Housing Stock 65

The graph below depicts the RIA scores for the four Viability Factors for the various ICHOs in the survey grouped into four quartiles according to the number of dwellings managed. Q1 contains ICHOs that manage fewer than 25 dwellings, Q2 has ICHOs that manage between 25 and 49 dwellings, Q3 has ICHOs that manage from 50 to 79 dwellings, and Q4 contains ICHOs that manage 80 or more dwellings.

Figure 8: Relative importance of four viability factors by number of dwellings

The graph highlights some substantial differences between issues that affect the organisational capacity of ICHOs of different sizes. In particular:

Q1: ICHOs managing less than 25 dwellings

Æ All ICHOs in this quartile attached high importance to the impact of Location on their organisational capacity. This reflects the fact that most of the ICHOs in this category were in very remote locations, and all complained of having severe difficulties accessing services for housing maintenance and management of tenancy issues.

Æ Human Resource Management was of relatively limited importance to ICHOs in this quartile. This appears to be related to the fact that all Q1 ICHOs in the survey employed three or fewer staff.

Q2: ICHOs managing 25 to 49 dwellings

Æ All four Viability Factors were rated as being of high importance to ICHOs in this quartile. The intra-case analysis suggests that the high absolute scores in this

quartile for all Viability Factors and most associated Indicators reflect the fact that medium size ICHOs (roughly Q2 and Q3) tended to regard organisational capacity as an issue of acute importance and spent significant time addressing capacity issues.

Æ As with ICHOs in Q3, and contrary to very small and very large ICHOs, Governance was the most important Viability Factor for Q2 ICHOs, with RIA scores of 69 per cent or higher for all four Indicators associated with this Factor. Æ Housing Management was the least important Viability Factor for ICHOs in Q2,

reflecting the fact that limited housing stock means that housing management issues for ICHOs in this quartile tended to be not as complex as those facing larger ICHOs.

Æ Three Indicators highlight issues that are of high importance to ICHOs in Q2, being Links to other Organisations (RIA = 80%), Housing Stock (92%) and External Funding (92%). These same Indicators were also rated as highly important by Q1 ICHOs, but received RIA scores of 50 per cent or less from Q3 and Q4 ICHOs. This suggests that these issues may be a function of the number of dwellings managed. However, as is noted below, there is also a degree of correlation with the number of services provided by the ICHO.

Q3: ICHOs managing 50 to 79 dwellings

Æ The intra-case analysis suggested that ICHOs that were of somewhat above average size tended to be the least concerned about their organisational capacity. This is reflected in the fact that all four Viability Factors received the lowest RIA scores for ICHOs in this quartile.

Æ As with ICHOs in Q2, and contrary to very small and very large ICHOs, Governance is the most important Viability Factor for Q3 ICHOs.

Æ All three of the Indicators rated of very high importance to Q2 ICHOs (ie, Links to other Organisations, Housing Stock and External Funding) received RIA scores of 50 per cent or less from ICHOs in Q3. Again, this appears to reflect that these ICHOs are generally able to successfully deal with issues that are of major concern to their somewhat smaller cousins and, at the same time, do not have to face the relatively complex housing management issues faced by larger ICHOs.

Q4: ICHOs managing 80 dwellings or more

Æ As with the smallest (Q1) ICHOs, but contrary to medium size (Q2 and Q3) ICHOs, Location was the most important Viability Factor for the largest (Q4) ICHOs. Most of the ICHOs in Q4 managed dwellings in a range of more and less accessible locations and were therefore well aware of the impact of location on a number of issues associated with organisational capacity.

Æ Q4 ICHOs attached roughly the same importance to Governance as did Q3 ICHOs, stressing the same associated Indicators.

Æ Q4 ICHOs attached roughly the same importance to Housing Management as did Q3 ICHOs, but stressed different associated Indicators. In particular, Q4 ICHOs rated Housing Stock and External Funding lower than Q3 ICHOs, but rated Management Systems and Rent Setting and Collection higher. This suggests a shift in focus away from overarching capacity constraints, such as stock and funding, and towards specific housing management issues.

Æ Q4 ICHOs attached significantly higher importance to Human Resource Management than did Q3 ICHOs. In addition, Q4 ICHOs were the only group to rate skills development for staff members as important. Along with the findings of

issues faced by larger ICHOs are linked to dealing with relatively complex housing management issues, which in turn places more complex demands on staff members.

Overall, the above analysis strongly suggests that different issues are relevant to ICHOs of different sizes and at different stages of development. In particular:

Æ Smaller ICHOs tended to emphasise the importance of external issues beyond their control, such as accessibility to services, whereas larger ICHOs tended to emphasise the importance of internal issues within their control, such as housing management.

Æ Medium size ICHOs tended to emphasise the importance of high level (Governing Committee) governance issues, while large ICHOs emphasised the importance of low level (staff capacity) issues, and very small ICHOs did not regard any staffing or Governing Committee issues as being of major importance to their organisational capacity.

These findings are illustrated schematically by the development diagram in Figure 9 below. The vertical axis of this diagram depicts the importance of the human relationships within the organisation. Moving upwards along this axis indicates greater importance to high level governance issues (Viability Factor 2), which are typically the responsibility of the Governing Committee. Moving downwards along the vertical axis indicates a greater focus on lower level human resource issues (Viability Factor 3). The horizontal axis of the diagram depicts the importance of external circumstances versus internal process issues. External factors are beyond the control of the ICHO, and include factors such as location and accessibility (Viability Factor 1). Internal factors, on the other hand, are within the control of the ICHO and relate to housing management and financial systems (Viability Factor 4).

Figure 9: Size of ICHOs’ housing stock and relative importance of viability factors to organisational capacity

The diagram shows that the organisational capacity of very small (Q1) ICHOs is dominated by external factors, in particular location, links to other organisations and external funding. These very small ICHOs attach little importance to governance issues at either the Governing Committee or the staffing level.

External factors such as location become gradually less important to the organisational capacity of medium-sized ICHOs (Q2 and Q3). Instead, these organisations focus on building robust governance systems at the Governing Committee level. Lower level governance indicators, such as human resources and housing management, are perceived as being less important issues affecting the organisational capacity of medium-sized ICHOs.

Finally, the focus of organisational capacity issues for the largest (Q4) ICHOs is on low level systems issues that are within their control, such as human resources and housing management systems. There are some clear policy implications contained within these findings, which are discussed in section 6 of this report.