Board reporting - Beever and Struthers

2014 ANNUAL REVIEW OF SOCIAL HOUSING
SECTION 2:
BOARD REPORTING
Key points:


Operating
and Financial
Review
(OFR):
The OFR is an established part of the financial statements of most large Registered
Providers. It is a best practice recommendation of the 2010 SORP for RPs managing
more than 5,000 units.
OFR reporting is of variable quality.
RPs concerns over welfare reform are highlighted in the board report.
The SORP suggests a very structured approach. The requirements in relation to the OFR
are set out in paragraphs 28 to 35 and include:










A description of the landlord’s business and discussion of its objectives and strategy.
An analysis of the main influences on the performance of the landlord.
Review of significant features of performance and efficiency.
Analysis of the main factors and influences that may have an effect on future
performance.
How the board has sought to maintain and improve future performance.
A review of the capital structure of the landlord.
Cash flows during the period.
Liquidity at the end of the period under review.
Any going concern considerations.
A statement of compliance.
As we have noted in previous years, OFR reporting is of variable quality, with many
associations blurring or omitting the reporting categories set out in the SORP. Many
combine the Board report with the OFR. The statement of compliance was omitted in six
out of 15 of London’s largest housing association’s (the G15’s) 2013 financial statements.
Performance:
The OFR should enable users to understand the main influences of the performance of the
RP and discuss significant features of performance and efficiency.
Most RPs opt for a range of financial and performance based indicators to assess
performance during the year. The most common indicators noted include arrears
performance, repairs completed on time, Decent Homes compliance, voids turnaround
time, and tenant satisfaction.
Performance is generally compared to prior year, with some associations further
comparing to a target or peer group benchmark. Narrative analysis and explanation of the
figures is generally fairly cursory.
We can see a growing trend of RPs providing details of per unit management costs. The
relationship between these figures and the amounts reported in the financial statements is
usually fairly opaque, with most per unit costs being significantly lower than a reader of the
headline figures might expect.
We note London & Quadrant Housing Trust’s decision to publish the ratio of earnings
between the highest earner and lowest earner, and the Chief Executive’s pay per home
managed (15.6 times and £3.40 respectively).
3
2014 ANNUAL REVIEW OF SOCIAL HOUSING
SECTION 2:
BOARD REPORTING (continued)
London &
Quadrant
Housing
Trust:
Welfare
reform:
The impact of the Government’s welfare reforms were not felt in the year ended 31 March
2013, with the ‘bedroom tax’ only introduced from 1 April 2013 and Universal Credit not
scheduled for introduction until 2016 and 2017.
RP’s concerns over these reforms were clear however, with most OFRs including a brief
analysis of the expected impact on their tenants and their ability to recover rent arrears.
Most RPs took a non-partisan line and some seemed supportive of the rationale behind
Government policy, if not the reforms themselves.
Circle Anglia was typical in their tone on this issue:
Circle
Anglia:
The changes being introduced in 2013 to the UK’s welfare system will have an impact on
Circle’s own income. We need to manage this carefully and rigorously through a disciplined
approach to rent arrears and income. More importantly, it will also significantly affect many of
our customers, 69% of whom currently receive housing benefit.
During the year, we carried out a major programme of preparation, assessing what the
impacts will be on people’s day-to-day lives and how we should help them to prepare for the
change. We have also done a great deal of work on developing our own position on the
issues involved, exchanging knowledge, ideas and points of view with a wide range of
people and groups from right across the sector.
Our ethical position is a simple one. We support the intent behind the reforms – to make
work pay, and to ease the transition into paid employment for those who currently rely on
benefits.
However, we also believe that the reforms need to be implemented pragmatically and with
sensitivity, and that they need to be workable for our tenants and our business alike.
Circle
Anglia:
How reform will be communicated and how those affected will be supported are key
considerations. These are particularly important in an environment where 45% of our
customers currently do not have internet access, although this is necessary for them to
receive Universal Credit and Direct Payments. Such issues have major implications for the
everyday lives of many thousands of people and need to be urgently addressed by policymakers. This is why we are calling for at least one session of face-to-face support for those
who most need it to help them through this transition.
The SORP requires that the OFR should be neutral, free from bias and complete. Few,
however, are as honest as Metropolitan Housing Trust, who state that:
Metropolitan Although Metropolitan’s financial fundamentals are sound, in recent years the quality of
Housing
service provided to customers, the value for money it offers, the robustness of its
Trust:
infrastructure and the quality of its governance have not been of a standard appropriate to
the modern competitive and regulatory environment, nor to the needs of customers....
4
2014 ANNUAL REVIEW OF SOCIAL HOUSING
SECTION 2:
BOARD REPORTING (continued)
Metropolitan
Housing
Trust
(continued):
The last few years have been very difficult for Metropolitan’s staff. First, they have been
working in a poorly performing business which has suffered significant loss of reputation and
this has sapped morale. Second, many teams within the business have faced restructure in
response to the Board’s recovery strategy. While these changes are for the long term good
of the business, in the short term this has led to a great deal of uncertainty and inevitably a
number of redundancies have been necessary. The staff in this situation have continued to
work hard for Metropolitan and their contribution to the change process should not go
unrecognised.
Social
value:
The Social Value Act 2012 requires public authorities to have regard to the enhancement of
economic, social and environmental well-being at the pre-procurement phase of procuring or
commissioning services. Its requirements relate to a range of public bodies, including
housing associations. Housing associations should consider social value both in terms of
themselves as commissioning bodies, and also the social value of the services they offer
when tendering for services.
A small number of the top 100 have begun to make disclosure in the OFR regarding social
value.
Genesis Housing Association Limited details its initiatives to develop stronger and more
sustainable communities including a financial inclusion support programme, sponsoring
resident work skills in training, digital inclusion and business start-up initiatives.
Genesis
Housing
Association
Limited:
Genesis and its subsidiaries have undertaken a number of initiatives in the year which
support our agenda to develop stronger and more sustainable communities. These initiatives
include:
 Financial inclusion support programme – 2,000 residents given assistance.
 Sponsoring resident work skills training – assisted 144 residents back in to work, saving
over £1m in public funds.
 Digital Inclusion – 1,850 hours of IT training to 205 residents, 21 now with formal
accreditation.
 Business start-up initiatives – including financial assistance and mentoring support. This
has launched 4 new businesses in the year.
2014 SORP:
The draft 2014 SORP requires Registered Providers with over 5,000 homes in management
to include a strategic report to accompany the financial statements. The information required
to be provided in this strategic report is similar to the OFR, though the form and content is
less prescriptive. The 2014 SORP exempts subsidiaries from producing an OFR if one is
done at a group level.
5