Agenda item

The Homes Sub-Committee is asked to:

1.    Note the work to date and development plans that will be used as a basis to create the Resident Engagement Structure.

2.    Consider whether there are any comments it wishes to make on these development plans, which can be taken into account during the preparation of the Resident Engagement Structure.

The Sub-Committee considered a report set out on pages 41 to 56 of the agenda which provided an update covering the following areas: (i) Tpas (leading engagement expert); (ii) the current status of work; (iii) methodology; (iv) discovery sessions; (v) leadership; (vi) communication standards; (vii) trust and accountability; (viii) structure and process; (ix) design sessions; (x) outcomes.

Councillor Hale introduced the report. It was highlighted that it was the Council’s approach to create the first-class resident engagement structure and this paper carried through the customer standards, the white paper and the Resident Charter. A presentation on the development of the Resident Engagement Structure was delivered.

The first question concerned the negative past experiences of residents, and how the Council would rebuild trust whilst many members of staff remained the same. It was explained that one of the factors was to engage a group of staff members who would act as champions. The cultural change had been happening, however, the pace of change could have been quicker. It was also important to ensure that all staff members were accountable for their interactions with residents. It was stressed that it was very important to give an opportunity to members of staff to go thought the cultural transformation and see the benefit of better customer service. A supplementary question about performance management was asked. It was confirmed that performance management was built into the one-to-one appraisal process – this included ensuring that members of staff delivered what they promised and there was a system to monitor that. In addition to that, there was a training programme and case studies available. It could also be done through the recognition of high-quality behaviours.

This was followed by a question about ARC Independent Investigation report and whether there had been any work done around understanding why members of staff behaved in an unacceptable manner. It was explained that there were issues with engagement, empathy and care for residents. The Council had been working on ensuring that maintaining acceptable standards was everyone’s responsibility and officers were able to report and escalate incidents if necessary. It was also added that the Council recently procured customer service training and there was a professionalisation agenda to ensure that officers had all skills necessary to do the required tasks.

Another question considered how the Council identified and approached disengaged residents. It was explained initially residents that were involved in existing activities were approached. However, the Council also approached many other residents – through letters, but also directly by the team members. There were around 25 members of staff and 25 residents involved. It was added that many residents would only like to be involved in a certain issue. Therefore, it was important to accommodate that, and ensure that there were different pathways available. Then a question about the platforms used for engaging with residents was asked. It was explained that a website review was underway. It was challenged that the Council had not done any work on the Council blogs and notice boards. It was assured that the Council had been looking at various possible options to reach the residents. It was also mentioned that the notice boards had many problems associated with them – people did not read them and there were no resources to keep them updated.

The next question considered the identified key ingredients mentioned in the report and whether the messages coming from a diverse group were similar. It was explained that various different groups came up with similar conclusions.

Another question considered the lack of emails summarising what has been agree on during a phone or in-person conversations.  It was explained that the Council has been reviewing services and would continue to do so in a wider perspective. It assured that the culture was causing the lack of summaries and follow-ups rather than capacity. It was stressed that the communication model and standards needed to be strengthened. It was also mentioned that the Council had purchased a Customer Relationship Management system that would improve the record of engagement with residents. However, it was not rolled out yet – before it was completed, the Council wanted to ensure that other elements of NEC system were working well.

Actions

1.     A request was made to update Councillors on how to report or escalate examples of bad practice.

Conclusions

1.     The Sub-Committee commended the work and acknowledged that this piece of work was needed and significant progress.

2.     The Sub-Committee acknowledged that this piece of work was necessary. However, it was very important to make it to a high standard, even if it would take more time to complete it.

3.     The Sub-Committee took reassurance from the acknowledgement of officers that there was a need to change the culture within the service and that this work was ongoing. It was agreed that the Sub-Committee would be able to assess the pace of change when it looked at the cultural transformation workstream at its meeting in April 2024.

Recommendations

1.     The Homes Sub-Committee recommends that ward councillors are informed when there is a planned resident engagement event within their constituency.