WCC City Housing Review Discussion Document - For Release

A
IM

LG

e
th

r

de

un
City Housing Operational Review –

d
discussion document
se
ea
Final report
30 October 2017
el

The purpose of this report is to provide decision makers with an independent perspective
R
on the delivery of social housing by City Housing.

Report by Sonia Ogier

R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
2
A

Contents
TABLE OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................. 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... 6
ABOUT THE REVIEW ............................................................................................................................... 6

ABOUT CITY HOUSING ............................................................................................................................ 6
A
CITY HOUSING PURPOSE AND OUTCOMES .................................................................................................. 7
ASSET MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................. 8
IM
TENANCY MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................................................ 9
COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAMME ........................................................................................................ 10
O
CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES ......................................................................................................................... 11
LG
CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................... 12
RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................... 13
HOUSING OUTCOMES ........................................................................................................................... 13
e
ASSET MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................................................... 14
th
TENANCY MANAGEMENT ...................................................................................................................... 14
COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAMME ........................................................................................................ 15
r
de
CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES ......................................................................................................................... 15

ABOUT THE REVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 16
un
PURPOSE & SCOPE ............................................................................................................................... 16

REVIEW APPROACH .............................................................................................................................. 16
ABOUT CITY HOUSING .................................................................................................................. 20

d
CITY HOUSING BUSINESS UNIT ............................................................................................................... 20

se
THE DEED OF GRANT ............................................................................................................................ 20

CITY HOUSING FINANCIAL MODEL .......................................................................................................... 20
ea
CURRENT FINANCIAL SITUATION ............................................................................................................. 21

STRATEGIC HOUSING INVESTMENT PLAN (SHIP) ....................................................................................... 23
el
CITY HOUSING – PURPOSE AND OUTCOMES ................................................................................. 24

R
PURPOSE OF HOUSING .......................................................................................................................... 24

CITY HOUSING’S OUTCOMES ................................................................................................................. 25
SUMMARY OF OUTCOME FINDINGS ........................................................................................................ 38

ASSET MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................... 39
THE PORTFOLIO ................................................................................................................................... 39
SERVICE LEVEL ..................................................................................................................................... 41

MAINTAINING AND IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF ASSETS ............................................................................ 42
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................ 46

TENANT MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................ 48
MANAGING THE FLOW OF TENANTS ........................................................................................................ 48
BEING A RESPONSIVE LANDLORD ............................................................................................................ 52
A
MANAGING TENANT DEBT .................................................................................................................... 54
IM
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................ 59
COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAMME ............................................................................................. 61
O
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT ................................................................................................................. 61
LG
CAP DELIVERY TODAY .......................................................................................................................... 68
SUMMARY OF CAP KEY FINDINGS ........................................................................................................... 78

CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES AND CONCLUSION ................................................................................... 79
e
BEING A SOCIAL LANDLORD ................................................................................................................... 79
th
TENANT’S NEEDS AND EXPECTATIONS ..................................................................................................... 80
TAILORING SERVICES ............................................................................................................................ 80
r
EFFORT AND REWARD ........................................................................................................................... 81
de
ALIGNMENT AND INTERCONNECTIONS ..................................................................................................... 81

DATA ANALYSIS AND STRATEGIC DECISION-MAKING ................................................................................... 83
un
ACCOUNTABILITY ................................................................................................................................. 83
CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................... 84
d
APPENDIX 1: REVIEW OUTCOME FRAMEWORK ............................................................................ 85

se
APPENDIX 2: REVIEW QUESTIONS ................................................................................................. 86

APPENDIX 3: KEY DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED IN THE REVIEW ........................................................ 91
ea
APPENDIX 4: AFFORDABILITY ........................................................................................................ 92
APPENDIX 5: MATCHING STOCK TO TENANT INCOME ................................................................... 93

el
APPENDIX 6: SERVICES BY COMPLEX ............................................................................................. 95

APPENDIX 7: CAP OUTCOMES OVER TIME ..................................................................................... 98
R
Table of Figures
FIGURE 1: REVIEW OUTCOME FRAMEWORK ....................................................................................................... 17
FIGURE 2: EXAMPLE OF REVIEW QUESTIONS: OCTOBER 2016 PRESENTATION ................................................... 17
FIGURE 3: REVENUE AND COST OVER LIFE OF DEED ............................................................................................ 21
FIGURE 4: LENGTH OF STAY IN YEARS WITH CITY HOUSING, BY NUMBER OF TENANTS ..................................... 24
FIGURE 5: AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY (IN YEARS) FOR THOSE LEAVING CITY HOUSING ..................................... 24
FIGURE 6: TENANT INCOME LEVELS 2016 ............................................................................................................ 27
A
FIGURE 7: SOURCE OF INCOME FOR TENANTS IN A STUDIO UNIT ....................................................................... 28
FIGURE 8: PROPORTION OF ACTUAL INCOME PAID AS RENT .............................................................................. 30
IM
FIGURE 9: ACTUAL INCOME / RENT RATIOS BY UNIT TYPE .................................................................................. 30
FIGURE 10: AFFORDABILITY FOR TENANTS IN A STUDIO UNIT ............................................................................. 31
FIGURE 11: AFFORDABILITY FOR TENANTS IN A ONE-BEDROOM UNIT ............................................................... 31
O
FIGURE 12: STOCK AND TENANT INCOME FOR STUDIO UNITS ............................................................................ 32
FIGURE 13: STOCK AND TENANT INCOME FOR ONE-BEDROOM UNITS ............................................................... 33
LG
FIGURE 14: STOCK AND TENANT INCOME FOR TWO-BEDROOM UNITS .............................................................. 33
FIGURE 15: SUPPLEMENT REQUIRED TO LIFT ALL RENTS TO 35% INCOME RATIO .............................................. 35
FIGURE 16: AFFORDABLE RENT SUPPLEMENT CALCULATIONS ............................................................................ 36
FIGURE 18: ASSET PORTFOLIO SOURCE; PAF ........................................................................................................ 40
FIGURE 19: SERVICE COVERAGE ........................................................................................................................... 41
e
FIGURE 20: HOUSING STANDARDS ....................................................................................................................... 42
th
FIGURE 21: SQUARE METER BUILDING COSTS (2017) .......................................................................................... 43
FIGURE 23: APPLICATION PROCESS ...................................................................................................................... 49
FIGURE 24: RESULTS OF APPLICATIONS TO CITY HOUSING .................................................................................. 50
r
FIGURE 25: DEBT TREND DATA - 12 MONTHS ...................................................................................................... 54
de
FIGURE 26: BALANCE BETWEEN CURRENT AND FORMER DEBT .......................................................................... 55

FIGURE 27: DEBT WRITE-OFFS .............................................................................................................................. 56
FIGURE 29: BOX PLOTS FORMER DEBTORS .......................................................................................................... 57
un
FIGURE 30: CAP SCOPE AND OUTCOME COMPARISON ....................................................................................... 65

FIGURE 31: CAP FUNDING 2008 WORK PROGRAMME ......................................................................................... 66
FIGURE 32: SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO CAP SERVICE LEVEL FIRST TEN YEARS .................................................. 67
FIGURE 33: NUMBER OF CAP CHATS BY PARTICIPATING COMPLEXES FOR ONE YEAR ........................................ 72
d
FIGURE 34: CAP CHAT PARTICIPATION AGAINST ADULT TENANT POPULATION .................................................. 72
se
FIGURE 35: CAP PROGRAMME ENGAGEMENT ..................................................................................................... 75

FIGURE 36: STOCK AND TENANT INCOME FOR THREE BEDROOM UNITS ............................................................ 93
FIGURE 37: STOCK AND TENANT INCOME FOR FOUR-BEDROOM UNITS ............................................................. 93
ea
FIGURE 38: STOCK AND TENANT INCOME FOR FOUR & FIVE BEDROOM UNITS .................................................. 94

el
R
Executive Summary
About the Review
1. The City Housing Operational Review (the Review) examines Wellington City Council’s
approach to the current delivery of social housing and what is being achieved. It is a high
level review, based on interviews with staff and managers, and desk-based activities (such as
A
extracting and analysing administrative data, and reviewing pre-existing reports,
evaluations, and financial modelling). The Review uses the benchmarks and standards City
IM
Housing has set itself, and asks whether it is meeting its own performance standards? The
Review is designed to be a tool to assist the City Housing management team to discuss the
O
current state of affairs and determine what changes may be desired.
About City Housing
LG
2. City Housing is the business unit of Wellington City Council responsible for providing and
managing the capital’s social housing portfolio. These 2,090 units are a mix of apartments,
townhouses and standalone houses. City Housing stock accounts for 50% of social housing
e
in Wellington, an arrangement that is now unique in the country – no other council has this
th
level of investment and directly manages a social housing portfolio.
3. In 2008, the Council agreed to a Deed of Grant (the Deed) with the Crown. It is a $400m
investment to upgrade properties so that units are safe, secure, and a good standard for
r
de
modern living. The Deed obligated the Council to remain in social housing until 2037. The
Housing Upgrade Programme (HUP) led to a significant work programme focused on
renewing and redeveloping medium-density complexes. This work has dominated the
un
management of the portfolio for the last 8 years. HUP Phase One has been largely
implemented and the Crown funding has been fully drawn down, as expected.
4. City Housing funding is ring-fenced; the funds can only be used for City Housing activities.
d
This is a requirement of the Deed. The intention of this mechanism was to protect the
Deed’s investment into social housing. The Review observes that having ring-fenced funding
se
has, over time, created a culture where City Housing considers itself ‘separate’ to other
areas of the Council. There is an opportunity to re-orientate this cultural attitude.
ea
5. City Housing is also 100% user pays – a decision made by the Council. This means that all
tenants pay for the model and services delivered, regardless of whether and to what extent
they personally access the services. This approach has not been well understood within City
el
Housing.
R
6. Withheld under section 7(2)(i) Work is underway to respond

to this through the Strategic Housing Investment Plan (SHIP). SHIP provides an opportunity
to improve the financial viability of City Housing. Withheld under section 7(2)(i)

A focus is needed now to
6

R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A
R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A
R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A
the debt to income ratio – set at 2%. This is currently being met. The debt KPI does not
include the practice to writing-off debt over 12 months old which has had no payment
activity. This debt is currently $160,000. If this practice was included in the ratio, the KPI
would just be met under the current practice of writing inactive debt off after 12 months.
28. The debt recovery process is based on the requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act
1986 (RTA). Management information is not available to track what happens across the
tenant debt processes. A Tenancy Advisor will know about their particular cases, but there
isn’t centrally-held information on the process – that is, how effective is the practice at
A
recovering debt? The Review finds that the former debt recovery rate by Tenancy Advisors is
IM
34%. This compares with the Credit consultancy recovery rate of approximately 13%.
Community Action Programme
O
29. The Community Action Programme (CAP) was initiated and funded as part of the 2008 Work
LG
Programme. CAP was an initiative to support tenants transitioning through the upgrade
process. Affected communities would develop Community Action Plans setting out their
community aspirations and implementation plans. Tenants would lead these plans, and the
CAP team would provide support. As the Community Action Plans were implemented, the
e
role of the CAP team would reduce as related capital works were completed, and
communities led remaining aspects of the plans. For this reason, funding for the CAP team
th
was expected to reduce as community projects were completed.
30. In 2009, the scope of CAP significantly changed from a HUP-specific initiative supporting
r
tenants transitioning during the upgrade process, to a community development initiative
de
intended to address ‘multi-faceted social disadvantage and exclusion’ for all City Housing
tenants. That is, CAP went from a specific time-limited community level intervention to a
programme addressing a wide range of ongoing needs for all of City Housing tenants.
un
31. CAP responsibility expanded from three community-level outcomes (social cohesion;
community spirit; pride in City Housing tenant communities) to 16 city-wide outcomes,
delivered across Council through ratepayer-funded initiatives. By taking on these outcomes,
d
it is possible that CAP is duplicating effort within the Council. This question needs to be
se
investigated.
32. No additional funding was sought or provided to reflect this significant change in purpose. In
ea
the first 10 years CAP operating expenditure doubled and a higher level of service was
provided than originally anticipated. The overall budget was maintained by reducing capital
costs for this period. However, over the next 10 years, CAP is expected to cost an additional
el
$6.4m in operating costs. This is due to the change in role of the CAP team that occurred in
2009 and which has been embedded into the current ways of working. There is no funding
R
for this additional $6.4m.

33. CAP delivers a range of activities including: community consultation; CAP chats; community
events; connecting tenants and services; Kaitiaki networking and training; co-convening and
delivering programmes; managing computer hubs; facilitation and mediation; and tenant
communications.
10
34. The number of CAP activities when broken down by programme type is low. There is no
apparent strategy to meet the needs of all City Housing tenants, or to determine what the
priority need and focus might be.
35. Only a small percentage (between 0.3% to 6%) of tenants engage with any one particular
type of CAP activity. It is a service for the minority of tenants, some of whom are heavily
involved in CAP. The low level of repeated engagement indicated in the 2011 and 2012
tenant satisfaction surveys, and the low number of CAP programmes and events, brings into
question the notion that CAP is ‘addressing significant multi-faceted areas of social
A
disadvantage and exclusion.’
IM
36. The benefit of CAP engagement is unclear. The 2013 CAP outcome evaluation was based on
a technique that focuses on understanding the stories of exceptional tenants – those who
have the ‘most success’. By definition it is an evaluation that does not include the usual
O
experience of participants. This significantly limits the ability for these evaluations to
comment on programme outcomes. This Review also observes that tenant stories identified
LG
and illustrated in the CAP evaluations tend to focus on the success achieved by a partner
organisation, rather than on CAP.
Cross-cutting Issues
e
th
37. City Housing is providing a much-needed service to people on low incomes in Wellington.
Withhe
Withheld under section 7(2)(i)

In addition to the findings on particular aspects of City Housing,
r
some overarching issues emerged, bolded and discussed below.
de
38. It is not clear what it means for City Housing to be a social landlord. Multiple definitions
operate within the business unit. In the absence of a strong and clear definition there can be
un
a pull to be all things to some tenants and to lose sight of some of the fundamentals such as
affordability.
39. The needs and expectations of tenants (current and prospective) are not well captured in
d
any systematic sense. This information could inform the design and shape of services and
ensure City Housing is responding to the needs of the majority of tenants.
se
40. City Housing is currently not designed to provide segmented or tailored services to tenants,
yet the reality is that multiple service levels are provided. The differences in service levels
ea
are significant and yet related costs are in effect funded by all tenants.
41. City Housing is an operational unit, and staff and managers like to get on and deliver. When
el
gaps in service are found, the tendency is to want to address these and take on additional
responsibility, without considering the overall effort required and reward possible. To
R
protect the interests of tenants the balance needs to be right.

42. Decisions about assets, tenancy management, target groups, and community action are all
interlinked. If the interconnections are not functioning, there will be imbalances. The
analysis on affordability shows that there is the potential for better alignment of decision-
making within City Housing.
11
43. Thinking strategically at the system level requires data and analysis, and a framework for
raising questions. The tendency in City Housing is to understand individual tenant situations
rather than trends occurring across the business. For example, unseen potential liability
from the implementation of the Affordable Rent Supplement.
44. The paper trail for key decisions has not always been clear and easy to follow. Information
may be incorrect and inconsistent. Key concepts can be ill-defined and vague. This
compromises understanding and accountability.
A
Conclusion
IM
45. At the heart of this report is the message that the Council expects City Housing to be self-
sufficient, discount rental income below what other landlords receive, and do more than
O
what is required of a landlord. There is a fundamental disconnect between providing high
quality social housing (assets, service level, community development) to all tenants, being
LG
affordable to both low income tenants and Council, and being 100% funded by low income
tenants.
46. The opportunity now is for City Housing to become much clearer about what it is here to do
and achieve for tenants. Working within its budgetary constraints, what creative strategies
e
can be developed across the whole business unit to be the social landlord it wants to be?
th
Continuing to explore its practice is likely to improve the service it provides tenants.
r
de
un
d
se
ea
el
R
12
R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A
Asset Management
6. City Housing needs access to better quality and depth of information about the portfolio
particularly in relation to: housing outcomes, housing conditions, and maintenance. This
information could be used to drive analysis of renewal and maintenance costs, and
understand housing outcomes and tenant experience. It could provide useful insight into
patterns that would enable City Housing to be more strategic. It is a significant information
gap.
A
7. City Housing needs to have a more strategic influence on the annual renewal programme
IM
delivered by Citycare. These decisions should be informed by a set of priorities about how
best to maintain assets and an understanding of tenant feedback, particularly when they
cluster around specific issues. City Housing should have a leadership role in these decisions.
O
8. Any change in service levels need to be systematically considered across the business. All
financial implications of a purchase, or capital expenditure need to be considered. Questions
LG
to ask include: what if any legal requirements are there to meet; what are the regular
maintenance and renewal costs, over what time period; and how are these costs to be
funded?
e
9. Cost of maintenance needs to be better contained so that it does not continue to grow over
and above inflation.
th
Tenancy Management
r
10. There seems to be opportunity to streamline the allocation process so that both prospective
de
tenants and City Housing make less effort to achieve a housing outcome. This could be
achieved by: collecting information about housing needs through the application process
un
and lessen the need to supply proofs; and only interview prospective tenants when there is
an available property. A priority system that segmented prospective tenants into distinct
groups could help make allocation decisions and better manage prospective tenant
expectation.
d
11. Responsive practices could be built on by: clarifying the purpose of the Welcome to New
se
Home visits; stopping Site Clinics; and improving engagement activities (Call Centre, Annual
inspections, Welfare tenants) by having better access to information, aligning tools, and
ea
more staff training and guidance particularly around tenant welfare.

12. Examine the practice of writing off debts, ensuring this is aligned to broader Council policies.
Make this transparent in the calculation of the debt KPI to ensure the organisation has a
el
good understanding of this loss of income.

R
13. It would be useful to understand tenant behaviours in more depth, so that more tailored
responses could be found to encourage tenants to repay their debts. Research the link
between affordability and tenant behaviour – what is this link, is City Housing as an
organisation setting tenants up to succeed, and what preventative measures could be taken
to prevent tenants from falling into debt? Understanding how City Housing operates in
comparison to other parts of Council responsible for debt collection may help identify
innovations to improve debt recovery.
14
14. Realign the CAP budget forecast for the next ten years of the programme to the original
2008 Work Programme level – bringing the CAP total budget back in-line with the Deed of
Grant and income stream. $6.4m would be removed from the next 10 year forecast.
15. Be clear on the role of City Housing - what support could / should it provide tenants? CAP
was funded to support communities transitioning through the upgrade. What is the current
and future need for tenants? If City Housing has a role in relation to community action /
A
community development, what specifically is that?
IM
16. Be clear on the outcomes City Housing should be seeking to deliver on. What should City
Housing be responsible for? If City Housing is for instance a pathway to wellbeing through
housing, what kind of intervention would best leverage the assets so that the largest
O
number of people were better off?
LG
17. What level of need do tenants have for support by City Housing tenants. Should support be
provided to all tenants, or subgroups – which subgroups and why? How does this relate to
priority outcomes?
18. Decide how best to meet desired outcomes and tenant needs. What unique role should City
e
Housing have? Who should deliver these within City Housing? Identify and remove any
th
undesirable duplication of effort by CAP with other Council teams and functions. This will
enable tenants to better access ratepayer funded services. This has the potential to provide
more services to tenants at reduced cost to them.
r
de
Cross-cutting Issues
19. Clearly define what it means to be a social landlord. Ensure that this definition is specific
un
enough to drive design and operational decisions.

20. Put in place mechanisms to gain a better, and systematic understand tenant needs and
expectations – to inform service design and function.
d
21. Consider developing a more tailored service and charging tenants accordingly. This would
se
make explicit a tiered service level to reflect agreed organisational priorities around
different tenant needs and hoped for outcomes.
ea
22. Ensure that efforts and rewards are balanced by asking reflective practice questions about
the time and cost taken to achieve what specific outcomes. Is the balance right?
23. Ensure alignment within City Housing and with Council. Learning and adopting practices, and
el
accessing resources across Council.

R
24. Take a more strategic and systemic view of City Housing business to drive improvement. In
some cases this will require better data and in others better use of administrative data.
25. Build a culture of documenting, and tracking decisions to ensure City Housing is accountable
for the work it does. A new set of performance measures and benchmarks might be useful
to help the business be more accountable.
15
About the Review
Purpose & Scope
The City Housing Operational Review (the Review) was commissioned, in October 2016, to provide
decision-makers with a high level, independent assessment of City Housing’s delivery of social
housing. It is designed to be a tool to assist the City Housing management team to discuss the
A
current ‘state of the nation’, providing an overview of the entire functioning of City Housing.
IM
The Review is intended for an internal audience to aid strategic decision-making on the next phase
of City Housing’s delivery and development. This report summaries and reflects over nine months of
work engaging with the stakeholders of City Housing who directly informed, contributed and
O
discussed these issues.
This work was designed to ask:
LG
• What City Housing does as a social housing provider?
• How City Housing operates, focusing on key processes?
• Who is served by City Housing?

e
th
• What outcomes are intended? and
• What is known about the extent to which these outcomes are achieved?
r
This work is not an organisational review for example it does not speak to staffing roles and
de
responsibilities, levels of staffing, or organisational structures. Nor is this work an audit of building
standards, a financial review, or an evaluation of Housing Upgrade Programme (HUP). This work
questions how City Housing currently operates, providing a context for understanding the current
un
state to enable discussions on its future.
Review Approach
d
Review design - the framework

se
The design phase of this work began by developing a draft City Housing Outcomes Framework (the
Framework) to help conceptualise the key features of City Housing and what it is set up to achieve.
ea
That is, to clarify what are the components of City Housing and therefore what would be of interest
to this process.
el
The Review Framework was developed by reading organisational documents and interviewing key
informants (who included City Housing managers, and policy and finance stakeholders). The
R
Framework was presented and discussed with key informants to check the Review’s understanding
and the accuracy of the Framework, and to agree the scope of the Review and the range of
questions that could be asked.
To recap, the Framework was as follows (a larger version can be found in Appendix 1).
16
R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A
A pragmatic approach was taken to focus the Review on questions that did not require significant
primary data collection – the intention was for this work to be high-level, utilising existing data and
information. So, whilst an evaluative method was employed to structure this work, it is not intended
to be so formal. For example, this approach excluded considering the level of awareness amongst
NGO stakeholders and the target population of City Housing and what motivates prospective tenants
to apply. As time allowed, administrative data has been analysed, which has provided new insights
into the operation of City Housing.
The Review was narrowed to focus on the delivery of housing. It therefore excluded examining
A
issues such as how City Housing aligns to both emergency and affordable housing pathways, a
IM
broader policy question that fits with work already underway. Emphasis was placed on
understanding more about housing outcomes, the movement of tenants into City Housing, tenancy
management and the Community Action Programme. Less emphasis was placed on asset
O
management because these issues are well understood and work is already underway to address
them through the Strategic Housing Investment Plan (SHIP).
LG
The Review is a point in time exercise, concerned to understand how City Housing currently
operates. So, whilst it has been important to bring in key contextual factors, like the Housing
Upgrade investment, it is not an evaluation of the HUP programme.
Data collection and analysis e

th
The Review information was gathered through interviews with staff and managers, and desk-based
activities such as extracting and analysing administrative data, and using pre-existing reports,
r
evaluations, and financial modelling. A full list of key documents considered for the Review is in
de
Appendix 3.
A tailored approach to information gathering was used for different areas of the business reflecting
un
different questions and possible information sources. For example, a lot of analysis of
administrative data was done to understand the high-level outcomes, allocations, and tenancy
management processes. This analysis had not been done by the organisation before, so was a value-
adding exercise. For CAP a significant amount of reading was required to understand the history,
d
two staff workshops were held to both generate and test understanding about CAP with the team,
se
and several interviews were also held with the CAP Manager. For the Asset Management section,
the primary sources were interviews with the manager.
ea
The Review uses the benchmarks and standards City Housing has set itself, and asks whether it is
meeting its own performance standards.
el
Review workshops
The Review findings and analysis were presented and discussed with the project stakeholder group
R
(City Housing managers, policy, and finance) over a series of five workshops.
These workshops were critical in sharing and debating the ideas presented, enabling alternative
viewpoints to be expressed and discussed. All participants were encouraged to raise questions and
debate the issues both in and outside of the workshops. This report reflects these discussions.
18
The Review benefited from maintaining engagement with a core group of City Housing stakeholders
(City Housing managers, policy, and finance) over the nine-month period. These people were
involved in: scoping the project; providing data, information, and their perspective; participating in
Review workshops; and providing feedback on a draft version of this report.
The Review raises many more questions than it answers – a reflection of the open inquiry that it is.
This was particularly apparent through the workshops, a forum to open up new lines of inquiry for
the business unit to explore. This report provides another tool to shape these discussions.
A
IM
O
LG
e
r th
de
un
d
se
ea
el
R
19
About City Housing
City Housing Business Unit
City Housing (CH), is the business unit of Wellington City Council, responsible for providing and
managing the capital’s social housing portfolio. Distributed across Wellington in 5 housing zones
(from Miramar to Tawa), the 2,090 units are a mix of apartments, townhouses and stand alone
A
houses. City Housing stock accounts for 50% of social housing in Wellington, an arrangement that is
now unique in the country – no other council has this level of investment in social housing and is
IM
responsible for directly managing it. City Housing also manages 26 units on behalf of Porirua City
Council.
O
The Deed of Grant
LG
In 2008, the Council agreed to a Deed of Grant (the Deed) with the Crown. The purpose of the Deed
was to upgrade Council property so that units are safe, secure, and a good standard for modern
living. In doing this, the Council agreed to remain in social housing for 30 years (until 2037) at
approximately the same level of units as 2008.
e
The Deed is a 20-year programme of investment in the city’s council housing stock. The Crown
th
agreed to invest $220m in the first 10 years. This was to be followed by a $180m investment by the
Council in the second 10-year period. The Deed was preceded by the 2008 Work Programme, which
provided more specific details on the approach the Council would take to implement the Deed.
r
de
These two documents form the basis for the Housing Upgrade Programme (HUP). No further funding
or substantive agreement was negotiated with the Crown.
HUP Phase one led to a significant work programme focused on renewing and redeveloping City
un
Housing stock in medium density complexes. 1,078 units were affected by HUP resulting in the
relocation of hundreds of tenants throughout the building work. Today, HUP Phase one has been
largely implemented and the Crown funding has been fully drawn down as expected. HUP has
d
dominated the management of the portfolio for the last eight to nine years and the obligations of
the Deed carry forward today. It is both a key contextual factor, and impacts on the current delivery
se
by City Housing.
City Housing Financial Model

ea
Ring-fenced funding
el
City Housing funding is ring-fenced - the funds can only be used for City Housing activities. This is a
R
requirement of the Deed. The intention of this mechanism was to protect the Deed’s investment
into social housing. The Review observes that this ring-fenced funding has, over time, created a
culture where City Housing tends to considers itself separate to other aspects of Council; which
manifests through different levels of the organisation. For example, staff may ask questions about
Council policy on financial delegation with the qualifier ‘does this apply because we are ring-fenced?’
Managers may consider Council policy and finance stakeholders to be ‘outside’ of City Housing. At a
business unit level, City Housing has not taken part in Council-wide savings exercises – which was
20
R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A
R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A


Strategic Housing Investment Plan (SHIP)

SHIP provides an opportunity to improve the financial position of City Housing. SHIP is a significant
A
rethinking of City Housing’s approach to property. It sets out a pathway which: establishes a
Development programme to build new social and affordable homes in Wellington (which will add
IM
cost to City Housing); implements a Portfolio Alignment Strategy to enable a programme of property
disposal and reinvestment (which will reduce cost); and creates a Single Capital Programme allowing
City Housing the ability to achieve economies of scale for procuring capital works (which will reduce
O
cost). SHIP has been agreed by Councillors and is currently in the early stages of being implemented.
LG

e
City Housing also has to make changes to its current operating
th
model. This is a message City Housing managers have received from within the organisation
throughout the review period. Withheld under section 7(2)(i)

r

de

A focus now needs to be made on
ensuring business practices are efficient and effective. The 2016 financial modelling finds that for
un
every dollar saved in 2017/18, $14 is saved by 2058. This Review has occurred in a context where
the business needs to reflect on how it operates and identify ways of making savings and
improvements.
d

se

ea

el
R
23

R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A

The data suggests that City Housing stock is both a ‘stepping stone’ (anywhere between 0 – 6 years)
and a ‘long-term’ living arrangement (7 to 40 years). It would be useful to understand for whom this
is true and whether there are significantly different needs being catered for. There is limited reliable
information about what happens when people leave City Housing properties, what type of housing
do they move into and are these desirable outcomes? Further research is needed to unpack this.
Different purposes lead to quite different expectations about tenant behaviour. For example, high
turnover rates would be a sign of success for those who believe City Housing provides a stepping-
stone, and conversely perhaps, a troubling sign for those who believe City Housing is a long-term
A
solution. These different views and philosophies are likely to have an impact (explicitly or implicitly)
IM
on tenant allocation and management processes, and the type of support provided to tenants and
their communities. Clarity on the intended outcome of City Housing provision, and for whom would
help inform City Housing’s practices.
O
City Housing’s Outcomes
LG
City Housing’s primary outcomes are the provision of affordable housing for priority groups of
people on low income who have limited assets.
This section describes and explores the primary outcomes of City Housing, looking at:
• e
The income profile of City Housing tenants and the extent City Housing provides housing for
th
people on a low income
• The extent to which City Housing is affordable for tenants

r
The extent to which priority groups are housed.

de
•
The findings presented here are largely gained by analysing administrative data, asking questions of
the data, and presenting it in ways that aid an understanding of these outcomes.
un
Housing people on a low income

Definition
d
City Housing intends to provide affordable housing to people on a low income1. City Housing defines
se
low income implicitly by setting an income eligibility threshold for social housing. This threshold is
set at 60% of the medium income in Wellington. Wellington has the highest medium income in New
ea
Zealand; therefore the threshold is comparatively high to other regions and the national medium.
Low income thresholds are calibrated depending on the number of adults and children living (the
family type) in a unit. This results in a sliding scale of 36 different thresholds based on different
el
family types. The scale is based on net weekly income (and excludes the MSD’s Accommodation
Supplement2). Income thresholds (effective 1 October 2016) for one adult are set at $874 per week,
R

1
According to City Housing policy documents, income is defined as including the MSD Accommodation Supplement. This is
consistent with the definition used by central government which includes ‘any housing-related cash assistance from the
state’ – for example Accommodation Supplement (provided by MSD) as part of household income.

2 The Ministry of Social Development Accommodation Supplement is income. By not including it in the income scales, City
Housing has created a wider threshold than it first appears.
25

for two adults $930, and for two adults with two children $1,293 and so on. Its worth noting that
there is no minimum income level required for entry into City Housing – prospective tenants must
have income less than the City Housing income threshold.
The Ministry of Social Development defines the entry threshold for receiving the Income Related
Rental Supplement (IRRS) as 1.5 times the ‘single, living alone’ rate for the New Zealand
Superannuation. For a single person that is an entry threshold of $585 and for two adults it is $900.
City Housing operates a higher entry threshold for a single person compared to MSD, and a very
similar level for 2 adults in relation to IRRS.
A
Tenant income profile
IM
Tenant Review process
O
Information about tenant income is collected on application to City Housing and annually through
the Tenant Review process. An analysis of the most recent Tenant Review data (updated September
LG
2016) shows the majority of City Housing tenants have incomes well below the City Housing
thresholds. Movement out of threshold tends to occur for a only small number of tenants. In
2016/7, sixteen tenants were identified as out of policy3. The accuracy of the data, particularly for
self-employed tenants, is known to be an issue. There is likely to be an under-reporting of income for
e
this group of tenants. Work is underway to find better ways of validating and checking this
th
information.
The Tenant Review process is a time-consuming process that requires all tenants to submit a form
with their current income level and related proof. This information is critical for understanding
r
tenant incomes, and therefore whether tenants are eligible and City Housing’s outcomes being
de
achieved. Improving data collection and accuracy is important so that good quality information is
collected as efficiently as possible, allowing staff to focus on their roles as Tenancy Advisors.
un
Tenants have low incomes

The data shows that City Housing is providing housing to people it defines as low income. 1,115
tenants, 85% of those living in either a studio or one-bedroom unit, have incomes within the MSD
d
definition of low income for a single person4. These tenants are predominately beneficiaries. If these
se
tenants could be housed by Housing New Zealand Corporation (HNZC) or a housing charity, they may
qualify for Income Related Rent Subsidy (IRRS), which would reduce their rent to 25% of their
income for any income up to the superannuate rate – 554 of these tenants earn below the
ea
superannuate rate.
Councils are excluded from accessing this subsidy making them a more expensive landlord for this
el
group of low-income tenants. Growing this housing provision in Wellington would benefit a large
number of current City Housing tenants.
R

3
Identifying tenants as out of policy enables tenants to transition onto full market rent, and eventually out of City Housing
properties. In 2016/17, finding 16 tenants over the income threshold equated to an additional $86,000 in rental revenue.
4
It is difficult to make this assessment for larger units because the composition of the unit needs to be known.
26

R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A
R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A

There is great income variation within City Housing tenants. Tenants who work have a medium
income nearly double that of a job seeker allowance. Also the range of income possible for those
who work is substantially greater than those on a benefit. For instance, 50% of working tenants earn
between $388 and $639 compared to a range of $266 to $300 for a job seeker. The significant
variation between tenants confirms there are different subgroups of low-income tenants.
Affordability
A
Definition
IM
Defining the concept of affordability and determining how it can best be measured is an area of
much debate. City Housing policy (agreed by Councillors) has defined affordability as both a:
• Rental rate set at 70%9 market rate; and
O
• Personal income level, limiting expenditure on rent to a maximum of 35% of income.
LG
In practice, the primary definition of affordability is discounted market rent, which is applied on
entry to all new tenants – one policy applied evenly to all. Exceptions occur when tenants are in the
system:
•
e
firstly, as tenant income increases, the rental discount is decreased so that tenants pay 90% of
market rent, or is totally removed resulting in tenants paying 100% market rate. The intention
th
is that these tenants are put on notice to transition into alternative accommodation.
• secondly, as tenants with very low incomes become aware of, and apply, for the Affordable
r
Rent Supplement. This is an additional rental discount City Housing applies to tenants who are
de
paying more than 35% of their income on rent.

In 2015/16, 9410% of tenants paid 70% of market rent, 0.5% paid full market rent, and 5.5% (116
un
tenancies) received the Affordable Rent Supplement (this is discussed on page 33). No benchmark is
in place to define the desired level of tenancies on 70% market rate, but clearly 94% is a high
proportion of all City Housing tenants.
d
Keeping pace with rental discounting

se
Each year, a market valuation exercise is undertaken to ensure that City Housing rents are set at 70%
of market rents. A third party provider surveys a sample of unit types and prices rents accordingly.
This exercise costs approximately $6,500. Policy limits annual rental increases to $20 for single
ea
occupancy units, and $30 for multiple occupancy units per week. At present, the rental charges are
aligned to rental valuations.
el
Tenant perspective
R
The market rate definition of affordability does not consider the tenant experience of that policy –
rent may be set at 70% of market rent, cheaper than other alternatives in the market, but to what
degree is that ‘affordable’ for tenants? We gain a tenant perspective when we look at the degree to

9
There are some exceptions to this, for example a rental freeze on any tenant over 80 years old.
10
Percentage is an approximation because the number of tenancies is always changing. Total used here 2,090 tenancies.
29

R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A
R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A
R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A
R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A
R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A
R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A
R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A
R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A
R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A
Asset Management
Assets are the key mechanism through which City Housing can deliver its landlord functions. The
composition, quality, renewal and maintenance of the assets affects the service provided to tenants.
It also impacts the rent charged and the costs incurred by City Housing.
This section explores:
A
• The asset portfolio
Maintaining and improving the quality of assets
IM
•
• Decision-making and analysis.
O
The Portfolio
LG
The asset portfolio is diverse in terms of location; property type (stand alones / townhouses /
apartments); and size, with units ranging from studios to family homes. The quality of the building
and the building standards also vary.
Location
e
th
The portfolio is spread over 5 zones. 76 percent of the stock is in zone 2 and 3, and is located near
the Wellington City centre.
Zone 1= EASTERN Suburbs (Miramar), 245 units

r
•
de
• Zone 2 = SOUTHERN Suburbs (Newtown), 928 units
• Zone 3 = CENTRAL CITY (Mt Cook Te Aro), 665 units

un
• Zone 4= WESTERN Suburbs (Karori), 103 units
• Zone 5 = Northern Suburbs (Johnsonville/Tawa), 157 units.

d
Property type and size

se
In May 2017, City Housing has 2090 units, including voids. Comprised of:
Property Type Number of Properties Number of Units
ea
HUP Apartments 8 822

Non_HUP (source:
May 2017
administrative data) Apartments 27 868
el
Townhouse 40 288
Stand alone House 98 112
R
TOTAL 165 1,268

GRAND Total 173 2,090
81% of the housing stock are apartment complexes. 7 apartments have 100 or more units (3 of these
are yet to be HUPed) accounting for 49% of all units – the rest of the units are spread over
approximately 166 properties.
39
R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A
R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A
R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A
R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A
R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A
R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A

logged. The tracking and monitoring of maintenance work contracted to Citycare is very high level.
City Housing does not have access to the maintenance information in a way that enables an analysis
of maintenance needs and work done. City Housing does not know, for example what the
maintenance costs are by complex and for what types of maintenance. Are there complexes where
tenants report lots of minor issues, are there others where significant reactive work is happening
because there is an underlying need for more significant renewals work? What has the impact of
being HUPed made to the cost of maintenance? The lack of information is said to compromise City
Housing’s ability to provide quality assurance of work done, and to understand what the strategic
A
maintenance issues are.
IM
Summary of Findings
• The asset portfolio is diverse and concentrated in terms of location; property type; and
O
size. 68% of the stock are studios and one-bedrooms units and 81% of the stock are
apartments. There has been an increase in the number of one-bedroom units as a result of
LG
implementing HUP.
• A wide range of asset-related services (washing machines, rubbish collection, use of

community facilities) are provided to some complexes. A charge for these services may or may
e
not be included in rents – so all tenants absorb many of these costs. There is considerable
diversity in how these services are distributed across the portfolio reflecting an unplanned and
th
uncoordinated growth in these services.
• According to the Deed, City Housing properties should be safe, secure and a good standard for
r
modern living. Appendix 7 of the Deed defined these concepts by the building standards
de
agreed with the Crown. However, different building standards have been applied across the
portfolio with HUP implementing (in general) a much higher standard (the Design Guide). The
Design Guide has been revised 24 times over the 9 years it has been operational – it is not one
un
standard. Implementing the Design Guide is also more expensive than using the Deed
standard. City Housing is in the process of formally recognising the need to transition back to
the 2008 work programme standard assigned to the Deed, which will assist in containing the
d
budget.
se
• The degree to which City Housing is achieving housing outcomes is unknown. There is no
reliable data on the condition of City Housing assets and there is no programme or
methodology in place to systematically gather this information. This is a significant knowledge
ea
gap about City Housing’s asset base.
• HUP has operated essentially as a renewals programme to maintain and improve the
el
condition of assets, largely for one point in time. A HUPed property was not necessarily a
‘whole of life’ investment in that property – further investment might be needed to ensure
R
the future integrity of the building. This was not factored into the on-going renewals budget.
So whilst City Housing has always set aside funding for a long-term renewals programme, the
details of what that programme needed to cover and the related costs did not reflect the full
requirements for HUPed buildings.

46

• Further, in effect City Housing had two renewals programmes (HUP and a BAU programme),
with two very different budgets, oversight, and standards. Today the draft renewals
programmes have been combined into a single capital works programme to plan and be able
to provide a coordinated programme.
• BAU renewals are provided by Citycare. Withheld under section 7(2)(b)(ii)

A
Tenancy Advisors, as the primary interface with tenants, understand the concerns tenants
have that around specific issues, and yet Tenant Advisors have little or no input into priorities.
IM
• It has not been well understood and integrated into decision-making that what is provided (be
it a playground, a lift, or alarm system) needs to be renewed and maintained. A disconnect has
O
operated that treated HUP and BAU design and purchasing decisions as one-off decisions,
with no associated on-going cost. This has been compounded by the difficulty providing
LG
sufficient funding for the depreciation of assets.
• Maintenance accounts for between 55 – 60% of the annual operating expenses. Withheld
und

sec
Properties are maintained as and when issues are identified, or units become vacant. Citycare
e
provides the maintenance as part of its contract with the whole of Council; as such City
th
Housing has little ability to influence the price schedule charged to tenants because this is
agreed at the Council level. The maintenance charges can be high, beyond the budget of
tenants who are liable when there are damages, and often considered beyond what the
r
Tenancy Tribunal considers reasonable.
de
• Citycare usually meets its KPIs, however the tracking and monitoring of maintenance work is
very high level. City Housing does not have access to the maintenance information in a way
un
that enables an analysis of maintenance needs and work done. City Housing considers this lack
of information compromises its ability to provide quality assurance of work done, and to
understand what the strategic maintenance issues are.
d

se
ea
el
R
47

Tenant Management
The tenancy management functions deliver the key landlord-tenant engagements from prospective
tenant interested in City Housing, to tenancy management and then exiting and debt collection
beyond tenancies. These functions are discussed and organised in this section as:
• Managing the flow of tenants
• Being a responsive landlord
A
• Managing tenant debt.
IM
The current tenancy management practices have developed over time, particularly during the recent
busy HUP relocation period, which necessitated the movement of hundreds of tenants.

O
This section explores the delivery of tenancy management functions, reflecting on:
• What processes are in place to deliver the key tenancy management functions?
LG
• What is known about how well these tenancy management functions are delivered?
Managing the Flow of Tenants

e
A key aspect of tenancy management is managing the flow of tenants entering and leaving the
th
portfolio. Prospective tenants apply for entry, units are prepared when vacated (the voids process),
and then units are offered and new tenants are signed up.
This volume of work needs to be carefully managed to optimise the occupancy of the portfolio,
r
de
which affects rental income. The occupancy KPI is currently set at 94% occupancy rate (less HUP),
and as of May 2017 the rate was 95%. When HUP is included, the gross occupancy is 93%.
The volume of movement within the portfolio can be affected by:
un
• HUP – whether significant numbers of tenants are being relocated, which occurs far less now
at this stage of the programme
d
• Turnover rates within complexes, with different complexes experiencing different turnover
rates
se
• Wellington rental housing market, and the number of affordable available places to rent. In
the last year, the rental market has become tighter and more expensive, which may impact
ea
demand and slow people from moving out of City Housing.

The key aspects of managing the flow involve processing applications, preparing voids, matching
el
tenants and making housing offers, and signing up new tenants. The following diagram compares
current per week flow against the average over the last two years. This analysis shows that the
R
current flow into and out of the system is significantly lower than in previous years. This is
unsurprising given the completion of the majority of the large HUP complexes.

48

R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A
R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A

Of the 288 tenants cancelling:
• 39% cancelled in phase 1 because they did not complete the application form. Why? Is it too
onerous to complete and find supporting information? Are expectations about being housed
realistic or not apparent?
• 18% cancelled applicants in phase 3 because they did not respond to an offer to view a house.
Why? Have prospective tenants been on the waitlist too long? Could applicants be contacted
or had contact details changed, were offer messages getting through to them? 44% of
A
prospective tenants housed were on the waitlist between 3 – 12 months.
IM
In addition, for those who are housed, 26% of offers made on a house were declined. Why is that?
Are these offers not good matches for prospective tenants? Are these units not meeting prospective
tenant’s expectations or needs? Does this happen to some properties more than others, why and
O
how could this offer rate be improved?
LG
Observations on application process
This Review makes the following observations about the current allocation process:
• The focus of the application is on prospective tenants providing a range of proofs. This
e
appears to be a bureaucratically weighted process – is all of this information needed to go on
th
to a waitlist: and could a lighter, potentially more user-friendly application be used?
• The application form does not ask prospective tenants what type of accommodation they
want (e.g. size and location), what specific accommodation needs they have, and does not
r
clearly identify priority groupings. This information is gathered through the interview process.
de
Could this information be gathered simply on the application form? What is the value of the
interview in getting this information?
un
• The priority point system does not segment prospective tenants into distinct groups because
the current scores have no inherent meaning. Could the questions and points allocation be
better adapted to result into categorising prospective tenants into low / medium / high
d
housing need? Could this information help manage prospective tenant’s expectations? How
could NGO stakeholders contribute to defining segmentation?
se
• All prospective tenants who have completed the application form are interviewed regardless
of whether there is a house available. Why? Could much of this information be gathered on
ea
the application forms? Could the interviews be used only when there is a ‘live’ property and a
prospective tenant is able to make a decision on a property quickly? Would this result in a
better offer strike rate and significantly reduced effort? Would this manage prospective
el
tenant’s expectations better? Would it incentivise those with low need to focus effort on
looking for alternative accommodation?
R
• The KPIs do not measure who is housed – are they the right people and what makes them so?
There seems to be opportunity to streamline the allocation process so that both prospective tenants
and City Housing make less effort before a unit becomes available.
51

R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A

It’s not possible to know the total number of calls Tenancy Advisors take because tenants can call
Tenancy Advisors directly, by-passing the call centre. Tenancy Advisors currently feel that much of
their effort goes into responding to these calls, many of which can involve speaking to several
stakeholders, particularly in relation to maintenance issues. There can be a lot of chasing up people
to respond to these calls.
Observations on responsiveness
A
Managers have the general impression that City Housing has in place broadly the right mix of
activities to respond to the needs of tenants. This Review agrees with this assessment and suggests
IM
that City Housing builds on these responsive practices by considering that:
• Welcome to New Home visits are essentially about building a trusting relationship with
O
tenants and educating tenants on how to be a responsible tenant and understand how to
access available services. This purpose may need to be clarified to staff who may believe the
LG
purpose is to identify maintenance or overcrowding. Managers acknowledge that such visits
could lead to additional logging of maintenance or identifying early signs of overcrowding, but
that these are likely to be the exceptions. The extent to which these visits build trust is
unknown.
•
e
Site Clinics are poorly attended by tenants. Approximately 390 clinics were held in 2015/16
th
and usually no more than three tenants attend. This pattern of behaviour is well known and
consideration has been made several times to stop this activity, though there remains a
reluctance to end this practice. Tenancy Advisors take a pragmatic approach to site time, using
r
it as an opportunity to make house calls, which is valued by them. Is this type of practice
de
valuable for Tenancy Advisors to do in other complexes that do not have Site Clinics?
• Call Centre response is currently being adapted so that these staff can have access to
un
Northgate (tenancy case management database system). The potential is that more incoming
calls are fielded and dealt with by the Call Centre, directing this traffic away from Tenancy
Advisors. Tenancy Advisors believe that the Call Centre would also need better training to do
this role well, and believe that better information gathering and note recording by the Call
d
Centre would improve Tenancy Advisor’s ability to be responsive when calls do need to go
se
through to them. Monitoring the volume of calls flowing onto Tenancy Advisors would be
useful to track how effective this strategy has been.
ea
• Annual (property) inspections could be aligned to the standards used by the Asset
Management team to assess damage and wear and tear. Currently the Annual Inspection
process does not link to the void process assessment used by the maintenance team. The
el
Asset Management team is concerned relevant information about the state of complexes is
not being detected through current processes. Tenancy Advisors explained current definitions
R
around cleanliness are arbitrary - they depend on personal preferences, and making
comparative judgements based on the overall condition of a property and the mental health
needs of a tenant. There is no clear standard of cleanliness. Could a consistent standard be
used across Tenancy Management and the Asset team to make these assessments? Could this
be better aligned to Tenancy Tribunal claims? To be a valuable exercise there needs to be
funding for maintenance needs identified and a way for needs to be prioritised.
53

R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A
R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A
R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A
R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A

When the debt is over $100, the case is taken to the Tenancy Tribunal. If City Housing is awarded the
debt, and an arrangement is made with the former tenant to make payment, then Tenancy Advisors
will monitor payment and keep in contact with the former tenant. If no arrangement is made, which
usually happens if the tenant did not appear at the Tribunal, then the debt is transferred to a debt
agency. They will be responsible for chasing the remaining debt.
Understanding success of debt recovery

Management information is not available to track what happens across the tenant debt processes. A
A
Tenancy Advisor will know about their particular cases, but there isn’t centrally held information on:
IM
• Number of letters (1,2 and 10) sent in a period, and in process
• Number of referrals to budgeting services
O
• Number of Tribunals applied
Amount of debt recovered per month / week
LG
•
• Results of Tribunals - percentage of cases awarded

As a result it is difficult to know the effort being applied to recover debt, and what might be working
well. For instance what percentage of tenants pays their rent arrears on receiving letter 1? Staff
e
believe City Housing is usually successful at the Tribunal – how many cases were won? What is the
th
actual level of debt recovered for current tenants? It is currently not usually known, because what is
counted is the balance owing (which will be impacted by tenants making payments regardless of any
process in place) not what is gained through debt recovery activities.
r
de
The Review did an analysis of former debt to understand the level recovered. This was done by
looking at the amount of debt stated in the vacate letters to tenants, assuming a bond of up to $500
will be used to offset debt, and then comparing this to debt balances at a point in time the recovery
un
rate can be calculated. Taking a snap shot of tenants who left with debt between January 2016 and
March 2017 the data shows: 171 tenants left owing City Housing a total of $120,000. City Housing
recovered 34% of this debt (within the period examined). That compares with the Credit
d
consultancy recovery rate of approximately 13%. As mentioned on page 54, any debt that has no
repayment activity in a 12-month period is written off. In effect, this rewards people who make no
se
effort to repay debts.
Observations
ea
It might be useful to consider:

el
• Researching why City Housing tenants get into debt. Given what has been discovered about
affordability through this Review, it might be useful to understand debt in relation to this. Can
R
high-risk tenants be identified, what is their financial situation and are they being housed
appropriately – would they have better outcomes if they were housed in a different part of
the portfolio? What could City Housing do to minimise financial burdens and prevent tenants
getting into debt? What are the debt cycles tenants get into? Is City Housing helping to break
cycles of debt?
58

• Whether tailored approaches to debt collection are needed for particular groups. What works
for different groups of people? For example, are there other strategies that could be used for
current and former tenants who are the high debtors, over and above the obligations for the
RTA? Are there groups like pensioners, or solo mothers who would respond better if they had
a more personal engagement with Tenancy Advisors? Who are they and how might they
respond? How do other organisations manage this?
• Whether high risk debtors could be identified through analysis of income and rental data. This
A
could support a proactive approach to preventing debt by ensuring that tenants are housed in
units that they can afford, and that high risk tenants receive the tenant supplement.
IM
• Using low-tech solutions, like regularly texting tenants about rent due date and / or overdue
payments due. This is currently being trialled with a small group of tenants. It might assist
O
tenants, many of whom are known to be managing tight budgets, to stay current and not fall
behind.
LG
• How to incentivise tenants to pay small debt (under $100). A lot of the current debt is small.
Is this a matter of timing, or letting small debts occur that may seem irrelevant to tenants?
What’s happening here for tenants and how could these small debts be caught up on?
Benchmarking debt management against similar organisations, to know how well City Housing
•
e
is performing in comparisons. What could be learnt from other organisations?
th
• How do other business units across the Council manage debt collection. For instance, how
does Parking Services and Libraries manage low and high debtors? Are there strategies that
r
work in other parts of the Council that could be utilised for City Housing? What policies do
de
other teams take to writing off debt?
• At what point is taking a case to the Tenancy Tribunal a value-adding exercise. The current
un
threshold is $100 of debt, which seems low given the Tenancy Advisory time required to
prepare and attend a case.
Summary of Findings
d
se
Managing the flow of tenants

• Managing the flow in and out of housing needs to be carefully managed to optimise the
ea
occupancy of the portfolio, which affects rental income. The occupancy KPI is set at 94%
occupancy rate and the current occupancy rate is 95%.
el
• All prospective tenants who want to be considered for a City Housing property go through the
standard application and allocation process. The trigger is a prospective tenant wanting to be
R
housed regardless of whether a property is available. In practice, this means prospective

tenants are usually joining a housing waitlist. Available housing is then offered to those on the
waitlist.
• 675 applications were received in 2015/16. 32% of applicants were housed within the year.
18% were on still on the wait list at the end of the period, and 49% cancelled out of the
process. There is limited data available on why tenants cancel out. The ‘right’ people may be
59

self-selecting out, and tenants may have difficulty with the process. Cancellations are a loss of
time and effort into a process that does not lead to a housing outcome.
Being a responsive landlord

• City Housing has a number of practices in place to enable it to be a responsive landlord. A
mixture of both proactive and reactive engagements with tenants: Welcome to your New
Home visits; Site Clinics; Call and Service centres; annual property Inspections; and an
A
approach for ‘Welfare’ Tenants. These are broadly considered by the management team to be
the right mix of activities to respond to the needs of tenants.
IM
Managing tenant debt
O
• The level of tenant debt with City Housing is always changing. The debt level, as of May 2017,
is $134,000 for current debt and $137,000 for former debt. The debt KPI is defined by the debt
LG
to income ratio – set at 2%. This is currently being met. The debt KPI does not include the
practice to write off debt over 12 months old which has had no payment activity. This debt is
currently $160,000. If this practice was included, the KPI would just be met under the current
practice of writing inactive debt off after 12 months.
•
e
The debt recovery process is based on the requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986
th
(RTA). Current debt process follows a series of letters before escalating to the Tenancy
Tribunal. Former debt recovery is divided into two approaches based on the level of debt. If
the debt is under $100, which accounts for less than 10% of former debtors, debt is recorded
r
with a debt collection agency. When the debt is over $100, the case is taken to the Tenancy
de
Tribunal.
• Management information is not available to track what happens across the tenant debt
un
processes. A Tenancy Advisor will know about their particular cases, but there isn’t centrally
held information on the process (that is, how effective is the practice at recovering debt?).
The Review found that the former debt recovery rate by Tenancy Advisors is 34%. This
compares with the Credit consultancy recovery rate of approximately 13%.
d

se

ea
el
R
60


Background and Context
The Community Action Programme (CAP) is an aspect of the Housing Upgrade Project (HUP). The
funding and the intent of CAP was set in the 2008 Work Programme, which forms part of the
obligations of the Deed agreement with the Crown.
A
CAP implementation began in the second half of 2009 based on the approach developed in the
IM
Community Action Framework and Action Plan (2009-2010). The Framework was a requirement of
the 2008 Work Programme, though does not form part of any negotiation with the Crown.
In describing CAP today, an understanding of the background and context is crucial. Significantly, the
O
CAP programme delivered today is different from the one envisaged in the 2008 Work Programme
whilst the funding obligations have remained the same. This section will describe this fundamental
LG
change, and begin by describing the scope and outcomes CAP was intended to achieve, then outlines
CAP funding, and how CAP operates today.
CAP scope and outcomes

2008 Work Programme e
th
The 2008 Work Programme, ‘the foundation stone for the whole upgrade,’ defined the high level
parameters that CAP was intended to deliver. Some key elements discussed include: purpose; tenant
r
de
participation; outcomes; and role of the CAP team and tenants.
Purpose
un
CAP would support the revitalisation of tenant communities alongside the physical upgrade. It
would be a time-limited intervention (20 years), tailored to meet the need of a high rate of
community participation during the earlier years as large complexes got designed and upgraded.
d
Effort would then turn to reviewing and refreshing community-led plans to meet changing
community issues and needs. It was a programme intended to support tenant communities
se
impacted by the upgrade.
Importance of tenant participation

ea
The 2008 Work Programme explains “the success of the upgrade project hinges on engagement with
and support of tenant communities and other key stakeholders”. It also sets the expectation that
el
“tenant participation in the upgrade project would be channelled through the Community Action
Programme and its implementation. It was intended to use a ‘participatory process’ (not defined) to
R
engage tenants in the development of the Community Action implementation programme.” CAP
would be the mechanism to ensure tenants were an important part of the upgrade process.
Outcomes
The overarching outcomes (termed goals in the 2008 Work Programme) of CAP would be an increase
in social cohesion; community spirit; and pride in City Housing tenant communities. These outcomes
61

speak to the desire that upgrades are successful not just in terms of the physical changes to
complexes, but one that communities embrace as they relocate and settle back into the complexes.
They are community level outcomes – if social cohesion could be measured, a successful programme
would be expected to evidence social cohesion across the HUP communities.
The 2008 Work Programme anticipated that CAP would be delivered in two phases; the first of which
would be a tenant participatory process to develop a Community Development Framework. The
second phase would see the framework implemented through the development of Community
Action plans for placed-based communities; that is, for specific complexes affected by the upgrade.
A
The 2008 Work Programme expects the framework to deliver the following outcomes:
IM
• Strong, inclusive, sustainable communities are created and social exclusion is addressed
• Tenants are able to articulate their aspirations for the communities in which they live
O
• Effective multi-agency responses are encouraged to identified community needs and
LG
aspirations in partnership with tenants
• The Community Development Framework and the housing upgrade programme are fully
integrated and supported by all Council business units.
Role of CAP team and tenants

e
th
The Community Action team would ‘lead, support and facilitate the development and
implementation of Community Actions plans with tenant communities.’ The identification and
development of leadership capability within communities would play a key part in ‘enabling the
r
articulation of community aspirations.’ To support this, there would be ‘considerable investment’ in

de
the development and implementation of a sustainable model for leadership development in years
one to three. The investment in training and development would reduce in years 4 to 10 as a result
un
of in-house capability development. The Community Action plans would continue to be reviewed
and refreshed. Plans would be evaluated against agreed criteria to ensure objectives of the
programme remain relevant and cost effective. The CAP resource would reduce in years 10-20,
though it was anticipated CAP would be required until the end of the upgrade project.
d
2008 Work Programme Summary

se
The 2008 Work Programme was a high level overview of the HUP programme. In reading it today,
there seem to be some inconsistencies and ambiguous use of concepts, however the overall
ea
emphasis of CAP is clear:
• It was part of the upgrade programme for affected tenants

el
• The central theme for CAP was channelling tenant participation into the upgrade process
R
• It would be a tenant-led initiative
• CAP team would support tenants through capability building and facilitating the process
• Community Action Plans would be developed for affected communities detailing aspirations
and community needs
62

• Community Action Plans would be implemented utilising multi-agencies to achieve identified

community needs and aspirations.
2009 Community Action Framework and Action Plan 2008-10

The Community Action Framework and Action Plan 2008-10 (the Framework) was finalised in June
2009. CAP was implemented on the basis of this document.
Purpose
A
The Framework summaries CAP as ‘a programme of development that involves tenant
IM
neighbourhoods and communities in addressing significant and multi-faceted areas of social
disadvantage and exclusion.’ Whilst support for the communities transitioning in HUP is an aspect of
CAP, the emphasis had shifted and significantly broadened from the 2008 Work Programme. There
O
is no documented explanation of this shift. This extended scope has remained the overarching
purpose of CAP during implementation.
LG
Tenant participation
The Framework intended tenants to have an ‘increased opportunity to participate in community
life.’ The scope of tenant participation was seen to include facilitating tenants to lead and
e
participate in the planning and designs of HUP (as the 2008 Work Programme intended) but also
th
includes facilitating participation in:
• the development of creative and recreational endeavours through projects and initiatives
r
• community, civic and democratic processes
de
• celebrations, cultural events and sector specific initiatives
• the Wellington Housing Association of Tenants (WHAT) to enable positive community and
un
advocacy for the tenant population.

Again, these are broader concepts than outlined in the 2008 Work Programme about participation
that relate to all City Housing tenants. The degree to which tenant participation (as envisaged in the
d
Framework above) was implemented is beyond the scope of this Review. City Housing has won
se
awards recognising its model of tenant participation for the design of HUP complexes. However, it is
not known whether the model implemented is the one intended in either the 2008 Work
Programme the 2009 Framework. The process and outcomes of tenant participation have not been
ea
evaluated.
Outcomes
el
The Framework defines the outcomes of CAP as the 2008 Work Programme does (increase social
R
inclusion, community spirit, and pride), but also ‘links’ in a range of Wellington-wide outcomes –
these approximately15 16 outcomes become fused into the CAP project resulting in the Community
Action intermediate outcomes being stated as:

15
The Framework document is inconsistent, in one section 19 outcomes are listed and later they are summarised as 16
outcomes. The outcomes as summarised on page 17 of the Framework have been used in this report.
63

R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A
R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A
R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A

Capital expenditure was intended to fund community facilities such as community rooms,
community gardens, community facilities like shelters, sheds and BBQs. According to the 2008 Work
Programme, these physical works had been identified and costed – though this document was not
seen by the Review.
Capital expenditure was intended to be high in the early years as large housing complexes were
upgraded. Then funding would be evenly split between operating costs and capital expenditure for
the remaining 17 years. Capital expenditure would finish in 2018/19 as the large rebuilds complete.
Operating costs would remain static from 2011/12 to the end of the programme adjusting for
A
inflation only. Total operating costs spend would be $11.2m and total capital spend would be
IM
$6.5m.
2009 CAP implementation
O
In 2009, before the implementation of CAP, a decision was made to reduce capital expenditure on
the basis that it was too high; there was not $6.5m worth of need for community infrastructure.
LG
What had changed since the 2008 costings is not documented. Subsequently, the capital
expenditure budget was reduced from $6.5m to $3.1m over the 20-year period.
At the time, the decision was also made to use the $3.1m taken out of capital expenditure budget
e
for operating costs. This is explained today on the grounds that community development needs
people not facilities – so more staff were recruited to undertake programmes and community
th
consultation. The effect of this decision was to raise the level of service provided by CAP, almost
doubling it within the first 10 years.
r
Figure 32: Summary of changes to CAP service level first 10 years

de
un
d
se
ea
el
R
67

So whilst the overall CAP budget for the first 10 years has been managed within the expected overall
budget18, the level of service provided by the team is considerably more than anticipated in the 2008
Work Programme. Operating costs grew from $5m to $9m. Figure 32 illustrates this shift by
comparing the 2008 Work Programme budget to the 2016 Business Model Review which included
actual spend for the first 10 years of CAP.
It’s not clear today whether the decision to transfer the above amount from the capital budget to
the operating budget was also intended to increase CAP service levels; however, this has been the
effect. The rationale for these decisions is not documented.
A
2016 Business Model Review
IM
In 2016, a Business Model Review was conducted to look at actual and forecast spend for the
remaining CAP programme. By this time, the CAP operating budget and service level was
O
approximately $1m per annum rather than the $0.5m agreed in 2008.
LG
The service level established in recent years was used to predict future CAP costs. A disconnect
occurred between the established service level and the Deed of Grant resulting in the total CAP
budget increasing from the agreed $17.7m to $24.7m for the life of the Deed. Over the next 10
years, the CAP operating budget is projected to be double the 2008 projected spend, requiring an
e
additional $6.4m which the Deed does not provide for. It is not clear how this occurred. It may not
have been a conscious choice given there is no business case for increasing the total CAP budget19.
th
The consequence is that there is no Deed funding to meet this continued and increased level of CAP
service and costs.
r
CAP Delivery Today

de
Overarching approach
un
The CAP team describes its approach to community development as being based on building the
capacity of individuals to be influencers in their community – you achieve community level
outcomes through individual level outcomes. The phrase ‘don’t feel good, feel good, do good,’ is
d
believed to summarise the core approach. Individuals who ‘don’t feel good’, can be supported (by
se
and through CAP) to ‘feel good’ resulting in people then ‘doing good.’ In what specific ways
individuals ‘feel, or do good / not good’ is not documented.
During the Review, the need for an intervention logic for CAP became apparent to show the link
ea
between processes and desired outcomes. The following model was developed and tested with the
CAP staff and team. It forms the basis for structuring this Review.
el
R

18
The total CAP budget differs by $1m ($11m compared to $12m) between 2008 and 2016. This is due to the costs of the
business unit and the increase in the level of GST not being included in the 2008 Work Programme budget models.
19
The CAP Business Review paper in 2015 ambiguously presents the $1m operating budget as though it was part of the
intended investment for CAP between 2008-2025. The paper does acknowledge that the funding level in the Long Term
Plan ‘maintains similar levels of service,’ but no explanation is given for this $6.4m increase in funding, or where the
funding was intended to come from.
68

R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A

• Planning community events – assisting tenants to identify and plan community activities such
as BBQs and administering a $20,000 per annum fund for tenant social activities. Also for
leading City Housing-wide tenant activities such as celebrating the Chinese New Year.
• Connecting tenants and services – providing one-on-one support to tenants to connect with
support services, and encouraging services to provide workshops and programmes at
community facilities.
• Kaitiaki networking and training – supporting community volunteers in their role to
A
coordinate community facilities, for example opening up the community rooms, acting as
hosts in the community rooms, and coordinating the community garden.
IM
• Co-convening programmes – working with partner agencies to jointly organise and run
programmes for tenants such as Push play, Healthy lifestyles and holiday activities.
O
• Delivering programmes – organising and running programmes for tenants such as Men’s
health, and supporting tenants to run their own groups such as the Primetimes (social
LG
activities for the over 80’s) and the garden club.
• Computer Hubs - managing three computer facilities located in three complexes
• Facilitation and mediation – supporting relationships between tenants when conflicts have
arisen. Often done by phone or face-to-face.
e
th
• Communications – providing a tenant newsletter with tenant-specific information. Also seen
as an opportunity to role model tenant behaviour and so shape tenant behaviour.
r
This Review is not aware of any evaluation that has assessed the delivery of these functions.
de
Level of CAP activity, participation and outcomes achieved

un
Understanding the level and depth of delivery and participation in CAP is limited by the nature of the
administrative data available. The data provided to this Review was for one year of the programme
(2015/16). The data is based on a head count of participants and may not include all CAP activities.
For the period recorded, it is possible to know the average number of participants, and estimate the
d
number of activities delivered. It is not possible to say how many tenants in total accessed CAP, or in
se
what combination because the data does not track individuals. Going forward this information is
likely to be available and should be.
ea
Understanding the outcomes of CAP relies on the 2013 outcome evaluation which was primarily
based on the Most Significant Change technique (MSC), and its follow up evaluation in 2015. The
MSC approach essentially identifies self-reported success stories to understand how an initiative is
el
working. Done well, programme leaders would have a clear understanding about what it is about
their programme (and role) that has contributed to ‘success’ being reported. The MSC approach is
R
intended to be quantified so that the extent of the success can be understood – this step did not
occur in the work commissioned as part of the 2013 evaluation.
70

Relying on the MSC approach for an outcome evaluation is problematic because by definition only
the exceptions are understood and not the typical experience of participants20. The evaluation uses
the annual Tenant Satisfaction survey as a way to triangulate the impact of CAP, however what is
the link between what CAP delivers and these indicators? How should the impact of tenants
transitioning into much better physical living circumstances resulting from HUP be accounted for?
The following section discusses CAP activities in terms of the extent to which they are delivered
across City Housing, and the level of tenant participation and outcomes – if a comment can be made.
A
HUP, Renewal and Community Asset Building Consultation
IM
In 2017/18 the majority of community consultation required to support the HUP project has been
completed. The nature and scale of community consultation has changed over time in keeping with
the change in redevelopment patterns.
O
In 2015/16, CAP engaged with tenants on a variety of community consultation projects, including
LG
providing updates on progress. A total of 32 community meetings were held. The main focus of
these meetings was on the Booth Street Playground (4 meetings) and progress updates for Darwin
(10 meetings) - a complex of 22 adults. Other discussions were held on the Kotuku Community room
fit out, Community room relocation for Arlington and Rintoul, community signage and seating, the
mural at Central Park, and progress updates for Marshall.
e
th
The average number of attendees at these meetings was 10 people. In absolute terms, this is a low
number. Depending on the complex involved, the percentage of tenants engaging will vary. For
instance, an average of 5 people attended 10 discussions about Darlington, which is a 23% turnout
r
for the small-sized complex. Where as a one off discussion on the Central Park mural resulted in 24
de
tenants engaging, which is 11% of the Central park adult population. If an assumption is made that
the tenants involved in consultation in their complex tend to meet more than once (and that would
be desirable if the process is to have an impact), an approximation of 89 tenants attended 32
un
meetings throughout the year. That is an estimated 2.5%21 of the total tenant population.
CAP Chats
d
CAP chats are regarded by the CAP team as a central mechanism for engaging with tenants, both
se
supporting an increase in social cohesion / inclusion22 and enabling then to identify tenant needs.
There is no alternative tenant-led forum or governance structure where tenants could represent
their views to City Housing. In 2015/16, approximately 419 CAP chats were held across 13
ea
complexes. This is by far the most frequent CAP activity delivered. The 13 complexes account for
approximately 60% of all City Housing adult tenants; therefore approximately 40% of tenants did not
have direct access to CAP chats – it is not delivered as a service for all tenants. Figure 33 shows the
el
number of CAP chats delivered by participating complex.

R

20
BetterEvaluation http://www.betterevaluation.org/en/plan/approach/most_significant_change.
21
The actual number of tenants living in City Housing properties over a period can only be approximated – it is an ever-
changing number. For this calculation, the total tenants population used is 3533 (adults and children).
22
Different concepts but used interchangeably in CAP reports.
71

R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A

Extrapolating reach across the participating complexes, CAP attracts an estimate of 6% of the
participating adult population – this assumes participants at each complex are unique, that is
tenants at Central Park do not also engage with CAP chats at Berkeley Dallard. If that did occur, the
reach would be lower. If participation was considered across the whole City Housing tenant
population, CAP chats would be attended by 3.5% of City Housing tenants. Staff confirm low
numbers attend CAP and report that, to encourage participation, tenants are often provided food.
Planning community events
A
The CAP team helps communities to plan community activities through the distribution of the
IM
Community In Action (CIA) fund. This is a $20,000 per annum fund through which members of the
community apply for funding. Criteria for the fund includes educational, cultural, environmental and
social projects. 24 projects were funded in 2015/16. It is not known the extent to which tenants are
O
aware of this fund, whether some tenant groups are funded for more than one project, and the
numbers who engage in the funded events is not recorded. CAP staff report that they also help
LG
tenants with practical issues in organising these social events.
The CAP team also organises larger group celebrations. Like other CAP activities, not all complexes
are included in these activities and the number of participants varies by event. In 2015/16, CAP
organised a:
• e
Chinese New Year celebration, 142 participants – 5% of City Housing tenants
th
• Neighbours day event, 72 participants – 2.5% of City Housing tenants
Quiz night, 62 participants – 2% of City Housing tenants

r
•
de
To engage participants, the CAP team may sometimes provide transport. For the above events,
tenants come from a wide range of complexes. So ‘community’ as it is being defined in practice for
these events, is a notion of a city-wide community – it is not clear how this is distinct from being part
un
of the Wellington community.
Connecting tenants and services

d
The CAP team intends to build up relationships and connections to tenants so that tenants can be
se
supported. For tenants exposed to the CAP team there is a chance for significant issues to be
identified and support found by referring tenants to support agencies, and advocating for tenants
within City Housing. The value of this approach is illustrated in one of the Most Significant Change
ea
case studies – a tenant with limited access to electrical power who was identified by the CAP team.
The CAP team was able to refer the tenant to City Mission budgeting services. The effect of the City
Mission’s work with this tenant is reported as leading to a transformation in the way the tenant
el
subsequently managed their finances. The role of the CAP team in this story24 was to connect the
R

24
Understanding this story in more depth would help City Housing understand whether there are other lessons to learn
about City Housing provision. How affordable is the HUP unit for this tenant, could they be housed somewhere more
affordable? How was the issue actually identified – who was involved and what did that take? Was the tenant in debt with
City Housing? What role if any did the debt team have, and could similar future cases be identified more systematically?
What did it take for the tenant to be persuaded to attend and keep committed to the budgeting service advice; and what
role did City Housing, including the CAP team have in supporting this engagement?
73

tenant to an appropriate NGO service provider – a community connector role. In these one-on-one
cases, tenants express gratitude and identify the CAP team as very caring.
The extent to which this type of referral support can be provided is limited to the number of
relationships the CAP team can have with an ever-changing cohort of City Housing tenants. It can be
supposed that to understand a sensitive issue a tenant is experiencing, trusting relationships that
enable tenants to accept and respond to advice need to be formed, and would require time and
effort. How much time and effort (and therefore cost) is taken by this approach and the extent to
which tenants are subsequently helped is not known.
A
The evaluation presents these types of stories as evidence that CAP is a success. This is curious
IM
because the ‘success’ presented is actually the success of a provider to deliver their service, not CAP.
To understand the success of CAP would be to understand how the way the community connector
role functioned (what challenges where faced to identify the issue, identify an appropriate service,
O
advocate for the tenant etc). For example, in the story of a tenant who graduates from a Literacy
Aotearoa Wellington programme, the success is stated as ‘literacy has changed by life.’ This speaks
LG
to the value of literacy – which is hard to disagree with, and the impact of Literacy Aotearoa to teach
someone literacy. In this story no mention is made of the role of CAP except a reference to having a
‘partnership’ with this particular NGO. What did it take to refer this particular tenant to Literacy
e
Aotearoa Wellington? How did CAP realise the tenant’s need? What is the CAP team’s relationship
with this agency and in what way is it a partnership? How is this different to referring a tenant to a
th
service? What support, if any, did the CAP team provide the tenant as they studied? The lack of
clarity about what the CAP success actually is, is significant because it is an evaluation of CAP not of
NGO providers. This Review finds this lack of understanding of the evaluand (the subject of the
r
de
evaluation) to be a consistent theme across these stories.
Kaitiaki networking and training

un
CAP has created the role of community volunteers, also known as Kaitiaki (across 15 complexes) to
support operating the community facilities. The roles include community room coordinator,
recreation room coordinator and garden coordinator. The core function of these roles is
coordinating community access to community facilities and assisting tenants to feel welcomed and
d
engaged in the use of these spaces.

se
The CAP team provides networking and training sessions for Kaitiaki, to build their capacity and
capability to take on an influencing role within their community, and to feel able to take on Kaitiaki
ea
roles. This strategy is part of the ‘don’t feel good, feel good, do good’ approach discussed – by
supporting individuals the community is stronger.
In 2015/16, 12 network/ training sessions were held with an average of 1925 people per session – so
el
just over one Kaitiaki per complex involved. The network and training days provided the opportunity
R
to share information, do team-building activities, and receive for example, resilience training.
One of the Most Significant Change case studies presents a Kaitiaki as a success story. The story
emphases CAP support for personal development of an individual. The tenant reports an increase in
their confidence and ability to be a spokes-person. They also share that they have been a tenant in

25
On average 0.07% of the City Housing tenants accessed Kaitiaki networking and training.
74

R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A

attend (which likely includes a count of adults and children). It would be interesting to know the
history of this group and what makes it successful from an engagement perspective. It is tenant-led,
and would appear to be meeting a community need in the locations provided.
The Primetimer group have an average of 22 participants who meet once a month for a social
outing, and 18 people attend Push Play sessions run in two blocks for 3 to 4 sessions each. The
remaining programmes and groups have a combined average of 7 tenants per event. Given that CAP
is intended to support all City Housing tenants, it is difficult to suggest that this level of reach is
anything other than very low.
A
It is not known the extent to which some tenants engage with more than one programme or group,
IM
but staff and CAP reports and material indicate that this happens. For instance, one of the case
study tenants, Withheld under section 7(2)(a)

LG
The low penetration of CAP activities across the City Housing tenant pool and low level of tenant
engagement would be compounded by a few tenants engaging in several activities. CAP has no
benchmark for determining what level of activity could be considered value for money.
e
As mentioned, there has been no evaluation to assess the integrity of programmes and groups
th
delivered. It is not clear what outcomes could be expected and at what level of intensity tenants
would need to engage for each of these programmes and activities delivered to achieve the desired
outcomes. Work needs to be done to develop benchmarks and standards of delivery – including
r
defining when a programme can be considered cost effective to run.

de
Computer Hubs
un
CAP provides several staff to run three computer hubs in Newtown, Central Park and Arlington.
These staff have responsibility for providing technical support to tenants, some of whom may have
limited computer skills. It is not clear whether tenants who live in complexes without computer hubs
would choose to travel to one of these complexes rather than travel to free services provided (for
d
example, by local libraries).

se
Understanding the extent of use of these computer hubs is difficult because attendance data has
been counted on a weekly basis – it is not known the extent to which each entry is a unique
ea
individual, or the extent that tenants repeatedly returning to the facilities. The facilities are available
for 24 hours per week. The average count shows for 2015/16:
• 23 logged visits per week at Arlington (0.96 visits per hour)

el
• 78 logged visits per week at Central Park (3.25 visits per hour)
R
• 61 logged visits per week at Newtown (2.5 visits per hour).
Out of a tenant population of 3,533, an average of 162 logged visits per week (unknown for how
many individuals) is a usage rate of 4.6% for the computer hubs – it will be lower when the total

26
Presentation ‘Winds of Change’ held June 2016
76

number of computers is considered. For example, there are 6 computers in Central Park giving a
usage rate 0.5 per hour open, per computer.
Facilitation and mediation

The CAP team reports that they are often involved in facilitating and meditating conflict between
tenants. Reportedly, this can be time consuming.
Summarising activities and participation
A
The level of engagement in CAP activities is low. There is no evidence of a strategy to decide how to
IM
address the needs of all City Housing tenants or what particular needs are best focused on. Decisions
about what is delivered seem to be driven by each locality and by those who engage in CAP chats.
This approach clearly narrows down what is delivered and who participates across the portfolio.
O
Whilst CAP activities are intended to be for all City Housing tenants, in practice (according to the
data provided for the Review) a small percentage (between 0.3% to 6% of tenants) engage with CAP
LG
activities at any one time. This finding is similar to the participation data presented in the 2013 CAP
evaluation. This data shows that, on average, individuals attend a type of event between two and
three times. So the depth of engagement (dose) reported per activity type is low. What level of
impact can be expected with this level of engagement?
e
CAP is a service for the minority of tenants. The low participation brings into question the notion
th
that CAP is ‘addressing significant multi-faceted areas of social disadvantage and exclusion.’ If this
has occurred, it occurs only for a small number of tenants.
r

de
un
d
se
ea
el
R
77

Summary of CAP Key Findings

1. The Community Action Programme (CAP) was initiated and funded as part of the 2008 Work
Programme. In 2009, the scope of CAP significantly changed from a HUP-specific initiative to
support tenants transitioning during the upgrade process to a broad concept of community
development that is intended to address ‘multi-faceted social disadvantage and exclusion’ for all
City Housing tenants.
2. No additional funding was sort to support this significant change in purpose. In the first 10 years,
A
CAP operating expenditure doubled, reflecting a higher service level than originally anticipated.
IM
The budget was maintained by reducing capital costs. However, over the next 10 years, CAP
operating costs are expected to cost an additional $6.4m. There is no funding for this.
3. The broadened scope of CAP included taking responsibility for 16 city-wide outcomes, delivered
O
by other parts of the Council through ratepayer-funded initiatives. By taking on these outcomes,
it is possible that CAP is duplicating effort within the Council. This question needs to be
LG
investigated.
4. The current CAP approach to change is based on the idea that by supporting tenants to ‘feel
good’ they will ‘do good’ in their community. What this specifically means has not been
e
described by CAP. This approach emphasises achieving outcomes for individuals, who will in
theory go on to influence outcomes for their communities.
th
5. A range of activities are delivered by CAP including: community consultation; CAP chats;
community events; connecting tenants and services; Kaitiaki networking and training; co-
r
convening and delivering programmes; managing computer hubs; facilitation and mediation;
de
and tenant communications.
6. The volume of CAP activities when broken down by programme type is low, with greatest
un
opportunity for tenants to engage in CAP chats (419 in 2015/16). There is no apparent strategy
to meet the needs of all City Housing tenants, or to determine what the priority needs and focus
might be.
d
7. Whilst CAP is intended (since the Framework) to be for all City Housing tenants, in practice a
small percentage (between 0.3% to 6% of tenants) engage with any one particular type of CAP
se
activity. It is a service for the minority of tenants, some of whom are heavily involved in CAP.
The low level of average repeated engagement and the low number of CAP programmes and
ea
events, brings into question the notion that CAP is ‘addressing significant multi-faceted areas of
social disadvantage and exclusion.’
8. The 2013 CAP outcome evaluation is based on a technique that focuses on understanding the
el
stories of exceptional tenants – those who have the ‘most success’. By definition, it is an
R
evaluation that does not include the usual experience of participants. This significantly limits the
ability for this evaluation to comment on programme outcomes. This Review observes that
tenant stories identified and illustrated in the CAP evaluations tend to focus on the success
achieved by a partner organisation, rather than the contribution of CAP.

78

Cross-cutting Issues and Conclusion

City Housing is providing a much-needed service to people on low incomes in Wellington. To
continue as a viable business, new ways of working need to be found to ensure the financial
sustainability of the business unit. The Review considers the following overarching design questions
to be important to reflect on:
• What does it mean to be a social landlord?
A
• What are tenants’ needs and expectations?
IM
• Should services be tailored to meet the needs of different tenants?
• What’s the right balance between effort and reward?
O
• How to ensure alignment and interconnections?
LG
• What data analysis would support strategic decision-making?
• How to ensure accountability?

Each question will now be discussed in turn.
Being a Social Landlord e

th
It is not clear what it means exactly to be a social landlord. The Review picks up a strong belief that
being a social landlord involves being ‘more than a private landlord’. For some, that might translate
r
as providing cheaper rents, being more lenient than a private provider, or not profiteering and
de
providing a better standard of accommodation, or building communities and the capacity of

individuals within the housing complexes. There is a strong sense across City Housing that being a
un
social landlord involves caring about tenants. The Council also tends to regard itself as doing a
‘better’ job than other social housing providers – tenants chose City Housing over other providers.
Without a clear, specific definition of what it means to be a social landlord there can be a pull to be
all things to some tenants.
d
Given that the meaning of being a social landlord is being interpreted in several ways, this creates a
se
tension within Council between meeting the needs of an individual, a group of individuals, and the
whole tenant population – being the ‘best’ social landlord provider has resulted in higher service
ea
levels which are driving higher and unsustainable costs. In addition, most tenants are still being
charged rents that are not ‘affordable’ based on the Council’s own definition. From a system
perspective, what are the core aspects of being a social landlord? What does City Housing need to
el
do to ensure it is a social landlord for all tenants? Is there anything it should stop doing?
Defining what it means to be a social landlord raises design questions such as:
R
• What tenant needs should City Housing be responsible for supporting?
• What level of service is appropriate and affordable for tenants and City Housing?
• How and in what ways is the Council’s provision as a social landlord similar and different to
other social housing providers?
79

Tenant’s Needs and Expectations

The needs (related to the Council being a social landlord) and expectations of tenants (current and
prospective) is not well captured in any systematic sense - there is no tenant advocacy group; tenant
consultation occurs for specific issues only; there is little research on tenants’ needs and
expectations; and there is little analysis of administrative data. In addition, whilst staff (from across
all teams) have a variety of different relationships with tenants (e.g. debt collection, CAP chats,
responding to maintenance), it is unclear the extent to which the information collected is used
A
across City Housing to inform operational and policy decisions in a systematic, rather than ad hoc
way.
IM
There is an opportunity to gain a more systematic understanding of tenant needs and expectations
to understand:
O
• What housing needs tenants have
LG
• What tenants expect when they sign up to living in a City Housing unit
• What services tenants are prepared to pay for
• What tenants hope for when they sign up to City Housing and what they get
•
e
What level of rent tenants are willing to pay to live in a higher standard of housing
th
• What trade-offs tenants are willing to make to live in City Housing units and why.
Answering these questions would provide City Housing with information on how it could shape its
r
services and ensure it is responding to the needs of all (most) tenants.
de
Tailoring Services
un
City Housing services are currently not designed to provide a segmented or tailored service to
tenants, even though tenants have different incomes, housing needs, and different expectations
about the length of stay with City Housing and whether (and if) they can transition to the private
market. The tenant and landlord relationship is based on a standard tenancy contract.
d
On paper, City Housing offers one service (a rental unit) to all tenants, regardless of what priority
se
group they might belong to or what their needs might be. The service is essentially matched on the
availability of a unit and whether it is in the right location, right size and (in theory) at an affordable
ea
price. All tenants, regardless of income, receive a discount to 70% of the market rate when they
enter City Housing – one policy approach for all tenants.
In practice, the Review has shown that City Housing offers a wide variety of service levels to tenants
el
– this is not made explicit. It is an implicit effect of implementing the current City Housing delivery
model. Variety in service provision occurs due to:
R
• Quality of housing stock. A unit may have been recently renewed and received a design award
or be significantly deteriorating and awaiting significant repairs
• Type of housing stock, whether it is a stand-alone unit, a unit in a small complex, or a unit in a
large complex
• Price of rental unit with low, medium and high priced units available by unit size
80

• Facilities provided within complexes, including whether there are community rooms,
communal washing machines, BBQs and so on
• Presence of Tenancy Advisors or the CAP team regularly being on site to respond to tenant
questions and needs
• Availability of a range of CAP activities.
The differences in service levels are significant and yet related costs are spread across and borne by
all tenants. The current differences across the system could be used as a basis for developing a more
A
tailored service, and then charging tenants accordingly. City Housing could potentially offer an
IM
explicit tiered system that reflects agreed organisational priorities around different tenant needs
and desired for outcomes. This would make explicit the different service standards provided and has
the potential to better meet the needs of different groups of tenants.
O
Effort and Reward
LG
City Housing is an operational business unit – staff and managers like to get on and deliver. When
gaps are found, the tendency is to want to address these. Processes have developed during a period
when annual business costs have continued to grow and there was no requirement to make savings.
e
Taking time, as this Review has done, to reflect on processes and to ask questions about effort and
rewards (outcomes) helps to ensure processes continue to be fit for purpose – that they meet the
th
needs of the business as a whole. This might include thinking laterally about what success looks like
and taking a tenant perspective on their experience of City Housing processes. For example, what
percentage of applicants housed by City Housing would be a sign of success and an efficient use of
r
de
City Housing’s resources?

Asking these types of questions means challenging each other’s assumptions and being open to
changing the way things are done. City Housing is in a new context now, so what changes are an
un
improvement both for City Housing and for tenants? This may mean thinking differently about how
City Housing responds to tenants’ needs and what role it should take.
There seems to be a tendency in City Housing to take on more responsibility to directly address an
d
issue (which may affect an individual – eg a suicidal tenant, or a group of tenants – smokers
se
requiring outdoor shelter) but has City Housing questioned and considered what the best gains for
the majority of tenants might be? It means being clear about what role City Housing has as a social
landlord, what is appropriate support, for whom, and under what circumstance?
ea
City Housings’ revenue comes from tenants, who generally have very limited disposal income. So
protecting the interests of all tenants means questioning the way things are done, and for what gain
el
– ensuring that funds are spent wisely for the benefit of tenants across the portfolio. It seems that
HUP set high expectations about what City Housing could deliver (quality of housing, services to be
R
provided, access to social programmes and community action) - these need to be considered again
in relation to what City Housing can afford.
Alignment and Interconnections

Decisions about assets, tenancy management, target groups, and community action are all
interlinked. This diagram points to some of the essential interconnections, trade offs-and
81

R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A
R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A
been clear. For instance, statements are often attributed to the Deed which are actually part of
other decisions or documents – and in some instances the information is incorrect and
inconsistent. Similarly, key concepts can be ill-defined, vague, and not aligned to how partner
agencies and central government define these concepts.
Accountability requires decisions to be clearly documented, and progress to be tracked and
reported against meaningful measures. For instance, over time the KPIs have come to be so
routinely met that they provide little insight into the operation of the business. A new set of
performance measures and benchmarks might usefully help the business be more informed
A
and accountable. It is about ensuring that what is being tracked is important and informative,
IM
and being clear about expectations and obligations.
Conclusion
O
City Housing is in the process of implementing a new strategic direction. Part of this process
LG
has been conducting this Review to examine the current approaches to delivery. The Review
has provided a framework for understanding delivery as a whole business. It has talked to a
wide range of people responsible for the shape and current delivery of City Housing. It has used
available data to identify key patterns, and reviewed key documents that underpin the current
model.
e
th
The Review has been an opportunity for City Housing management and stakeholders to reflect and
consider a wide range of critical questions about the current delivery model and approach. The
Review questions are intended to enable an ongoing reflective practice, challenging the way
r
things are done to ensure that tenants receive the appropriate service and the outcomes that
de
the Council expects. This Review has been as much a process as a report. The workshops,
which took place over several months, have impacted and changed ways of working.
un
At the heart of this report is the message that the Council expects City Housing to be self-sufficient,
to discount rental income below what other landlords receive, and do more than what is required of
a landlord. However, there is a fundamental disconnect between being able to provide high quality
social housing (assets, service levels, community development) to all tenants, being affordable to
d
both low income tenants and the Council, and being 100% funded by low income tenants.
se
The opportunity now is for City Housing to become much clearer about what it is here to do and
achieve for tenants. Working within its budgetary constraints, what creative strategies can be
ea
developed across the whole business unit to be the social landlord it wants to be? Are all leverage
points being utilised? If City Housing is a pathway to wellbeing through housing, what kind of
interventions would best leverage the assets and funding so that the largest number of people were
el
better off? How could data be better used to understand what is occurring across the business and
tenant population to respond more purposefully and strategically? What is the current level of
R
connection between wider Council services and City Housing? Are all the opportunities for City
Housing to leverage the Council’s services to provide support to tenants being taken?
There are many unanswered questions for City Housing. This is an opportunity for City Housing to
continuing exploring its model and practices for the benefit of tenants.
84
R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A
Appendix 2: Review questions
The list of Review questions discussed with City Housing managers, policy, and finance during the
scoping of the Review. Questions in italics require primary data collection and so were immediately
excluded from the scope of the Review. These questions have guided the Review process.
Foundations
A
Process
IM
• Describe the financial model of City Housing?
• What is the Council’s definition of being a social housing landlord?
• What is the purpose of social housing?
O
Cost
LG
• What does it cost to deliver the social housing package of services (e.g maintenance,
rubbish, tenancy services, CAP)?
• What have been the trends in costs?
• What level of discounting is currently operating?
Income / investment e
th
• What rental income is generated – by tenant sub-group, unit type, upgraded units, long-
term tenants V new / medium stay tenants?
r
• What are the trends in income? Eg is there more discounting happening to make upgraded
de
units affordable for tenants?

• To what extent is the Council on track to invest in social housing (deferments)
un
Sustainability
• What opportunities are there to improve the cost effectiveness of City Housing?
Accountability
d
• Are lines of accountability clear and effective?

se
Entry and Re-entry (Allocations)

ea
Policy intent (design)
• Who is intended to be served by the Council’s social housing- what groups of people under
el
what circumstance?
• What does social housing offer prospective tenants? By different policy groupings (e.g. over
R
80’s rent freeze)
Process
• What agencies, if any, refer clients to the Council – why? What value do they perceive?
• What is the process for applying, assessing, and allocating housing?
86
• What, if any, challenges are there in applying, assessing and allocating housing?
• Could any significant improvements be made?
• What are applicants’ experiences of the application process?
• What housing needs do applicants present with and what is their profile?
• How timely are processes and decisions?
A
• How well matched are offers?
To what extent are offers declined by tenants & why?
IM
•
• To what extent is rent relief applied, is there a pattern to this allocation and where is rent
forgone?
O
Outcome
LG
• How long do people wait for a decision about their housing applications?
• What is the profile of people allocated social housing, and to what extent does this match
the policy intent? (eg financial hardship, mental illness, physical disability, ethnicity, age,
e
gender, family size, AS supplement, limited income – NZ Super, supported living payment,
IRRS registered)
th
• What is the profile of people who are not allocated social housing? For what reason
(housing? not meeting criteria)?
r
• To what extent are people housed appropriately (under / over crowding)?

de
• What expectations do tenants have about the length of tenancy & services they might be
provided?
un
• What do City Housing properoties cost tenants? Is it affordable (tenant perspective)?
• To what extent are transfers allocated to more suitable housing?

d
Asset Management
se
Assets
• Describe the level and type of housing stock
ea
• What are the challenges in maintaining the long-term utility of the housing stock?
Maintenance
el
• How much does maintenance cost (tenants and the Council)?

R
• What maintenance issues are regularly identified, for what reason (vandalism, repairs, voids,
vacates, etc) ?
• How responsive is maintenance delivered – (by different reasons eg for voids, for routine
maintenance)?
• How well maintained is the housing stock?
87
• What would need to change to reduce the demand for maintenance?
• Could the approach to maintenance be improved?
• What is the value of annual and six-weekly property inspections in identifying maintenance?
• What is the tenancy customer experience of maintenance?
• What impact does maintenance costs have on tenant’s financial pressures?
A
• Is the current standard of housing appropriate for social housing?
IM
HUP
• What is the nature and extent of the upgrade programme?
O
• To what extent is the upgrade project on track?
What is the level and nature of future upgrade needs?
LG
•
Outcome
• To what extent are homes, safe, secure and to a good standard?
•
e
To what extent is tenant health impacted by housing quality?
th
• To what extent are tenants proud to call their unit home?
Tenant Management
r
de
Process
• How does City Housing become aware of tenant needs?

un
• What welfare issues do tenants have that affect their ability to remain in social housing?
• How does City Housing support these tenants (case management, facilitate access to
services)? Volume?
d
• How effective is tenancy support at improving tenants’ ability to stay in social housing?
se
• How are tenants informed about their tenant rights and obligations?
ea
• How well informed are tenants of their rights and obligations?
• What level of demand is there by tenants for contact with the Council by different channels
(site clinics, by phone, email)?
el
• How does City Housing manage tenants exhibiting anti-social behaviour?

R
• How are complaints usually managed?
• Are there opportunities to improve City Housing’s responsiveness to tenancy agreement

breaches?
• Are there any systemic issues that are not being resolved?
• What are the processes for identifying whether people are out of policy (OOPs)?
88
• How effectively are out of policy tenants transitioned out of housing, and could this process
be improved?
• What does tenancy management, interface and support cost?
• How does tenant interface operate? Could anything be improved?
Outcomes
• To what extent do tenants successfully manage their tenancies?
A
• To what extent do tenants feel they have a stable home, and a stable housing environment?
IM
• To what extent are tenants proud to call their unit home?
CAP
O
Design
LG
• What definition(s) of community and community development are being used?
• What is the purpose of CAP and has this changed over time?
•
facilitating community services?
e
How does CAP align to tenancy management and other Council functions delivering or
th
Process
• How are CAP activities developed? What drives an initiative? Who is it for?
r
de
• Describe the nature and extent of tenant-led community development plans and have they
been delivered?
un
• Describe and define the range of community development activities and intended outcomes.
• What services are delivered ? Where – at what sites?
• How well-aligned are activities to intended outcomes?

d
• What is the level of tenant engagement and participation in CAP? Are some areas stronger
se
than others?
• What strategies are used to encourage participation – why is this needed and what are the
ea
barriers to participation?
• To what extent has CAP supported the revitalisation of communities?

el
• When is regeneration complete – what would the indicators be? Does CAP’s role change
over time in communities?
R
• What does CAP cost to deliver (by key function areas)?
• Are there improvements City Housing could make to strengthen CAP?
• What are tenants’ experiences of CAP services?
89
Outcomes
• To what extent are communities revitalised and identify as strong, inclusive and sustainable?
• To what extent do tenants:
• Articulate their aspirations?
• Participate in their communities?
A
• To what extent has significant and multi-faceted social disadvantage been addressed?
IM
O
LG
e
r th
de
un
d
se
ea
el
R
90
Appendix 3: Key Documents Considered
in the Review
A policy for Wellington City Council’s Social Housing Service (May 2010)
Business Case for Eton Flats ( 2012)
A
City Housing Draft Portfolio Assessment Framework presentation (2014)
IM
City Housing Application Interview Questions Modifications and demonstrations (2008)
City Housing Portfolio Assessment Framework, Community, Sport and Recreation Committee (2014)
O
City Housing Portfolio Assessment Framework (2015)
City Housing Vacate Process (2013)
LG
City Strategy Committee (March 2017)
City Housing Community Action Plan (2008)
Confirm look up tool report (2016)
Community Action Plan Business Model review (2015) e
th
Community Action Framework and Action Plan 2008-2010 (2009)
Community Action Annual Report 2013-2014 annual report to Treasury
r
de
Community Action Annual Report 2014-2015 annual report to Treasury

Community Action Plan 2016-2017
un
Community Action Programme, September & October 2016 tenant activities and achievements
Community Action Plan budget variance (2017)
Community Action Project Proposal (2008)
d
Evaluation of the Community Action Programme 2013

se
Evaluation of the Community Action Programme 2015

A Most Significant Change (2016), presentation in ‘Winds of Change’ IAP2 Symposium
ea
Monthly Contract Report – City Housing, City Care (September 2016)
Monthly Contract Report – City Housing, City Care (November 2016)

el
Portfolio Assessment Framework

R
Tenancy Management Plan (August 2014)

The Deed of Grant
Work Programme 2008 to 2029 (June 2008)
Work Programme (draft) 2013 (June 2013)
91
R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A
R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A
R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A
R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A
R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A
R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A
R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A
R
el
ea
se
d
un
de
r th
e
LG
O
IM
A

WCC City Housing Review Discussion Document - For Release

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

WCC City Housing Review Discussion Document - For Release

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

A

City Housing Operational Review –

on the delivery of social housing by City Housing.

ABOUT THE REVIEW ............................................................................................................................... 6

ASSET MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................. 8

COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAMME ........................................................................................................ 10

CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES ......................................................................................................................... 15

PURPOSE & SCOPE ............................................................................................................................... 16

ABOUT CITY HOUSING .................................................................................................................. 20

CITY HOUSING BUSINESS UNIT ............................................................................................................... 20

THE DEED OF GRANT ............................................................................................................................ 20

CURRENT FINANCIAL SITUATION ............................................................................................................. 21

CITY HOUSING – PURPOSE AND OUTCOMES ................................................................................. 24

PURPOSE OF HOUSING .......................................................................................................................... 24

SUMMARY OF OUTCOME FINDINGS ........................................................................................................ 38

SERVICE LEVEL ..................................................................................................................................... 41

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................ 46

BEING A RESPONSIVE LANDLORD ............................................................................................................ 52

COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAMME ............................................................................................. 61

SUMMARY OF CAP KEY FINDINGS ........................................................................................................... 78

ALIGNMENT AND INTERCONNECTIONS ..................................................................................................... 81

APPENDIX 1: REVIEW OUTCOME FRAMEWORK ............................................................................ 85

APPENDIX 2: REVIEW QUESTIONS ................................................................................................. 86

APPENDIX 4: AFFORDABILITY ........................................................................................................ 92

APPENDIX 5: MATCHING STOCK TO TENANT INCOME ................................................................... 93

APPENDIX 6: SERVICES BY COMPLEX ............................................................................................. 95

FIGURE 26: BALANCE BETWEEN CURRENT AND FORMER DEBT .......................................................................... 55

FIGURE 30: CAP SCOPE AND OUTCOME COMPARISON ....................................................................................... 65

FIGURE 35: CAP PROGRAMME ENGAGEMENT ..................................................................................................... 75

About City Housing

6. Withheld under section 7(2)(i) Work is underway to respond

Community Action Programme

for this additional $6.4m.

Withheld under section 7(2)(i)

protect the interests of tenants the balance needs to be right.

more staff training and guidance particularly around tenant welfare.

good understanding of this loss of income.

enough to drive design and operational decisions.

accessing resources across Council.

• How City Housing operates, focusing on key processes?

• Who is served by City Housing?

state to enable discussions on its future.

Review design - the framework

Data collection and analysis e

City Housing Financial Model

Withheld under section 7(2)(i)

Strategic Housing Investment Plan (SHIP)

Withheld under section 7(2)(i)

• The extent to which City Housing is affordable for tenants

The extent to which priority groups are housed.

Housing people on a low income

Tenants have low incomes

• Rental rate set at 70%9 market rate; and

paying more than 35% of their income on rent.

Keeping pace with rental discounting

Maintaining and improving the quality of assets

• Decision-making and analysis.

Zone 1= EASTERN Suburbs (Miramar), 245 units

• Zone 2 = SOUTHERN Suburbs (Newtown), 928 units

• Zone 3 = CENTRAL CITY (Mt Cook Te Aro), 665 units

• Zone 4= WESTERN Suburbs (Karori), 103 units

• Zone 5 = Northern Suburbs (Johnsonville/Tawa), 157 units.

Property type and size

HUP Apartments 8 822