Tenant Scrutiny - the Culture Club? By Sarah Hockey and Phil Morgan
In April twenty members of different Scrutiny Panels met in Sanctuary’s offices in Liverpool to discuss and compare their experiences of resident scrutiny. These experiences were shared freely on the basis that no landlord or Panel would be identified in this report. There were many positives, some learning points and shared experiences. This report seeks to highlight the similarities and differences.
Firstly those attending welcomed the opportunity to exchange experiences. All participants said there should be more networking opportunities with peers to learn, share experiences and sharing and build confidence. There was interest in attending future events of this kind.
Overall the results were pretty positive although the review identified some areas for improvement. Service reviews were happening, recommendations were being made and more importantly, being agreed. Our review demonstrates that the process of Scrutiny has been a big learning curve for Panels – the ‘pioneers’ have had to trail blaze and there are many examples of problems encountered along the way. However in general the Panels have worked through these issues with the right support from their landlords. They have broken down barriers, changed attitudes toward involved residents and often learnt valuable lessons – paving the way for the journey of future panels.
The overwhelming point coming out of this discussion was participants recognising that successful tenant scrutiny drives, are driven by cultural change. This works in three ways.
Governing bodies
Firstly cultural change must be identified and driven at the top. Boards, councillors and senior executives have to ‘get’ tenant scrutiny and that it will change their culture. This means agreeing terms of reference for Scrutiny Panels, receiving regular progress reports, and discussing and agreeing recommendations for change. Scrutiny is working well in organisations when the change is accepted as an integral part of what that landlord does, not some vaguely inconvenient distraction or tokenistic presence.
We found that successful Panels developed a partnership ethos with landlords, enabling them to positively challenge and be seen as a critical friend. There are some differences between Councils and Housing Associations. Within Councils the phrase ‘scrutiny’ has held a different meaning within their council structures which has led to some resistance to tenant scrutiny. Due to their democratic mandate Councils feel they have accountability and transparency and there is no track record of housing regulation to shape the behaviour of them as housing landlords. As a result Scrutiny Panels working in Councils have a different set of dynamics to contend with.
Operational Staff
Secondly staff throughout the landlord have learnt to understand the importance of tenant scrutiny. The way in which staff at all levels now work with involved residents has had to change considerably with scrutiny and this has in turn led to some changes in attitudes and behaviour. They will be asked for information, to support service reviews and implement recommendations arising from those reviews. One of the areas for improvement was how quickly information was provided to Panels. Getting prior agreement to the principle of and deadlines for receiving information is important.
Tenant Involvement Structure
Finally cultural change happened to existing tenant structures as well. Although tenant scrutiny has mainly been developed with involved tenants, in some cases there has been tension with existing resident groups, with scrutiny being seen as a threat. Lack of communication and understanding seems to be key and whilst explaining the role of scrutiny and developing formal means of two-way communication would reduce that tension, for some tenants the existence of a scrutiny panel undermines the ‘we’ve always done it this way’ approach to involvement. Therefore relationship building between Scrutiny Panels and other resident groups is a vital part of driving cultural change.
There was some discussion about overlapping membership of Scrutiny Panels and other Tenant Panels. The main view was that this was inconsistent and some had rules not allowing dual membership (although this did not apply to Tenant and Resident Associations).
We also found that Scrutiny Panels had comparatively high rates of turnover (25% - 30%) and, in most cases, vacancies. This indicates a need for on-going recruitment to Scrutiny Panels and where there are more tenants than places, the use of reserves to fill the vacancies that occur.
It is also important that recruitment to Scrutiny Panels is well handled, mostly to avoid people who do not grasp that cultural change. In operation Panels are aware of issues caused by members having a ‘chip on their shoulder’ or using the Panel to deal with personal issues. Good Panels deal with this through pre-interview meetings to set out what Panels do; a robust interview process, including this in Terms of Reference / Code of Conduct; and the Chair of the Panel (or staff in exceptional circumstances) enforcing terms of reference and code of conduct.
Support needs to be given to Panels conducting reviews both in terms of access to information and organising meetings (and managing where required). We found that most Panels were carrying out about three Service Reviews per year.
Interaction with staff on Service Reviews was important. Staff helped to provide information about performance which allowed the Panels to make informed decisions about topics for review. Staff worked alongside Reviews contributing both expertise and logistical support. Service Reviews revealed much good work by staff, and reports allowed the opportunity to praise staff for that good work. Finally engagement with the Reviews meant that staff had ownership of emerging findings and recommendations, further supporting cultural change in the organisation.
Where attitudes of individual staff or teams cause delay there may be a need to review behaviours. Some participants in this review said there was a suspicion and sometimes defensiveness to Panels when requesting information for their reviews. A need for openness is pivotal to the review process and building relationships.
When Panels start to finalise recommendations and engage with decision making structures culture becomes particularly important. Strong arrangements see Panels and senior staff discussing emerging findings. This allows Panels to understand issues before deciding upon recommendations and have the confidence that senior managers support those recommendations. As a result virtually all recommendations from the Panel we spoke to had been agreed by their Boards. These included
block cleaning review which improved service and now uses young unemployed people instead of contractors
voids and allocations review which improved communication between departments: money saved was used on decorating properties for tenants
Right first time (repairs) review – recommendations saved £187,000 per year for the landlord
The review also identified the need for panels to be valued and ‘thanked’ for their hard work – sometimes this has been overlooked!
Phil and Sarah would like to thank all those who gave their time and shared their experiences for this report. Many thanks too to Sanctuary for hosting the event. If you would like further information please contact Sarah healthecity@gmail.com or Phil pjsunited@gmail.com
Sarah Hockey is Chair of Sanctuary’s North-West's Scrutiny Panel Scrutiny Panel and works as a Trainer, Personal Development Coach and Facilitator.
Phil Morgan was instrumental in the creation and development of Tenant Scrutiny and works as a consultant, commentator and speaker
