Non-customers having a role in governance: is that news?

Midland Heart have issued an intriguing press release: "For the first time, a housing association will include non-residents alongside existing customers on a unique decision-making body, giving them powers to shape the delivery of services."

For some time (to be precise, forever) almost all housing association boards have had a non-resident majority. Board members, like myself, have never had the social housing resident experience – and that can be a problem. Having accountants, bankers, lawyers, etc on boards is great in terms of professional experience, skills and “competences” but do some of us bring other baggage and lack some of the most relevant experience?

I don't think that Midland Heart’s press release is actually talking about boards. As always the devil is in the detail. I presume that Midland Heart are creating arrangements for accountability and scrutiny of service delivery - perhaps based on the Chartered Institute of Housing's model. If so, it all makes sense and should be welcomed.

The challenge of meaningful customer involvement remains for all public services.

Putting people into public services: better regulation and inspection

The National Consumer Council has launched a new, short report on Putting people into public services: better regulation and inspection (pdf available).

The report should be required reading for the new Oftenant in social housing. Indeed all regulators and inspectors should be asked to think about the issues raised.

The report warns of the danger that services are modelled on what satisfies regulators rather than the public.

The report’s vision is of a regulatory system that:

1) is organised for the benefit of the people who use services, not for the convenience of regulators and the regulated;

2) inextricably links efficiency, value for money and satisfactory outcomes for the people –specially as new and different providers enter the market;

3) builds on continuous conversation with service users and the public – starting from where people really are, rather than from assumptions of how they might think and behave;

4) makes the most of service users as the experts on what it feels like to receive a service; and

5) builds popular support for difficult regulatory decisions.

I would also add that wherever possible choice and competition should be used to drive improvement – rather than relying exclusively on regulation and inspection regimes. While the regulator and the inspector may ensure recognition of social benefits and costs, promote good practice and protect the vulnerable and poorly-informed, they are not so good at generating innovation, encouraging value-for-money and tailoring services around individual needs.

Supporting student governors - learning lessons from Scotland?

This week I discovered the sparqs website. It is a free service which is funded by the Scottish Funding Council to assist and support Scottish students in improving promoting quality improvement. I am not aware of anything similar in England – we could perhaps learn from our devolved cousins.

On the sparqs website there is a useful Supporting College Student Governors Handbook. (We’ll have to forgive whoever forgot to proof read the web page about it. The odd typo creeps onto this blog so I won’t cast the first stone.)

The Supporting College Student Governors Handbook sets out key information for student governors including how they can engage with their fellow students.

In the Handbook I did find some confusing wording on the difficult issue of to represent or not to represent. It notes: “Governors do not represent particular groups or interests, and as such they cannot be mandated.” Yet elsewhere: “Although you gain your position on the board as a student representative, remember that all of your decisions as a board and as an individual member will impact on other stakeholders too.” I would suggest that student governors are not student representatives but are there to give a student perspective – not least in a providing a reality check in what can be an isolated governance bubble. (I would suggest that the same issues arise for resident members on housing association and ALMO boards – or indeed any board members who are customers.)

I would also query the relevance of the examples of conflicts of interest in the Handbook. They are not likely to encounter the examples given. How many student governors are likely to also be a company director in the construction industry? Examples relating to, say, grants to student unions may have been more instructive when student governors may also be active on student union executives.

Despite my misgivings over some elements of the Handbook, I would like to see something in England for student governors. It would be timely given the profile now given to Learner Voice.

Christmas present to Colleges – revised governance documents

The government has presented FE and sixth form colleges with new instrument and articles to go live in 2008.

Some of the amendments to the I&A are housekeeping matters – for example, resulting from the Machinery of Government changes (i.e. the divorce of the pre- and post-19 parts of the old Department for Education and Skills. (Further governance changes may result from this potentially messy divorce.) However, other modifications to the I&A are more significant.

There is the ending of the rigid specification of categories of “external” governors i.e. the requirement for numbers for local authority, community, business and co-opted members. This is a modest but welcome measure of de-regulation. As I have argued here before, colleges should be given more flexibility in determining the size and shape of their governing bodies.

The new I&A also include a strengthening of the “learner voice” with at least two learner governors on each governing body. This will need to be accompanied by action to support learner governors in being able to challenge and contribute in the governance framework. Sometimes this is a problem. (Arguably it would be good to see colleges exploring new ways of enabling learners to hold governing bodies accountable – and this might not require such reliance on learners being on governing bodies.)

Some colleges may struggle with the requirement to post governing body minutes on the internet. However, this is good governance.

If you are a college clerk to governors and can’t find the new I&A, don’t spend all your Christmas and New Year holiday searching for the documents, they are tucked away on the old DFES website so click here.

Social housing and self-regulation - CIH on residents leading the way

I’ve not read all of it yet but it looks like the Chartered Institute of Housing have published an interesting report on resident-led self regulation of social housing. Leading the way: Achieving resident-driven accountability and excellence (pdf available) sets out how scrutiny by residents could be an effective substitute to external regulation of service delivery.

While I believe that resident board members are important in ensuring accountability in social housing, they are not enough. (Indeed there is a risk that the most effective resident voices are co-opted.) Likewise other channels for resident representation are not sufficient.

The report sets out a framework for councils, ALMOs and housing associations where board members and senior managers have a formal duty to respond to the queries and recommendations. The resident-led self regulation group (RLSRG) would have “internal and external powers to get responses and drive change where the board/executive is uncooperative”.

This makes sense to me. How can residents be asked to invest time and effort in getting involved unless they know that they will be taken seriously?

Txt helping to cr8 better public services?

In media coverage of the billion texts now being sent every month there has been little mention of the emerging impact on public services.

Schools and colleges are starting to communicate by text on issues such as attendance. Social landlords are reminding tenants of visits by maintenance staff and gas checking staff. Prospective tenants are even bidding for flats and housing in choice based letting. Once tenants increasingly they can use their voice and contribute their views via text in resident involvement activities.

Personalising public services sounds like jargon. But text technology is connecting public services with customers. Its a good news story thats lacking the coverage that it deserves.

Cave Report - the single regulator and resident scrutiny panels

The Cave Report on social housing regulation (a pdf is available of the full report as well as an executive summary) has arrived at last! It is a pity that the government appears to be lukewarm on the recommendation of a single regulator for social housing. Surely Cave was right to query the silos in social housing regulation - why should ALMO or council tenants be regulated differently from housing association tenants?

Many of the Cave recommendations were perhaps heralded in advance.

My only initial criticism would be that the idea of resident scrutiny panels as a form of accountability is supported but does not feature very prominently in the report. I would argue that such panels can be more effective forms of voice for tenants than one or two tenant board members - especially for the increasing number of large social landlords.

NHS independence day - coming soon?

Today’s Financial Times carries an interesting article about plans being prepared for greater independence for the NHS.

I am a sceptic about proposals for an NHS constitution and “independence” unless such moves enshrine and promote choice and voice for patients and communities.

The idea of less central interference from politicians and Whitehall is welcome. But can politicians sit on their hands when they get the blame – rightly or wrongly – for everything that goes wrong anywhere in a £90 billion business?

College governance and Learner Voice - learning from others

During the session on leadership at yesterday's National Housing Federation board members conference, the Chair and Chief Executive of St Basil’s referred to the homeless charity’s Youth Advisory Board.

Reading about the YAB in the St Basil's Annual Review and elsewhere, it would appear that FE colleges could perhaps learn something.

The recent Personalising Further Education consultation from the Department for Education and Skills stresses voice for learners. In particular:

[The DFES] also expect learners to play a key role in institutional governance with college governing bodies including at least two learner governors.

Student governors are sadly seen as tokens. They are often unsupported, untrained and unmentored. Sometimes they are unrepresentative too. Hopefully this will change with training programmes and other measures.

FE Colleges should look to go further than the two learner governors. They should be considering how they could develop bodies - similar to the St Basil’s YAB - with boards of learners fully integrated into decision-making, considering policies, participating in internal inspections and self-assessment. I know that some colleges do go some way towards this but few have such a radical approach.

More NHS patient choice - but voice too please

It was good to read last week’s announcement by the Department of Health that there would be a major extension of patient choice. (An analysis is available on the website of the think tank Reform.)

NHS patients needing “elective” treatment like a hip replacement can currently choose from four local hospitals, 34 foundation trusts and 15 independent sector providers. The Department of Health’s roll-out of choice means that by the summer there will be over 200 hospitals and treatment centres on offer to patients. Then by the end of 2008, patients will be able to choose from any hospital which meets NHS standards and costs.

The Department of Health is also creating a new website that will bring together information on all hospitals and treatment centres to empower patients to make more informed choices than ever before on their healthcare. This is vital to make choice informed and meaningful.

Linked with Payment By Results, these changes mean that the best providers will be encouraged to expand and shorten waiting lists. It’s a shame that these changes have come in so late and after so much money was injected in the NHS.

Having said that, as I have argued before, there is still a need for patient choice to be supplemented by voice – particularly in the areas where there are fewer hospitals. This can be seen from a map below from the Centre of Market and Public Organisation’s study of Choice: Will more choice improve outcomes in Education and Health Care (pdf available).

Housing associations - Is self-regulation by the NHF enough?

This week's Inside Housing reports that National Housing Federation wants housing associations to self-regulate through new codes of conduct.

I believe that the regulatory burden should be eased - with more reliance on (rigorous) self-regulation and with more focus on outcomes (rather than processes). However I have some concerns about the NHF approach.

I doubt that self-regulation and codes of conduct will be enough to satisfy lenders - they place reliance on the current regulatory regime (and the lower perceived risk results in cheaper borrowing for new and improved homes).

I value the NHF as an organisation (and I am looking forward to next week's Board Members' Conference). However, I fear that they will be accused of self-interest. The self-regulation may look like (and be) a closed shop - with new power and resources for the organisation.

To be fair to NHF, the article does not report any of the NHF's thinking about enhanced accountability to residents in self-regulation. (The role of residents' scutiny panels is mentioned in passing in the editorial.) This is a crucial element.

Consumerism in the NHS and other public services

Consumerism and choice in public services have been in the media this week.

On Wednesday David Walker in Guardian Society attacked "the Tesco model" in public services. Essentially his argument was that:

The very basis of social policy is assessment of need, followed by distributive decisions that give relatively more to one group than another.

And, therefore, unlike shopping. (Isn't social policy about more than need assessment and distributive decisions - shouldn't it be about empowerment?)

Then on Thursday BBC4's Analysis programme explored how ideas and expectations of choice are affecting everything from personal relationships to public services. It was a more balanced survey than David Walker's polemic. (The second half of the programme on Listen Again focuses on education and health.)

One of the academics suggested that market forces of choice and competition in public services eventually dissolves the state.

I would ask - is this a problem? As long as the state facilitates, funds and regulates provision - does it matter if its not the provider?

What is important is that the state develops the role of society with social enterprises and mutual organisations like co-ops - so that we are more than individualistic consumers.

Resident involvement - and exclusion

The Housing Corporation's "Delivering change through involvement" consultation paper should be welcomed. It generally chimes with the talk in the housing sector and through out public services of changing the emphasis from regulation towards accountability to and participation by customers/patients/users/residents

I fear that the requirement for housing associations with over 250 properties to have at least one resident/tenant board member will attract the most attention and debate – with other issues overshadowed. (I believe that housing associations should have resident board members but feel uncomfortable with yet another regulatory requirement being imposed on housing associations when we are meant to be heading towards lighter-touch better regulation.)

The consultation paper notes examples of good practice in involving residents. Several of these are seen in organisations shaped by a co-operative or mutual (member owned and controlled) approach - Preston's Community Gateway Association, Redditch Co-operative Homes. (More generally, these kinds of organisations may well be the key to making stock transfer attractive and winning the trust of council tenants wary of housing associations.)

One depressing note is hit by the consultation paper when it refers to benefit rules and board members:

The Elton Review [on regulation in housing] recommended that the tax and benefit rules for resident board members in housing associations that pay their board members should be revisited. The Department for Communities and Local Government/Housing Corporation joint action plan for delivering the Elton recommendations confirms that this matter has been raised with the Department for Work and Pensions. Regrettably, there are no plans to change the tax and benefit system at this time.

Currently if a board member is paid (or even if they decline payment when board remuneration is adopted by a housing association), they can on occasions lose all their means tested benefits - which could be well in excess of any payment. When many housing association residents are in receipt of such benefits, this puts actual and potential resident board members in a difficult position. They can be excluded from involvement on housing association boards - never mind the mandatory one resident board member!

-

McKinsey and public sector reform

A brief but interesting article on public sector reform can be found on the McKinsey Quarterly website. (You'll need to register but its free and painless.)

It concludes:

Reform in the UK public sector is heading in the right direction, but unless government departments and public services have the necessary leadership and capabilities, the results will be disappointing.

One omission from the article is any mention of how mutual forms of organisation can improve public services. There are ideas out there from people like the think tank Mutuo.

We are seeing this in the UK - some tenant-led housing associations taking over council housing; new forms accountability in the NHS with Foundation Trusts.

The article does seem to think of public services and reform in terms of government, officials and managers.

To empower people and renew trust, reform need to put the customers of public services centre stage.