42
Sector performance 2011-12 Victorian registered housing agencies
Sector performance 2011-12 Victorian registered housing agencies
Sector performance report 2010–11
2
Introduction 3Operating environment 3 Commonwealth housing initiatives 3 State housing initiatives 4The registered sector in Victoria 4 Overview of performance 5Additional references 5
Highlights 6Sector growth 6Assets 6Grant funding 6 Operating revenue 7Households assisted 7
Sector profile 8Housing stock 8Tenants 9Vacancy rates 10Staffing 10Board members 10
Sector performance 11Well GOVerned 12Governance of the agency 12 Regular board meetings 12 Board member participation 13
Well MAnAGed 14Management of the agency 14 Staff turnover 14Tenancy management 16 Turnaround time 16 Void loss 17 Rent outstanding from current tenants 19 Tenants owing more than eight weeks rent 20 Arrears written off as bad debt 22 Evictions 23 Tenancies maintained (long term housing including rooming house) 25 Complaints management 26 Tenant satisfaction with housing services 29 Tenant satisfaction – consideration of views 30Housing management and maintenance 31 Urgent repairs 31 Non-urgent repairs 32 Tenant satisfaction with maintenance 33FInAnCIAllY VIABle 34Operating performance 34 Operating revenue and costs 34 Return on average assets 36 Rental yield 36 Operating cash flow 37 Liquidity 37Capital structure 38 Total assets 38 Interest bearing debt 38 Interest cover 39 Loan to valuation ratio 39
Appendix 1 40Key performance measures – definitions
Appendix 2 42Performance indicators for key performance measures
Department of Treasury and Finance
1 Treasury Place
Melbourne Victoria 3002 Australia
Telephone: +61 3 9651 5111
Facsimile: +61 3 9651 5298
Website: www.dtf.vic.gov.auAuthorised by the Victorian Government
1 Treasury Place, Melbourne, 3002
Available online at www.housingregistrar.vic.gov.au
© Copyright State of Victoria 2013
This book is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process
except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968.
ISSN 2200-3959
Published April 2013
If you would like to receive this publication in an accessible format
please telephone 9651 1402 or email [email protected]
Contents
Sector performance report 2010–11
3
Operating environmentThe operating environment in which registered agencies manage and seek to grow social housing is complex. In particular, agencies need to work with the three levels of government (Commonwealth, State and local) and be informed about any relevant changes and new initiatives occurring at these levels.
Key strategies and developments for Commonwealth and State governments are described below. Local government’s impact generally effects agencies with a presence in those areas.
Commonwealth housing initiatives
> The existing National Affordable Housing Agreement (NAHA) 2009-2014 and associated National Partnership Agreements (particularly Social Housing, Homelessness, Nation Building and Jobs Plan – Social Housing, and Remote Indigenous Housing) continued to underpin national housing policy.
> In early 2012 a review was commissioned of the Social Housing Initiative, funded under the Nation Building and Jobs Plan, which delivered 4 592 new social housing units in Victoria between 2010 and 2012. KPMG’s report of the review in September 2012 described a range of economic benefits delivered to the social housing sector and to the wider Australia economy.
> The June 2012 National Rent Affordability Scheme (NRAS) performance report indicated a total of 6 822 incentives had been granted in Victoria (16.8 per cent of the national total), with 1 514 (22 per cent) of the Victorian total tenanted or available for rent. The report also identified 20 organisations in Victoria that have participated in NRAS including five registered agencies and two related parties.
> Further progress was made on developing elements of the National Regulatory System for Community Housing (NRSCH) with a focus on the consultation to inform the drafting of evidence, tiers and enforcement guidelines.
> The Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission (ACNC) took another step forward with the nomination and subsequent appointment of an inaugural Commissioner, Susan Pascoe, in June 2012 along with the launch of the ACNC in December 2012.
Introduction
Our 2011-12 Sector performance report marks the fourth year of publication of this report.
The report provides:
> an overview of the highlights in the sector during the financial year;
> a profile of the registered housing sector as at 30 June 2012; and
> a summary of performance of registered agencies against key performance measures.
It is also an important resource for registered housing agencies to compare and evaluate their performance for the past year against results achieved across the whole sector.
Sector performance report 2010–11
4
State housing initiatives
> Victorian Housing Framework – During the year, the Victorian Minister for Housing announced a commitment to develop a strategic framework for public and community housing. This followed the release of the Victorian Auditor General’s report on Access to Public Housing in March 2012 and the report of the Victorian Government’s Parliamentary Inquiry into Public Housing. Two public consultation papers were published in April 2012. Considerable feedback was received during the consultations and additional work to inform the drafting of the framework has proceeded in 2012-13.
> Victorian Homelessness Action Plan 2011–2015 was released, with the State Government committing to $76.7 million on a range of initiatives. $25 million was directed towards 11 Innovation Action Projects which include participation by registered housing agencies including Barwon Youth, Haven; Home, Safe, HomeGround Services, Rural Housing Network Ltd and VincentCare Community Housing, and related parties including Mission Australia, The Salvation Army, Uniting Church and Wintringham.
The registered sector in VictoriaFollowing two new registrations on 1 July 2011 and a merger in the early part of 2011–12 of two housing associations previously operating under the one trading entity, the number of registered housing agencies stood at 41. This figure remained unchanged to the end of the year and there are currently eight housing associations (HAs) and 33 housing providers (HPs).
Housing units under management of the sector increased to 17 769 from 15 849 in the previous year, representing growth of 1 920 units (12 per cent) and surpassing 2010-11’s growth of 1 471 (10 per cent). Almost 16 300 households in Victoria are housed by not-for-profit organisations under Victoria’s housing regulation.
Further detail on the registered sector is contained in the remainder of this report.
Sector performance report 2010–11
5
Overview of performance
The registered sector again demonstrated strong performance against key measures. There is also room for improvement against some measures.
Notable results in reported performance for 2011-12 include:
> a decrease in the level of vacant tenantable (2.2 per cent) and vacant untenantable stock (3.7 per cent);
> continued high levels of tenancies maintained in long term housing (86 per cent for HAs and 87 per cent for HPs), tenant satisfaction with housing services (88 per cent for HAs and 89.5 per cent for HPs), complaints resolved in 30 days (HAs at 84 per cent and HPs at 88 per cent) and urgent repairs completed in 24 hours (particularly for HPs at 95 per cent, with HAs at 84 per cent); and
> a maintained low level of rent outstanding from current tenants (1.4 per cent of total rent charged for HAs and 2.5 per cent for HPs).
Additional referencesTwo sources of further reference information on the social housing sector and affordable housing are the Australian Institute of Welfare’s report on Housing assistance in Australia 2012 and the National Housing Supply Council report on Housing Supply and Affordability – Key Indicators, 2012.
Sector performance report 2010–11
6
Sector growth
The number of rental housing units in the sector increased to 17 769 from 15 849 at the end of 2010-11. Of the new units:
> 67 per cent were newly built or purchased by agencies; and
> 33 per cent were newly managed by agencies on behalf of a third party.
Assets Construction of new housing units contributed to the growth in assets during 2011-12. Total assets of the registered sector grew by 6.9 per cent to $2.45 billion by June 2012. HAs achieved 82 per cent of this growth. Total assets of HAs grew by $130.1 million and total assets of HPs grew by $27.7 million.
The existing pipeline of capital projects funded through Nation Building and Jobs Stimulus package (Commonwealth capital funding) and capital grants from the Victorian State Government are nearing completion. As a result, over the next couple of years the growth of the sector, measured by the growth in total assets, is anticipated to be modest.
Total assets ($m), 2010-11/2011-12 Grant fundingThe registered sector received $160.5 million as capital grants for development of housing assets and $77.4 million as operating grants during 2011-12.
Grant funding breakdown ($m), 2010–11/2011-12
Highlights
Sector performance report 2010–11
7
Operating revenueOperating revenue of the sector was $223 million during 2011-12. This is a 26.5 per cent increase compared to the previous year.
With capital programs nearing completion and more units tenanted, rental revenue of HAs increased by 38.7 per cent to $63.2 million during 2011-12. The increase in rental revenue for HPs was 23.1 per cent. This was mainly due to completion of capital developments, rental increases and registration of two new providers during 2011-12.
Operating grants of HAs increased by 8.6 per cent to reach $17.7 million during 2011-12. Based on current projections operating grants are anticipated to increase by a modest 4 per cent over the next five years. Operating grants and other income of HPs was $72.4 million during 2011-12.
Total operating revenue ($m), 2010–11/2011-12
Households assisted The registered sector assisted 7 425 households1 to establish new housing tenancies, an increase of 5 per cent from last year. Fifty-five per cent of new tenancies were in long term housing. Associations housed the majority of long term housing tenants and providers the majority of transitional housing tenants.
new tenancies by housing type, 2010-11/2011-12
HA s HPs Sector
2010-11Long term housing 2 495 1 121 3 616 68% 33% 51%Transitional housing 1 171 2 310 3 481 32% 67% 49%Total 3 666 3 431 7 097 100% 100% 100%
2011-12
Long term housing 2 704 1 396 4 100 72% 38% 55%Transitional housing 1 027 2 298 3 325 28% 62% 45%Total 3 731 3 694 7 425 100% 100% 100%
Notes to table
• Longtermhousingincludesaffordablehousing,roominghousesandgroup housing.
1 Number of households that were allocated housing during the year, either to existing or new/upgraded tenancy units
Sector performance report 2010–11
8
Housing stock At 30 June 2012 the registered sector had 17 769 tenancy (rental) units under management, of which associations managed 58 per cent and providers 42 per cent. Associations owned the majority of their stock (75 per cent). In contrast, providers managed 93 per cent of their stock on behalf of the Director of Housing, local government or other third party.
Total tenancy units, 30 June 2012
HAs HPs Sector
Owned 7 787 503 8 290 94% 6% 100%Managed – total 2 605 6 874 9 479 27% 73% 100%Total tenancy units 10 392 7 377 17 769 58% 42% 100%
Notes to table
• Tenancyunitsmanagedbyaregisteredagencyonbehalfofanother registered agency have been counted under ‘owned’ only.
• Tenancyunitsincludeallformsoflong-term,transitionalandcrisishousing (excluding 463 CRUs).
The proportion of long-term housing increased from 73.5 per cent to 76 per cent, while transitional housing fell from 25.5 per cent to 22.5 per cent. Like previous years, this was largely due to the overall increase in the number of long-term tenancy units rather than a decrease in transitional housing units.
Tenancy units by housing program, 30 June 2012
Long term housing accounted for the largest proportion of stock of both associations (86 per cent) and providers (62 per cent).
Tenancy units by housing type, 30 June 2012
HAs HPs Sector
Long term housing 8 951 4 589 13 540 86% 62% 76%Transitional housing 1 416 2 578 3 994 13.5% 35% 22.5%Crisis housing 25 210 235 0.5% 3% 1.5%Total 10 392 7 377 17 769 100% 100% 100%
Sector Profile
Sector performance report 2010–11
9
The profile of housing stock by number of bedrooms remained unchanged from last year - almost three-quarters of tenancy units had two or three bedrooms.
Housing stock by number of bedrooms, 30 June 2012
The profile of rooming house stock remained relatively stable with the majority of dwellings containing 15 units or less. Compared to last year, the percentage of rooming houses with 15 units or less decreased by 2 per cent while dwellings with 16-30 units increased by 2 per cent.
rooming house dwellings by number of rooms/units, 30 June 2012
Tenants At 30 June 2012 there were 16 294 tenancies let in the sector, 79 per cent in long term housing. This is 13 per cent more tenancies let in the sector compared to the same time last year.
Tenancies by housing type, 30 June 2012
HAs HPs Sector
Long term housing 8 517 4 412 12 929 88% 67% 79%Transitional housing 1 158 2207 3 365 12% 33% 21%Total 9 675 6 619 16 294 100% 100% 100%
Sector performance report 2010–11
10
Vacancy rates Of all stock vacant at 30 June 2012, 2.2 per cent was vacant tenantable (VT)2 and 3.7 per cent vacant untenantable (VUT)3. Both rates decreased compared to 2010-11 (2.8 per cent and 4.1 per cent respectively).
The decrease in the sector VT rate was mainly due to associations recording a fall from 3.5 per cent to 2.5 per cent. Routine maintenance, tenant related damage, properties awaiting demolition/redevelopment and capital works all contributed to the VUT rate.
Vacancy rates, 30 June 2012
2 A vacant tenantable unit is one where the unit is ready to be occupied3 A unit is considered vacant untenantable where maintenance required to have it available for occupancy has been deferred or has not been completed, or a decision has been taken for other legitimate reasons not to fill that unit
Staffing At 30 June 2012, 1 276 staff were employed in the registered sector. Sixty-three per cent of the sector’s staff were employed by the 33 providers.
During the year 340 more staff were recruited, 31 per cent to new positions. Similar to last year, providers created the majority of new positions (59 per cent).
Total staffing, 30 June 2012
HAs HPs Sector
Staff 469 807 1 276FTE 433.2 680.9 1 114.1Staff recruited 125 215 340New positions created 44 63 107
The figure below shows the growth in staff numbers over the past five years. The increase reflects both the overall growth in the housing portfolio and the increase in the number of registered agencies (excluding 2010-11 when no new agencies were registered). From 2007-08 to now, the number of staff employed in the sector has more than doubled.
registered housing sector staff, five year comparison
Board members At 30 June 2012 there were 331 active board positions in the registered sector, with an average of nine board members per association and eight per provider.
Sector performance report 2010–11
11
This section presents the results reported by registered housing agencies in the 2011-12 key performance measures (KPM) data collection. This annual collection plays an important role in monitoring the on-going compliance and performance of agencies against Performance Standards. Results reported in the collection provide a solid, consistent base for identifying trends both in agencies and across the sector as a whole.
The collection was first introduced in 2006–07. Data submitted by the eight registered housing associations in this year’s collection is presented and compared to the performance across the six data collections undertaken to date4.
Due to the large number of housing providers registered at the end of 2011-12 (33), detailed data on providers is not presented although averages for this sector as a whole are reported5.
The mission of the Housing Registrar is to protect social housing assets and ensure quality services to tenants by regulating well governed, well managed and financially viable rental housing agencies. The data in this section is presented according to these three key areas of regulation.
For a complete list of the KPMs see Appendix 1.
4 Data for 2006-07 is for seven associations only. With the exception of KPM 1, all 2006-07 averages are based on the KPM percentage figure. Wherever possible, 2007-08 averages have been calculated from the raw data collected under the supporting data items for each KPM. Where this supporting data was not requested, the average for 2007-08 is calculated from the KPM percentage figure. All averages from 2008-09 onwards are calculated solely on the supporting data items.5 Due to the small number of providers registered at the end of 2007-08 (four), and the large diversity between these, the averages for previous data collections are only provided from 2008-09 for providers
Sector performance
Sector performance report 2010–11
12
Well GOVerned
Governance of the agency
Regular board meetings
Associations held 99 per cent of all scheduled regular board meetings for the second year in a row. Only one association did not hold all scheduled meetings (this was the December meeting, deemed unnecessary by the Chair).
regular board meetings rate, four year trend (HAs)
The majority of associations met monthly, excluding January meetings, equating to 11 meetings for the year. One association met on a six-weekly basis.
The average number of regular board meetings held has remained broadly the same over the last six years, averaging around 10 per year.
Average number of regular board meetings held, six year trend (HAs)
In addition to regular board meetings, associations use an active sub-committee structure. On average, association boards had three sub-committees that met five times each.
Providers also reported good results for governance measures with 96.5 per cent of regular meetings held.
regular board meetings rate, four year trend (HPs)
Sector performance report 2010–11
13
Of the 33 registered providers, 26 held all scheduled meetings with an overall average of nine meetings per provider during the year.
Average number of regular board meetings held, four year trend (HPs)
Providers reported active sub-committee arrangements, with an average of three board sub-committees that met six times each.
Board member participation
Regular board meetings were well attended. The average board member participation rate (including vacancies) for associations was 82 per cent. Excluding vacancies, the rate recorded was 85 per cent.
Board member participation rate (including vacancies), six year trend (HAs)
Three associations that recorded results below the average did so for a variety of reasons, including an identified and agreed replacement director who was ultimately unable to take up the position and a director with a work meeting that clashed with the agency’s scheduled board meetings (measures are being taken by the agency to address this issue such as reviewing meeting times as well as making use of teleconferencing facilities).
Board member participation rate, 2011-12 (HAs)
Sector performance report 2010–11
14
The board member participation rate (including vacancies) for providers increased from last year to 83 per cent. The excluding vacancies rate was recorded at 86 per cent.
Board member participation rate (including vacancies), four year trend (HPs)
Well MAnAGed
Management of the agency
Staff turnover
Staff turnover in associations averaged 22 per cent, compared to the previous three years where the staff turnover rate has been between 13 and 15 per cent. Each association recorded an increase in the rate for 2011-12. In a few instances the increase was about double that of last year. Reasons for this included the restructure of an entire department due to funding changes, redundancies in the development area, and normal attrition.
Staff turnover, six year trend (HAs)
Although the rates for each association increased compared to last year, all remained in the satisfactory range for this KPM6.
One association with the relatively low rate of 4.5 per cent recorded just one staff member leaving during the year (from a smaller number of workers compared to other agencies).
Staff turnover, 2011-12 (HAs)
6 For a full list of performance indicators for each key performance measure see Appendix 2
Sector performance report 2010–11
15
Staff turnover for transitional/crisis workers (direct housing and support workers) continued its steady decrease from a high of 23 per cent in 2007–08 to 15 per cent currently. In contrast, the staff turnover rate for all other agency staff (including all administration staff and long term housing workers) increased for the third year in a row. For the past two years this has largely been explained by redundancies in the development area.
Staff turnover by work area, five year trend (HAs)
Staff turnover for providers decreased for the second year in a row to a rate of 19 per cent.
Staff turnover, four year trend (HPs)
Staff turnover for providers’ transitional/crisis workers (direct housing and support workers), as well as for all other agency staff, both decreased by 3 per cent overall.
Staff turnover by work area, four year trend (HPs)
Sector performance report 2010–11
16
Tenancy management
Turnaround time
Average vacant tenantable (VT) turnaround time for associations was 23 days, up from 17 days last year. Average vacant untenantable (VUT) turnaround time was recorded at 15 days, significantly down from 36 days last year.
The increased VT turnaround time was mainly due to one association that recorded a high rate (52 days) due to issues encountered with allocating to new housing stock as well as rooming house amenity. The agency has addressed these issues by sub-contracting some tenancy arrangements for new housing stock to other housing providers and through a current project designed to improve the liveability of its rooming houses. Removing this association from the calculations reduces the average VT turnaround time to 17.5 days, comparable to 2010-11.
The significant decrease for VUT turnaround is primarily explained by the conclusion of extensive maintenance and refurbishment requirements that took place on a number of units in the previous financial year (including capital works).
Average turnaround time (days), six year trend (HAs)
Notes to figure
• VUTturnaroundtimewasnotincludedinthedatacollectionsfor 2006-07 and 2007-08.
Results reported by the individual associations varied across the sector, with VT turnaround ranging between six and 52 days, (although if we exclude the agency with the uncommonly high rate of 52 days the range reduces to between six and 24 days). VUT turnaround ranged between five and 33 days. All results for VUT turnaround time fell within the preferred or satisfactory range for this KPM.
Average turnaround time (days), 2011-12 (HAs)
Compared to last year average VT turnaround time for rooming house and transitional housing remained relatively steady, while it increased significantly for long term housing from 19 to 28 days (due to one association recording an unusually high rate as discussed previously).
Comparing VUT turnaround time to last year, this rate increased slightly for both rooming house and transitional housing while it decreased significantly for long term housing (23.5 to 14 days). Six of the associations recorded a decrease in the long term housing rate this year and this is accounted for by the conclusion of extensive maintenance and refurbishment works.
Sector performance report 2010–11
17
Average turnaround time (days) by housing type, 2011-12 (HAs)
Notes to figure
• From2011-12,agenciesarenolongerrequiredtoreportVUTturnaround times for transitional housing as maintenance on these properties is undertaken by COMAC.
• TotalVUTturnaroundtimeisforlongtermhousingonly.
Providers recorded an average VT turnaround time of 8.5 days and VUT turnaround time of 20.5 days. Both decreased compared to the previous financial year (12 days and 32 days respectively). The large fall in the VUT rate is largely due to reporting changes, with agencies no longer required to report VUT turnaround times for transitional housing as maintenance on these properties is undertaken by Community Management Accommodation (COMAC).
Average turnaround time (days) by housing type, 2011-12 (HPs)
Notes to figure
• From2011-12,agenciesarenolongerrequiredtoreportVUTturnaround times for transitional housing as maintenance on these properties is undertaken by COMAC.
• TotalVUTturnaroundtimeisforlongtermhousingonly.
Void loss
The average VT void loss for associations was 3.1 per cent. Although this was an increase from last year, rent foregone due to tenancy units being vacant was still a small percentage of total rent charged by associations.
Void loss (vacant tenantable), four year trend (HAs)
Sector performance report 2010–11
18
Like the previous KPM for VT turnaround time, the data for this measure has been skewed by one agency with a high void loss rate (12.7 per cent) due to issues encountered with allocating to new housing stock as well as rooming house amenity. Excluding this agency’s data from the calculation reduces the total VT void loss rate for 2011-12 to 1.9 per cent.
Void loss (vacant tenantable), 2011-12 (HAs)
Unlike last year where void loss increased for each housing type this year the rate only increased for long term housing, while the rate decreased for rooming house (from 4 per cent to 3 per cent) and remained relatively stable for transitional housing. The void loss rate for both long term housing and rooming house fell well within the satisfactory range for this KPM.
Void loss (vacant tenantable) by housing type, four year trend (HAs)
Providers recorded an average VT void loss of 2.3 per cent, compared to 2.5 per cent last year. The largest loss was again recorded in rooming house (5.4 per cent), although this rate decreased slightly compared to last year. Two agencies reported a significant void loss for rooming house. One indicated this was due to the closing down of a rooming house and the slow withdrawal of tenants as they found alternative accommodation (the empty rooms could not be re-let as the lease was due to expire). The other agency indicated the void loss arose from issues with the property’s planning permit and the subsequent reduction in the maximum number of tenancies at the property.
Void loss (vacant tenantable) by housing type, four year trend (HPs)
Sector performance report 2010–11
19
Rent outstanding from current tenants
Following a steady decrease in the rate, average rent outstanding from current tenants as a percentage of total rent charged increased slightly this year from 1.2 per cent to 1.4 per cent.
rent outstanding from current tenants, six year trend (HAs)
Regardless of this increase results were again low across the associations, with all recording rent outstanding from current tenants less than 2 per cent (well within the satisfactory range for this KPM).
rent outstanding from current tenants, 2011-12 (HAs) By housing type rent outstanding was again highest in transitional housing where, following a steady decrease, the rate increased to 3.1 per cent (still within the satisfactory range).
rent outstanding from current tenants by housing type, four year trend (HAs)
Sector performance report 2010–11
20
The rate for providers dropped significantly from 4.3 per cent to 2.5 per cent, with many providers reporting a reduction in the rate compared to last year. Rent outstanding was again highest for long term housing, although this rate decreased from 4.9 per cent last year to 2.8 per cent this year. The significant reduction in the long term housing rate was largely due to one provider reducing its rate by half from 9 per cent. Transitional housing also decreased to its lowest rate over the past four years (2.5 per cent).
rent outstanding from current tenants by housing type, four year trend (HPs)
Tenants owing more than eight weeks rent
At 30 June 2012, 2.2 per cent of tenants in association stock owed more than eight weeks rent, a slight increase from last year.
Tenants owing more than eight weeks rent, five year trend (HAs)
Two associations reported a rate considerably higher than the average, although both rates were still within the satisfactory range for this KPM. One of these agencies, although reporting a high figure, did reduce the rate from 3.4 per cent last year to 2.9 per cent this year. The other association recorded an increase from 2 per cent to 3.5 per cent, largely due to a significant increase in the rooming house rate. This agency has discussed a number of issues concerning these rooming houses with the Housing Registrar and has undertaken to determine the appropriate staffing resources that are required to adequately place manage these dwellings in the future.
Sector performance report 2010–11
21
Tenants owing more than eight weeks rent, 30 June 2012 (HAs)
As explained in last year’s report, the consistently higher rate for transitional housing is most likely a reflection of the temporary nature of the housing. The rate for rooming house more than doubled from 1 per cent to 2.7 per cent (for reasons as discussed previously), while long term housing remained steady at 1.5 per cent.
Tenants owing more than eight weeks rent by housing type, four year trend (HAs)
Providers reported good performance against this KPM, with the percentage of tenants owing more than eight weeks decreasing considerably from 7.8 per cent to 5.7 per cent. This was mainly due to a large decrease in long term housing (from 9.8 per cent down to 5.6 per cent). This is the second year in a row that the rate for long term housing has decreased, from a high of 10.9 per cent in 2009-10. This fall was mainly due to one provider decreasing its rate by half from 20 per cent.
Following a large increase in the rate for transitional housing last year (from 4 per cent to 7.9 per cent), this year the rate remained stable.
Tenants owing more than eight weeks rent by housing type, four year trend (HPs)
Sector performance report 2010–11
22
Arrears written off as bad debt
Arrears written off as bad debt increased marginally from last year to 0.9 per cent, which was still a very low result and within the preferred range for this KPM.
Arrears written off as bad debt, six year trend (HAs)
Arrears written off as bad debt represented a very small proportion of total rent collected for all associations, ranging between zero per cent and 1.9 per cent. Two associations with a rate higher than the average recorded a comparatively high rate for the transitional housing component of their stock.
Arrears written off as bad debt, 2011-12 (HAs)
The increase in the overall rate compared to last year was due to increases in both the rooming house rate, largely due to one association and issues with staffing resources (as discussed in the previous section), and transitional housing.
Arrears written off as bad debt by housing type, four year trend (HAs)
Sector performance report 2010–11
23
The rate for providers remained relatively stable from last year, increasing very slightly to 2.1 per cent. Notably, the rate for rooming house almost doubled from 1.7 per cent to 3.3 per cent. One main reason for this was the large increase recorded by one provider (from 2.6 per cent to 13.4 per cent) following the closure of a temporary rooming house, although a few other agencies recorded a smaller increase in the rate this year.
Arrears written off as bad debt by housing type, four year trend (HPs)
Evictions
Associations’ evictions as a percentage of tenancy exits was recorded at 5.8 per cent. This represents an increase in rate compared to last year due to the fact that the total number of evictions increased from 78 to 136 (a 74 per cent increase), while the number of tenancy exits increased only slightly during the same period from 2 192 to 2 360 (an 8 per cent increase).
evictions, six year trend (HAs)
One association recorded a rate well above the average, mainly due to a high eviction rate in its long term housing and rooming house portfolio. Following a period of growth for this agency, tenancy exits increased in the past year by 79 per cent and evictions by 96 per cent (meaning that evictions increased by 17 per cent over the increase in the number of tenancy exits).
evictions, 2011-12 (HAs)
Sector performance report 2010–11
24
Increases in the eviction rate were recorded across all housing types. Both long term and transitional housing recorded large increases compared to last year (around 60 per cent). For transitional housing the number of evictions rose while the number of tenancy exits fell, accounting for the increase (although evictions as a percentage of exits remains low for this housing type).
evictions by housing type, four year trend (HAs)
Seventy-two per cent of evictions from associations’ stock were due to arrears (an increase from around 60 per cent in the previous two years). In both long term and rooming house there was an increase in the percentage of evictions due to arrears, and a subsequent decrease in evictions for anti-social behaviour and ‘other’ reasons. In transitional housing the largest increase was recorded in evictions that were due to both arrears and anti-social behaviour together.
reason for eviction by housing type, 2011-12 (HAs)
Notes to figure
• Totalsmaynotaddupto100percentduetorounding.
The proportion of evictions reported by providers increased marginally from last year (6.7 per cent from 5.9 per cent). Eviction rates for long term housing and rooming house rose slightly, whereas the transitional housing rate remained steady.
evictions by housing type, four year trend (HPs)
Sector performance report 2010–11
25
Arrears was the most common reason for evictions from provider stock (56 per cent).
reason for eviction by housing type, 2011-12 (HPs)
Notes to figure
• Totalsmaynotaddupto100percentduetorounding.
Tenancies maintained (long term housing including rooming house)
The average for tenancies maintained in long term housing for associations was 86 per cent, compared to 83.5 per cent last year. Rates across the associations ranged between 69 per cent and 94 per cent.
Tenancies maintained (long term housing), 2011-12 (HAs)
A greater proportion of tenancies were maintained in long term housing compared to rooming house, a consistent trend over the past three years.
Tenancies maintained by housing type, three year trend (HAs)
88
71
86 85
71
83 89
69
86
0
20
40
60
80
100
Perc
ent
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
Total long term Rooming house Long term
Sector performance report 2010–11
26
Providers reported an overall rate for tenancies maintained that was relatively stable compared to last year. The minor decrease in the rate was primarily explained by a slight drop in the rate of tenancies maintained in the rooming house program.
Tenancies maintained by housing type, three year trend (HPs)
90
67
84 90
80
88 91
75
87
0
20
40
60
80
100
Total long term Rooming house Long term
Perc
ent
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
Complaints management
A registered housing agency is required to take all reasonable steps to resolve a referred complaint, particularly those from tenants or prospective tenants, within 30 days. During the year, 84 per cent of tenant/prospective tenant complaints lodged with associations were resolved in 30 days, a notable result.
Tenant/prospective tenant complaints resolved within 30 days, five year trend (HAs)
Two associations recorded rates outside the satisfactory range for this KPM. Further information on complaints resolution were sought from these agencies and the Housing Registrar is satisfied that the agencies took all reasonable steps to resolve the complaints in the timeframe. For one association, the four complaints that were not resolved in the 30 day timeframe required information to be sought from parties that was not made available in the timeframe. In the other instance, two complaints remained unresolved at the end of the year due to pending Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal hearings.
Sector performance report 2010–11
27
Tenant/prospective tenant complaints resolved within 30 days, 2011-12 (HAs)
The average for provider tenant/prospective tenant complaints resolved in 30 days increased compared to the previous year, for the second year in a row.
Tenant/prospective tenant complaints resolved within 30 days, four year trend (HPs)
Sector performance report 2010–11
28
Only 7 per cent of complaints directed to all agencies were unresolved either because no resolution was reachable with the complainant (6 per cent) or because the complainant took the complaint to an external party (1 per cent). This was the same percentage of complaints that remained unresolved at the end of last year.
The table below provides a summary of complaints handled by agencies. The overall total number of complaints (930) is a significant increase from last year (661), as is the total of 386 for the number of tenant/prospective tenant complaints (up from 242 last year). However these numbers are lower than those recorded for the 2009-10 financial year (total of 1 127, with 548 from tenants and prospective tenants).
The notable variation from previous years’ figures was in the complaints total for HAs with both total complaints and tenant/prospective tenant complaints about double any previously recorded figures. The total of 386 for tenant/prospective complaints does represent a very low proportion (2 per cent) of tenancy units under management and complaints can be an important source of feedback for agencies to implement improvements. However, should the upward trend in complaint numbers continue for HAs into the next financial year, the Housing Registrar will investigate the drivers for increased complaints with the sector.
The significant proportion of neighbour complaints (53 per cent) is consistent with data reported in previous years. While it does represent a low proportion (3 per cent) of the total units managed by the sector, the Housing Registrar met with some individual agencies in the past year to discuss the management of properties where it has been made aware of recurring neighbourhood disturbance.
number of complaints HAs HPs Sector
Total number of complaints 412 518 930Total number of tenant/ prospective tenant complaints 223 163 386
Advocate involvement
Yes 15% 31% 24% No 85% 69% 76%
Housing Type
Long-term 70% 32% 49%Transitional 22% 55% 41%Crisis 3% 2% 2%Other 5% 10% 8%
Complainant
Tenant (or advocate on their behalf) 50% 25% 36%
Prospective tenant (or advocate on their behalf) 5% 1% 3%
Neighbour (or advocate on their behalf) 37% 66% 53%Another agency 1% 2% 2%Other 8% 5% 6%
Primary focus of complaint
Customer service/ information referral processes 10% 6% 8%Tenancy management 30% 8% 18%Property maintenance 12% 14% 13%Neighbourhood disturbance 28% 63% 47%Security/personal safety 8% 4% 6%Community/interagency relations 1% 0% 0%
number of complaints HAs HPs Sector
Other 11% 6% 8%
Outcome of complaint
Not in agency jurisdiction – complainant referred elsewhere 3% 2% 2% Resolved – apology by agency 6% 3% 5%
Resolved – explanation/ further information by agency 52% 24% 36%
Resolved – change to decision/ action 7% 20% 14% Resolved – other 28% 40% 35%
Unresolved – no resolution able to be reached with complainant 3% 9% 6%
Unresolved – complainant took complaint to external party 1% 2% 1%
Sector performance report 2010–11
29
Tenant satisfaction with housing services
Seven of the eight associations conducted tenancy surveys during the year. Of the tenants that responded7, 88 per cent indicated they were satisfied with the housing services provided by the association. Notably, over the past five years, the results for this KPM have remained consistently between 86 per cent and 88 per cent.
Tenant satisfaction with housing services, six year trend, (HAs)
7 The response rates for the surveys varied between 13 per cent and 50 per cent (average 23 per cent) and the sample size between 46 per cent and 100 per cent (average 96 per cent).
The results for associations ranged from 82 per cent to 93 per cent. All agencies reported a result in either the preferred or satisfactory range for this KPM.
Tenant satisfaction with housing services, 2011-12 (HAs)
The average satisfaction rating with housing services from providers was 89.5 per cent, with 22 of the 33 agencies providing data for this KPM8. Rooming house residents again showed a slightly lower level of satisfaction compared to tenants in long term and transitional housing. Impressively, this figure steadily improved for the third year in a row.
Tenant satisfaction with housing services by housing type, four year trend (HPs)
8 The response rates for the surveys varied between 16 per cent and 75 per cent (average 31 per cent) and the sample size between 47 per cent and 100 per cent (average 95 per cent).
Sector performance report 2010–11
30
Tenant satisfaction – consideration of views
This KPM measures tenant satisfaction around consideration of their views by the housing agency, with an average satisfaction rate of 77.5 per cent recorded for this year. Following a peak in 2010-11, this brings the average for this KPM back to previous levels.
Tenant satisfaction – views, four year trend (HAs)
Notes to figure 2008–09 data is for three associations only.
It should be noted that in response to the question concerning consideration of views, 11 per cent of tenants indicated they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (neutral), compared to 5 per cent for the question regarding satisfaction with housing services. This higher rate is reasonable as while all tenants are directly involved with the housing services offered by agencies they are not all necessarily involved in situations where their views need to be taken into consideration, nor do they wish to be. It is worth noting that both associations with the lowest rate for this KPM had the highest rate of neutral responses.
Tenant satisfaction – views, 2011-12 (HAs)
One association with a low result for this KPM has acknowledged that this is well below the preferred target and has developed a working group to initiate a review of all tenant consultation and participation structures.
The provider average for satisfaction with views was recorded at 86 per cent. Consistent with last year, transitional housing showed a higher level of satisfaction compared to tenants in long term housing and rooming houses, although both of these recorded an increase in the satisfaction rate and transitional housing a decrease this year. Similar to the satisfaction with housing services KPM, there has been a steady increase in the satisfaction rate for rooming houses over the past three years.
Tenant satisfaction – views by housing type, four year trend (HPs)
Sector performance report 2010–11
31
Housing management and maintenance
Urgent repairs
Of the urgent repairs requested of associations during the year, 84 per cent were fully completed in 24 hours. This represents a slight fall from last year of 4 per cent but is still in the satisfactory range.
Urgent repairs completed in 24 hours, six tear trend (HAs)
All agencies except one reported a rate greater than 80 per cent. The one association that recorded the relatively low rate of 69.5 per cent reported a large increase in the overall number of repairs this year (more than three times the volume of the previous year). While this appears to have affected the completion rate for repairs delivered by the agency slightly (81 per cent down from 92 per cent), the rate for repairs contracted out decreased from 92 per cent to 57 per cent. The agency’s progress in addressing this issue will be closely monitored by the Housing Registrar over the coming year.
Urgent repairs completed in 24 hours, 2011-12 (HAs)
Overall, reasons for repairs not being completed in the timeframes included:
> tenants being unavailable for contractors to access properties;
> weather delays;
> waiting periods for parts (particularly in rural locations); and
> major repairs required (e.g. hot water service replacement).
The average proportion of providers’ urgent requested repairs completed in 24 hours was 95 per cent, compared to 92 per cent last year. Impressively, this is the third year in a row that the rate has increased.
Urgent repairs completed in 24 hours, four year trend (HPs)
Sector performance report 2010–11
32
Non-urgent repairs
The average completion rate for non-urgent requested repairs in 14 days for associations was 85 per cent, a slight fall from 88 per cent last year.
non-urgent repairs completed in 14 days, six year trend (HAs)
Two associations recorded a rate below 80 per cent in contrast to last year where all agencies recorded rates above 80 per cent. As previously discussed, one agency’s results were skewed by the performance of contractors. The other agency reported data collection issues that were identified too late to rectify for the current reporting round. The Housing Registrar expects that the results for this agency will improve next year as these issues are resolved.
non-urgent repairs completed in 14 days, 2011-12 (HAs)
Providers recorded a completion rate for non-urgent requested repairs in 14 days of 93 per cent, a significant increase from 84 per cent last year. The main reason for this increase is that improved data collection on maintenance performance has meant better monitoring of completion times in some agencies.
non-urgent repairs completed in 14 days by delivery type, four year trend (HPs)
Sector performance report 2010–11
33
Tenant satisfaction with maintenance
Seven associations provided data for tenant satisfaction with the quality of maintenance conducted which showed that 81 per cent of responding tenants9 expressed satisfaction with maintenance.
Tenant satisfaction with maintenance, four year trend (HAs)
9 The response rates for the surveys varied between 13 per cent and 50 per cent (average 23 per cent) and the sample size between 46 per cent and 100 per cent (average 96 per cent).
All associations recorded a satisfaction rating for maintenance of 75 per cent or more (and therefore all fell in the satisfactory or preferred ranges for this KPM).
Tenant satisfaction with maintenance, 2011-12 (HAs)
Providers tenants’ recorded 82 per cent satisfaction with maintenance10. The highest rate, 87 per cent, was again recorded in long term housing (excluding rooming house).
Tenant satisfaction with maintenance by housing type, four year trend (HPs)
10 The response rates for the surveys varied between 16 per cent and 94 per cent (average 33 per cent) and the sample size between 16 per cent and 100 per cent (average 86 per cent)
Sector performance report 2010–11
34
FInAnCIAllY VIABle
The financial viability performance standard of the registered sector is assessed by analysing the operating performance, operating cash flow, liquidity and capital structure of registered agencies. Various financial measures11 are used to assess the performance of each of these areas on an annual basis.
11 Financial measures refer to ratios calculated on a year-on-year basis for comparison purposes.
Operating performance
Operating revenue and costs
Rental revenue of the sector increased to $98.4 million ($63.2 million attributable to HAs) compared to $74.3 million the previous year. The increase in rental revenue is due to additional properties developed and managed, annual rent increases and two new agencies registered during 2011-12. Operating expenses of the sector increased by 24 per cent with administration and property expenses being the largest contributor.
Operating EBITDA (earnings before interest, tax and depreciation) of the sector increased to $32.7 million during 2011-12 compared to $19.6 million in 2010-11. This was mainly due to increase in rental revenue.
Operating revenue breakdown ($m) 2010-11/2011-12
Sector performance report 2010–11
35
Operating expenses (excluding interest expenses) as a percentage of operating revenue12 of the sector decreased marginally during 2011-12 compared to 2010-11. In HAs it has risen by 0.3 per cent and with HPs the percentage has declined by 0.9 per cent.
Operating expenses (excluding interest expenses) as a percentage of operating revenue, 2010-11/2011-12
12 This ratio is calculated by dividing operating expenses by operating revenue.
During 2011-12, interest expenses as a percentage of operating revenue13 has increased significantly due to HAs nearing the completion of development programs and meeting 25 per cent leverage requirements. Given this scenario, the current financial projections14 suggest that this ratio is expected to remain unchanged during 2012-13 and marginally decline thereafter.
The increase for HPs is only 0.6 per cent compared to 2010-11.
Interest expenses as a percentage of operating revenue, 2010-11/2011-12
13 This ratio is calculated by dividing interest expensed in the income statement by operating revenue.14 HAs provide 15 year financial projections and HPs provide a minimum of three and a maximum of five years of financial projections. Financial projections may change year-to-year due to changes in assumptions made.
This indicates that a surplus amounting to 6.4 per cent of operating revenue is available for HAs to be used for future growth, capital maintenance or to repay interest bearing liabilities.
Operating expenses (excluding interest expenses) as a percentage of operating revenue, 2011-12 (HAs)
Operating expenses as a percentage of operating revenue varies between HAs mainly due to differences in operating structure and tenant profile.
Sector performance report 2010–11
36
Interest expenses as a percentage of operating revenue, 2011-12 (HAs)
Interest expenses as a percentage on operating revenue varies between HAs mainly due to different debt levels, nature of the debt profile and the tenant profile.
Return on average assets
Return on average assets15 (ROAA) of HAs was 1.2 per cent in 2011-12. The increase was mainly due to an increase in operating revenue. ROAA of HPs was higher at 3.9 per cent as a result of a lower asset base compared to HAs.
return on average assets, 2011-12 (HAs)
ROAA varies between HAs due to variation in asset bases and the operating structure.
15 Return on average assets is calculated by dividing operating EBITDA by average total assets.
Rental yield
Rental yield16 is the percentage of rental income from the purchase price or the current valuation of the housing assets.
Falling yields either means falling rents or a rising property market with valuations increasing; or both. Increasing yields means either rising rents or a falling property market with dropping valuations; or both.
Average rental yield for HAs increased to 2.9 per cent in 2011-12 compared to 2.2 per cent in 2010-11.
rental yield, 2011-12 (HAs)
Rental yields of HAs vary depending on the value of housing assets held in the balance sheet and the rental mix.
16 Rental yield is calculated based on the reported value of housing assets by registered agencies. They are either at cost, market value or both.
Sector performance report 2010–11
37
Operating cash flow
The total operating cash flow of HAs was $70 million compared to $108.6 million in 2010-11. The main reasons for this decline is the increase in interest expenses and direct administration and operating expenses which almost doubled during 2011-12. For HPs the total operating cash flow was $10.9 million for 2011-12.
Liquidity
Liquidity is measured in terms of the current ratio. The average current ratio17 for HAs was 1.6 times (1.1 times in 2010-11). The slight increase in the current ratio for HAs was mainly due to two reasons, the decrease in payables related to development work; and the reclassification of interest bearing borrowings from current to non-current liabilities by some HAs compared to the last financial year.
The decrease in the current ratio of providers is due to an increase in short term provisions.
Current ratio, 2010-11/2011-12
17 Current ratio is calculated by dividing current assets by current liabilities adjusted for capital grants received in advance.
Current ratio, 30 June 2012 (HAs)
The current ratio of a few associations is one or below, mainly due to grants received in advance and an increase in payables. The current ratio is calculated at a given point in time, hence the ratio may vary periodically. The Housing Registrar constantly monitor the liquidity and the operating cash flow levels of HAs and HPs. The current ratio of HA4 is significantly higher than others due to cash holdings resulting from unspent capital grants as at June 2012.
Sector performance report 2010–11
38
Capital structure
Total assets
Total assets of the sector increased by 6.9 per cent to $2.45 billion by June 2012. Total assets of HAs grew by 6.1 per cent to $2.27 billion. Equity consists of a major portion of total assets in the registered sector. This is due to earnings accumulated over a number of years buoyed by capital and operating grants.
Asset growth was driven by HA’s which were funded by Nation Building and Jobs and State capital grants.
The total assets of HPs as at June 2012 was $182 million.
Based on current financial projections the growth in total assets for the next two years will be lower compared to growth experienced historically. This is due to capital projects funded by Commonwealth and state capital grants nearing completion. The growth in total assets is projected to be a modest 1.5 per cent by June 2013 and a further 1.1 per cent by June 2014.
Total asset composition, 2010-11/2011-12
Total asset composition, 2011-12 (HAs)
Interest bearing debt
Interest bearing debt for HAs increased by $45.5 million to $273.2 million as at June 2012. Debt for HPs is lower compared to HAs ($24.6 million in 2011-12 compared to $20.1 million in 2010-11). The overall interest bearing debt of the sector was $297.9 million as at June 2012. With the existing pipeline of capital development projects nearing completion, interest bearing debt is not expected to increase materially over the next two years.
Increase in interest bearing debt ($m), five year trend
Sector performance report 2010–11
39
Total interest bearing debt ($m), 30 June 2012 (HAs)
Interest bearing debt as at June 2012 differs between HAs due to the size of developments, location and the nature of the target client group.
Interest cover
The interest cover18 ratio indicates the extent (number of times) the operating earnings is able to cover interest expenses.
18 Interest cover is calculated by dividing operating EBITDA by interest expensed to the income statement. Interest expensed may not be equal to actual interest incurred due to some registered agencies capitalising an element of interest during the construction stages of projects.
The interest cover of HAs from an operating EBITDA perspective was on average 1.3 times in 2011-12 compared to 1.6 times in 2010-11. The decrease in interest cover was due to an increase in interest expenses as a result of additional borrowings to fund housing developments.
Interest cover based on operating eBITdA, 2011-12 (HAs)
Interest cover varies between HAs due to variation in debt profiles, interest rates, tenant profile and operating cost structure. Interest cover of HA8 (as above) is significantly higher compared to other HAs due a low level of debt undertaken by them (refer to the graph under interest bearing debt).
Loan to valuation ratio
The loan to valuation ratio (LVR) is calculated based on the cost of the housing assets in comparison to total debt at the end of the financial year. Average LVR for HAs in 2011-12 was 12.4 per cent compared to 11.2 per cent the previous year. The slight increase is due to additional debt of $45.5 million undertaken by HAs during 2011-12.
loan to valuation ratio, 30 June 2012 (HAs)
LVR varies between HAs due to variation in asset values and the level of debt undertaken by HAs. LVR of HA8 is significantly lower compared to other HAs due a low level of debt undertaken by them.
Sector performance report 2010–11
40
Appendix 1
Key performance measures – definitions
Key performance measure 1
Regular board meetings
Number of regular board meetings held during the year as a percentage of the number of regular board meetings scheduled for the year.
Key performance measure 2
Active board members (including positions vacant) Active board members (excluding positions vacant)
The number of board members attending regular board meetings during the year as a percentage of total board positions.
Key performance measure 3
Date of board approval of budget Date of board approval of annual business plan
The date(s) the board formally approved the final budget and annual business plan for the next financial year.
Key performance measure 4
Staff turnover
Number of staff leaving during the year (for reasons other than contract term ending) as a percentage of total staff employed during the year.
Key performance measure 5
Senior staff turnover
Number of senior staff who left during the year (for reasons other than contract term ending) as a percentage of total senior staff employed during the year.
Key performance measure 6
Turnaround time (vacant tenantable) Turnaround time (vacant untenantable: long term housing)
The total number of days tenancy units were vacant tenantable and vacant untenantable (long term housing only) during the year averaged across the total number of vacancies.
Key performance measure 7
Void loss (vacant tenantable)
Rent foregone due to tenancy units being vacant as a percentage of maximum rent chargeable (plus void loss) for the year ended 30 June.
Key performance measure 8
Rent outstanding from current tenants
Rent outstanding from current tenants as a percentage of total rent charged in the year ended 30 June.
Key performance measure 9
Arrears written off as bad debt
Vacated arrears written off as bad debt as a percentage of total rent charged in the year ended 30 June.
Key performance measure 10
Evictions
Evictions during the year as a percentage of total tenancy exits.
Key performance measure 11
Tenancies maintained (long term housing)
Tenancies maintained for the full 12 month period (July to June) as a percentage of total tenancies at 1 July (year start).
Key performance measure 12
Current tenants owing more than eight weeks rent at year end
The number of tenants owing more than eight weeks rent at 30 June as a percentage of all tenancies as at 30 June.
Key performance measure 13
Prospective tenant/tenant complaints
Tenant/prospective tenant complaints resolved within 30 days as a percentage of all tenant/prospective tenant complaints for the year ended 30 June.
Sector performance report 2010–11
41
Key performance measure 14
Tenant satisfaction – housing services
Tenants expressing overall satisfaction in a tenancy survey (point in time) with housing services as a percentage of all tenants responding.
Key performance measure 15
Tenant satisfaction – consideration of views
Tenants expressing overall satisfaction in a tenancy survey (point in time) that their views were being taken into account as a percentage of all tenants responding.
Key performance measure 16
Urgent requested repairs
Urgent requested repairs completed within 24 hours as a percentage of all urgent requested repairs for the year ended 30 June.
Key performance measure 17
Non-urgent requested repairs
Non-urgent requested repairs completed within 14 days as a percentage of all non-urgent requested repairs for the year ended 30 June.
Key performance measure 18
Tenant satisfaction – maintenance
Tenants expressing overall satisfaction with the quality of maintenance conducted in a tenancy survey (point in time) as a percentage of all tenants responding.
Sector performance report 2010–11
42
Performance indicators for key performance measures The performance indicators provide guidance for Housing Registrar staff when analysing KPM data. They are based on the results reported by registered agencies in previous years. The indicators are not benchmarks as they have not been subjected to rigorous examination and study to ensure their validity.
Note: a result outside the preferred or satisfactory range would prompt further analysis/information from an agency.
Key performance measure Preferred range Satisfactory range
KPM 1: Regular board meetings 100 per cent 80 per cent to 99 per cent
KPM 2a: Active board members (including positions vacant) More than 90 per cent 75 per cent to 90 per cent
KPM 2b: Active board members (excluding positions vacant) More than 95 per cent 80 per cent to 95 per cent
KPM 3a: Date of board approval of budget By 30 June (in the previous financial year)
By 31 July (in the previous financial year)
KPM 3b: Date of board approval of annual business plan By 30 June (in the previous financial year)
By 31 July (in the previous financial year)
KPM 4: Staff turnover Less than 15 per cent 15 per cent to 30 per cent
KPM 5: Senior staff turnover Less than 33 per cent 33 per cent to 50 per cent
KPM 6a: Turnaround time (vacant tenantable) Less than 7 days 7 days to 21 days
KPM 6b: Turnaround time (vacant untenantable) Less than 21 days 21 days to 48 days
KPM 7: Void loss (vacant tenantable) Less than 3 per cent 3 per cent to 5 per cent
KPM 8: Rent outstanding from current tenants Less than 1 per cent 1 per cent to 5 per cent
KPM 9: Arrears written off as bad debt Less than 1 per cent 1 per cent to 5 per cent
KPM 10: Evictions Less than 5 per cent 5 per cent to 10 per cent
KPM 11: Tenancies maintained (long term housing) More than 90 per cent 75 per cent to 90 per cent
KPM 12: Current tenants owing more than eight weeks rent at year end
Less than 0.5 per cent 0.5 per cent to 3 per cent
KPM 13: Prospective tenants/tenant complaints More than 90 per cent 70 per cent to 90 per cent
KPM 14: Tenant satisfaction - housing services More than 90 per cent 75 per cent to 90 per cent
KPM 15: Tenant satisfaction - consideration of views More than 90 per cent 75 per cent to 90 per cent
KPM 16: Urgent requested repairs 100 per cent 90 per cent to 99 per cent
KPM 17: Non-urgent requested repairs More than 90 per cent 75 per cent to 90 per cent
KPM 18: Tenant satisfaction - maintenance More than 90 per cent 75 per cent to 90 per cent
Appendix 2
