Northampton Tenant Panel Housing Options Appraisal Appendix 2 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Northampton Tenant Panel

Housing Options Appraisal Results and Analysis of the Tenant Panel’s Options Scoring Exercise + Issues for the Tenant Panel’s Report Steve Sharples Christine Bailey PS Consultants (ITA) October 1st and 2nd 2013

Appendix 2

Tenant Panel Ranking of Options

• 1. Option 2 (Retention ‐ ALMO) 13159

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

• 2. Option 4 (Transfer – Mutual) 12779
• 3. Option 3 (Transfer – Stand‐Alone) 12491
• 4. Option 5 (Transfer – Group Structure) 11173
• 5. Option 1 (Retention – Service Review) 10294

Score Rank

Numbers Ranking Each Option as First

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 20 11

Employee Ranking of Options

• 1. Option 2 ( Retention ‐ ALMO) 3518

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

• 2. Option 4 (Transfer – Mutual) 3324
• 3. Option 3 (Transfer – Stand‐Alone) 3234
• 4. Option 5 ( Transfer – Group Structure) 2865
• 5. Option 1 ( Retention – Service Review) 2769

Score Rank

Comparison of Scores

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Tenants 10294 13159 12491 12779 11173 Employees 2769 3518 3234 3324 2865 Total Score 13063 16677 15725 16103 14038

5 1 3 2 4

1. Accountability,Participation,and Power

Option 1

Retention & Review

Option 2

Retention – ALMO

Option 3

Transfer ‐ stand alone

Option 4

Transfer – Mutual

Option 5

Transfer‐ Group Structure

1312 3118 3936 4224 3486

• The three Transfer options score the strongest here
• Option 1 scores very poorly
• The Mutual Model is particularly strong – scores

highly on all 12 criteria

• ALMO (Option 2) does much better than Option 1

mainly because it permits tenants, employees and independents to sit on the Board

• 2. Tenant Rights and Involvement

Option 1

Retention & Review

Option 2

Retention – ALMO

Option 3

Transfer ‐ stand alone

Option 4

Transfer – Mutual

Option 5

Transfer‐ Group Structure

1536 1744 1812 1822 1584

• The two most highest scoring transfer options (Options

3 + 4) do best here – and beat the ALMO mainly on tenant rights in relation to changes in the tenancy agreement

• Option 2 (ALMO) is not far behind Options 3 + 4
• Option 5 scores lower than the ALMO mainly on

tenant involvement in rent and service charge setting

• Option 1 scores reasonably well on this criteria group

but loses out on tenant involvement in rent and service charge setting

• 3. Employee Issues

Option 1

Retention & Review

Option 2

Retention – ALMO

Option 3

Transfer ‐ stand alone

Option 4

Transfer – Mutual

Option 5

Transfer‐ Group Structure

644 1256 1208 1208 960

• Option 1 scores poorly here mainly because it doesn’t

permit employee issues to be decided by the

• rganisation’s Board, nor permit employees to be on that

Board

• Option 5 is weak here because of the powers of the

parent body

• ALMO wins over Mutual and Stand Alone mainly

because it permits employees to be on the Board

• 4. Financial Implications – including rent

Option 1

Retention & Review

Option 2

Retention – ALMO

Option 3

Transfer ‐ stand alone

Option 4

Transfer – Mutual

Option 5

Transfer‐ Group Structure

3230 3221 2759 2759 2559

• The two retention options (Options 1 &2) score highest

here – with Option 1 rated marginally stronger

• The factor which most puts them above the transfer
• ptions is that they are not subject to the Government’s

debt write‐off

• Option 5 scores lower than the other two because

there is less certainty with this option that surpluses would be used for local or housing purposes.

• 5. Quality of Homes

Option 1

Retention & Review

Option 2

Retention – ALMO

Option 3

Transfer ‐ stand alone

Option 4

Transfer – Mutual

Option 5

Transfer‐ Group Structure

384 384 384 384 384

All options score equally here – because all will permit the funding, delivery, and maintenance of the Decent Homes Standard over 30 years Remember that;

• The Council is already spending more than the DHS
• The DHS is lower than the (draft) Northampton

Standard – and is only the statutory minimum standard

• 6. Impact on Local Community and Economy

Option 1

Retention & Review

Option 2

Retention – ALMO

Option 3

Transfer ‐ stand alone

Option 4

Transfer – Mutual

Option 5

Transfer‐ Group Structure

500 500 404 404 404

• The two retention options jointly come out top here

‐with just under 20% more points than the transfer

• ptions
• The transfer options suffer more from being subject to

debt write‐off than the retention options do from being subject to the Government’s debt cap

• 7. Legal Framework and Equality

Option 1

Retention & Review

Option 2

Retention – ALMO

Option 3

Transfer ‐ stand alone

Option 4

Transfer – Mutual

Option 5

Transfer‐ Group Structure

1152 1536 984 984 808

• The ALMO (Option 2) comes out a clear top here
• Option 1 beats all three transfer options
• ALMO beats Option 1 mainly because it may draw

up its own equality and diversity policy

• Retention options beat transfer options mainly

because Freedom of Information requirements apply directly to them

• 8. Implications for the Council

Option 1

Retention & Review

Option 2

Retention – ALMO

Option 3

Transfer ‐ stand alone

Option 4

Transfer – Mutual

Option 5

Transfer‐ Group Structure

1536 1400 1004 1004 988

• Option 1 judged strongest here
• ALMO (Option 2) comes a strong second
• Option 1 beats ALMO mainly because the ALMO can
• nly be implemented with Government approval
• Retention beats all transfer options because Council

representation is not guaranteed in the long term on transfer organisation Boards and uncertainty about Council being able to hold the transfer organisation fully to account

Analysis of Overall Scores ‐ Tenant Panel

• ALMO wins mainly because it scores strongly on each
• f the 8 criteria groups and most especially on :

tenant rights : employee rights : financial implications : legal framework ; and implications for the Council

• Mutual also does well across the Board – but particularly

because it scores very highly on accountability, participation and power , and tenant rights, and highly

• n financial implications and employee rights
• Option3 (stand alone association) scores lower than the

Mutual because of its scores on accountability, partic‐ ipation and power

• Option 5 ( transfer as a subsidiary) comes fourth

because it scores lower on accountability, participation, and power than the other transfer options and scores lower than the ALMO on all other criteria (bar one where it scores equally)

• Option 1 actually scores highest or joint highest on 4

criteria ‐ (see next slide) But scores lowest overall because of very low scores on accountability, participation and power, and employee rights, and the lowest score on tenant rights

Options ranking highest for each topic area

Option 1

Retention & Review

Option 2

Retention – ALMO

Option 3

Transfer ‐ stand alone

Option 4

Transfer – Mutual

Option 5

Transfer‐ Group Structure

4

2 as highest & 2 as equal highest

4

2 as highest & 2 as equal highest

2

1 as highest and 1 as equal highest

3

1 as highest and 2 as equal highest

1

1 as equal highest

The Options Appraisal Method Was it even handed?

Three Key Issues in the Process

• The Importance of the Financial Criteria
• The Criteria Scoring System
• The Weighting System

• 1. The Importance of the Financial Criteria

A frequent criticism of Council Options Appraisals is that they are biased in favour of stock transfer solutions Critics often argue that this is because they put a huge emphasis on financial (especially investment ) criteria Because Housing Associations can borrow privately and Council’s cannot the analysis frequently suggests that transfer is the best, or only viable, option Was that the case here?

No ‐ it was not :

• Financial criteria make only up 12 of the 46 criteria

(26%)

• Retention options scored highest on this by

some distance – Option 1 scored 3230 and Options 2 scored 3221 + the average for the 3 transfer options was 2759

• 2. The Criteria Scoring System
• Criteria scoring and weighting system arrived at after
• ver 30 hours of discussion between the Tenant

Panel, the Employee Focus Group, the Council, and the ITA

• The 46 criteria finally used were whittled down from

around 80 potential criteria

• The criteria that had to be scored 0 or 3 were those

that were matters of fact – not judgement or opinion So was the system of awarding a mark of 3 skewed to produce a particular answer ?

Option 1

Retention & Review

Option 2

Retention – ALMO

Option 3

Transfer ‐ stand alone

Option 4

Transfer – Mutual

Option 5

Transfer‐ Group Structure

20 28 24 25 18

Criteria on which options had to score 3

Example – the gap in scores between Options 1 and 2

• If all other scores are equal Option 2 (ALMO) must score

24 marks per person more than Option 1 (Option 2 has 28 scores of 3 and Option 1 has only 20 x 3 scores of 3)

• With 31 people scoring the total gap between Option 2 and

Option 1 must be at least 744 ( all other scores being equal)

• The actual gap is 2865
• Therefore ‐ the margin for Option 2 over Option 1 is 380%

more than can be explained by the scoring system alone

Conclusions

• The overall effect of the scoring system is to increase the

gap between Options 1 & 5 and the other three options – but it does not cause the rankings to be the way they are

• Options 2,3,4 and 5 score more than Option 1 because

the Panel scores them more highly – not because the scoring system works that way.

• 3. The effect of the weightings
• Weightings agreed as ;

Not Essential 1 Desirable 2 Important 3 Essential 4

• Tenant Panel voted on the weightings many times

Did the final weightings do justice to the spread of

• pinion ?
• In every case the criteria was eventually rated as either

‘important’(7) or ‘essential’ ( 39)

• Out of 46 criteria there were on only 13 ( i.e.28%) where there

were more total votes cast for other weightings than for the one with most votes – so in 72% of criteria the most popular one had an absolute majority.

• In no cases did the total number of votes cast for

‘not essential’ and ‘desirable’ combined outweigh those cast for ‘important’ and ‘essential’ combined (or even come close to doing so)