact that the Council funds FECA up to £47,000 per annum, there is no funding agreement governing how this money should be spent, what FECA should be delivering or how the organisations should be monitored.
The Council has sought, retrospectively, to rectify the situation. This has involved FECA being asked to produce a business plan. It is unclear what support has been given to FECA to produce a business plan or clarify its purpose.
FECA's role is too broad and ill defined. It is highly questionable in any event whether a federation is the appropriate organisations to provide such a range of services. It is clear that FECA undertakes valuable work; however, it is unclear if this is strategic, consultative, capacity building or undertaking casework.
TIU
The TIU provides a number of services. However, both the TIU and FECA provide support services to residents, provide a resource centre and aim to facilitate tenant involvement.
TIU provides a number of services, including training and advice. FECA concurrently provides this service. Considerable resources are being put into both organisations. Only one group should provide this service to ensure that there is best value.
FECA, historically, was the main organisations for developing tenant associations and providing administrative support. The TIU has since been set up to provide this service. There is a strong argument that the Council, as the body with a duty to ensure genuine tenant involvement, should undertake the responsibility to facilitate, train and develop tenants and tenant groups by providing professional support.
There is little capacity building work being undertaken at grassroots level to develop tenant involvement, in particular, greater BME representation. Both the TIU and FECA have responsibility for this role, but it is clear that neither have successfully developed a strategic approach to developing participation at the local level. There is confusion as to which organisations should take responsibility for developing capacity building initiatives. Furthermore, it appears that both organisations operate in isolation rather than in partnership. There needs to be a clear understanding of the roles of the respective organisations in promoting capacity building and which organisations is responsible for leading on initiatives.
The Council needs to review with FECA its role and the role of FECA. Training and capacity building are long-term strategic functions, aimed at establishing sustainable tenant involvement. The Council has a responsibility to ensure that more tenants and leaseholders participate and there is greater representation of Enfield’s BME communities. Consequently, it may make sense to fund the TIU to provide these services.
Community Housing Partnerships (CHPs)
There are several routes for residents to join the CHPs, either through a tenant association, a special interest forum, or as a block representative. However, gaining recognition as a block representative is a lot easier than for a tenants association. Nonetheless, block representatives and nominees from tenant associations have equal status on the CHP. The CHPs do not have a clear remit to act as a forum dealing with the day-to-day issues of the housing service. In any event these forums have a number of shortcomings in relation to dealing with these concerns:
The CHPs currently have a low attendance and those who do attend do not perceive the forum as one dealing with local housing issues. It is hard to see how the housing offices are engaging with residents.
The CHPs are principally a forum for debating how delegated budgets should be spent, rather than dealing with wider issues. There is some evidence to suggest that engaging residents on these forums in wider issues have been unsuccessful.
The CHPs do not appear to be the best forums for engaging with residents in wider issues, owing to the fact that strategic policy is set centrally, not on an area basis. The resident structures should replicate the decision-making framework of the Council. On speaking with a number of officers, it appears that the district offices implement policy rather than decide how resources are to be used locally. If this is the case, it is hard to see how the CHPs can influence policy.
Special interest Forums
The forums are based on a borough-wide basis. They do not sit easily with the federation, nominating to the CHPs, but not to FECA. There is a clear need to ensure that are forums for special needs housing, such as sheltered, owing to the difference in services received and the needs of the tenants. Likewise, Leaseholders clearly need a separate forum owing to their different relationship with the Council, and the specific concerns that they have arising out of service charges. The Council has attempted to set up BME and youth forums. However, the Council should be very clear about what it wishes to achieve through these groups. A BME strategy should aim to ensure diversity within the existing tenant structure, by removing barriers to participation. To be successful, there needs to be a focus on capacity building. Although vital, it is not sufficient to provide a translation service or ensure that tenant associations adopt an equal opportunities policy and receive equal opportunities training. A strategy should adopt non-traditional methods of engagement. These methods are based around informal gatherings, often unrelated to housing issues, or through organizing 'fun' events, such as a festival. Alternatively, and as promoted by Octavia Housing (see section 5 and Appendix 1), groups can be set up around specific issues. Groups formed around activities not associated with housing can provide opportunity for the Housing Department to engage with residents. Additionally, other community and voluntary groups (such as Sure Start) provide informal networks, which the TIU could use in order to promote tenant involvement. A BME forum could act as an incubation forum, allowing people to gain experience, training and confidence to engage in the mainstream tenant structures. A BME forum could also act as a monitoring body, working alongside the TIU in order to remove barriers and provide services that promote BME involvement in their local associations. We understand that there is a BME umbrella group already in existence within the borough that could act in this role. Likewise, a youth forum is not likely to provide a focus for day-to-day housing issues, but provides an excellent way of preparing younger people to engage in the tenant structures when they are older. The forum also provides an opportunity to engage younger people in issues relevant to them. To work and ensure that people are recruited, non-traditional methods should be used, again similar to those described above. A youth forum should also provide opportunities to resolve issues where there is conflict between youth and other tenants, or provide facilities and training to youth groups. However, this can only be achieved by involving other Council departments (such as youth workers) and other agencies such as schools and police.
Current weaknesses of the tenant participation structure
Levels of Involvement
It has proved difficult to encourage and sustain tenant involvement. The Council and FECA have been unsuccessful in encouraging residents to set up Tenant associations and get involved in the formal tenant structures. Over the last two years only 2 groups have been set up and we understand that others have ceased functioning or have been derecognised. Although there are some associations with a broad membership, the majority struggles to sustain interest and involvement. The experience of the CHPs has also been mixed, with low attendance generally. Solon has door-knocked in a number of areas where there are no active tenant associations. A large proportion of residents do not appreciate that there is a tenant involvement structure and have little knowledge about how to get involved. There are a number of barriers to involvement that are not addressed within the tenant involvement structure. These are identified below at 4.6
Degree of tenant influence
All parties interviewed acknowledged that the tenant participation structure provided a lack of real influence over and input into the management and provision of services, especially at the strategic borough-wide level. Some tenant associations have been successful in influencing housing policy on an estate basis, but this relies on the individual manager's level of interest and understanding about tenant involvement and their workload. There is nothing in the system that makes it happen. The current system also requires that there should be a tenant association (which meets the recognition criteria), which leaves many estates without any form of influence. The tenant representatives we spoke with also voiced the concern that the CHPs do not identify residents' priorities when deciding how to spend the delegated budget, but instead are officer led, the group rubber-stamping projects that have already been prioritized.
A strategic approach to tenant participation
There is no clear concept about what the Council wishes to achieve by tenant involvement. This is reflected in the perceived lack of strategic approach to developing tenant involvement (as mentioned in the Housing Inspection report, June 2004).
The Council needs to define what it wishes to achieve with tenant involvement and set out clearly defined objectives.
The strategy should inform the decision about the type of structure that the Council wishes to promote.
A successful system of involvement cannot be set up overnight and the strategy should address a period of at least 5 years, clearly defining what it is that the Council wishes to see in place and laying out clear steps and milestones for achieving these targets.
The strategy should set out exactly how residents can influence the housing service and to what degree.
All groups involved should be clear about their purpose and their place in the structure.
The strategy needs to be understood by all housing staff.
The promotion of the strategic objectives should formulate the basis of any criteria for recognition of groups.
It should be the responsibility of the Council (through the TIU) to promote the strategy and set up tenants groups over a realistic time frame.
The strategy should contain targets, milestones and outputs. The targets should be both quantitative and qualitative, seeking to demonstrate resident influence in the decision making process. Milestones will demonstrate the development of structures and capacity building. Quantitative measures would include numbers of meetings attended by officers, numbers of specific issue groups set up, capacity building events and attendance. Qualitative measures should include surveying levels of understanding among residents of the tenant involvement structure, knowledge about their local tenant associations and belief that resident involvement does have influence and does improve service quality. Where there is training, or residents have expressed interest in being involved, then follow up work needs to be undertaken (through a simple survey questionnaire) some six months later. The purpose of this is to identify how individuals have used the training, or whether they have gone on to engage in the process; if not, then the Council needs to identify why this is the case.
Capacity building
There has been very little work undertaken in relation to capacity building. There does not appear to be an agreed approach to capacity building. This is not helped by the confusion over the roles of the TIU and FECA in developing capacity. FECA has a training and support function, as have the TIU, but it is unclear which organisations is responsible for taking the lead in developing and delivering a capacity building programmed. It is the responsibility of the Council to ensure that there is a reasonable level of tenant involvement and consequently, the TIU would be the appropriate organisations to undertake this role, rather than FECA. However, unless there is a clear programmed of capacity building then, however clear the roles of the various organisations are, and however good the participation structure, it is unlikely that the Council will achieve greater engagement with residents. The audit report (June 2004) notes that the Council has been slow to address weaknesses in its strategy for engaging with residents and with minority groups. Capacity building has generally involved advertising tenant associations and CHPs, and circulating information concerning tenant involvement. The TIU officers also undertake door-knocking exercises in order to recruit people. These are very traditional methods of engagement. Unless there are burning issues concerning repairs or grounds maintenance, people are unlikely to engage with the Council on housing issues. There is a view, widely held amongst most of the officers spoken to, that residents are apathetic: despite opportunities to get involved, residents chose not to participate. However, residents are being asked to take part as a voluntary unpaid worker, give up their personal time and be involved in what at first glance appears to be a fairly dry process. Unless the Council actively approaches residents on their terms and takes the time to illustrate the benefits of involvement, then there will be a poor response. A capacity building strategy needs to involve a number of non-traditional techniques, designed to attract people to participate in events which would then allow the TIU officers to engage with them and start to build relationships and trust, eventually forming a network of people who will participate in the housing management process. The idea of forming a tenants association or recruiting an individual as a block representative is an end result of what may be a long process of building trust and confidence. There are a number of initiatives that the housing department could use in order to engage with people. However, it should be emphasized that these techniques involve building long-term relationships and require a committed and sustained approach over a period of time.
Organizing informal 'fun' events, such as festivals, provide a key way to engage with members of traditionally harder to reach communities.
The TIU could seek to involve a local adult education college or group in setting up an activity targeted at specific harder to reach groups.
Working with and involving other existing community groups. There are a number of community groups operating on local estates, such as Sure Start projects, training schemes and religious groups. These are examples of organisations and networks with whom the TIU could seek to engage.
Setting up incubation groups. These do not necessarily feed formally into the housing management structure. They instead provide forums that act as points of engagement between TIU officers and residents, with the idea that, at some future point, these individuals will join the mainstream process. Youth and BME forums are good examples. Such forums may focus on matters other than housing, for instance organizing an annual estate event. Alternatively they can be set up as a single-issue group - for instance a campaigning group for a local playground. Such groups provide forums where training can take place and relationships can be established. This approach has had considerable success with the residents of Octavia Housing (see Section 5).
Engaging with other local service providers. Meetings with the police are generally well attended, owing to concerns over local policing. A good working relationship between the TIU and local police and community officers would provide opportunities for engaging with residents and helping build relationships. Similarly, the TIU could work alongside youth workers, the library service and local schools, as well as with initiatives such as Sure Start. Such relationships will promote opportunities for the TIU to promote its objectives and engage with residents.
In addition to these activities it is also necessary to capitalize on opportunities to promote participation. There are a number of events that the TIU and resident groups could get involved in and attend. When attending such events, the TIU should have clearly visible promotional material and banners, advertising its presence and what it does.
Feedback to the wider community
Tenant involvement is about residents influencing the housing management process. Tenant involvement is only sustainable if residents feel that they have real power to influence the system. If resident groups are not seen to be doing something then it is unlikely that residents will wish to get involved. One of the most frequent excuses given for not participating is the feeling that it will not make any difference, that the Council will make its own decision irrespective of what residents feel. The Council does little in order actively to refute this idea. In order to combat this, the Council has to demonstrate that residents are listened to and do have influence. This is related, in many ways, to capacity building. The Council should ensure that:
Any decision that is made refers to the involvement of residents in informing that decision and that this is advertised appropriately.
Where a representative has achieved a result or a campaign has been won, that this is advertised in the local area, pointing out what has been achieved and why. This is best done through a leaflet campaign in the area, by inclusion within the minutes of the association and by inclusion in any report concerning the work of the TIU and tenant involvement generally.
If articles or letters concerning a specific issue affecting housing appear in the local paper, then a positive response should be made concerning the role of resident representatives, especially in agreeing any resolution.
That the structures are readily understandable by residents, such that they can see clearly how they or their representatives have influence, at what level and what it is they can expect to achieve. This needs to be clearly drafted in the tenant compact, setting out exactly what issues residents can expect to be consulted on and what feedback they can expect.
The Role of Tenant Associations
There is little clarity about a tenant association's role, what is does and how it can influence the delivery of the housing service or otherwise improve residents' lives.
The Council's recognition criteria are a barrier to Tenant Associations being set up. The purpose of a 3-tier system of recognition is unclear. It is not apparent what greater influence or benefits that an association achieving level 1 has over a level 2 or 3 association.
Too much emphasis is put on the representative nature of tenant associations. An association should adhere to democratic processes, in the election of its chair and vice-chair on an annual basis. However, the emphasis on obtaining the support of at least 20% of the local community does not provide any indication as to whether an association is representative, or that activists are reporting back to and involving the local community. There should be more emphasis on what the association is attempting to achieve, and how it is ensuring that its activities are well publicized.
The principal ground for ensuring recognition should be that the tenant association is functioning as a local focus for debate concerning the housing service and so playing an active role within the tenant involvement framework. The Council should ensure that associations engage with the housing service. This would mean that TIU officers attend a minimum number of meetings per year and tenant associations meet with estate managers on a number of occasions in order to consider the quality of service that residents are experiencing.
The standard documents for associations (such as the constitution) and procedures are too complex. Procedures should be minimal and the standard constitution as simple as possible - stating objectives (to engage and consult with the Housing Department about housing services delivered locally), the fact that the association is open to all local residents and that it subscribes to equal opportunities.
Too much emphasis put on associations developing their organisations towards recognition and to maintain status on an annual basis. Associations should not need to prove themselves on an annual basis; the TIU can monitor how an organisations is doing.
The roles of the TIU and FECA in monitoring and developing tenant associations are confused. There is a strong argument that this should be a function of the TIU, given that there is a duty incumbent on the Council to promote and support effective tenant involvement. The current system places a significant burden on associations, such as preparing accounts, submitting reports, minting meetings and keeping attendance records. These are functions best supplied by a professional service and paid for by the Council. However, there is the concern that the TIU in its present form does not have the resources to offer this type of comprehensive support.
Many residents feel that there is little point getting involved because they have little power to influence service delivery. Tenant associations should be seen as vehicles for change, pressing for more local accountability from the housing department and campaigning to improve aspects of that service. Its work needs to be fed back to residents and the Council. The tenant associations should prepare newsletters or mailings (with the support of the TIU) advertising campaigns, successes and ongoing debates.
The Council should monitor and record actions taken by tenant associations. The monitoring that currently takes place is reliant on associations making returns. The Council does not appear to have qualitative targets concerning tenant associations. It should monitor how many times local officers attend meetings, what actions have been taken following representations by the association, what representations associations have made, and what (if any) influence the association has achieved in relation to the quality of service.
Lack of a good working relationship with FECA
There is difficult relationship between FECA and some officers. There is a lack of trust and faith between both institutions and lack of clarity over FECA's role. The current system has not proved successful in encouraging widespread tenant involvement.
Gaps in the current system
There are a number of areas where there is little or no tenant involvement. Although there is a system of enabling individuals to become block representatives, this is patchy, and block representatives have no way of feeding into another structures (such as FECA) apart from the CHPs. Technically, unless tenant activists can demonstrate support and gain recognition, the residents in those areas have no method of participation in the tenant structure.
There is currently no formal or permanent forum for engaging residents in evaluating best value. Tenant focus groups are used, as are tenant satisfaction services. However, although these are of value for consultation purposes, they are limited in what they can achieve. They are not unlikely to engage residents in the process of evaluation, nor are they able to ensure that residents have an influence over the service. Additionally, there is no clear relationship between the district housing office and tenant associations. The Council invites representatives to walk estates with the estate managers. However, there is no formal mechanism for engagement.
Lack of tenant involvement in reviewing best value and monitoring housing services. Apart from tenant satisfaction surveys there is no other method of involving tenants and leaseholders in evaluation and scrutiny of the service. Many other councils and registered landlords have contract monitoring panels, by which tenants and leaseholders monitor the work carried out by non-council contractors. Additionally, many authorities have tenant inspectors', trained to inspect repairs and maintenance, capital works and participate in internal audits of the housing service. Finally, almost have developed tenant scrutiny panels, where officers attend in order to explain progress on service improvements, consult on service improvement strategies and listen to views concerning the quality of the housing service. These groups have been demonstrated to make a positive impact on inspection grades, demonstrating a more responsive service with a tenant focus.
There is a lack of direct consultation with the cabinet. Some Council with a cabinet structure run a residents committee, chaired by the cabinet member, which is able to make recommendations to the cabinet concerning strategic issues.
There is a lack of capacity building. This has been dealt with in detail above (see section 5.4.4.), however, unless it is addressed there is likely to be no improvement in the current levels of participation.
The Council has been unsuccessful in addressing the Housing Inspectors' concerns that it is not engaging with and meeting the housing needs of BME communities. The Council needs to develop a long-term strategic approach to increasing BME involvement. This can only be addressed through capacity building, using a mixture of non-traditional techniques. Examples have been outlined above at section 5.4.4. Church and other religious groups should be involved in this strategy, and the Council should investigate other voluntary groups in the area, that can be used as a platform for establishing relationships with individual members of BME communities. Additionally, the Council should promote a variety of cultural events and courses aimed at specific communities. The TIU would be an appropriate body to resource this training. It is possible that funding from sources external to the Council can be obtained - for instance if Enfield has a community college, it can deliver capacity building targeted at BME communities and may be able to obtain Learning Skills Council funding.
There is already an umbrella BME organisations in Enfield, which leases with the Council on a range of issues. This organisations should be utilized, leasing with the Housing Department and working with the TIU to facilitate capacity building aimed at BME groups. Additionally, this organisations could play a monitoring role, overseeing how many participants are from BME communities and working with groups to remove barriers.
Finally, there is a lack of monitoring in relation to tenant involvement. What monitoring there is tends to be focused on measuring numbers participating rather than qualitative measures of influence. A number of targets should be identified which aim to demonstrate the affect that involvement has on decision making and the quality of services.
Identified barriers to involvement
The current system requires too great a commitment of time by representatives and this is a barrier to involvement. A tenant association representative also sitting on a CHP and attending FECA meetings will have to attend 20 evening meetings a year, more if they are also on the FECA committee. If a tenant member of the FECA committee were to attend every meeting, then they would be attending 32 meetings a year, discounting any special meetings or focus groups. The system discourages the involvement of residents, particularly younger residents, parents with children (especially if single) and people who work. The system makes too many bureaucratic demands and the recognition criteria are too strict. Currently, associations need to demonstrate that they have or are working towards gaining the support of a certain percentage of the community. Additionally, they are responsible for minting their meetings, providing monitoring information, preparing annual accounts and reapplying for recognition on an annual basis. There are too many unnecessary administrative hurdles to overcome. There is little need for an association to do anything more than adopt a constitution promoting equal opportunities, agree its purpose and minimum number of meetings, agree a code of conduct and holding an annual meeting for the election of residents to formal posts. Although focus groups were involved in the recent Fundamental Service Review, there is no clear influence (especially at a strategic level) over matters such as repairs and maintenance and anti-social behaviour, which are the predominant issues that really matter to residents. Involvement has been on an ad-hoc basis. FECA can be perceived as a barrier itself, given its wide remit, the demands it makes on time if residents wish to be involved and the level of knowledge and experience needed in order to fulfil the current roles of the chair and vice-chair. There is also confusion amongst representatives about its role.
TIU and position in Council Structure
TIU officers can refer tenants' concerns to estate managers, but have little power or influence to encourage resolution.
The person responsible for the day to day planning and running of the service is below area manager grade. Tenant involvement does not have priority at a high enough level. Successful tenant involvement challenges the way housing is being managed and challenges presumptions. Owing to the lack of seniority within the TIU and a lack of a strategic focus, it has little influence to implement changes. The housing service remains a very top-downwards system.
The degree of influence that residents have over their housing service at a local level depends on an individual estate manager's level of understanding of and personal commitment to tenant involvement. There is nothing in place that makes tenant involvement a key consideration in the day-to-day running of the service. The TIU has very limited powers to promote tenant involvement within the Housing Offices.
The TIU is managed as a portfolio at District Manager level. This risks sending out the message that tenant involvement is not a core responsibility for the Council and does not have a central and influential role within the management of the service. Tenant involvement needs to have a higher profile and more strategic role within the housing service.
Tenant participation is about accountability and service improvement, with a further potential for promoting community regeneration. It perhaps fits better within the Service Development Team as an area of management, which would provide tenant involvement with a clear focus towards improving the housing service and provide it with a more strategic role.
The individual tenant involvement officers are located in one office. It is a considerable strength that there is a bespoke tenant involvement unit, however, the individual officers could be more effective if they were located within the area offices, working alongside the housing officers. Potentially this would allow the TIU officers to forge links with those delivering the service and promote the concept of tenant involvement throughout the service. The TIU officers should continue to be managed as a separate unit and should have regular weekly team meetings.
The TIU office is located at Turkey Street. Although the office is in the far north of the Borough, it has a shop-front on a parade of shops and is placed so as to be accessible to a large number of estates. It is also easily accessible by car and bus from Edmonton. It currently provides a resource centre and support facilitates that are accessed by tenants in the immediate vicinity. However, a similar service is provided by FECA, who also receive funding from the Council for this purpose. It is questionable whether it is worth funding two resource Centres. There are also a number of libraries that offer a resource centres (although there is little evidence that these are well used). If the TIU office is to be used as an office, clearly it needs to staffed accordingly, so that residents can access it (at pre-advertised times).
Other Local Authorities' Tenant Involvement Structures
Solon has undertaken a survey of other local authorities concerning tenant involvement structures. These Councils are:
Southward
Lambent
Lewis ham
Camden
We have also looked at the tenant involvement structure adopted by Octavia Housing in Noting Hill. A full summary of the tenant participation structures for these authorities is attached at Appendix 1. Three of these Councils have pyramid structures, from tenant association to tenant council and Camden has a federation structure. In all of these authorities, there was the problem of a small number of tenants actually getting involved. Furthermore, like Enfield, the structures in each of these Councils (and, to our knowledge, in most others), require residents to be elected from forum to forum. This means that those residents inputting at the most senior level have to make a significant sacrifice in terms of time and commitment, generally sitting on their association boards, local area housing forums and a tenants Council (or similar). Solon is of the opinion that this can actually set up 'exclusive' structures, actively discouraging involvement from residents. Also the amount of commitment involved inevitably discounts large sections of the community (especially younger people, those in work or with younger families) from being involved, thus raising questions as to how representative and democratic these systems really are in practice. Each authority, on being contacted, acknowledged that there was a problem in that a small number of people were involved in everything, a problem also flagged up in research for the ODPM on operation of tenant compacts. Although each authority demanded that all recognised tenant associations have some form of accountability at local level and can demonstrate that they are accountable, it was also acknowledged that the profile of residents involved was very limited and that sustainability was a struggle. Some authorities' recognition criteria require that if an important decision is to be made (or it is an AGM), individual associations must have a quorum of between 5% to 10% of all council residents living in the area. However, given levels of involvement, it appears that this requirement is rarely met and, in practice, these rules are often ignored through sheer necessity. Camden has a fully autonomous federation, which is the main focus for capacity building and development of tenant associations. There is a separate borough-wide forum for residents. However, there are difficulties with this system, which have been experienced in Enfield - including a confusion of roles. There are also barriers to involvement and engagement, in particular the disincentive to get involved at a strategic level, whether as part of the federation or on the Borough-wide forum, owing to the amount of time required from residents. It does not appear that the federation provides advisory or advocacy service to residents. We also looked at Octavia Housing in Noting Hill, who have adopted a very different approach to tenant involvement. Instead of using formal tenant association structures as the basis of local involvement, Octavia has set up a number of special interest groups and open forums focusing on issues that really matter to tenants. This is based on the belief that people will get involved in matters which they are concerned about, rather than debating all aspects of housing management. The tenant involvement officers identified a number of localized issues that people were prepared to campaign about and get involved in. This has enabled them to engage with a large number of residents. They have been highly successful in ensuring large numbers of active residents and maintain a database of people they can contact in relation to a number of issues. In summary, the other local authorities that we contacted have experienced very similar difficulties in engagement with their residents. What was most clear, was that whatever the structure, there has to be greater investment in grass roots capacity building. In many areas, as in Enfield, there is confusion as to whose responsibility and role it is to undertake this work. Where there has been an emphasis on capacity building, such as with Octavia Housing, experiences have been different. Also, as demonstrated with Octavia, a move towards open forums has promoted wider involvement from residents.
Potential Models
We set out below three potential models for tenant involvement that could be adopted by the Council. The first model is based on having a tenant association, the second is based on the CHPs and the third proposes a more complete overhaul, based on maximizing the opportunities for residents to get involved at all levels of the decision making process. As has been stressed in this report, substantial work is required in relation to capacity building. These structures are meant to provide clear lines of influence for residents at all levels of the decision making process and to clearly specify roles and responsibilities. They are designed to address many of the gaps in the current system, and provide a framework around which a successful tenant involvement strategy can be developed. However, these structures cannot work without a long-term strategy for providing capacity building and BME involvement that addresses the concerns outlined by the last housing inspection report and aim to fulfil the audit commission's key lines of enquiry. It also needs to be stressed that unless tenant involvement at a grassroots level is strong and sustainable, then strategic for a - such as a federation, membership forum or the CHPs - are unlikely to be bodies that are representative or sustainable. A successful strategic forum, of whatever nature, needs to be a goal that the Council and residents work towards over an extended period of at least 18 months capacity building at a grassroots level. Solon Community Network Executive Summary and Recommendations Solon has carried out a review of the current tenant involvement structure. There are a number of strengths to the system, including a will to engage tenants in the decision making framework. However, the current structure is complex, with no clear influence over the decision making process, especially at the strategic borough-wide level and a number of groups that do not have clear roles and duplicate activities. We have made a number of recommendations as to how the Council could seek to improve tenant involvement. Our findings and recommendations are explored in depth in our report. However, we have provided a summary of our recommendations below, in three categories: structure, strategy and capacity building.
Structure
Roles
The Council should undertake a review of the structure and the roles of the groups, seeking to clarify roles, simplify the structure and ensure that it is not financing different groups to deliver the same services.
The role of the Tenant Participation Working Party (TPWP) should be reviewed. Currently, the group is a forum dealing with the development of tenant management. It is unclear what actual influence it has or what it achieves. It has no involvement in running or monitoring the housing service and tenant involvement is isolated as a separate issue rather than as a core element in the delivery of housing services. In its present form the TPWP adds little to the process. We would recommend dissolving this committee.
The Council needs to undertake a best value review of the services offered by FECA and the TIU and establish what their roles should be.
The Council and FECA need to have a written agreement setting out roles and responsibilities.
The Council should agree a funding agreement with FECA, stating precisely the purpose of the funding and setting clear targets and objectives.
We have supplied several different model structures. We recommend that if the Council wishes to continue with a federation type structure, then the federation should act primarily as a forum for tenant associations, its other roles being supplied by the TIU or voluntary sector groups.
The CHPs appear to operate predominantly as forums for deciding how money should be spent locally. Given this, there is little need for any attendee to be present in a representative capacity. The forum should be thrown open to whoever wishes to attend; all residents have an interest in the types of project considered at the meetings. Anyone coming can vote on which projects should be funded once they have heard a presentation by its sponsor (whether a resident or an officer).
Gaps in current structure
There is a lack of direct consultation with the cabinet. We recommend setting up a group which meets regularly with the Cabinet member for housing to discuss Borough-wide policy and to ensure that there is tenant involvement at the highest decision making level. The federation or other strategic forum should nominate the resident representatives sitting on this group. The special interest groups should also nominate to the group. The group should meet on a quarterly basis and should be chaired by the cabinet member for housing.
The Cabinet Group should be set up as a priority, in order to replace the TPWP and ensure resident input at the strategic level of the housing service.
The Cabinet Group would appear to be an ideal panel for forming a shadow board in order to set up the ALMO.
If the Council introduces an ALMO, then the Cabinet Group will become a consultative panel for meeting with the ALMO board, to discuss strategic policy. Owing to a potential conflict of interest, Enfield would be strongly advised that tenant board members could not sit on the consultative panel in a formal voting capacity. The group could continue to meet formally with the cabinet member for housing in relation to the any strategic housing function that the council has retained (if suitable).
Apart from tenant satisfaction surveys and ad-hoc focus groups, there is no other method of involving tenants and leaseholders in evaluation and scrutiny of the housing service. We would recommend that the Council set up the following groups.
Tenant Compact Group, which reviews and negotiates the compact, and provides a formal mechanism for ensuring that the compact is being followed and upheld.
Contract Review Panel, which works with Council officers to review how contractors are performing and that residents and the Council are getting a good quality of service. This is a committee to whom tenant inspectors can report.
Scrutiny Panel, which would work together with the Council to ensure tenant involvement in the inspection process and to participate in any internal review or mock inspection. Again this panel can provide resident inspectors, who are involved in any internal reviews, to ensure that residents have an active voice in establishing best practice and quality of service.
Recruitment Panel, which would be involved in interviewing contractors as part of a tender process. Potentially, this panel could also be involved in the recruitment of housing officers and other employees.
These forums should be set up as a priority. If the Council adopts an ALMO, then they should be set up alongside the ALMO shadow board. However, once the ALMO has gone live, the Council will need to consider carefully whether ALMO board members can also sit on these panels, or whether there is a potential conflict of interest.
Tenant Associations
The current recognition criteria should be less stringent. The current level 3 criteria should be adopted. Tenant associations struggle to achieve the higher levels and the criteria act as barriers to associations forming.
The procedural requirements for recognition should be relaxed. There should be an elected Chair, Vice-Chair and Secretary/Treasurer (voted annually). The association should adopt an equal opportunities policy and should receive training in what this means. It should also adopt a constitution which states that it is open to all residents and sets out the purposes of the association – which should be to work with the Housing Service in order to improve the quality of services and liaise over local housing issues.
The emphasis for recognition should be on purpose, rather than representation. Each association should liaise with the local housing office a number of times a year and meet with local housing officers. This should be stated as one of the conditions of recognition
The TIU should offer a greater supporting role to associations. This should include attending a minimum number of meetings, assisting with minute taking, keeping and collecting attendance records and arranging for estate and district managers to attend meetings where necessary.
There should be clarification concerning which organisations, FECA or the TIU, has responsibility for developing new associations and supporting existing associations. We would recommend that this should be the responsibility of the TIU, it being a duty on the Council to ensure effective participation.
The Tenant Involvement Unit
We recommend a review of how tenant involvement is managed. The TIU is managed as part of a portfolio at District Manager level. Tenant involvement needs to have a higher profile and more strategic role within the housing service.
Tenant participation is about accountability and service improvement, with a further potential for promoting community regeneration. We would suggest (in keeping with a number of other local authorities) that the Council reviews whether the tenant involvement unit is better located within the Service Development Team. This would provide tenant involvement with a clear focus towards improving the housing service and provide it with a more strategic role.
The individual TIU officers could be more effective if they were located within the area offices, working alongside the housing officers. Potentially this would allow the TIU officers to forge links with those delivering the service and promote the concept of tenant involvement throughout the service. However, the TIU officers should continue to be managed as a separate unit and should have regular weekly team meetings.
Both FECA and the TIU are funded to run resource Centres. There is a possible duplication of roles. We recommend a review as to whether the Council is getting value for money in funding both Centres.
If the TIU were to provide a resource centre, then there is a question of how independent the service is from the Council. Consequently, the Council needs to consult with residents about the resource centre in order to ensure that the service meets residents' requirements.
Possible alternative structures
We have provided three models, described at sections 6 to 9 of this report.
We would recommend that whatever structures the Council adopts (or whether it decides to leave it substantially unchanged), it should mirror the decision making-process of the housing department from Cabinet level down. For this reason Model 2 (based on a widened responsibility for CHPs) is unlikely to work. The Council should review its structure alongside FECA, inviting FECA's comments and reviewing FECA's role. We would recommend considering Model 3. Rather than being based on tenant involvement being representative, residents are invited to take part in forums at both local and strategic borough-wide levels. This model is designed to maximize opportunities for the individual tenant to participate and focuses on the issues that motivate people to get involved.
Whichever model is set up, considerable effort needs to be invested in capacity building (see below), at the local level. With regard to an effective federation (set out in model 1), area panels (model 2) or a general membership residents forum (in model 3), such groups will only be successful if the local level capacity building work has been undertaken. The Council therefore needs to adopt a long-term strategy for setting up these groups, setting out an initial timetable of facilitation and support work over the next 18 months, prior to formalizing these structures. The Council will therefore need to ensure that current structures are not changed overnight, but continue in the short-term as part of an interim process. Senior tenant representatives and FECA need to be involved in the process of developing the new structures.
Strategy
The Council needs to be clear what it wishes to achieve with tenant involvement. This should mirror Government Guidance and should seek to meet the Key Lines of Enquiry on inspection. The Council should develop a borough-wide tenant and resident’s involvement strategy.
The Council needs to develop a borough-wide tenant involvement strategy defining what it wishes to achieve with tenant involvement and setting out clearly defined objectives.
The strategy should inform the decision about the type of structure that the Council wishes to promote.
The strategy should address a period of at least 5 years, clearly defining what it is that the Council wishes to see in place and laying out clear steps and milestones for achieving these targets.
The strategy should set out exactly how residents can influence the housing service and to what degree.
The strategy needs to be understood by all housing staff.
The promotion of the strategic objectives should formulate the basis of any criteria for recognition of groups.
It should be the responsibility of the Council (through the TIU) to promote the strategy and set up tenants groups over a realistic time frame.
The strategy should contain targets, milestones and outputs. The targets should be both quantitative and qualitative, seeking to demonstrate resident influence in the decision making process. Qualitative measures should include surveying levels of understanding among residents of the tenant involvement structure, knowledge about their local tenant associations and belief that resident involvement does have influence and does improve service quality.
Residents who express interest in being involved, or accessing training, should be contacted six months later to identify whether they have gone on to engage in the process or use the training. If not, then the Council needs to identify why this is the case.
Capacity Building
The audit report (June 2004) notes that the Council has been slow to address weaknesses in its strategy for engaging with residents and with minority groups. There is no agreed approach to capacity building and there is confusion over who is responsible for developing capacity. Since the Council is responsible for ensuring that there is a reasonable level of tenant involvement the TIU should undertake this role, rather than FECA.
The Council, using the TIU, should carry out local community audits, identifying the groups and agencies operating in each area and estate. This will provide intelligence about possible opportunities and inform the development of local involvement strategies.
The TIU should develop capacity building and tenant involvement strategies for each estate and area, identifying local opportunities. They should also identify local issues, in order to facilitate specific focus groups.
We recommend using a portfolio of initiatives for engaging with residents. These techniques involve building long-term relationships and require a committed and sustained approach over a period of time such as: organizing informal 'fun' events, working with other existing community groups, setting up single-issue groups - for instance a campaigning group for a local playground and holding joint meetings and events with other service providers.
In policy statements or announcements concerning housing services, there should be express reference to the involvement of residents in informing that decision.
Where a representative has achieved a result or a campaign has been won, that this is advertised in the local area through a leaflet campaign in the area.
That the structures are readily understandable by residents, such that they can see clearly how they or their representatives have influence, at what level and what it is they can expect to achieve.
Tenant Involvement Structures in Other Local Authorities Southward Tenant and Resident Associations Rules for recognition:
All tenants and residents living on the estate or defined area are able to join
Its rules conform to the model constitution Once recognised, the association can:
Receive funding
Be represented on the local area housing forum
Be formally consulted on matters affecting local community
Local Area Housing Forums Each association elects one representative to sit on the local area housing forum (LAHF). Representatives can also come from local community groups interested in housing (i.e. disability groups, BME etc.). Each Housing Area has at least one local area housing forum. Tenants Council The Tenants Council is the link between the local area housing forums and the Council, advising both. It meets every 6-8 weeks. Tenant’s Council membership (mandate runs for one year):
1 representative from each local area housing forum
2 representatives from each under-represented section of the community
Any Councillor, who may speak but cannot vote
Leaseholders Council The Leaseholders Council is the formal link between local area housing forums and Council on leaseholder issues. The local area housing forums elect membership of the Leaseholders Council. Lambent Tenant and Resident Associations Lambent recognizes (and has registered) over 90 associations. Registration criteria include internal democracy and accountability to residents. The associations hold regular committee meetings and a minimum of 4 open meetings a year, including an AGM. Each association receives an annual administration grant. The associations are consulted on ‘all' issues relating to the housing service in their area. For a decision to be official a quorum of 10% of all tenants/leaseholders in the area is required and a Resident Participation Team member must also observe. Panel of 500 Occasionally Lambent wants to consult on a broader basis, not on a TRA or neighbourhood basis. A representative panel of 500 customers has been set up to test delivery issues. Leaseholders The Leaseholders Council is the formal body representing leaseholders on a borough-wide level. Delegates are elected from ‘Leaseholder Forums'. The guidance states that Leaseholder Forums must hold at least two meetings twice a year held in each neighbourhood. In practice, the Leaseholder Forums are currently held in three areas, meeting on a quarterly basis. Neighbourhood Forums This system is being reformed. In the past, the neighbourhood Forum in each of the 15 housing neighbourhoods covered all council housing NOT run by a Tenant Management organisations. The neighbourhood Forum meets 4-6 times a year, plus ad-hoc meetings. It is serviced by the neighbourhood Housing Manager. Membership
2 representatives from each Tenant and Resident Association in the area
Ward Councillors are invited as observers
Council officers
Representatives from the local community can be invited on an ad-hoc basis
Purpose of neighbourhood Forum is to hold neighbourhood Housing Manager to account. Devolved structure in lambent means tenants and neighbourhood Housing Manager can exercise considerable control over local service. Neighbourhood Forum representatives sit on appointment panels for senior (neighbourhood) staff and contractors. Neighbourhood Forums are consulted over rent levels and housing management policies. However, Lambent is moving to a 5-area structure. Area Forums, in future, will be larger with still one delegate per Tenant and Resident Association. TMOs and leaseholders are not represented. Tenants Council The Tenants Council has a formal position on the consultation structure. The Tenants Council has the ‘exclusive' right to speak for tenants and leaseholders on a borough-wide basis. It meets quarterly with more frequent ad-hoc meetings. It is serviced by the Residents Participation Team. This forum, too, is being reformed. Its membership consists of an:
1 elected delegate for each of the 15 neighbourhood Forums
3 TMO delegates elected from TMO board members at the TMO Liaison Committee
Membership in future will be:
Representation by size of population (i.e. Areas Forums covering larger number of council tenants send more delegates than those with smaller populations)
TMO representation by the percentage of homes in TMOs (around 20%)
Leaseholder representation based on the percentage of leaseholders (around 20%)
TMO delegates will still be selected at TMO Liaison Committee and the leaseholder representatives will be selected by the Leaseholder Council. Lewis ham The Tenant Compact has just completed its second review, Tenant and Resident Associations There over 60 recognised/accredited Tenant and Resident Associations in Lewis ham, as well as a Street Tenants Association (street properties), Estate Tenants Association (for those who live on estates where there is no TRA ), leaseholder associations and community groups. To be accredited, groups need to adopt a written constitution, code of conduct and equal opportunities policy. The AGM and the public meetings should try and be representative. In order to be quartet, a meeting will need 5% of local residents. Tenant and Resident Associations receive grants from an independent fund. Money from this fund is raised through a levy of all residents of £0.13p per week. It is drawn on by all accredited Tenant and Resident Associations. This fund is managed and overseen by an independent group - a not for profit company Lewisham Tenants Fund. Neighbourhood Forums These can be set up, roughly covering the previous neighbourhood areas, to discuss local issues not appropriate at Housing Panel level. Housing Panels There are currently 6 Housing areas. Housing Panels monitor local housing issues. Local recognised Tenant and Resident Associations nominate representatives. Each TMO can delegate 2 people. Housing Panels nominate representatives to the Tenant Strategy Group and its Standing committees Tenants Strategy Group The Tenant Strategy Group is the main consultative body for borough-wide strategic issues:
It has a core group of 6-18 members elected from Housing Panels
Elects six members of the Housing Board
Meets every three months
It has four Standing Committees:
Monitoring Committee: representatives are nominated from Housing Panels. It reports to the Tenant Strategy Group three times a year. It monitors housing management performance.
Leasehold Committee: leaseholder representatives are selected from the Housing Panels. It reviews all leasehold issues and reports to the Tenant Strategy Group three times a year
TMO Standing Committee: members elected by TMO boards, 3 per TMO (there are only 3 TMOs in the borough at present). It considers all issues impacting on TMOs and reports to Tenant Strategy Group three times a year.
Compact Review Committee: it has a membership containing four nominees from the Tenant Strategy Group and six Housing Panel Chairs. It reviews all aspect of tenant participation from December to March each year. It reports to Tenant Strategy Group.
The Tenant Strategy Group can also set up development groups of Housing Panel representatives to carry out specific reviews in partnership with officers. Such groups, set up on an 'as needs' basis, report to Tenant Strategy Group. Housing Board This is a forum where Councillors discuss housing policy with tenant representatives. It is made up of twelve members - six elected Councillors, five tenants and one leaseholder elected by the Tenants Strategy Group. The Housing Board makes recommendations to Cabinet and reviews the Tenants Strategy Group annually. It meets on a quarterly basis. Camden Tenant and Resident Associations
Model constitution specifies Tenant and Resident Associations must be open to all
Majority of the committee must be tenants
Quorum not specified in model
Camden Federation of Tenants' and Residents' Associations The Federation is a Company Limited by Guarantee funded by the council from council tenants rents. It is independently managed by a committee made up of representatives from tenants associations elected at the Annual General Meeting in September/October. The management committee meets every four weeks and employs three members of staff. Open meetings are held 4 times a year for all residents, with voting rights for affiliated associations only. The Federation:
Helps set up new Tenant and Resident Associations
Acts as a resource for all council tenants
Produces leaflets and information, including a tenant newspaper (The C admen Tenant) every 3 months
Supports Tenant and Resident Associations in campaigns around local and national housing issues, getting repairs done and Council policies
Provides speakers for Tenant and Resident Associations and other meetings
Arranges borough wide meetings on specific topics
Helps create and maintain links between Tenant and Resident Associations and other groups across the borough through initiatives such as a federation website
Registers Tenant and Resident Associations and gives grants to help Tenant and Resident Associations set up (up to a maximum of £150)
Holds the budget for tenant support
Allocates funding for running costs (maximum of £250)
Special project grants (maximum of £500)
Tenant Forums These include
District Management Committees
There are five District Management Committees (based on the housing department's own areas).
All registered Tenant and Resident Associations can send a delegate to their local District Management Committee (2 representatives if they have more than 300 tenants).
District Management Committees meet four times a year and have one joint meeting of all five District Management Committees.
Each District Management Committee is in charge of a £30,000 local improvement budget and £100, 000 local capital improvements budget, plus a Community Safety Budget.
District Monitoring Panels
There are District Monitoring Panels in all the housing areas.
Tenants elected every three years by (postal) ballot of all tenants (if there are more candidates than places)
District Monitoring Panels can meet a housing officer every month to monitor performance
District Monitoring Panels can be involved in selecting contractors
There are plans for a borough-wide monitoring committee
Policy forums
These forums are a series of meetings to discuss specific, borough-wide issues (such as lettings policy)
All tenants can attend
The Leaseholder Forum
This is a forum of twenty members elected by all leaseholders
It holds monthly meetings
Sheltered Housing Forum
Each sheltered unit can send two delegates
Camden Association of Street Properties
Discusses borough-wide issues affecting street properties
Any Street Properties tenant can stand for election on to the forum at the AGM
Borough-wide Forum
The Borough-wide Forum holds four meetings a year
Each recognised Tenant and Resident Association can send a specified number of delegates to the Borough-wide Forum
The Borough-wide Forum links the tenants with the Executive. Its meetings are attended by the Cabinet Member
Octavia Housing The Tenant Steering Group is a forum of 15 tenants who are elected by and represent tenants of the Association. Tenant Steering Group meetings are held every six weeks to discuss policies, services and other important issues. The Tenant Steering Group elects five of their members to be on the Board of Octavia. The Tenant Steering Group has a budget for its running costs, which also supports initiatives like training. New members can be co-opted on to the group and elected at a later date. All tenants attending meetings have their childcare and travel costs reimbursed and, where necessary, travel can be arranged to and from the meeting. The Tenant Consultative Pool is a database of people that have expressed an interest in taking part in one-off consultations rather than committees. These people have been identified through setting up single issue groups at a local level. The Consultative Pool has already helped improve policies and services from how it maintains its properties to how it manages transfer applications.
