REPORT TO: Cabinet Member (Regeneration) Cabinet DATE: 30 th September 2009 1st October 2009 SUBJECT: Strategic Housing Services Value for Money Framework and Service Improvement Plan 2009 WARDS AFFECTED: All

REPORT OF: Alan – Housing Market Renewal Director – 0151 934 4580

CONTACT OFFICER: Alan Lunt – Housing Market Renewal Director – 0151 934 4580

EXEMPT/ No CONFIDENTIAL:

PURPOSE/SUMMARY:

To seek approval to the adoption of the Housing Value for Money Framework and Service Improvement Plan 2009 in order to improve the effectiveness and quality of the Council’s Strategic Housing Services

REASON WHY DECISION REQUIRED:

Cabinet has delegated authority to make decisions in respect of this matter

RECOMMENDATION(S):

1. That Cabinet Member Regeneration notes the report

2. That Cabinet approves the Strategic Housing Value for Money Framework and Service Improvement Plan 2009

KEY DECISION: No

FORWARD PLAN: N/A

IMPLEMENTATION DATE: Upon expiry of the ‘Call in’ period for the minutes of the meeting

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS:

A failure to adopt a Value for Money Framework will result negatively on future assessments of the quality of strategic housing services in Sefton. The recommendation to develop such a plan was made by the Audit Commission during it’s inspection of Strategic Housing Services. Therefore, there are no available alternative options

IMPLICATIONS:

Budget/Policy Framework: N/a

Financial:

2009/ 2010/ 2011/ 2012/ 2010 2011 2012 2013 CAPITAL EXPENDITURE £ £ £ £ Gross Increase in Capital 0 0 Expenditure Funded by: Sefton Capital Resources 0 0 Specific Capital Resources 0 0 REVENUE IMPLICATIONS Gross Increase in Revenue 0 0 0 0 Expenditure Funded by: Sefton funded Resources 0 0 0 0 Funded from External Resources 0 0 0 0 Does the External Funding have an expiry date? Y/N YES How will the service be funded post expiry?

Legal: N/a

Risk Assessment: No specific risk assessment has been carried out in respect of this matter. However, the issue of loss of funding is contained within the HMRI Departmental Risk Assessment

CONSULTATION UNDERTAKEN/VIEWS

Strategic Director, Health & Social Care

CORPORATE OBJECTIVE MONITORING:

Corpora Positive Neutral Negative te Impact Impact Impact Objectiv e 1 Creating a Learning Community x 2 Creating Safe Communities x 3 Jobs and Prosperity x 4 Improving Health and Well-Being x 5 Environmental Sustainability x 6 Creating Inclusive Communities x 7 Improving the Quality of Council Services x and Strengthening local Democracy 8 Children and Young People x

LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS RELIED UPON IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS REPORT

Audit Commission Inspection Report – Sefton Strategic Housing Services – July 2008

1. BACKGROUND:

1.1 During April 2008, the Audit Commission carried out an inspection of strategic housing services in Sefton. The final report, published during July 2008, assessed the service at ‘1 star’ (Fair) with uncertain prospects for improvement. The report set out a number of recommendations as to how the service could be improved. The Council subsequently delivered an action plan in order to deliver against the Audit Commission Recommendations.

1.2 Recommendation 4 of the report stated that Value for Money should be improved by establishing a clear framework and programme of actions to demonstrate and deliver improvements.

1.3 The attached document sets out Sefton’s first Strategic Housing Services Value for Money Framework and Service Improvement Plan. The plan sets out what Value for Money is, how it is measured and how the Council will address and achieve Value for money in relation to it’s strategic housing services. A Service Improvement Plan sets out what improvements will be undertaken, in the form of a SMART action plan. Finally, an exercise is undertaken to compare the Value for money of services in Sefton when compared to other Local Authorities.

1.4 The comparator group ‘nearest neighbour’ has been selected for this exercise. This grouping has been devised by CIPFA and is one of the comparator groups used by the Audit Commission in its VFM toolkit. The group contains authorities with similarities in demography, population and housing density, unemployment, mortality rates and council tax banding plus other indicators.

1.5 Adoption of the Framework and Plan will enable Value for money to be achieved and measured against similar Local Authority Districts, thus ensuring that costs remain competitive whilst the quality of services offered improves.

1.6 The Framework and Action Plan shall be reviewed annually with performance reported to Cabinet Member Regeneration.

Appendix 1

SEFTON COUNCIL

STRATEGIC HOUSING SERVICES

VALUE FOR MONEY FRAMEWORK AND SERVICE IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2009

1.0 What is Value for Money ?

Value for money (VFM) is the term used to assess whether or not an organisation has obtained the maximum benefit from the goods and services that it buys OR provides. It is much more than a measure of the COST of such services. VFM takes into account not only COST but;

The QUALITY of the services / goods bought or provided; The EFFECTIVENESS of the goods / services in meeting the purpose for which they were bought or provided The TIMELINESS of their purchase / provision Whether the purchase / provision of such services represents an effective USE of LIMITED RESOURCES

In short, VFM is an assessment of;

Economy – the price paid for good / services Efficiency – how productively these resources are used Effectiveness – The results achieved as a result of buying / providing those goods / services

For Sefton Council and the Homes and Communities Department, achieving VFM is not about cutting costs. It is about ensuring that we provide high quality services at reasonable cost to the taxpayer.

2.0 Why Assess Value for Money?

As part of the Inspection regime that each Council Department is subject to, the Audit Commission assesses VFM as part of the process of ‘scoring’ the quality and effectiveness of the Departments services. In order to demonstrate that we are offering effective services to the people of Sefton, it is essential that we show how we are making best use of the limited resources available to us. This not only ensures that spending is kept under control but that the quality of services provided are good.

Within each Department, there will be competing priorities for resources. How much is spent on services will depend not only on how much money is available, but also upon the demand for that service, the quality of the service provided and the potential for improvement in the quality of that service if additional resources were available.

Ultimately, the people of Sefton will benefit from an assessment of Value for Money, in the form of high quality and relevant services offered at reasonable cost to the Council Tax payer.

3.0 How is Value for Money Measured?

The Audit Commission utilises a process called Key Lines of Enquiry (KLOE) to assess the performance of Council functions. One of these KLOE’s focuses upon achieving Value for Money. The VFM KLOE is a ‘cross cutting’ one that is involved in delivery of all related services. It provides a guide to the ways in which a Local Authority should consider VFM in it’s housing services. Two key questions are asked:

• How do the Organisations costs compare to others? • How is Value for Money managed, including through partnership and procurement and in taking a long term view?

When comparing costs, it is essential that a balance is struck between cost and quality. Services that are provided cheaply may fail to achieve the required standards. Similarly, there may come a point when additional expenditure on an element of service cannot be justified if there is little benefit to the quality of that service.

It is also necessary to ensure that any local factors that may affect costs are considered. For instance, it is possible that the condition of houses to be demolished may be so poor as to require extremely careful de-construction rather than merely demolition, necessarily pushing up the cost of demolition compared to a similar property elsewhere in much better structural condition.

The question of how VFM is managed should be considered in the context of how well is it embedded within the performance management culture of the organisation, are procurement methods capable of delivering VFM and how information is reported.

4.0 Objectives of this Value for Money Framework

The objectives of this VFM Framework are set out below;

• To promote a culture where value for money and continuous improvement is fully integrated into day-to-day management processes. • To identify responsible officers to co-ordinate improvement and review initiatives • To adopt good practice where this makes sense • To begin a process of customer consultation to agree service standards and targets • To demonstrate actively to both internal and external observers that the achievement of value for money is sought in all activities undertaken • To set out monitoring and reporting arrangements • To establish a baseline position on benchmarking and then to have a suitable approach to regular benchmarking • To develop an action plan to help ensure that savings and efficiency gains are achieved in practice.

5.0 Data Sources

In order to assess Value for Money, information is used from many sources. This includes;

• Audit Commission data on the comparative cost of providing services • Information from Council financial records • Information from statistical returns that each Local Authority must complete • Information obtained from benchmarking groups of similar Local Authorities • Information from Departmental Service Plans and Performance reports • The Council’s housing strategy document and associated documents

The table below sets out the position for each service element, addresses the questions from the KLOE and reflects guidance from various sources on assessing and delivering VFM. It has been used to produce the Service Improvement Plan shown later.

Service Total service Number of Measurable outputs / Performance Customer Appropriate Benchmarking exercises Special Higher cost Service review in cost p.a. staff outcomes in addition to indicators – name, satisfaction comparator characteristics of specific service progress incorporating PIs quartile position, indicators : name, groups service demand. priority or ‘gold VFM ? trajectory. current standard’ services performance, provided? trajectory. Housing advice & Staff 9 67 No and Merseyside Homelessness High deprivation and No Service reviewed in Homelessness £224,921 Numbers of enquiries; 183a Quartile 2 northern mets Forum. unemployment in conjunction with cases per officer; 183b Q1 excep t core cities. Staff ratios/households: south sefton. Migrant Homelessness Specialist footfall; telephone calls. 202 Q1 Sefton – 1:13,000 workers increasing Advisor with the outcome 213 Q4 ‘Nearest St Helens- 1:5,600 demand. being an increased focus 214 neighbour’ group Warrington- on prevention and housing hlpi 1 1:9,000 option advice – VFM not NI 156 Wirral – 1:6000 a driver.

green : on target red : below target Home Improvement Staff 10 Number of applicants Contribute to NI 132 Satisfaction with Merseyside and None at present. Attempts High proportion of No Recently restructured to Team Inc Disabled £212,559 assisted. Grant money (below target of DFG process – 95% northern mets made but other authorities older population in achieve better Facilities grants spent. A range of 73% across all social except core cities. unwilling. Borough. performance and VFM additional targets care) and NI 133 GONW collected information which will be evident around grant processing (target to be set from ‘Nearest from LA s for benchmarking towards end of year. to be devised . 4/09. neighbour’ group in 2007 but outcome PDO45: close to unknown. target. Private Sector Housing Response to service 64 Q1 Proposed to Merseyside and Merseyside HMO Group Areas of multiple Service priority for Review in progress and Enforcment requests. Response to introduce satisfaction northern mets meet to consider policies, deprivation, areas of the council but intended to direct existing Home Repair Assistance survey on HMO except core cities. procedures, best practice. low demand, higher budgetary pressures departmental and Referrals. License licensing 09/10. Performance not levels of HMOs, affecting staffing corporat e resource toward applications processed. Proposal to apply NI ‘Nearest benchmarked against other higher levels of older levels and therefore the service which will HMO inspections.Voids 182 to the service. neighbour’ group. authorities but this is being people. output/outcomes. improve performance and back into use. All developed through proposed VFM. necessary HMOs Others with similar new Housing and Health licensed. Mandatory concentration of group. Benchmarking takes licensing criteria met. 5 HMO stock. place internally against yearly inspections of published good practice and licensed HMO. policy guides. Contributing to Reduction in proposed Merseyside-wide substandard and vacant LL accreditation homes. Housing Strategy 1 No No No ditto Yes LSVT 2006 No Yes Energy Efficiency

6.0 How We Will Measure Value For Money?

Cost and Performance

A process of benchmarking will be undertaken by each part of the service using appropriate comparator authorities. Audit Commission guidance will be used to identify suitable comparators .

Top quartile performers under the National Indicator set will be examined to identify best practice and an assessment will be made of external local factors affecting costs, such as demographic profiles. This will enable a clear relationship to be established between cost and quality.

In addition to this desk-top exercise, Service Managers will participate in ‘benchmarking clubs’ or similar inter-authority working. The Homelessness team are already part of a Merseyside bench-marking club and a Merseyside- wide working group for the private rented sector has recently been set up along with a Housing and Health group for private sector housing enforcement which will enable information sharing and benchmarking on issues such as enforcement and accreditation.

Policy decisions and stated strategic aims will be examined to ensure a match between division of resources and policy and strategy.

In particular the new Housing Strategy and its Action Plans will provide the reference point for service priorities within available budgets. Internal Audit assessment will also be used where findings relate to VFM. Awards,

Chartermarks and recognition of good practice will be publicised and nominated individuals will be tasked with identifying opportunities to apply. The service aims to achieve top quartile performance in all indicators within elements of the service identified as priorities. Where this is not being achieved, action plans will be put in place.

Approach to Consultation & Involvement in Target Setting

Sefton Council corporate guidance recommends that when setting targets, services should;

• Involve Members, the public and staff; • Use information on past performance; • Use national standards and codes of practice where available; • Where information is available set targets which reflect the top 25% of authorities at the time the targets are set; • Consider the authority's corporate and departmental objectives;

and targets should measure:

• Access to services in terms of ease and equality of access; • The quality of services including user satisfaction; • The cost of services; • The efficiency with which services are provided; and • The effectiveness of service management.

Corporate guidance also recommends these three stages of customer involvement:

• Communication - inform the public of your targets and whether you have met them; • Consultation - inform the public of your targets and whether you have met them and ask whether they think this is satisfactory; • Involvement - ask the public what they think your targets should be and what levels they should be set at

7.0 Actions in Specific Service Areas

Home Improvement Grants

Internal targets on areas such as grant processing times, visits etc are being developed along with a mechanism to inform applicants of any unexpected delays. Customer feedback will be obtained on the quality of service and this will be reviewed on a regular basis. The target dates will reflect the learning that has taken place from benchmarking exercises and the degree of priority that the housing strategy has attached to it.

Homelessness and housing Advice

Applicants will be made aware of the target dates set under the BVPI regime plus other local indicators of performance. The existing targets for this service area are very specific and reflect the importance the government attaches to both prevention and resolution. New local indicators will be developed which reflect the experiences of service recipients and the targets and standards will be derived from best practice and from the opinions of the service users themselves.

Measures are likely to include numbers of enquiries, decisions made, cases per officer, footfall and telephone calls received. It is acknowledged that more needs to be done on prevention as identified from the bench-marking exercise and the revised Homelessness Strategy reflects this need.

Private Sector Enforcement

Output and outcome targets being considered by the Service include requests for assistance; resolution of repair complaints; response to licence applications; inspection of HMOs; minimising Category 1 hazards in homes; HMO mandatory licensing criteria met; reduction in homes failing repair standards; reduction in number of void properties.

The Merseyside-wide research commission on the Private Rented Sector which started in April this year will help to inform a better approach to customer consultation and involvement and the new joint working with other sub-regional Local Authorities should identify areas of best practice.

Procurement Commissioning and Partnering

Officers with Lead responsibility are required to keep under review costs and quality of service. For example, although the use of bed and breakfast establishments has reduced, market checks of the ‘ going rate’ will be a regular feature and a tight inspection regime will be maintained to ensure quality and safety for service users. Consideration will be given to setting up a Procurement Framework Agreement with B&B establishments who would initially tender to be included on a select list.

Services currently procured:

Bed and Breakfast establishments; procurement arrangements under review

Hostels; plan to increase rents and undertake a procurement exercise to meet a quality specification at a competitive cost

Services currently commissioned:

Southport Housing Advice Centre – this is run by a charity and is grant funded by central government and grant-administered by the Council. To ensure VFM and good performance, a Service Level Agreement is in place which is kept under review

Partnering arrangements

Partnering arrangements are kept under close scrutiny and reviewed by Team Manager and Service Head. The ‘Staying Put’ arm of Anchor Housing Trust have a partnering arrangement with the Improvement Grants team to provide the technical function to deliver works under Disabled Facilities Grants. Although the service is highly regarded by both service users and the local authority, there is scope to keep costs and performance under review. This review process is assisted by performance targets and works are put out to tender by Anchor to a select list of contractors which is regularly refreshed. A proposal is being worked up to use a schedule of rates to cut out delays caused by the tender process.

8.0 Management and reporting arrangements

Corporate guidance requires Departments to produce plans at two levels: The Business Plan for the Directorate contains Strategic Actions relating to housing strategy which link to specific key performance indicators. Team Plans are being established, which will incorporate performance, efficiency and customer care targets. Individual Work Plans are being established which break down the Team Plans into specific targets and actions for individual staff members.

An overall Departmental (Strategic) plan and associated Action Plans for the medium term (one to three years).

Annual (Operational) plans and associated Action Plans for each Service.

The full guidance is reached with this link:

http://intranet.sefton.gov.uk/docs/2008.09%20version.DOC

Councillors and Senior Management receive quarterly updates against performance indicators from the corporate monitoring team and these are discussed at SMT. Relevant Cabinet members will also receive periodic performance reports for the Strategic Housing Service along with progress reports on the higher level strategic housing objectives.

A new set of performance and data quality processes is being developed to help improve delivery across the board especially relating to data collection and recording issues. Fortnightly meetings are now to be held with service heads and team managers across operational areas. These are designed to be more targeted and will cover data recording issues in detail. It is anticipated this more focused and regular approach will help increase the level of understanding of the core issues and improve the speed of their resolution.

Methods for publicising outcomes around performance and VFM to citizens at large and service users in particular are being developed. In addition, progress and performance are subject to an annual performance review, incorporating VFM, under the framework established below.

9.0 Restructuring

The principles of VFM apply irrespective of where the services fit in with the corporate structure. Proposals for the restructure of strategic housing services have been developed and a new Homes and Renewal Department will be created. Any future restructuring of services within the newly created Department will address how a restructure will contribute to VFM.

10.0 Continuous improvement and action-planning.

The table below shows the actions that will contribute to continuous improvement.

Service improvement plan for VFM Improvement area Action Timescale Lead officer Develop the Housing Strategy Service Restructure proposals in place July 2009 Alan Lunt. Jim Ohren including staffing levels and Service location. Develop a Housing Strategy Consultation on draft strategy June 2009 Jim Ohren completed. Strategy to be implemented. Service aims and objectives set and Incorporated in Housing Strategy December 2009 Jim Ohren publicised Broader strategic targets set to meet Incorporated in Housing Strategy and in May 2009 Jim Ohren aims and objectives team / individual plans. Improvement targets set for service Service Managers to agree targets, get May 2009 Team Managers delivery and cost savings buy-in from staff and publicise Jim Ohren Business-focused service targets set Incorporate in individual staff Ongoing Jim Ohren. Team Managers for performance and cost saving development plans Service standards set in consultation Implement consultation arrangements September 2009 Team Managers with customers and use feed-back to set standards Link to corporate plan and efficiency Link the new Housing Strategy targets December 2009 Jim Ohren targets and priorities to corporate plans and include any efficiency targets Performance and progress reporting Report performance on Housing Ongoing following continued Jim Ohren. Team Managers mechanism – internal, external and Strategy aims, objectives and targets implementation of Housing Strategy elected member s plus national indicators through SMT, Cabinet, Team briefings and communication with customers Benchmarking Identify suitable authorities and Ongoing Team Managers continue benchmarking exercises and identify areas of wide discrepancy Reducing costs Use benchmarking and internal Ongoing Jim Ohren. Team Managers assessment to identify areas of potential cost savings Good practice and knowledge sharing Participate / establish appropriate Ongoing Team Managers forums network and bring ideas to Management Team

Appendix 2

Value for Money Framework and bench-marking exercise

1. Audit Commission uses a process called Key Lines of Enquiry (KLOE) to establish whether or not VFM is being achieved in an organisation. In assessing VFM, the KLOE asks the following questions:

How do the organisation’s costs compare to others, allowing for local context, performance and policy choices? (Within this broader question are further questions about external factors affecting costs, quality of service, strategic priorities and collecting accurate information)

How is VFM managed, including through partnership and procurement, and taking a long term view? (Within this broader question are further questions about performance management, procurement methods, customer benefits, organisational culture, management and reporting arrangements).

2. The recommendations made by Audit Commission are to improve VFM within Strategic Housing Services by :

• establishing a clear framework and programme of actions to demonstrate and deliver improvements • developing a comprehensive understanding of how the costs of different elements of the service compare with other councils • routinely reviewing costs alongside service performance, and • establishing VFM indicators for different elements of the service and targets to improve performance over time

3. These recommendations have now been addressed through a programme of actions (set out in the plan above) along with a bench-marking exercise (set out below).

4. To illustrate the usefulness and findings of the bench-marking exercise, examples are as follows:

Homelessness Service

5. The cost of the service is low compared to others councils; In 2008 Sefton spent £1.40 per head compared with Blackpool (£2.86) and Southend (£10.60)

6. However the number of homeless cases prevented is low – 2 per thousand population compared with Blackpool with 5 per 1000 and Redcar/Cleveland with 10 per thousand. This comparison will guide the service to consider why this is the case.

7. On the plus side Sefton’s use of bed and breakfast accommodation for homeless people is quite limited and the average number of cases overall in temporary accommodation is the second lowest out of the 16 comparison councils with, notably, no cases in hostel accommodation.

Private Sector Enforcement

8. One measure of performance is the number of vacant homes returned to occupation or demolished and Sefton does well here, performing in the top 25% nationally.

Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG)

9. The Improvement Grants team contribute to two social care indicators on timeliness on assessing peoples’ needs and on providing care packages – in this case disabled facilities grants. Overall the Directorate is performing slightly below target and work is being carried out on the performance recording system to enable performance in relation to DFG to be calculated separately. However the team uses an additional indicator, PDO45 which measures time taken between assessment and start of works and performance is improving year on year.

10. Ensuring value for money is not a task that can be undertaken then ticked off as complete; instead it is a process of continual review of cost, quality, performance and challenge of the way in which services are provided including the introduction of competition, consulting with the public and evaluating alternative methods of service delivery. The framework points to the need for managers and their teams to build this into their everyday work.

11. Other key elements of the Framework and improvement plan include the need to finalise the Service restructure; set service standards in consultation with customers and set local targets for service improvement and cost savings.

12. It is also important to note that although low cost – high performance is the ideal position, some services are expensive and it is for officers, members and customers to agree priorities. The newly developed Housing Strategy plus relevant Service Plans identify where priorities lie.

Applying the Value for Money Framework

Strategic Housing Services

VFM is not just about cutting costs, it is about improving services and reinvesting in front line delivery. Value for money is achieved when the Council’s services achieve the optimum balance between relatively low costs, high productivity and successful outcomes. This balance requires monitoring and maintenance across the whole life of a service. VFM therefore has to be an integral part of the organisational culture and needs to be constantly reviewed to evaluate ways to drive up efficiency and effectiveness. This will be done by comparing the service to others, challenging the way in which services are provided, introducing competition, consulting with service users and the public and evaluating alternative methods of service delivery. The Objectives of the VFM Framework are set out in Section 4 of the Framework document.

A new Housing Strategy for 2008 – 2013 is being produced in conjunction with Sefton Housing Partnership. Consultation on priorities and targets has taken place across a wide spectrum. Residents and other stakeholders are involved in deciding aims and objectives through the implementation of a Consultation and Engagement Plan which has been drawn up by Sefton Equalities Partnership. The service standards and outcome / success measures set out in the Housing Strategy Action Plans are kept under review at officer level and reporting mechanisms are in place within the Cabinet structure.

Each service area will need to establish, in partnership with customers, a comprehensive and challenging set of service standards. This will help to determine quality, choice, timeliness and resource allocation and will ensure that the end product accords with decisions on service priority. Customers will be used to evaluate and provide feed-back. Where services have been outsourced or are delivered through partnership arrangements, a system will be put in place to ensure that suitable customer consultation arrangements exist and that standards are set and performance reports received.

A new set of performance and data quality processes will be developed to help improve delivery across the board especially relating to data collection and recording issues. Fortnightly meetings are now to be held with service heads and team managers across operational areas. These are designed to be more targeted and will cover data recording issues in detail. It is anticipated this more focused and regular approach will help increase the level of understanding of the core issues and improve the speed of their resolution.

Methods for publicising outcomes around performance and VFM to citizens at large and service users in particular are being developed.

Strategic Housing Services – Benchmarking

The comparator group ‘nearest neighbour’ has been selected for this exercise. This grouping has been devised by CIPFA and is one of the comparator groups used by the Audit Commission in its VFM toolkit. The group contains authorities with similarities in demography, population and housing density, unemployment, mortality rates and council tax banding plus other indicators.

1. Homelessness service

Expenditure on homelessness

Compared to other authorities, as the tables show Sefton’s expenditure is low. The chart shows how expenditure per head has increased since 2005 but still lies within lower quartile

£ / head homelessness expenditure

Authority name 2008 Southend on Sea Borough Council 10.6 Medway Council 5.93 Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council 3.9 Council 3.04 Blackpool Council 2.86 Council 2.52 Plymouth City Council 2.15 Bury Metropolitan Borough Council 2.01 Darlington Borough Council 1.9 Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council 1.45 Sefton Council 1.4 Metropolitan Borough Council 1.33 Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council 1.1 St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council 0.88 Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council 0.84 Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council 0.8

Homeless cases prevented per head of pop. (BV213)

Redcar and Cleveland though a top performer under this indicator is only an average spender. Darlington spends only slightly more per head (£1.9) than Sefton; in addition Darlington had a very low number of homeless acceptances in 2008 (53) compared with Sefton (113). There could be a learning opportunity with these authorities. Sefton is bottom quartile against this group.

BV213

Authority name 2008 Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council 10 Darlington Borough Council 7 Blackpool Council 5 Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council 5 Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council 4 Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council 4 Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council 4 Plymouth City Council 3 Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council 3 St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council 3 3 Medway Council 2 Southend on Sea Borough Council 2 Sefton Council 2 Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council 2 Bury Metropolitan Borough Council 1

Homelessness prevented and expenditure on homelessness

Cases accepted as homeless (HSSA Hse 1aa)

The authorities with the highest level of acceptances are amongst those with the lowest level of expenditure on homelessness suggesting a causal link for some but not others; Sefton has the lowest level of acceptances in the group but also relatively low expenditure.

HSSA HSe 1aa

Authority name 2008 North Tyneside Council 524 Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council 496 Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council 436 St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council 426 Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council 372 Medway Council 350 Plymouth City Council 350 Bury Metropolitan Borough Council 345 Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council 229 Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council 191 Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council 171 Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council 140 Southend on Sea Borough Council 127 Sefton Council 113 Blackpool Council 102 Darlington Borough Council 53

Homelessness level of acceptances and expenditure on homelessness

Number accommodated in B&B (P1e) and average length of stay (183a)

The tables show that Sefton’s use of B&B is limited and reasonable in comparison with others. Compared with nearest neighbours Sefton is average but makes substantially less use than its Merseyside neighbour, Wirral.

P1e (accommodated in b&b)

Authority name 2008 Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council 13 Medway Council 12 Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council 10 Plymouth City Council 8 North Tyneside Council 7 Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council 5 Bury Metropolitan Borough Council 4 Sefton Council 4 St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council 3 Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council 2 Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council 2 Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council 1 Darlington Borough Council 0 Blackpool Council 0 Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council 0 Southend on Sea Borough Council 0

183a (average length of stay in b&b)

Authority name 2008 Southend on Sea Borough Council 5.16 North Tyneside Council 4.09 St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council 3 Medway Council 3 Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council 2.7 Plymouth City Council 2 Blackpool Council 2 Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council 1.37 Darlington Borough Council 1 Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council 0.66 Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council 0.61 Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council 0.43 Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council 0 Bury Metropolitan Borough Council 0 Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council 0

Average length of stay in hostels (183b) and number in temporary accommodation (P1e)

The tables and chart shows that Sefton does well in this indicator; low levels of expenditure but low levels of use of temporary accommodation compared to others.

183b (average length of stay in hostels )

Authority name 2008 Medway Council 27.5 Blackpool Council 14.34 Southend on Sea Borough Council 13.55 Bury Metropolitan Borough Council 9.23 St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council 8.8 Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council 2.67 Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council 0 Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council 0 Darlington Borough Council 0 Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council 0 Plymouth City Council 0 Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council 0 Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council 0 Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council 0 Sefton Council 0 North Tyneside Council 0

P1e (number in temp)

Authority name 2008 Medway Council 366 Plymouth City Council 90 North Tyneside Council 78 Southend on Sea Borough Council 73 Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council 58 Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council 56 Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council 50 Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council 49 Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council 49 Bury Metropolitan Borough Council 47 Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council 43 Blackpool Council 37 St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council 34 Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council 23 Sefton Council 14 Darlington Borough Council 1

Homeless households in temporary accommodation and expenditure on homelessness

2. Merseyside Homelessness Benchmarking Club

The charts below have been provided by Merseyside Homelessness Bench-Marking Club and assist the service in identifying performance issues and best practice.

Sefton Homeless decisions jan 06 to dec 08

100 90 90 80 70 72 66 65 68 61 60 57 50 51 49 50 40 40 30 33 20 10 0 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

BV 213 Prevention cases 2007 - 8

500 433 450 381 391 400 350 300 231 250 207 200 152 150 100 50 0 Wirral Sefton Halton St. Helens Knowsley

Homeless acceptances for the last 3 years

847 900 800 688 700 600 525 466 496 500 426 467 400 315 337 344 345 259 300 245 221 242 236 200 113 100 69 0 Halton Knowsley Liverpool Sefton St. Helens Wirral

2005/6 2006/7 2007/8

Temporary accommodation at 31st Dec. 2008

200 180 180 158 160 140 B & B 120 Hostels 100 80 LA/HA stock 60 40 27 27 26 31 Total 10 6 814 6 7 20 0 0 1 0 11 2 0 03 2 1 0 0

y al ton ool on sle p t ens al ef el H S Wirr ver H now Li t. K S

Total Youth homelessness across Merseyside - jan 1 to 31 dec 2008 - last 4 Qs

20 17 18 14 15 15 13 jan to march 2008 total 11 April to june 2008 total 10 6 July to sept 2008 total 5 5 4 5 2 3 2 3 Oct to dec 2008 1 11 1 1 0 0 1 0 0

l n n ns ey lto l a le s Wirral e verpoo Sefto H Li St. H Know

3. Private Sector Enforcement

BV 64 Private sector dwellings returned into occupation

Sefton Council performs well against this grouping and is in national top quartile.

BV 64

Authority name 2008 Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council 383 Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council 241 Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council 177 North Tyneside Council 155 Sefton Council 126 Bury Metropolitan Borough Council 116 Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council 92 Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council 91

Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council 91 St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council 85 Plymouth City Council 83 Darlington Borough Council 77 Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council 70 Southend on Sea Borough Council 54 Medway Council 42 Blackpool Council 34

4. Housing services

Sefton spends substantially less on housing services than its comparator authorities even though a number of the higher spenders are also LSVT authorities .

£ /head – housing services

Authority name 2008 St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council 63.71 Blackpool Council 55.1 Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council 51.82 Bury Metropolitan Borough Council 49.93 Southend on Sea Borough Council 48.53 Plymouth City Council 46.95 Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council 45.37 Darlington Borough Council 41.32 Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council 37.13 Medway Council 35.41 Sefton Council 29.61 Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council 28.9 Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council 28.37 North Tyneside Council 12.48 Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council 12.43 Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council 6.98

5. Improvement Grants Service (Disabled facilities Grants)

There are two indicators relevant to DFGs: NI 132 and NI 133 which measure timeliness of assessments and provision of service respectively. At the present time it is not possible to separate out the DFG component from the other social care components which go to make up the performance on these indicators, therefore it is not possible to benchmark against these indicators.

However, work is being carried out on the recording system which will allow performance to be monitored in relation to DFGs in the future. Also, there has been some benchmarking around policy and procedures with other North West authorities and GONW have gathered information from local authorities for the same purpose.

6. Staffing

Homelessness and Housing Options staffing

Sefton

Head of homeless service Clerical officer Senior homeless officer Homeless persons officer Hostel manager (residential) Hostel manager (peripatetic) x 2 Advice and prevention worker Homeless prevention/housing advice worker

Managers : 2 Housing assistants: 8

St Helens

Housing Options Manager PO9 Team Leader Operations PO1 2x Senior Housing Options Officers Sc6 5x Housing Options Officers Sc5 Performance Assistant Sc3 Senior Housing Options Assistant Sc3 3x Housing Options Assistants Sc2 Travellers Site Warden Sc1 Team leader Service Development PO1

Managers : 3

Housing assistants: 13

Wirral

Rehousing services manager (classed as half post as also manages Wirral CBL) Housing options manager Deputy manager (resources) Deputy Manager (housing options) Deputy manager (homelessness) Quality and performance officer Resource assistant Clerical assistants x 2 Assistant housing advisors x 2 Housing options advisors x 5 Private sector liaison officer Private sector assistant

Private sector tenancy support officer Homelessness officers x 3 Temp accomm officer Homeless persons support officer

Managers : 4.5 Housing Assistants : 19

Warrington

Homelessness & Hsg Advice Manager Assistant Manager 2x Senior Housing Options Officers 4x Homeless & Housing Advice Officers 1x Customer Service Officer

Managers: 2 Housing assistants: 7

Darlington

Housing Options and Support Manager 3 x Full-time Housing Options/Homeless Officers 2 x Part-time Housing Options/Homeless Officers 1 x Single Point of Access Officer for Hostel accommodation

Managers : 1 Housing assistants: 6