CRITERION ACTIVITY/CATEGORY INDICATORS

Effectiveness Maintenance and repairs – Walls, wooden fixtures, fixtures, and fittings – Number of complaints for repairs – Response time to requests for repairs – Quality of maintenance and repairs – Satisfaction of tenants with maintenance Tenant services – Number of contacts with management

– Mode of contact with the organisation – Reasons for contacting management – Responses from staff to tenants

Efficiency Housing finance – Net rent received

– Percentage of rent renewal – Profit and loss account

– Average cost of repair per dwelling

Equity Allocations – Application procedures

– Processing time of applications

– Number of applications accepted per period – Period of void vacancies

– Number of vacancies per period Housing cost and affordability – Rent levels/prices

– Household expenditures on housing – Number/percentage of tenants in arrears

Legitimacy and support

Tenant participation – Existence of residents’ group/association – Frequency of interaction with tenants – Support for tenant groups

– Communication with tenants – Ease of access to information by tenants

Satisfaction assessment

Residential satisfaction is defined as the feeling of contentment when one has or achieves what one needs or desires in a house (Mohit, Ibrahim, & Rashid, 2010). Housing satisfaction assessment may measure the feeling of contentment with aspects of housing such as physical, structural, and functional features of the house. Satisfaction is a contextual construct (Ibem & Aduwo, 2013; Keall, Baker, Howden-Chapman, Cunningham, & Ormandy, 2010), as it may be affected by the environmental, socio-cultural, and other factors of respondents. Housing satisfaction surveys have been used to assess present housing conditions, needs and preferences, quality of life of occupants, level of success of housing projects, and mobility

behaviour of residents (Ibem & Aduwo, 2013). They have also been used to assess the effectiveness of repair or maintenance services (Varady & Carrozza, 2000).

Satisfaction assessment is based on two approaches: the purposive approach and the actual-aspiration gap approach (Ibem & Aduwo, 2013). The purposive approach considers that occupants of housing have goals and objectives, and they expect housing to contribute to achieving their goals in life. Therefore, their perception of the extent to which housing is contributing to achieving their goals is a measure of their residential satisfaction. The actual-aspiration gap approach argues that occupants of housing consciously construct a reference quantity and quality – “ideal standard” – of the different aspects of housing, based on their needs, experiences, and aspiration. They evaluate their current housing situation based on the performance compared to the ideal standard or experiences. The gap between what they want and aspire to and what they currently have is a measure of satisfaction (see also Ibem & Aduwo, 2013). In assessment of satisfaction in housing management, the assessor selects indicators or services of interest to measure.

It may be concluded that performance assessment of housing management must be made against set criteria so that it is possible to say objectively that housing management has been good, bad, or poor. After studying the literature, Terence (2008) sums up guidelines for performance assessment of housing management in a theoretical framework thus:

–

Performance measures should be linked to organisational goals and objectives.

–

Performance measures, targets, and indicators should be clear and supported both

internally within the organisation and externally by stakeholders.

–

Efficiency, effectiveness, and support should be measured and improved to ensure improved financial support, customer satisfaction, and legitimacy of housing management.

127 Factors for analysing the organisation and assessing performance in housing management

§ 4.7.5

Challenges in performance assessment of housing management

The first major problem in social science research and assessing performance in housing management is how to establish and justify the cause-effect relationship between inputs and outcomes (Fryer et al., 2009). In assessing outcomes as emanating from outputs, it is difficult to isolate the effects of other factors in producing a given outcome. For instance, tenants may form an opinion about management based on services, such as security, that should be provided by other agencies. Second is the problem of interpretation of data. It is difficult to provide precise measures of performance; at best, researchers can only obtain data that give indications of performance and, therefore, collect data on performance indicators rather than precise measures (Kemp, 1995). Third, there is a tendency to rely more on quantitative measures, where available, rather than qualitative outcomes due to the difficulty of collecting qualitative data. Fourth, performance is largely a value-based concept, subject to different interpretations (Kemp, 1995) . It can be perceived from the points of view of both the user of the assessment outcome and the respondents or subjects of the assessment (beneficiaries/tenants; (see also, Fryer et al., 2009; van Mossel, 2008). Fifth, the context in which housing is managed (Kemp, 1995) is always important in performance assessment. A relatively poorly located and problematic housing estate will present several context challenges for housing management. For this reason, a common performance standard used to assess housing management in two distinct contexts may not present a true reflection unless it takes account of the context situation of management.

§ 4.8

Conclusion

This chapter discussed approaches to and the organisation of housing management. It also discussed how to assess performance in housing management. It addressed the questions, What model can be applied to analyse the organisation of housing management? and How can management performance be assessed? The chapter discussed four approaches or options regarding who manages housing, including public, private, third-sector, and community-led management. It concluded that, whereas who manages and the goals of management may vary, how to manage will largely remain similar in terms of organisation and scope of activities carried out. The chapter discussed the framework for analysing the organisation of management through the constituent elements of policy, legal framework, structure, finance, human

resources, culture, and housing quality. Furthermore, it discussed how the activities of management, which have been categorised into technical, social, and financial, and context factors, combine to present a holistic view of management. Therefore, the chapter concluded by combining the elements of organisation, activities, and context factors in a framework (Figure 4.4) for analysing housing management.

The chapter also discussed how to assess the performance of housing management. It concluded that performance assessment must examine inputs, outputs, and outcomes, which are identified according to the criteria of effectiveness, equity, efficiency and economy, and support or legitimacy. Outcome indicators may be difficult to collect and sometimes unreliable in terms of attributing outcomes to a given output of housing management. As a result, performance assessment largely relies on output indicators and satisfaction with outputs. Indicators such as satisfaction with maintenance services, tenant participation in management, cost of maintenance per dwelling, rent levels, and application procedures, inter alia, provide information about criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, and support and legitimacy in housing management. The selection of indicators to assess performance should be guided by the goals of housing management, the availability, reliability, and ease of collecting data, and the purpose of assessment. In Chapters 5 and 6, the analytical model is used to describe and analyse public housing management in the Netherlands and England, respectively. However, the chapters rely on assessment reports to comment on the performance of housing management.

129 Social housing management in the Netherlands

5

Social housing management

In document Better public housing management in Ghana: (Page 127-131)