Scrutiny of SYHA’s Response to

Anti-social Behaviour

June2015

1

1. Introduction

  • More than one report of Anti Social Behaviour (ASB) is made to SYHA every day, so we decided to scrutinisethe association’s response to the changes inAnti Social Behaviour legislation.
  • The term ‘Anti Social Behaviour’ (ASB) is defined by the Home Office as, ‘Acting in a manner that has caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household (as the defendant)’.
  • As we carried out the scrutiny, the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 was just becoming law. The Act introduced a simplified system with fewer specific orders and covers a wider set of behaviours and activities than the previous Act.
  • The scrutiny exercise ran from September 2014 to May 2015.

2. Why we chose Anti-social Behaviour

  • We are a new and independent groupthat carries out independent, resident-led scrutiny.
  • Our top priority is to scrutinise subjects that affect customer satisfaction and services that appear to be experiencing serious, persistent or systematic failure.
  • We followed the procedures set out in our Scheduling Scrutiny Activities document and requested suggestions from the senior management team.
  • The introduction of new legislation; theplanned review of policy and procedure carried out by SYHA during 2014,and the impact of ASB on tenants made the subject a high priority for scrutiny.

3. How we carried out the scrutiny

We had access to the information needed to carry out the scrutiny (except certain confidential and legally protected information) and to all the relevant staff.

We met regularly to discuss the project and weused the following methods to carry out this scrutiny exercise:

  • A presentationby the Housing Manager – Housing Services, as well as interviews with operational staff and a Livewell manager.
  • Reading key documentssuch as the SYHA policy and procedure and the customer promises.
  • Checking SYHA’s information, website and promotional materials.
  • Monitoring the latest developments by reading the press.
  • Carrying out a field trip to the Abbey Reach and Chinatown estates in Maltby
  • Inspecting the Neighbourhood team’swork tray system.

3. How to read this report

  • This report is designed to be read by tenants, staff, board members and anyone who is interested in SYHA.
  • We begin the report with a summary in which we have highlighted our key findings.
  • The summary is followed by eight recommendations, which are set out in tables, numbered and in bold –see pages8-10.
  • Below each recommendation, we have provided some background so the reader can understand the policies, systems,arrangements and staff we mention.
  • Underneath the background we have described the scrutiny methods we used to help us reach our recommendations.
  • We are completely independent of the senior management team and our main relationship is with the board. The managers have had no influence over our recommendations.
  • This report will be presented to the board champion – a member of SYHA’s board who has special responsibility for resident-led scrutiny – who, in turn, will present it to the board.
  • The board will consider our findings and recommendations and may ask the senior management team to act on them.
  • We will receive feedback on the board’s reaction to the report and details of any actions to be taken.

4. Summary of findings

4.1 SYHA’s response to the new legislation

  • We found that SYHA has been advised on the changes by its solicitors and some staff have attended training seminars and cascaded the learning to their colleagues.
  • The community trigger is council led and SYHA is geared to participate if requested. However, SYHA is not expected to take the lead.
  • On the new mandatory ground for possession, the judge has discretion and there is no case law to go on, yet.
  • On Criminal Behaviour Orders, SYHA have been advised to take part in the process, but it is unrealistic for SYHA to sit on every panel as there as so many and they are geographically spread.
  • We established that Community Protection Notices are not issued by SYHA.
  • We also established that SYHA will not be changing its tenancy, and the mandatory ground, 7A, will remain in place for use in exceptional cases.
  • Different councils have different procedures for ‘Community Triggers’. The triggers can help when a situation has become stale and deadlocked. The ‘Right to Review’ is a way for affected communities to ask for a fresh pair of eyes to look at the problem.
  • Neighbourhoods’ staff have had detailed training on ASB and staff are on multi-agency email circulars.
  • Staff undertook refresher training on ASB in November 2014 and theyfeel well supported and trained to cope with abuse and threats of violence.
  • To summarise, we found that much of the new legislation places the responsibility for action on bodies other than SYHA, and the association is expected to play a supporting role. We are satisfied that SYHA is ready to meet the challenges posed by the new Act, and that robust systems and procedures are already in place.

4.2 SYHA’s ASB policy and promises

  • SYHA records all types of ASB, whereas some other landlords filter out low-level ASB and have different classifications which conveniently ignore certain problems. We commend SYHA’s approach as it helps to show the true picture and it doesn’t dodge the issues.
  • SYHA takes a victim-centred approach and ASB is not treated as a specialism – it is part of the day-job for all frontline staff.
  • No changes are to be made to customer promises. They were reviewed in August/ September 2014 by Neighbourhoods, in consultation with the Residents Panel, and we are satisfied that the promises are appropriate and customer-friendly. Livewell are consulting their clients during June/July 2015.
  • Every complainant gets a named officer and feedback shows that tenants like this approach.
  • We took evidence on the use of professional witnesses, and we are satisfied that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. We support SYHA’s decision not to use them.
  • There is no weekend or out-of-hours service in the homes managed by the Neighbourhoods team. Having examined the levels of demand; checked customer feedback and taken evidence from staff, we are satisfied that customers receive an effective service. We do not think it would be cost-effective to provide a 24-hour service when there is so little demand and the first response can be provided by the police. Livewell does provide a round-the-clock service in keeping with the high support needs of its clients.
  • A large set of property safety equipment on offer from SYHA, but we found that this service is not promoted.
  • It is not possible to make an anonymous report via the website and there is no statement on how the information will be handled by SYHA. We believe these points need to be addressed to increase trust in the process.

4.3 Partnership working

  • The key to tackling ASB is effective partnership working. Our research demonstrated that SYHA is a key player in all the relevant partnerships.
  • SYHA has bought its own noise monitoring equipment and CCTV to speed up evidence gathering. We view this initiative as positive and we think that it will help to deal with problems more quickly than relying on Environmental Health departments.
  • SYHA has developed a Respect programme with Sheffield Sharks, which is specifically aimed at helping young people.
  • SYHA is part of the ESINS pilot in Derbyshire – a multi-agency, victims-first project made up of 17 public bodies. It is similar to a community trigger and the agencies can be called to a meeting within 10 days. Victims are recorded on the VARN system and there is online sharing of information. The system identifies the key worker and manager, but there are still some stumbling blocks around mental health and child protection.
  • Good information sharing arrangements exist with the police in Doncaster and Chesterfield.
  • Mediation arrangements are in place with specialist bodies such as Mediation Sheffield and Remedy.SYHA has also worked with private landlords in Barnsley on a mediation programme.
  • Numerous examples of partnership working were provided, these included: a a summer sports programme from 3pm to 10pm that had over 300 young people participating; a football coaching programme with two FA coaches; Skip Days; a ‘Big Party’ event which proved to be excellent value for money.
  • However, as a reminder of the importance of public funding for diversion activities, Rotherham Council withdrew funding for a successful project in 2010 and the first post to go was that of the co-ordinator. As a result ASB increased.

4.4 Performance

  • We reviewed the ASB performance information, and found that customer response rates and satisfaction levels are high, for which SYHA should be congratulated.
  • Performance is top quartile on all targets except ‘Outcomes’ which is second quartile.
  • All the customer promises are monitored and no targets have been missed by Neighbourhoods in the last five years. However, we noted that the targets have remained the same for the whole of that period and we think they need to be raised.
  • SYHA could do better on Value for Money as the association isin the second quartile. The association is aware of the situation and we would like to see an action plan that sets out how SYHA can become a top performer.
  • Team leaders and housing officers look at ASB key performance indicators in supervision sessions.

4.5 Procedures & systems

  • In the view of the staff and managers we interviewed, the Work Tray system has revolutionised working practises and provides a failsafe mechanism for dealing with ASB. The system is checked by a manager three times a day to make sure targets and deadlines are being met. If a member of staff is absent the task is re-assigned to ensure that the customer doesn’t suffer.
  • We looked at the system and we gained re-assurance that it works for the benefits of customers and reports don’t get lost. It also helps staff to meet deadlines and the reporting function gives the staff an overview of performance.
  • SYHA carries out a set of checks on the applicant’s history at the lettings stage. These checks include ASB.
  • New tenancy visits are carried out within six weeks, and the tenant is taken through the conditions of tenancy. Good behaviour is emphasised.
  • Livewell has not been using QLX in the same way as Neighbourhoods – there have been up to 2-week delays in updating performance information. A Livewell manager has been designated to monitor and chase actions, and the last set of performance information was up to date. Thedelays in updating Livewell’s actions have an effect on its KPIs and make it harder to evidence good performance.
  • LiveWell staff take advice from the team leaders in Neighbourhoods, and there is sharing of good practice and experience between departments.
  • On handheld technology, SYHA uses First Touch which doesn’t require wi-fi. We have looked at the use of handheld devices at other housing associations and we support SYHA’s moves towards this type of working as the evidence would suggest that it has many advantages for tenants.
  • In terms of out-of-hours cover, there is an emergency repairs service and reports are checked by staff by 11.30am, daily. Sheffield has the 101 service up to 2am and then the police take over. SYHA will receive a report by 8am the following day. The housing officer will have carried out initial investigation and reported within 24 hours.
  • SYHA will work to help victims receive a full support package if required.

4.6 Systems for Reporting ASB

  • On testing the system for reporting ASB on the SYHA website, we found that the website directs all enquiries to the Livewell section – this error needs to be corrected.
  • We liked the link to the promises, and we think some improvements could be made to the main text.
  • In our opinion the online report form could be improved by added sub categories of ASB such as ‘noise’ and ‘pets’.
  • It would be helpful to have links to other agencies that can help to tackle ASB on the page.
  • We think a statement needs to be added explaining how the information the person reporting the ASB will be treated.
  • Although SYHA offers extra security for victims of ASB, the search engine produces nothing when key words such as ‘security’, ‘criminal damage’ or ‘window locks’ are entered.

4.7 Visit to Abbey Reach Maltby

  • We spent half a day on the Abbey Reach with the housing officer and team leader from Neighbourhoods, looking at how the estate has been transformed. We also paid a brief visit to the Chinatown estate.
  • Abbey Reach had a bad reputation for ASB and had been the scene of serious public disorder in the past. It is a very different place now where people choose to live.
  • SYHA made some major interventions to tackle ASB. It installed its own CCTV to help put an end to drug dealing on the estate, and we learned how the technology has reduced criminal activities.
  • A regeneration budget was set aside by SYHA to clad the non-traditional build houses and provide metal railings to front gardens, which has greatly improved the appearance of one of the main road to the estate.
  • The housing officer explained how low-level ASB is tackled with the use of Notices issued to tenants with untidy gardens or noisy dogs. We were also assured that regular inspections of the area are carried out to check for fly-tipping, graffiti, abandoned vehicles etc.
  • Much credit was given to local activist, Brenda Gayle, who campaigned for a Multi Use Games Area and the metal fencing mentioned above.
  • There is good multi-agency working in the area and residents are more comfortable about reporting issues than some other areas, because they have seen that SYHA takes ASB seriously and is willing to tackle the perpetrators.
  • We were provided with a police e-mail regarding Abbey Reach, which praised SYHA for all its work to tackle ASB on the estate.
  • There is a private landlord with a portfolio of properties on the estate. Relations with him are good and he takes a wider interest in the community
  • Chinatown estate in Maltby has a new Tenants Association and joint surgeries are now held with councillors, wardens and police.

4. 8 Livewell

  • LiveWell provides higher levels of support to its tenants than the Neighbourhoods team. Livewell staff meet their tenants and clients more frequently than Neighbourhoods and carry out risk assessments which are included in a risk-management plan for each client. Therefore, the way Livewell deals with ASB is different.
  • Every client has a keyworker who is in regular contact and a support plan is developed. Clients have easy access to their keyworker and can report ASB directly. It is the key worker that carries out the investigations.
  • LiveWell is signed up to the same set of Promises as Neighbourhoods, and as of June 2015 there are no plans to move away from this arrangement.
  • We found that Livewell has undergone a restructuring and the ASB policy was under review at the time of our scrutiny exercise. The question being asked by the Livewell managers was;does Livewell need a separate policy?
  • The manager we interviewed is new to the post and her assessment was that ASB is managed well and that Livewell tenants receive a sensitive and effective service. This assessment is borne out by customer feedback.
  • Clients will be consulted over the new policy through coffee mornings, advocates and focus groups and a review of the service promises will be included.
  • It was accepted that Livewell hadn’t been keeping records up to date, but this has been addressed and the latest performance information is correct.
  • Livewell staff do not have access to QLX and the Work Tray system and there have been communication issues which have lad to delays in recording actions. QLX is not particularly useful to Livewell as the system doesn’t have the capacity to record detailed case notes.
  • We were concerned to find that Livewell had not fully addressed the recommendations for improvement set out in the last ASB accreditation report by Housemark. The recommendations were three years old when we carried out this review. We worked closely with the manager carrying out the review and held two sessions where we went over the accreditation report in detail and provided a challenge. We are satisfied that the manager is now fully aware of the actions that need to be taken and is putting together an action plan for the department. We find it disappointing that the actions were not addressed until now.

4.9 Value for Money