Reports
Managing Antisocial behaviour in public housing
The Department of Family and Community Services (FACS) has not adequately supported or resourced its staff to manage antisocial behaviour in public housing according to a report released today by the Deputy Auditor-General for New South Wales, Ian Goodwin.
In recent decades, policy makers and legislators in Australian states and territories have developed and implemented initiatives to manage antisocial behaviour in public housing environments. All jurisdictions now have some form of legislation or policy to encourage public housing tenants to comply with rules and obligations of ‘good neighbourliness’. In November 2015, the NSW Parliament changed legislation to introduce a new approach to manage antisocial behaviour in public housing. This approach is commonly described as the ‘strikes’ approach.
When introduced in the NSW Parliament, the ‘strikes’ approach was described as a means to:
- improve the behaviour of a minority of tenants engaging in antisocial behaviour
- create better, safer communities for law abiding tenants, including those who are ageing and vulnerable.
FACS has a number of tasks as a landlord, including a responsibility to collect rent and organise housing maintenance. FACS also has a role to support tenants with complex needs and manage antisocial behaviour. These roles have some inherent tensions. The FACS antisocial behaviour management policy aims are:
to balance the responsibilities of tenants, the rights of their neighbours in social housing, private residents and the broader community with the need to support tenants to sustain their public housing tenancies.
This audit assessed the efficiency and effectiveness of the ‘strikes’ approach to managing antisocial behaviour in public housing environments.
We examined whether:
- the approach is being implemented as intended and leading to improved safety and security in social housing environments
- FACS and its partner agencies have the capability and capacity to implement the approach
- there are effective mechanisms to monitor, report and progressively improve the approach.
|
Conclusion
FACS has not adequately supported or resourced its staff to implement the antisocial behaviour policy. FACS antisocial behaviour data is incomplete and unreliable. Accordingly, there is insufficient data to determine the nature and extent of the problem and whether the implementation of the policy is leading to improved safety and security. FACS management of minor and moderate incidents of antisocial behaviour is poor. FACS has not dedicated sufficient training to equip frontline housing staff with the relevant skills to apply the antisocial behaviour management policy. At more than half of the housing offices we visited, staff had not been trained to:
When frontline housing staff are informed about serious and severe illegal antisocial behaviour incidents, they generally refer them to the FACS Legal Division. Staff in the Legal Division are trained and proficient in managing antisocial behaviour in compliance with the policy and therefore, the more serious incidents are managed effectively using HOMES ASB.
|
Parliamentary reference - Report number #306 - released 10 August 2018
Managing risks in the NSW public sector: risk culture and capability
The Ministry of Health, NSW Fair Trading, NSW Police Force, and NSW Treasury Corporation are taking steps to strengthen their risk culture, according to a report released today by the Auditor-General, Margaret Crawford. 'Senior management communicates the importance of managing risk to their staff, and there are many examples of risk management being integrated into daily activities', the Auditor-General said.
We did find that three of the agencies we examined could strengthen their culture so that all employees feel comfortable speaking openly about risks. To support innovation, senior management could also do better at communicating to their staff the levels of risk they are willing to accept.
Effective risk management is essential to good governance, and supports staff at all levels to make informed judgements and decisions. At a time when government is encouraging innovation and exploring new service delivery models, effective risk management is about seizing opportunities as well as managing threats.
Over the past decade, governments and regulators around the world have increasingly turned their attention to risk culture. It is now widely accepted that organisational culture is a key element of risk management because it influences how people recognise and engage with risk. Neglecting this ‘soft’ side of risk management can prevent institutions from managing risks that threaten their success and lead to missed opportunities for change, improvement or innovation.
This audit assessed how effectively NSW Government agencies are building risk management capabilities and embedding a sound risk culture throughout their organisations. To do this we examined whether:
- agencies can demonstrate that senior management is committed to risk management
- information about risk is communicated effectively throughout agencies
- agencies are building risk management capabilities.
The audit examined four agencies: the Ministry of Health, the NSW Fair Trading function within the Department of Finance, Services and Innovation, NSW Police Force and NSW Treasury Corporation (TCorp). NSW Treasury was also included as the agency responsible for the NSW Government's risk management framework.
In assessing an agency’s risk culture, we focused on four key areas:
Executive sponsorship (tone at the top)
In the four agencies we reviewed, senior management is communicating the importance of managing risk. They have endorsed risk management frameworks and funded central functions tasked with overseeing risk management within their agencies.
That said, we found that three case study agencies do not measure their existing risk culture. Without clear measures of how employees identify and engage with risk, it is difficult for agencies to tell whether employee's behaviours are aligned with the 'tone' set by the executive and management.
For example, in some agencies we examined we found a disconnect between risk tolerances espoused by senior management and how these concepts were understood by staff.
Employee perceptions of risk management
Our survey of staff indicated that while senior leaders have communicated the importance of managing risk, more could be done to strengthen a culture of open communication so that all employees feel comfortable speaking openly about risks. We found that senior management could better communicate to their staff the levels of risk they should be willing to accept.
Integration of risk management into daily activities and links to decision-making
We found examples of risk management being integrated into daily activities. On the other hand, we also identified areas where risk management deviated from good practice. For example, we found that corporate risk registers are not consistently used as a tool to support decision-making.
Support and guidance to help staff manage risks
Most case study agencies are monitoring risk-related skills and knowledge of their workforce, but only one agency has addressed the gaps it identified. While agencies are providing risk management training, surveyed staff in three case study agencies reported that risk management training is not adequate.
NSW Treasury provides agencies with direction and guidance on risk management through policy and guidelines. In line with better practice, NSW Treasury's principles-based policy acknowledges that individual agencies are in a better position to understand their own risks and design risk management frameworks that address those risks. Nevertheless, there is scope for NSW Treasury to refine its guidance material to support a better risk culture in the NSW public sector.
Recommendation
By May 2019, NSW Treasury should:
- Review the scope of its risk management guidance, and identify additional guidance, training or activities to improve risk culture across the NSW public sector. This should focus on encouraging agency heads to form a view on the current risk culture in their agencies, identify desirable changes to that risk culture, and take steps to address those changes.
Appendix one - Response from agencies
Appendix three - About the audit
Appendix four - Performance auditing
Parliamentary reference - Report number #298 - released 23 April 2018
Government office accommodation
The Audit Office has undertaken an audit on Government Office Accommodation. The audit examined the cost effectiveness of long-term leasing versus ownership and the housing of agencies involved with the delivery of core government activities. Core activities are those intrinsically linked to basic and ongoing functions of Government and Parliament.
It recommends that:
-
the Government consider owning office accommodation, as opposed to leasing, for its long-term core needs, subject to a case by case analysis of the relevant financial and nonfinancial factors
-
the Government undertake an analysis of the costs/savings from proposed asset sales of office accommodation in light of the demonstrated need for long-term office accommodation (for core needs) New, Expired and Expiring Leases
-
given the findings of the own versus lease case studies presented in this report, it is recommended that the Government require agencies to undertake, in collaboration with the Department of Public Works and Services (DPWS) a cost/benefit analysis of available accommodation options prior to committing to any proposed major new leases
-
the Government direct the DPWS, in collaboration with all agencies, to negotiate the renewal of all major expired/expiring leases (where continued occupancy is warranted) in order to reduce the financial risk of above-market rent increases and the risk of cancellation of leases (Major leases are defined, for the purposes of these recommendations, to be those over $500,000 rental per annum or a net lettable area over 1,000 square metres) Management of Property Information
-
in order to improve the integrity of the Government Office Accommodation Database, agencies be required to respond to the annual data request from DPWS by a predetermined date
-
a senior officer within each agency be required to certify to the accuracy of information provided by an agency as input to the database maintained by DPWS
-
DPWS verify, on a sample basis, information provided by agencies as input to the Government Office Accommodation Database Premier’s Memorandum No 97-2
-
the compliance by agencies with Premier’s Memorandum No 97-2 Government Office Accommodation and Property Disposal be established by DPWS.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #45 - released 11 December 1997
Large residential centres for people with a disability in NSW
The audit reviewed policies and practices in large government and non-government residential centres to determine if policies and practices protected the human and legal rights, safety and dignity of residents.
The report indicates that practices in both government and non-government centres fail to protect adequately the human and legal rights, safety and dignity of residents. Factors contributing to this situation are the absence of minimum criteria for the protection of residents’ human and legal rights, safety and dignity, inadequate policies to direct service delivery, the absence of staff training to reinforce practices, low levels of supervision and the absence of effective monitoring systems to trigger a response to service deficiencies. Even where policies have been developed to guide practices, the nature of institutional care (the environment renders some policies ineffective), inadequate implementation, inadequate monitoring of practices and lack of compliance results in the centre’s failure to protect people living there.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #40 - released 26 June 1997
