Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Paulgriffiths
Paulgriffiths
Paulgriffiths
Paulgriffiths
Paulgriffiths
Paulgriffiths
Paulgriffiths
Paulgriffiths
Paulgriffiths
Paulgriffiths
Paulgriffiths
Paulgriffiths
Paulgriffiths
Paulgriffiths
Paulgriffiths
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Paulgriffiths

466

Published on

Paul Griffiths, public service consultant, reported on his research into housing association governance at the CHC conference February 29 2008

Paul Griffiths, public service consultant, reported on his research into housing association governance at the CHC conference February 29 2008

Published in: Economy & Finance, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
466
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Community Housing Cymru Review of Governance Paul Griffiths Public Service Consultant
  • 2. Context of Review
    • A higher political priority for affordable housing
    • The case for more focussed external regulation – the Essex Review
    • The need for external confidence in self-regulation
  • 3. Review Method
    • Short and sharp - 2 months, 30 days
    • A study of 3 Associations
    • Interview of at least one member of most other boards
    • Learning from this Conference
  • 4. Board Membership Tenant Members
    • Committed and well supported
    • Provide the essential ‘citizen focus’ – housing associations can be the beacon of Welsh public services
    • Need to be rooted in a well supported network of groups and panels
    • Can be recruited where the roots are strong and well nourished – advantage of a community basis?
  • 5. Board Membership ‘Professional’ Members
    • A reasonable balance of skills and expertise
    • Widespread commitment and motivation
    • Open recruitment is bearing fruit
    • Open recruitment is consistent with pro-active marketing of opportunities
    • The ‘tap on the shoulder’ and ratification by shareholders is not legitimate!?
  • 6. Board Membership ‘Partnership’ Members
    • Appointments based on member’s position within local authority or health organisation
    • Can provide valuable links and relationship building with partners
    • Only succeeds on the basis of shared investment in partnership working
    • Personalities matter
  • 7. Do Boards Make a Difference? Strategic Direction
    • A Clear Diversity of Strategy – community basis, market led, extra care/residential care, special needs, homelessness, working with private landlords, developing home ownership, community regeneration.
    • Whose strategy? – evidence of Boards providing initiative and a brake
    • Significance of Away- Days
  • 8. Do Boards Make a Difference? Challenging Performance
    • Regular performance reporting
    • How well is information presented and used?
    • Some evidence of performance monitoring changing practice
    • ‘ Support and Challenge’, ‘Critical Friend’
    • Is there enough ‘grit in the system’?
  • 9. Do Boards make a Difference? Financial Management
    • Significance of specialist board members
    • Significance of internal and external auditors to support boards
    • The check of the lenders
    • The importance of the non-specialist
    • The biggest risk to reputations?
  • 10. Do Boards Make a Difference? Setting the tone, values, culture
    • Boards do not manage staff
    • Boards appoint the chief executive
    • Can boards develop some relationship with staff, sufficient to influence attitudes?
  • 11. Do Boards Make a Difference? Developing Partnerships
    • Responding to housing needs, meeting care needs, giving confidence and skills to communities – all require effective partnerships.
    • Are the Board the outward face of the Association – making the external and political relationships?
    • Is partnership what the chief executive does?
  • 12. A New Model of Self Regulation?
    • WAG sets out clear expectations of Boards on the self-assessment of performance and the evaluation of developments
    • The Boards create procedures and implement them in meeting WAG expectations
  • 13. A New Model of Self Regulation?
    • The external regulator monitors the process of self regulation and the results
    • External appraisal is ‘risk based’ – focussing on lapses in process and declared gaps in performance
    • External appraisal has a focus on the ‘big picture’ – the synergies and viability of medium and long term development plans
  • 14. Learning from each other
    • Despite CHC Conferences, Boards are not good at learning from each other?
    • “ We get comparative information from our chief executive”
    • “ Competition gets in the way of shared learning”
    • “ Shared learning takes too much time”
    • What potential for the Steve Cranston web-based conversations? – could you provide another beacon for Welsh public services?
  • 15. Giving the public confidence
    • The public do not understand what RSL Boards are?
    • Does this matter?
    • It does, if you want to self regulate the use of public money in achieving public goals
    • How can Boards have a more transparent public profile?

×