Value for Money - Community Housing Cymru Group · sector approach to measuring VfM Wales –...
58
Value for Money Literature Review September 2016
Transcript of Value for Money - Community Housing Cymru Group · sector approach to measuring VfM Wales –...
Value for Money
Literature Review
September 2016
1 | P a g e
Following the brief provided for this Review, and a discussion of
emerging themes with the working group, five key areas were identified
for this piece of work:
Conceptual Challenges:
The report identifies key questions to think about when considering
VfM:
Who is involved?
Whose values are being measured?
How are these going to be measured?
It outlines the link between VfM and accountability, and asks readers to
consider who are they providing accountability for – funders, service
users, or both?
Value for Money across the UK:
The report looks at the different approaches across England, Scotland,
and Wales
England – approach is based on unit cost, and economic
performance
Scotland – focus is on tenants and developing a cross-
sector approach to measuring VfM
Wales – emerging focus on tenant engagement and
capacity to align with other Welsh Government priorities
Value for Money approaches in different public services:
International Development
Emphasis on ‘equity’
The measurement of long term outcomes on individuals’ lives
following investment in services
1.0 Introduction
Value for Money
Literature Review
September 2016
Literature Review
Brief
2 | P a g e
Health
Looking at quality of life for individuals in relation to cost of
treatments
What are they able to do and be?
International approaches to Value for Money:
The report will look into international approaches to value for money,
focussing specifically on:
The Netherlands – portfolio analysis, the systems approach and
scale and value for money
Australia – research undertaken to assess management costs
and tenant outcomes in social housing
Social Value:
Definitions of social value
Monetary and non-monetary approaches
Models of social value
How to use this document:
The Review is designed to be easy to use and accessible to a
wide range of audiences.
There are ‘Key Points’ sections for each chapter – these are
there to communicate the key messages of the chapter, without
the detail.
Having read the ‘Key Points’, you can read the fuller detail if you
are particularly interested in this section
There are diagrams throughout to show visually some of the
issues we discuss in the text
3 | P a g e
The 1970s saw a large shift in the approach to management practices
within public sector organisations in the UK. At the time, these
organisations were seen as lacking accountability, being wasteful with
resources, and therefore failing to provide value for money. To combat
this, private sector management practices were introduced to give a
more rigorous approach to the use of resources and delivery of outputs
(Alwardat, Benamraoui and Rieple 2015). The concept of VfM in public
expenditure has been further focused on since the HM Treasury’s 2003
publication of ‘Green Book’ which provided a framework by which to
evaluate and appraise all government policy and intervention. Within
the context of an ‘austerity agenda’ in the UK following the 2008
financial crash, questions around the efficient use of public funding and
providing accountability for this have been prevalent within government
and the public sector. The discussion of Value for Money can be seen
as a response to these issues.
The business of the public sector is broad, and discussing the concept
of Value for Money across the whole spectrum of public services can
give us a range of different models, approaches, and interpretation of
the concept itself. It is important to be clear, therefore, on the
understanding of the concept we are engaging with before analysing
different types of models and impacts. The National Audit Office
defines VfM as ‘the optimal use of resources to achieve the intended
outcomes’ and there is a general consensus that the measurement
relates to the level of resources committed to an action, and the output
of this action. As Smith (2009, p. 6) outlines, in its abstract form the
concept is straightforward “it represents the ratio of some measure of
valued…system outputs to the associated expenditure”.
This general definition can be seen to relate to the idea of ‘the Three
Es’; economy, efficiency, and effectiveness.
2.0 Conceptual
Introduction
4 | P a g e
The first category relates to the level of resource put into the activity;
this should be the minimum cost by which the activity can be
completed. The second relates to achieving the maximum output from
this minimum input. This entails getting the most out of the resources
used. The final category works to ensure that the intended result is fully
attained from the use of the resources. VfM focusses on the
relationship, therefore, between the level of resource used to complete
an activity, and the level and effectiveness of this output. The test for
VfM is whether an appropriate level of resources has been used to
achieve a particular result. When looking at public sector expenditure
we can ask whether the level of funding used to deliver a particular
project reflects the impact that this project has had. A third ‘E’ has been
added to this framework; equity. This addition emphasises activities
only have value if they are done fairly. For example, healthcare
provision must fairly assess individuals’ needs with patients having
equitable access to services. The use of this addition is prevalent in the
Development Sector, which will be discussed in greater detail in a
following chapter.
The broadest description of why VfM is important is ‘accountability’.
Funders (in the form of government, organization, or taxpayer) need to
understand where their money is going and the impact that this is
having. Within this idea of ‘upward accountability’ there is a distinction
between accountability to funders who have been part of deciding what
the activity that should be undertaken should be, and funders who have
no direct link with deciding this such as general taxpayers. ‘Downward
accountability’ ensures that beneficiaries of the activity understand
what decisions have been made and why. Particularly in the
development sector there has been a risk of an increased push
towards upward accountability rather than downward; ensuring that
justification for spending is made to donors but not to the individuals
and communities where aid is being provided.
Economy Delivering product
At lowest cost
Efficiency Achieving the biggest impact
From resources
used
Effectiveness Making sure
product is fully delivered
From the use of the
resources
5 | P a g e
As already highlighted, there is a large range of approaches taken
within the different areas of the public sector. The move from the
theoretical model of VfM to one that can be applied in practice,
therefore, can be seen as challenging. It is important to understand a
number of key areas of discussion within the idea of VfM to both
understand this variation in approach, and be able to create new
models. The core ideas here are:
Who?
It is vital to understand who the actors are within the service or project
that is being measured for VfM. Within a public sector activity this could
include governmental departments who provide funding, policy-makers
who decide how it is spent, delivery agents who facilitate the activity,
Upward accountability
Providing justification to
funders
Downward accountability
Providing justification to
people recieving services
Who?
• Who are the people involved in the service?
• How do they differ?
Whose values?
• When we measure VfM whose values are we measuring?
• How do they differ?
How?
• We've decided on the values we are going to look at...
• ...how do we measure them?
6 | P a g e
and beneficiaries for which the activity is meant to make an impact.
These beneficiaries could either be individuals or communities more
broadly. These groups might all have different interests which will need
to be taken into account when a development for VfM is being created.
It is important to relate this to the discussion of accountability. When
creating an approach to measuring VfM are you looking to provide
upward accountability, downward accountability, or a combination of
the two?
Whose values?
It is important to consider who these actors are, therefore, when
understanding what values you are measuring:
Are they defined by the policy-makers, the funders, or the
beneficiaries?
And who should be defining that value which is being
measured?
Again, it is important to be able to answer these questions to be able to
reflect on the type of accountability – downward or upward or both –
that the VfM measurement is providing.
How?
Both quantitative and qualitative values are measured through a range
of VfM approaches, and it is important to understand what type of value
is being measured: is it a ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ value? Hard values can be
broadly understood as something you can count; a level of funding
made available, or the number of jobs created from a particular project.
Economic goods, or the equivalence of an activity to an economic
saving has been the general approach to VfM in a number of areas.
One approach can be that “monetarizing things give them value”
(Emmi et. al. 2011, p. 15) whereas not monetarizing impacts or
activities can be seen to be synonymous with not valuing them. By
measuring VfM through quantitative methods and ‘hard data’
predictions and comparisons can be drawn. It is also easier to
communicate impact ‘upward’ to decision-makers and taxpayers.
Glendinnig (1988, p.45) argues, however, that “non-economic values
lie close to the heard of satisfactory living and it is these with which
VfM is concerned”. These non-economic values can be seen as ‘soft’
values such as individuals gaining confidence to apply for jobs, or take
on volunteering roles. This can be seen to chime with previous
discussions around the actors involved in the activity which is being
measured, and the type of accountability which is being provided.
Concerns have been raised that “programmes that are most precisely
and easily measured are the least transformational” (Emmi et. al. 2011,
p. 16). This discussion around the type of values being measured will
7 | P a g e
be returned to in further sections on VfM case studies, and social
value.
From looking at one method of evaluating VfM we can see the different
range of approaches to how and what we measure. Trosa and Williams
(1996) outline three different approaches taken to benchmarking public
sector spending; standards, results, and process. The first type sets a
standard of performance which organisations should expect to achieve.
The second compares the performance of organisations which provide
a similar service. This is done in England and Wales by the police
forces whose performance is compared with a similar type of force.
The final type looks at performance within a group of organisations to
understand the process by which an output was achieved, and how
good practice can be shared. All three measurements are therefore
different, although they are part of the same process. The outcomes
from these measurements will therefore be different, and show different
things. In some cases one type of measurement will be appropriate
where another isn’t. The decision around what values are to be
measured in a VfM calculation, then, can be seen to be complex. There
needs to be an understanding of who the actors in the activity are;
whose values are being measured; what type of values these are; and
how they are being recorded and evaluated.
The final area to consider is the role of the organization which is
enforcing VfM measurement on organisations. As Glendinnig notes,
there is a difference in approach to VfM between public and private
sector bodies in terms of motivation. For private sector businesses the
motivation is clear; if they do not provide VfM their customers will go
elsewhere. This is different for public sector bodies, where ‘customers’
have limited choice due to the nature of the goods being provided and
the way it is subsidized by government. VfM measurements in the
public sector are often compulsory, therefore. However, there are
different ways in which this can be done. Within the Higher Education
sector, the funding body HEFCE sees its role as enabling universities
to be able to provide VfM. The organisation asks universities to embed
this form of evaluation within the structure of institutions as a proactive
way of ensuring that the best service is delivered to students. Within
the English housing sector, however, a very different approach is taken
to VfM measurements with the Housing Regulator taking a more
forceful approach.
There can be seen to be two key approaches to implementing VfM
measures:
Enabling – the approach to VfM allows organisations to deliver
the best service they can for the resources they use
8 | P a g e
Enforcing – the approach to VfM demands that organisations
meet a certain standard in regards to the relationship between
resources and outputs
A number of conceptual ideas have been outlined in this section which
will be drawn on in further discussion of different approaches within
housing, outside of housing, and outside of the UK. It is important to
consider these ideas when thinking about the type of approach to VfM
which should be taken in Wales.
K
EY
PO
INT
S
1. Value for Money can be understood in a variety
of different ways within the public sector
2. There are therefore a range of models available
to measure it
3. VfM can be linked to the concept of
accountability
4. It is important to consider who this
accountability is for: funders (upward), service
users (downward), or both?
5. There are key questions to consider when
thinking about VfM:
- Who is involved?
- Whose values are being measured?
- How are these being measured?
9 | P a g e
As already outlined, England has taken a very specific approach to VfM
in its social housing sector. In this section, a review will be provided of
the different approaches taken to VfM by the Regulators in England
and Scotland, followed by some suggestions of how a ‘Welsh
approach’ to the measurement could be formulated. The differences
can be seen below:
The Homes and Communities
Agency in England is facing
uncertain times, with changes to
regulatory functions in the Housing
and Planning Act and shift in the status of Housing Associations from
the ONS. All of these impact on the debate around VfM, particularly in
regards to the nuance of who the actors are within measurement
activity and how VfM is pursued by the Regulator. The approach taken
in England is one which heavily emphasises compliance over
enablement, and VfM has recently been more heavily embedded in the
Regulator’s approach through an update to ‘Regulating the Standards’
in July 2016.
The HCA has two fundamental objectives for regulation; an economic
regulation objective and a consumer regulation objective. The first
Value for Money
Literature Review
September 2016
2.0 VfM Across the U.K
Introduction
England
10 | P a g e
objective incorporates measures around VfM as well as ensuring that
providers are financially viable. This also ensures that an unreasonable
burden is not placed on public funds and that these are not misused.
The second objective focuses on the quality and management of social
housing stock, as well ensuring that tenants have choice and protection
and the opportunity to participate in management and accountability.
Within these two broader objectives sit more specific standards. Within
the economic objective these are: Governance and Financial Viability,
Value for Money, and Rent. Providers are to be measured against
these standards so the HCA can “gain a strategic and evidenced
understanding of both the short-term and longer-term risks to which
providers are exposed, and to gain a comprehensive understanding of
their approach to value for money” (HCA 2016a, p. 8). The Standards
emphasises the importance of managing resources according to the
‘Three Es’ and in a way which takes into account the interests of and
commitments to stakeholders. As well as demonstrating an
understanding of the use of its resources and how this relates to
returns on assets, the providers’ boards are required to demonstrate to
stakeholders how they are meeting this standard. Compliance with this
Standard is now a core part of the HCA’s In Depth Assessments.
These are undertaken every three to four years for providers which
own over 1000 properties, and the frequency is dependent on the risk
profile of the organisation.
It is important to note that in this approach the focus is on unit cost.
There has been a renewed emphasis on this in the past few months
through a number of publications, including a letter from the Regulator
to all Housing Associations criticising the disparity in unit costs across
the sector. As part of the IDAs the Regulator will now “seek assurance
that providers understand unit costs derived from accounts data and,
importantly, the reasons why they are higher or lower than other
providers” (HCA 2016b, p. 2). Although there is the specification that
VfM measurements must take into account stakeholders’ interests, and
that there must be a demonstration to stakeholders of how the
organization meets this standard, there is no specific mention of
tenants.
Only the second objective, on consumer regulation, includes duties
regarding tenants. Within this there are 4 standards relating to possible
or current tenants; Home, Tenancy, Neighbourhood and Community,
Tenant Involvement and Empowerment. Instead of having regular IDAs
where compliance with these standards are tested, the approach taken
to the consumer regulation objective is reactive only. The HCA (2016a,
p. 16) states “we only use our regulatory and enforcement powers
where we judge that there has been a breach of a consumer standard
which has or could cause serious detriment”.
11 | P a g e
Relating this back to the previous discussion on ‘upward’ and
‘downward’ accountability, it could be argued that the approach taken
in England focusses on ‘upward’ accountability to funders but neglects
‘downward’ accountability to tenants. By leaving all mention of tenants
to the reactive consumer-standard there is no duty for tenants to be
incorporated into discussions of VfM. Furthermore, the focus of unit
cost within the economic standards
indicates a reliance on looking at
quantitative measures and ‘hard
data’ as the sum measurement of
VfM.
Scotland, on the other hand, is taking an alternative approach to
measuring VfM. The Scottish Housing Regulator has made tenants the
primary focus of its perspective of VfM and this has been supported by
an influential report by HouseMark, CIH Scotland, and the Wheatley
Group. This piece of research engaged with the sector in Scotland
regarding the practical experience of implementing VfM and aimed to
set out “an optimum approach that individual organisations can select
from and adapt depending on their size, geography, and purpose”
(2015, p. 1). The report outlines a series of recommendations
including:
A broadening of consideration of tenants to include future
tenants and communities at large
Encouraging housing providers to collect additional data
voluntarily, rather than adding more requirements to the Annual
Return on the Charter
The Regulator should offer the Scottish housing sector the
opportunity to develop its own perspective on VfM either before
or as an alternative to creating a more prescriptive approach
Emphasising the final recommendation, the research outlines that the
sector has “got the VfM message” and is able to develop a “bottom up”
(2015, p.3) approach which would avoid the need for an increased
regulatory burden. The report outlines a number of principles which
should underpin an approach to VfM in Scotland, and proposes that a
suite of measures be created to inform a VfM scorecard created by the
sector.
HouseMark outline that there are three core aspects to VfM which
should be considered in tandem; defining the concept, managing it,
and demonstrating it. The report outlines that the current regulatory
approach in Scotland incorporates these aspects. Housing providers
must show that they meet the standards within the Scottish Housing
Charter. This document contains a range of standards which describe
the results that tenants and customers want social landlords to
achieve, cover only activities relating to social landlords, and can be
Scotland
12 | P a g e
assessed and reported on by the Regulator. Outcome 13 in the
document the VfM Standard:
Social landlords manage all aspects of their businesses so that:
tenants, owners and other customers receive services that
provide continually improving value for the rent and other
charges they pay
There is an expectation that landlords self-assess and report
performance according to this standard which meets the
‘demonstrating VfM’ criterion. Finally, demonstrating VfM also informs a
dialogue around rent setting and the rent and service charge outcomes
within the Charter also form a part of the VfM approach in Scotland.
The report outlines a number of checklists for each three of the aspects
that have been outlined above. Regarding managing VfM, the research
distinguishes between two questions:
1) Do you do the right things to maximize value for your
stakeholders?
2) Do you do things right?
The first refers to whether the approach taken by the housing provider
matches tenant priorities and whether this perspective of VfM has been
balanced with other stakeholders’ views. The second focuses on
whether the organization has an understanding of the cost and
performance of services and assets, as well as general performance
and financial management. The emphasis here is clearly on tenant
engagement. We can see how this approach differs from the English
approach where the Regulator takes a reactive rather than proactive
approach to tenant engagement. The Scottish model with the emphasis
placed on the tenant by the Regulator, as well as the tenant-focused
suggestions within the HouseMark research, can be seen to provide a
balance of both ‘upward’ and ‘downward’ accountability.
The proposal of the creation of a scorecard fits into the aspect of
‘demonstrating VfM’. Here the research outlines that organizations
need to create a suite of measures which help them to map the values
(outputs) that they create through activities, help to understand the
concept of ‘money’ or inputs into the activity, and third give an
indication of the effectiveness of translating inputs to outputs. Within
this framework, the research sets out a number of sets of measures
that could be considered. These are:
Business processes
E.g. rent/service charge collected
People
E.g. sickness absence
Corporate Health
E.g. growth turnover/operating margin
13 | P a g e
The report emphasises the importance of communicating, as well as
measuring, VfM. It states “landlords should…reflect on the extent to
which the VfM information they provide for tenants is accessible and
transparent so that meaningful involvement in shaping services and
scrutiny can take place” (2015, p. 25). The research notes that a
number of regulatory downgrades that have occurred for English
associations relate to the lack of communication of VfM measures and
impact. Lessons should be learnt from this for the Scottish model, with
an emphasis placed on clarity around the process and opportunity for
all tenants to engage with, and challenge, the information.
The report concludes by re-emphasising the need to define, manage,
and demonstrate VfM. It outlines that as private companies seek to
maximize values for shareholders, “social business should be looking
to provide as much value as possible for stakeholders. At the heart of
this mission are tenants and other service users” (2015, p. 27). It
proposes that developing a ‘bottom up’ scorecard would enable this to
happen, with the input of both the tenants and the Regulator. The
process of measuring VfM allows businesses to demonstrate that they
know why they exist, they know who they serve, what it needs to do to
be successful, and have the ability to measure and demonstrate its
success. The Scottish Social Housing Charter is currently under
consultation, with the renewed
Charter to be in place by 1st April
2017. The revisions will show
whether the tenant focus from both
the sector and the Regulator will
remain in place for VfM measurement in the sector.
Community Housing Cymru and HouseMark have recently published a
report on developing a new approach to VfM in Wales, responding to
the Regulatory Board for Wales’ focus on this for 2016. This report
builds on their Scottish approach but in a Welsh context, highlighting
how this type of VfM model could be used to contribute to wider Welsh
Government priorities such as the Wellbeing of Future Generation’s
(Wales) Act. Again, the report identifies that communicating VfM is as
important as measuring it and emphasises the co-regulation approach
taken in Wales.
In the report, HouseMark outline the same key approaches as in the
Scottish model but draws on the specific legislative and operating
environment in Wales. It emphasises that within the approach taken to
co-regulation in Wales, Housing Associations have an opportunity to
take the lead in developing an approach to VfM. They suggest that the
scorecard model could be used to do this, and suggest a number of
key areas that could contribute to this:
Wales
14 | P a g e
1) Effectiveness – measures such as:
Units developed as a percentage of current stock
Percentage satisfaction with new how
Average SAP rating
2) Economy – measures such as:
Cost per property of housing management, repairs and voids,
overheads
Overheads as a percentage of revenue spend
Debt per unit
3) Efficiency – measures such as:
Percentage of arrears
Percentage of void loss
Average re-let time
4) Additional Social Value Data
The report outlines the importance of utilising data that Housing
Associations have already collated and reported on in order to provide
measurement of VfM but minimise additional work. As previously
noted, the report emphasises the role that this approach could play in
demonstrating the ‘value-added’ aspect of the housing sector by
showing how the work of the sector impacts on the Welsh
Government’s priority around ‘The Wales We Want’. Using data that
has already been reported on, the sector can show that not only has it
met its own objectives but that these map on to National Indicators or
goals. These include areas such as health, the environment, education,
and poverty/deprivation.
This proposed approach for Wales therefore emphasises the important
role for tenants to play within the measurement of VfM (building on the
Scottish model). It outlines that the housing sector should be a key
driver of change in this area, and that financial metrics should be
supported through ‘softer’ measures that might be included in an
evaluation of social value.
15 | P a g e
Upward
accountability
Downward
accountability
England Yes
Who? Economic Objective
focusses on
demonstrating VfM in
terms of financial inputs
and outputs
Tenants are only
included in Consumer
Regulation Objective
which is reactive only
Whose values? No tenant involvement
in creation of VfM tool
Focus on
demonstrating VfM to
funders rather than
recipients
How? Quantitative methods –
financial indicators
Upward
accountability
Downward
accountability
Scotland – Yes – duty created by Yes – emphasis on
16 | P a g e
HouseMark report
Regulator including tenants
Who? Housing Associations
and Regulator involved
in creating approach
Tenants involved in
creating approach
Whose values? Broad discussion of
organisations doing
the ‘right thing’ to
maximise value for
stakeholders
Tenants referred to
throughout approach
as vital to
understanding VfM
How? Scorecard of range of
measurements -
including business
processes
Scorecard of range of
measurements – with
tenants involved in the
creation of the
scorecard
Upward
accountability
Downward
accountability
Wales –
HouseMark Report
Yes – duty created by
Regulator
Yes – emphasis on
including tenants
Who? Emphasis on co-
regulation approach
for Housing
Associations, Housing
Sector more broadly,
and Regulatory team
Tenants involved in
creating approach
Whose values? Broad discussion of
organisations doing
the ‘right thing’ to
maximise value for
stakeholders
Alignment of meeting
objectives with broader
National Indicators
Tenants referred to
throughout approach
as vital to
understanding VfM
How? Scorecard of range of
measurements –
discussing
effectiveness,
Scorecard of range of
measurements – with
the additional of social
value measurement
17 | P a g e
economy, and
efficiency
K
EY
PO
INT
S
1. Approaches to VfM in social housing differ
across GB
2. England and Scotland have clear, and very
different, approaches
- England - cost focus
- Scotland - tenant focus
3. There is space for Wales to develop its own
approach to VfM in line with other policy
priorities
18 | P a g e
As previously outlined, the concept of VfM analysis became
widespread within the public sector with the introduction of the New
Public Management approach to government spending. In this section,
a review will be provided of analysis frameworks and tools used within
the development and health sectors respectively. This will draw on the
concept of accountability as highlighted in the first section of the report,
and build on the idea of ‘downward accountability’ as seen with the
approaches outlined by HouseMark regarding tenant engagement.
VfM analysis is an important tool within the development sector, with
much discussion on the use of aid spending and how the impact of the
use of that can be measured ongoing. In this section, the approach
taken by DFID will be outlined with an emphasis placed on its addition
of ‘equity’ to The Three E’s. This will be done through the review of a
report into the Value for Money within the Department’s WASH
programmes.
The inclusion of ‘equity’ as additional to the ‘Three Es’ demands that
both sustained actual outcomes and impacts are measured as part of
the Department’s analysis of its projects. DFID describe VfM as
“maximising the impact of each pound spent to improve people’s lives”
(Tremolet et. al. 2015, p. 1) and note how this builds on the National
Audit Office’s definition of looking at actual outcomes for people. The
report highlights that VfM for DFID is not necessarily about cost saving
or lowering unit costs, but “is about maximising actual outcomes and
impacts” (Tremolet et. al. 2015, p. 1). It is apparent, therefore, that the
measurement included in this analysis includes a focus on the impact
of the spending on individuals. This concept of equity makes the link
between purely financial analysis of VfM and the impact that spending
can have on the lives of individuals in terms of what they are able to be
and do.
The Department states that VfM analysis should not be just about a
quantitative measurement but engage with stakeholders of the
programme also. This can be seen to link to its emphasis on equity.
3.0 Other Sectors
Value for Money
Literature Review
September 2016
Introduction
Approach from
Department for
International
Development
19 | P a g e
The results chain used for measuring VfM in water, hygiene, and
schools programmes (WASH) looks like this:
There are a number of interconnected stages within this chain:
Costs – the money spent on an intervention
Inputs – the capital or labour used in delivering this intervention
Process – what happened through the intervention
Outputs and Assumed Outcomes – these relate to either ‘hard
outcomes’ that have been achieved, or the estimated number of
individual affected by the intervention
Sustained actual outcomes – “the actual change in poor
people’s lives over time” (p. 6).
Impacts – longer term changes to individuals and communities
such as an increase in school attendance
The first four of these indicators can be seen to cover The Three E’s.
Additional to these three key dimensions of VfM, DFID add cost-
effectiveness and cost-efficiency. The first relates to the relationship
between the programme costs and the impact on beneficiaries over
time. The second relates to the costs per output or assumed
beneficiary. This takes into account the sources of funding for the
intervention which led to the output or assumed outcome.
It is the addition of equity, however, that calls for a measurement of the
sustainable change that has been made in the lives of individuals or
communities. The report into the WASH programmes states
“sustainability and equity are considered as an additional layer of
analysis that cuts across the main VfM dimensions (Tremolet et al.
20 | P a g e
2015, p. 6). This relates back to the discussions around actors, metric,
and accountability within the first section of the report; when looking at
VfM it is crucial to understand who the actors are in the process, what
you are measuring, and why and who you are providing accountability
to. In this case, DFID have already emphasised the importance of
looking at the tangible impacts on individuals’ lives through
interventions, and expanded the metric beyond one of purely
quantitative data. Both ‘upward’ and ‘downward’ accountability should
therefore both be provided. Within the study on the WASH
programmes, however, there was a lack of indicators in every project
that allowed for the equity of outputs of outcomes to be monitored.
Although this is included within the methodology for testing VfM for
DFID, work still needs to be done on implementing this on the ground
with groups and services responsible for delivery the programmes.
There has been, and still is, a large debate around these conceptual
issues within the field of development studies. In 2010 The Big
Pushback was created which rejected the narrowing of how value is
measured within the sector. This has now been formulated into The Big
Pushforward which is a group of practitioners who discuss and
campaign for a mixed methods approach to measuring value, which
recognises that both politics and power can be involved in the use of
analyses such as VfM. The group works on developing methods of
measuring value in development programmes which recognises that
development works on the premise of building relationships and
delivering social justice, and this cannot easily be measured by
quantitative metrics which put a financial value on all outcomes.
DFID Upward
accountability
Downward
accountability
Yes - big emphasis on
upward accountability
to funders including
tax payers due to
nature of project
Yes – emphasis on
measuring actual impacts
and outcomes
Who? Wide range of
international
stakeholders ranging
from a variety of
governments, to
NGOs
Individuals and
communities in receipt of
assistance are included
within approach
Whose values? Looks at cost- Inclusion of equity shows
21 | P a g e
efficiency and cost-
effectiveness
alongside ‘3 Es’
recognition of
individual/community
values
How? Measurement of
financial indicators
such as costs, capital,
and labour
Measurement of sustained
actual outcomes and
impacts
A sector which also faces trouble in defining and analysing VfM is the
health sector. This section will focus on one tool of measurement
(QUALY) which links to the previous discussion around the
measurement of sustained actual outcomes for individuals. There are a
variety of approaches taken within the health sector, with a constant
drive towards efficiencies and looking at VfM. The QALY is focussed
on as it links to the inclusion of ‘equity’ from the DFID report as well as
the focus on tenant inclusion from HouseMark reports.
When looking at VfM within the health sector, Smith (2009) outlines
that there are two fundamental economic concepts: allocative efficiency
and technical efficiency. The first indicates the extent to which funding
which is limited is used to purchase the appropriate mix of services for
those who provide the funding. In this way, funders can see that their
input maximises health gains for service users. The second relates to
the extent to which the intervention can be delivered for a minimum
cost but maximum quality of output. Smith emphasises that “when
deciding what services to purchase the main (but not sole) focus of
allocative efficiency is prospective” (2009, p. 6). There are a number of
ways by which to do this.
NICE outline that they have shifted from a focus in cost-utility up until
2012, to a focus on cost-consequence and cost-benefit analysis. Within
this process they use the tool of Quality Adjusted Life Years to
measure the effectiveness of a public health intervention. This tool is
defined as “the measure of the health of a person or group in which the
benefits in terms of length of life are adjusted to reflect the quality of
life”. In this analysis, one QALY is equivalent to one year of perfect
health. This is calculated by estimating the years of life that a patient
has remaining following a particular intervention, and weighting that
against a score of quality of life within those years. This score is
measured in terms of individuals’ ability to carry out day to day
activities, free from physical pain or mental disturbance. NICE
generally considers that interventions costing the NHS £20,000 or less
per one QALY are cost-effective. The expansion of analysis from utility
to benefit and consequence means that this measurement is now one
of a range, where others look at indirect impacts such as how the
Approach from
Health Sector
(QALYs)
22 | P a g e
individual functions within broader society, and intangible impacts such
as quality of life and living with pain. Collectively, these give a ‘balance
sheet’ of outcomes which decision makers can use in relation to the
cost of an intervention.
Although NICE puts a financial value on a QALY, there is still a link
between DFID’s emphasis on sustained actual outcomes and a
measurement of quality of life. This can be understood as a focus on
functionings, or what people can do or be. The QALY measures
individuals’ ability to undertake daily activities without pain or
disturbance and equates this to the cost of intervention. DFID
emphasise equity and sustainability in the ability of individuals to
function within their measurement framework.
Richard Cookson (2005) has expanded on this focus on doing and
being in the context of developing a ‘capability QALY’ which expands
the health measurement to provide an analysis of individuals’
functionings. This, he argues, “acknowledges the non-separability of
health and non-health components of wellbeing” (2005, p. 827) which
can be seen to be reflected in NICE’s shift from measurement of utility
to benefit and consequence. Cookson describes this measurement as
“a cardinal and interpersonally comparable index of the value of an
individuals’ capability set in a given time period under certainty” (2005,
p. 818). The structure of the measurement is used in the same way,
however it focusses on wellbeing more generally rather than health in
particular. The capability QALY could be used to provide that ‘balance
sheet’ of outcomes that NICE calculates through a variety of
measurements.
Capability QALY Upward
accountability
Downward
accountability
Yes - demonstrates the
impact of a specific
amount of funding to
organisation (NHS) or
taxpayer
Yes - takes account of
individuals’ ability to do
and be things related
to the use of resources
Who? Wide range of
stakeholders;
government, NHS,
specific institutions,
taxpayers
Measurement focuses
on outcome for patient
Whose values? Financial aspect
focuses on funding
bodies
Quality aspect focuses
on individuals’ abilities
How? Relationship between
financial measure and
measure of individuals’
Relationship between
financial measure and
measure of individuals’
23 | P a g e
ability to live well
ability to live well
As previously noted, these two examples of equity and the use of
QALY can be seen to link to the inclusion of tenants in the previous
section. It could be argued that all of these measurements are able to
provide both upward and downward accountability and focus on
tangible impacts for individuals who are receiving services.
K
EY
PO
INT
S
1. Within the divergence of VfM models across the
public sector some focus on upward
accountability and some focus on downward
accountability
2. The Development Sector includes the idea of
equity in its measurement - this is the
recognition of sustainable outcomes for people's
lives
3. The health sector uses the idea of Quality
Adjusted Life Years as one measure of VfM - this
looks at individuals' quality of life following
health spending
4. Both of these approaches are person-centred,
and can provide an insight into a tenant-
focussed approach to VfM in Wales
24 | P a g e
This section of the review will look into international models of value for
money, focussing specifically on The Netherlands and Australia. The
Netherlands is of importance to the subject because historically social
housing was moved away from government regulation so this chapter
includes a review of the minimal literature produced for approaches
taken to maximising value for money at a time when there was a
particular need for a market oriented approach. The Netherlands has
since returned to regulation arrangements and this chapter will also
look into more recent research undertaken on the subjects of a
‘systems approach’ and the correlation between scale and value for
money.
In Australia, extensive research has been undertaken to inform the
measurement of social landlord performance, and in particular, the
strengths and weaknesses of existing measures of housing
management inputs and service outcomes, a determination of how
management expenditure per dwelling should be defined and
measured, an exploration into how landlords should maximise added
value on wellbeing outcomes, how added value should be effectively
quantified and measured and finally, how existing methods and
measures adopted in Australia should be adapted to promote a
comparison across providers.
The social housing sector in the Netherlands is unique in terms of its
structure and size. Ziljstra and Van Bortel (2014) explain that 2.4
million social housing properties are managed which equates to 32% of
the total housing stock, making the social housing sector in the
Netherlands the largest in Europe. The U.K is the second largest with
20% of the stock.
4.0 International Models
Value for Money
Literature Review
September 2016
Introduction
The Netherlands
25 | P a g e
As a result of Dutch social landlords
operating largely independently from
the government in the 1990’s, portfolio
analysis, an approach commonly
associated with the private sector,
was adopted. Van der Flier and Gruis
(2002) discuss how the basic
assumption of portfolio analysis is that
“the prospects of a firm’s strategic
business areas (SBA’s) are
determined by the growth of the
demand for it on the one hand and by
the competitive strength of the firm on
the other.” Portfolio analyses can be an effective tool to support
decision making and determine the appropriate allocation of resources
to the various SBA’s of an organisation.
The authors discuss an approach to
portfolio analysis known as the
Growth Share Matrix which was
developed by the Boston Consulting
Group (BCG). One axis of the BCG
matrix plots volume growth in
demand as a measure for future
prospects. On the other axis they plot
the firm’s market share as a measure
of its future competitive position…
New products need a lot of (R&D)
investment to develop. However, the
returns are small because of their low
market share. The resulting cash flow
is negative. The products are called ‘question marks’. When the
product is successful the market share increases and the cash flow
becomes zero: ‘stars’. After some time the market matures, the R&D
“…helps the analyst
to find the
combination of
assets with the
maximum return for
any given degree of
risk.”
“The main
advantage of the
BCG matrix is its
simplicity: there are
only four
possibilities and the
prescriptions are
clear-cut.”
Portfolio Analysis
26 | P a g e
costs have been recouped and the cash flow becomes positive ‘cash
cows’. In the last part of the cycle the produce becomes obsolete. The
market and the market share decreases, and the cash flow becomes
negative: ‘dogs’. The BCG diagram informs decisions on future
participation in respective Strategic Business Areas (SBA’s). The ‘stars’
should be cherished, the ‘dogs’ should be divested, the ‘cash cows’
should send their excess cash to the headquarters to use in other
SBA’s and the ‘question marks’ should be analysed to see whether the
investment into converting them into stars is worthwhile. (Van der Flier
and Gruis, 2002)
The authors also discuss the
differences in the way landlords
manage their stock resulting largely
from different business objectives.
Housing associations in the
Netherlands, as in the U.K invest in
their stock on a non-profit basis –
“often with a price and quality that
would not be realised by commercial
landlords.”
The usefulness of portfolio analysis
within the social housing sector comes into question due to the
“absence of a profit motive” as the “emphasis in these analyses lies on
“The question is,
can a portfolio
analysis approach
be effectively
adopted by social
landlords?”
27 | P a g e
financial performance.” The authors explain that although financial
performance had become more important to social housing providers in
the Netherlands at this time due to their financial independence, it was
“not central to their management decisions.”
Van der Flier and Gruis (2002) argue that portfolio analysis can be
effectively adopted by social landlords in two ways:
1. To analyse the market prospects of the dwellings in their
portfolio, using market demand and future competitive strength
as the dimensions of the matrix. Depending on the mission
statement, a social landlord will focus on certain parts of the
market demand the demand of the target group(s). The return
on investment can be represented by several measures, such
as the internal rate of return (IRR) or overall rate of return (ORR)
or as the net present value (NPV). In all these measures, the
return is calculated on the basis of the future cash-flow, derived
from the investment. For a measure of return on existing stock,
we argue the NPV is preferable.
2. To analyse the going concern value in relation to the market
value. As the going-concern value reflects what a landlord is
expecting to earn with its dwellings under current policy, the
market value reflects the maximum financial revenues a social
landlord can realise with its dwellings (for example by
maximising rents and sale). The difference between the going-
concern value and the market value can be seen as economic
(opportunity) loss, which can be accepted if a social landlord
deems it necessary to realise their goals in social housing.
(Gruis 2001; Van der Flier and Gruis 2002)
Van der Flier and Gruis (2002) conclude that although portfolio
analyses are compatible with the objectives of housing associations,
Conclusion
28 | P a g e
there are restrictions in terms of the emphasis of financial performance
associated with this approach, as discussed earlier. “For Dutch housing
associations, which have to operate as financially independent not-for-
profit landlords, this performance is becoming more important but is not
conclusive for their management decisions.” The second restriction
results from the limited possibilities at the time for housing associations
to diversify, although as activities in a variety of sub-markets have
increased for social housing providers, this approach can support
decisions on what areas of diversification are most appropriate and
viable. K
EY
PO
INT
S
1. Portfolio analysis can be useful for making
investment decisions
2. The emphasis of this approach is on financial
performance
3. It can be useful to analyse market prospects of
dwellings (return on investment)
4. It can be useful to analyse the going-concern
value of dwellings
5. It can help with decision about diversification
Straub et al (2010) argue that
performance measurement is not just
of vital importance as a management
instrument; it is indispensable for
external control of public
organisations. External supervision is
greatly facilitated when outsiders have
access to the same unequivocal and
transparent information on the
operations of the organisation as the
management of the organisation itself.
Straub, Koopman and van Mossel undertook research in 2010 to
identify the effectiveness of the systems approach to performance
management in social enterprises, in particular the maintenance
service delivery of Dutch housing associations and argue that as the
main objectives of ‘not-for-profit organisation’ are of a ‘non-monetary
nature’ performance measures should not consist of financial indicators
alone.
The systems
Approach
“Performance
measurement is
essential to make
organisations
function effectively
and efficiently.”
29 | P a g e
Straub et al (2010) argue that whereas product measurement is in fact
output measurement, process measurement implies the measurement
of throughput at any given point in time during the operation. They
state that output and throughput measurement are alternative ways of
measuring performance, “in the sense that output (product)
measurement reduces the multi-value performance to a “single-valued”
one: the quantifiable part of the performance.” Importantly, the authors
discuss how output measurement disregards the fact that performance
results from co-production among many actors and thus ignores the
interactions and synergies in the production process. “Throughput
(process) measurement, on the other hand, includes the efforts of
multiple actors with multiple goals, as well as co-productions.”
“The conceptual systems approach considers organisations or parts of
an organisation as separate systems, operating in an environment.”
(De Leeuw, 1990). The illustration below supports the argument of
Straub et al who discuss how the system and the environment are
“defined simultaneously” with the system being “distinguished from its
environment by a clearly discernible border.
The authors explain how the system interacts with its environment
through the exchange of materials, energy and/or information. The
incoming interactions are called input, while the outgoing interactions
The production
process in a
nutshell
“The concepts of service efficiency and effectiveness relate to an
understanding of public-service delivery as a process which uses
resources (inputs such as effort and time spent by the staff, use of
buildings and equipment) to produce services (outputs) in order to
achieve an objective (outcomes) (…) Service efficiency is the rate at
which resources (inputs) are converted into services (outputs), while
service effectiveness is the extent to which services provided actually
achieve the intended objectives (outcomes).” (Straub et al, 2010)
30 | P a g e
are dubbed output. The transit substance is labelled throughput, while
the actual effect of the output on the environment is called outcome.
The combined use of output, outcome and throughput measurement
enables the assessment of multitask performance fields of public
organisations. The input and output indicators define the beginning and
ending of the production process that finally generates the outcome,
while the throughput indicators are defined somewhere during the
production process. (Straub et al, 2010)
Straub et al discuss how although “human organisations” can be
“complex and dynamic”, they can still exhibit “predictable and
manageable behaviour”. The authors argue that performance
management is achievable as long as there is an acceptance that
contributions from separate actors within an organisation may not be
“fully identified and the “output or the outcome of the operations are
seen as stochastic quantities, subject to risk and uncertainty, rather
than the deterministic quantities of the systems approach.” The authors
argue that an organisation “can be considered as a black box, yet with
clear causal relationships with the actors and objects in its
environment.” Stewart and Ayres (2001), cited in Straub et al (2010)
argue that the “nature of a problem cannot be understood without
referring to possible solutions for the problem.” The authors discuss
how the use of systems concepts can help to “rationalise a given
problem, even if they fail to give an exact description of the problem or
the definitive solution.” They found that performance management
could still be an effective managerial tool for evaluating existing
practices and recommending future policy direction.” Using systems
thinking or better yet, the systems approach in complexity thinking,
performance measurement and steering becomes a practical exercise,
rather than a theoretical one.” (Straub et al, 2010)
Koopman et al (2008) argue that a housing association can be
described as a super-system engaged in feed forward steering of the
environment. Straub et al (2010) explain that housing association
(super-system) can be divided into separate parts based on the
A system and its
environment
31 | P a g e
managerial layers of the organisation. They argue that this division will
usually consist of the managerial level (the meta-system) and the
various operational level of the association. For input measurement,
indicators will usually consist of time and money spent on operations.
The choice of performance indicators for the outcome measurement
and subsequently the appropriate output and throughput measurement
should be derived from the public tasks of the housing association. The
external goals define the outcome.
In the Netherlands, as in the U.K, housing association’s goals are
defined individually however, they must fit within one of the following
criteria as prescribed in The Social Housing Management Decree
which is derived from the Dutch Housing Act:
It is the responsibility of the housing association to develop individual
performance indicators which ensures the effectiveness and efficiency
of business processes and provides accountability to external
stakeholders, including local and central government, tenants and
financial supervisors.
Straub et al (2010) discuss how the systems approach has the tools to
bring transparency to the aims and means of the various participants in
the production process of housing associations. As soon as the aims
and means are transparent they can be discussed and used for
problem analysis. Given that housing associations have many complex
aims and tasks both in the market and in the public domain, there is a
pressing need for an analytical framework in which aims are
transparently defined and insight is provided into the production
process that leads to them.
“The identification of key performance indicators, as well as the input,
throughput, output and outcome indicators that are bound up with it,
facilitates the choice, implementation and (re-)shaping of policy
alternatives and the justification for choosing among these alternatives.
Ideally, the set of performance indicators or key performance indicators
(KPI’s) ensures the effectiveness and efficiency of the internal business
(1) Guarantee the financial continuity of the housing association.
(2) Provide affordable housing to low-income tenants.
(3) Maintain the quality of the housing stock.
(4) Ensure tenant empowerment by giving tenants a say in policy
matters and housing management.
(5) Increase and maintain the quality of life in the area
surrounding the dwellings.
(6) Provide joint housing-and-care arrangement.
(Ministerie van VROM, 2005)
32 | P a g e
process and also covers the accountability to external stakeholders.”
(Straub et al, 2010)
KE
Y P
OIN
TS
1. Measures process (throughput) rather than
output
2. Includes the efforts of many actors in
performance (co-production)
3. The combined use of output, outcome and
throughput measurement enables the
assessment of multi-task performance
4. Systems concepts help to rationalise a given
problem
5. The choice of performance indicator for the
outcome measurement should be derived from
the public tasks of the housing association - the
external goals define the outcome
Following a period of fraud and mismanagement and accompanied by
a period of government austerity measures (due to economic crisis in
the Netherlands), and the widely held view that Dutch housing
associations are inefficient, the Dutch Parliament started an enquiry to
determine whether increasing the scale of housing associations in
recent years has contributed to their ability to deliver value for money.
Zijlstra and van Bortel (2014) asked the question: has the economic
crisis and the housing market downturn generated new insights in the
performance and resilience of housing associations?
In their analysis the authors explored the relationship between
performance and organisational scale using the following indicators:
1. Operational & maintenance costs per managed unit
2. Average number of managed units per employee
3. Costs per employee
4. Activity level of the organisation
Tenant satisfaction was used as the outcome of the association’s
performance.
The table below outlines the analytical framework with aspects used as
performance indicators and aspects used as indicators for expected
resilience:
Does Size Matter?
33 | P a g e
Performance Resilience
Organisation: Operational costs Opportunities savings
on operational costs
Maintenance costs Opportunities savings
maintenance costs
(maintenance
expenditures have
not explicitly been
asked in the
questionnaire)
Employees/dwelling Opportunities for
downsizing the
amount of staff
members
Euro’s/dwelling …
Euro’s/employee Effect on housing
production
Activity level …
Managed
priorities/employee
Service delivery
components
(additional services)
Organisational
culture:
Aim on digitisation
Tasks interpretation
(core tasks or broad
‘societal’ tasks)
Cooperation with
‘partners’
Results and
outcomes
Tenant satisfaction Quality of service
delivery
Future handling of
tenant participation
(Zijlstra and van Bortel, 2014)
Following the deregulation of the social housing sector in the
Netherlands and the resulting financial and operational autonomy in the
1990’s, mergers became a key feature with the average number of
dwellings per association increasing from around 3,000 in 1997 to
6,300 in 2012. Zijlstra and van Bortel (2014) discuss how this was as a
result of support for the argument that merging organisation's would
bring economies of scale, reduced operating costs and increased
effectiveness “in the field of housing construction, refurbishment and
neighbourhood renewal” however, van Bortel, Mullins and Gruis found
34 | P a g e
no relation between scale and performance’ in their 2009 case study
referring to social landlords in England and the Netherlands, as cited in
Zijlstra and van Bortel (2014)
The authors argue that the results of the case study do demonstrate
“that growth brings with it significant opportunities for scale-related
efficiencies, but scale does not automatically lead to better value for
money. Organisational transformation is necessary in order to benefit
from efficiencies as the opportunities arise. Scale might be important if,
but only if, an organisation can make the necessary changes in its
culture and business processes to achieve any economies of scale.
The case studies findings indicated that housing association’s staff is
the primary vehicle through which
efficiencies are delivered.
Communication with staff and linking
staff expectations with specific
outcomes are essential.”
The authors further explain how
customer satisfaction data from KWH,
the Quality Centre for Dutch Housing
Associations has demonstrated that
customers of large housing
associations are less satisfied with
landlord services than those of small
organisations. “When we account for
the variance within the size
categories, we can conclude that
small organisations (<1,800 units)
have a significantly higher customer
satisfaction than large housing
associations (>10,000 units).” (Zijlstra
and van Bortel, 2014)
“The survey indicated that most
housing associations expect that the
reduction of operating costs will affect
the nature of service delivery, but not
the satisfaction of customers. They
expect that making landlord services more standard and deliver these
services more efficiently will reduce costs and will create more room for
tailored services in exceptional cases. In other words: a mixed
approach with standardised business process were possible and tailor
made services were needed.” (Zijlstra and van Bortel, 2014)
“Housing
association stock
characteristics,
financial resources
and local housing
market challenges
are important
explanatory
factors.”
“Some claim that
higher operating
costs are the result
of a higher activity
level.”
35 | P a g e
KE
Y P
OIN
TS
1. Research has found no relationship between the
scale of a housing association and performance
2. Growth does bring significant opportunities for
scale-related efficiencies, but not automatically
better value for money
3. Housing association staff are the primary vehicle
through which efficiencies are delivered
4. Smaller organisations (-1800) have significantly
higher customer satisfaction than larger
organisation (+10,000)
5. Housing associations expect that making
landlord services more standard and delivering
them more efficiently will reduce costs
6. Bigger associations have more contact moments
with tenants and, therefore, bigger efficiency
advantages can be reached
As Pawson et al (2014) explain, the restructuring of Australia’s social
housing to promote a more diversified mix of housing service providers
has been accelerating in recent years. In 2012, 81 per cent of homes
were being managed by eight state or territory government
organisations, down from 88 per cent in 2004.
A continuing process of diversification has resulted from two main
strategies: transfer of the management (or, in some cases ownership)
of existing public housing from state government to community housing
providers (CHP’s) (documented in Pawson et al, 2013); and
channelling government and private investment for new housing supply
to larger CHP’s. (Pawson et al, 2014)
In conclusion, the authors identified that “the bigger the association,
the more contact moments they have with tenants, and thus the
bigger efficiency advantages can be reached in several service
actions. The other aspects of landlord services and online service
delivery do not differ significantly between small and large
associations.”
Australia
36 | P a g e
Pawson et al (2014) argue that ‘transparency’ and ‘accountability’ are
the key drivers from government in the expenditure of public funds, or
to put it another way, the effective use of resources. A broader
motivation is the adage ‘if it isn't measured, it isn't managed’. This
alludes to the value of statistical reporting obligations as an incentive
for performance improvement of the measured service.
Pawson et al undertook research into performance management in
social housing in Australia in an attempt to answer the following
questions:
The focus of the research outlined in this section of the literature review
is based on question 1 – strengths and weaknesses of existing
measurement techniques with a proposed measurement framework
outlined at the end of the section.
1. What are the strengths and weaknesses of existing official
measures of housing management inputs and service
outcomes?
2. How should management expenditure per dwelling be
defined, measured and disaggregated for application to a
multi-provider system?
3. How do social landlords seek to maximise added value on
wellbeing outcomes?
4. How can added value via tenancy management services be
effectively quantified and measured?
5. How should existing assessment methods and measures of
housing management service outcomes be adapted to
promote comparison across provider entities and provider
types?
Assessing
Management Costs
& Tenant Outcomes
in Social Housing:
Developing a
Framework
37 | P a g e
Pawson et al (2014) explain that traditional social housing performance
measures in Australia and elsewhere “tended to emphasise service
efficiency measures such as the proportion of un-tenanted properties,
the rate of stock under-utilisation (also termed under-occupation) or the
incidence of rent arrears (uncollected rent as a proportion of the rent
roll). However, the key ‘efficiency’ measure of unit costs designated
within Australia’s official social housing performance indicators has
been the net recurrent cost per dwelling measure.” (Productivity
Commission 2013).
The authors identified a reliance on tenant satisfaction metrics drawn
from ‘custom-designed consumer surveys’ in Australia as in the UK,
the Netherlands and elsewhere with a ‘national centralised survey’
providing the evidence in Australia. Housing associations have also
undertaken their own tenant satisfaction surveys with resulting
satisfaction rates being treated as important indicators of service
effectiveness.
Pawson et al also explore the significance of tenancy sustainment as
an additional outcome-related performance indicator. “In contrast to
tenant satisfaction metrics, tenancy sustainment measures are derived
from analysis of administrative staff rather than being collected through
social surveys. Beyond the measurement of tenancy sustainment,
efforts have been made to quantify the ‘non-shelter outcomes’ of social
housing – or the ‘added value’ of a social rental tenancy. In an
Australian study focussing on such welfare impacts of being
accommodate in public housing, it was found that recently housed
tenants tended to have consequentially enjoyed improved health and
better engagement with education for their children (Phibbs, 2005). In a
similar vein, more recent work has attempted to apply the concept of
social return on investment (SROI) within the social housing context.”
(Pawson et al, 2014)
38 | P a g e
In terms of a current performance management framework for
Australian social housing, an approach which was developed in the
1990’s is outlined below:
Pawson et al (2014) argue that disaggregating the measure into its
component parts does not assist in prompting explanations for the
drivers of cost differentials and/or with advising possible benchmarks
for assessment of performance… It can be argued that a composite
measure of social landlord costs of provision will be significantly
“The net recurrent cost per dwelling input expenditure measure
comprises of four cost categories:
1. Administration costs – the cost of the administration offices of
the property manager and tenancy manager
2. Operating costs – the costs of maintaining the operation of a
dwelling, including repairs and maintenance, rates, the cost of
disposals, market rent paid and interest expenses
3. Depreciation costs
4. The user cost of capital – the cost of the funds tied up in the
capital used to provide social housing” (Pawson et al, 2014)
Social housing
performance
indicator framework
39 | P a g e
influenced by difference in asset profiles as well as by differences in
landlord efficiency and the scope of management tasks being
performed and likely in turn to be partly related to provider differences
in client profile.
The research identifies a number of important strengths with the
existing performance measurement approach. In particular the authors
discuss the generation of “intelligible metrics which – thanks to the
common methodology inherent in a centralised survey – can be reliably
compared across jurisdictions and provider types. This refers to the
contrast with administratively generated performance statistics which
are often compromised by inconsistent data recording practices across
participating organisations.”
There are however, a number of weaknesses with the current system
too as Pawson et al (2014) explain, the focus on customer satisfaction
raises concern over what some consider to be the ‘nebulous’ concept
of ‘satisfaction.” The authors suggest that “while retaining a survey-
based approach, there could be value in experimenting with different
forms of question such as the ‘would you recommend?’ query. In
addition, the authors acknowledge the strength in a “cross –sectional
coverage of the entire (social) population” however, argue that
questions about service quality “could be more meaningfully directed
only to those having recently received the service concerned. For
example, while all respondents are asked their opinion of day to day
repairs performance, many may have no direct experience of this
service in the recent past (or ever in the case of newly housed
tenants).”
The research also raises concerns about the limitations of a ‘survey-
based approach to performance management’ which according to the
authors, requires ‘professional survey management’. In addition, the
authors outlined the following potential limitations:
“Our review of the net recurrent costs indicator suggests that a new
more narrowly conceived measure of landlord expenditure would be
required to analyse social housing landlord efficiency and to probe
how effectively different types of landlords shape service outcomes.
A better developed and negotiated definition of what comprises
management tasks would also be required. This could usefully
separate tenancy/property management tasks and welfare tasks to
cater both for the distinctive nature of social landlordism and
provider differences in client profiles, as well as enabling
benchmarking against private landlords whose focus is solely on
tenancy/property management.” (Pawson et al, 2014)
40 | P a g e
- Does not capture social inclusion outcomes
- No information about property occupied by each respondent
- Does not measure actual as opposed to perceived
- Does not consider what would have occurred in the absence of
provider assistance
- Relationship between respondent age an expressed satisfaction
- Property type – houses are more popular than flats (skews
results)
- ‘The honeymoon effect’ newer tenants are generally more
satisfied
Pawson et al (2014) discuss three approaches to the economic
evaluation of social housing and consider the most appropriate to be
cost consequences analysis (CCA).
Approach Measure for each provider
Cost benefit analysis Ratio of housing costs to value of
housing benefits
Cost effectiveness analysis Housing cost per tenant year
Cost consequences analysis Disaggregated housing costs and
tenant outcome measures
As the authors explain, “this is partly because, unlike cost effectiveness
analysis, CCA does not call for outcomes to be reduced to a single
measure, in a complex service like social housing management we
regard this as unrealistic. Indeed, we are looking at a housing system
where variance in outcomes is likely to be considerable as different
housing providers approach the task of supporting tenants in a variety
of ways. The project is very interested in examining this variance in
outcomes and not reducing to a single measure such as tenant years.
Indeed a cost-effectiveness approach would limit the ability of the
outcomes of the study to provide learnings for the social housing
sector. Providers with higher costs per tenant’s years would simply
argue that they have higher costs because their tenant-years are
‘better’.”
The authors also argue that CCA is more appropriate that cost-benefit
analysis because “unlike the latter, it does not require the assignment
of financial values to all outcomes – something which would be difficult
to operationalise in this context.”
41 | P a g e
The above diagram is a conceptual framework for measuring both
social housing costs and tenant outcomes which has been developed
by Pawson et al throughout their research. They explain that, “in the
first column (housing management activities, disaggregated), we list
some typical housing management tasks or components of the landlord
role. The relative importance of these to individual providers will vary
somewhat, depending on dwelling stock configuration and other
matters. These activities are aggregated into the broad categories
(management fields) proposed in the second (central) column. These
categories for our proposed framework for the recording of housing
management expenditure. It is envisaged that a common set of
accounting protocols would be developed for disaggregating housing
provider expenditure on salary costs (and outsourced contributions to
service delivery).” (Pawson et al, 2014)
The authors also explain that “the first step in our proposed approach
would be for state housing authorities and ‘in scope’ CHPs (proposed
as those managing more than 1000 dwellings in 2014) to identify the
salary expenditure associated with all staff with a role in providing
some element of housing management services – defined as landlord
activities other than:
Conceptual
framework for
measuring social
housing cost of
provision and
tenant outcomes
42 | P a g e
- Maintenance works implementation (rather than ordering
supervision and reporting)
- Capital investment planning for and project management of
stock reconfiguration and renewal.
By definition, landlord activities also exclude such things as the
planning and financing of new build housing, assisting people to
access private rental housing and any non-housing business activities.”
KE
Y P
OIN
TS
1. Existing performance measures in Australia have
included tenancy sustainment and added value
measures in addition to tenant satisfaction
2. Social landlord costs of provision can be
influenced by differences in asset profiles,
landlord efficiency and scope of management
tasks and, in turn, partly related to client profile
3. Customer satisfaction can be considered to be a
nebulous concept of satisfaction
4. Survey questions about service delivery could be
directed only to those who have received the
service concerned
5. Survey approaches demand professional survey
management
6. The researchers identified cost consequences
analysis to be the most appropriate economic
evaluation
7. The preferred framework for measurement is one
that relates unit expenditure to quantified tenant
outcomes
“In our view, such metrics could provide a means of usefully
comparing the resource inputs to housing management activities
across provider types and entities and, potentially, a basis for
cost consequences analysis by relating unit expenditure on
specific aspects of housing management to quantified tenant
outcomes.” (Pawson et al, 2014)
43 | P a g e
In the second part of the research undertaken, Pawson et al (2015)
attempt to answer the remaining four questions, starting with how
management expenditure per dwelling should be defined and
disaggregated.
Within the authors proposed framework for quantifying social housing
management expenditure ‘housing management’ is defined as focusing
on ‘landlord services’ net of repairs and maintenance works
expenditure. They argue that “this is a ‘purer’ measure of the ongoing
year to year resource cost of running a social housing portfolio. This is
because it excludes the potentially distorting impacts of differences in
repairs and maintenance expenditure needs attributable to the original
design of buildings, to construction materials, or to historic
maintenance inputs, and other variable operating costs that are beyond
the control of landlords (e.g. insurance and property rates).”
The authors continue to explain that within the ‘housing management’
domain we advocate the separate identification of expenditure
associated with four distinct elements of the overall management task,
namely: tenancy management, property management, individual tenant
support (ITS) and additional tenant and community services (ATCS).
This could facilitate meaningful benchmarking of social and private
landlord management expenditure by enabling the exclusion from such
a comparison of the housing management activities (ITS and ATCS)
specific to social landlords.
In response to research question 3, the authors discuss approaches to maximising added value on wellbeing outcomes: “As this is reportedly an increasing cost pressure for all social landlords, having more robust appraisals of needs assessment approaches (such as those implemented through interviews and home visits) and support service models (e.g. case planning and referral processes) would be highly beneficial, along with having better outcome measures as discussed below.” “Within the social housing sphere there is a growing sense that inherent within the social landlord role is the promotion of longer term, ‘non-shelter’ opportunities and outcomes for tenants. There is growing emphasis on enhancing tenant employability and capacity to move to an alternative tenure, such as by renting privately or contributing equity to their housing (e.g. via various shared ownership models). Arguably, this remains to be explicitly stated by Governments and regulators. Nonetheless, while social landlords (especially CHPs) appear willing to pursue this goal, the means of achieving it seem to be in their infancy (from our case studies). Furthermore, in a highly resource-constrained environment, it is unclear how such additional services can or should be funded.” (Pawson et al 2015) In terms of how added value services can be effectively quantified and measured (question 4), Pawson et al discuss the option of using survey
Assessing
Management Costs
& Tenant Outcomes
in Social Housing:
Recommended
Methods & Future
Directions
44 | P a g e
instruments more effectively, such as tenancy sustainment rates for at risk households. The research also explored the feasibility of measuring the outcomes of social housing provider assistance in reconnecting work-capable tenants with employment. “In practice, however, the definition and operationalisation of such a measure is highly complex. In the view of the research team, such a measure cannot be feasibly derived from social landlords’ internal record systems.” (Pawson et al 2015)
In response to question 5, the authors provide their views on how assessment methods and measures of housing management service outcomes can be adapted to promote comparison across providers.
“We advocate some modest enhancements to existing survey-based measures of housing management service outcomes. In particular, incorporating an increased emphasis on recently housed tenants would enable the National Social Housing Survey to delve deeper into how effectively social landlords assist new tenants in terms of social inclusion and economic reconnection. Within the realm of administratively-generated performance metrics, it would be desirable to extend to larger CHPs the current obligation to report on tenancy sustainment rates. Initially, this could focus on ‘greatest need’ new tenants—consistent with the current framework. Ideally, the remit of this metric would be narrowed for both types of providers to focus more specifically on ‘at risk’ tenants—such as those formerly homeless at the point of rehousing. Agreement on a precise definition of ‘at risk’ tenants would need to be negotiated directly by the state/territory governments and community housing industry bodies.” (Pawson et al, 2015)
The authors also express the importance of using cost-consequence analysis (CCA) in the process of comparing organisations as the CCA model allows for multiple outcomes to be documented without the requirement for a monetary value to be attributed (as in cost-benefit analysis). Interpretation can then allow for differences in costs and performance to be explained in relation to the operating environment (e.g. explaining differences by operating scale or by geographic factors, such as remoteness or stock sparsity).
45 | P a g e
KE
Y P
OIN
TS
1. When quantifying social housing management
expenditure, housing management is defined as
focusing on landlord services, net of repairs and
maintenance works expenditure
2. Housing management should include four
distinct elements – tenancy management,
property management, tenants support and
tenant and community services in order to
facilitate meaningful benchmarking
3. To effectively measure added value services,
survey instruments such as tenancy sustainment
rates for at risk households could be used, in
addition to the measurement of outcomes of
reconnecting work-capable tenants with
employment
4. An increased emphasis on surveying recently
housed tenants would identify how effectively
new tenants are assisted in terms of social
inclusion and economic reconnection
46 | P a g e
There are many definitions of social value with varying degrees of similarities and differences. Some definitions are focussed on procurement activities and the ‘added value’ that can be derived from the awarding of contracts. Other definitions are structured around wellbeing activities in an attempt to measure the ‘softer outcomes’ of community development and other frontline housing services. When considering value for money, social value can be an effective approach to measuring the non-financial outcomes of housing associations, as discussed earlier in the literature review.
The many different definitions of social value may be contributing to the
confusion around the subject in the social housing sector. As Wood
and Leighton (2010) discuss, “there are several, and diverse, methods
for measuring social value, and this fragmentation may be a factor in
the poor penetration of social value reporting in the third, statutory and
commercial sectors.
5.0 Social Value
Value for Money
Literature Review
September 2016
Social value is the value that stakeholders experience through
changes in their lives. Some, but not all of this is captured in market
prices. (Social Value UK, 2016)
Social value is a way of thinking about how scarce resources are
allocated and used. It involves looking beyond the price of each
individual contract and looking at what the collective benefit to a
community is when awarding a contract. (Social Value Act 2012)
Social value is the relative importance of changes that occur to
stakeholders as a result of an activity. (SROI Network, 2016)
The Definition(s)
of Social Value
47 | P a g e
KE
Y P
OIN
TS
1. Social value can relate to procurement and
wellbeing activities
2. Social value can be an effective measurement
tool
3. Social value can also be a powerful planning tool
to inform decision making
4. The many different definitions of social value
could be contributing to confusion around the
subject
Measuring social value is about measuring softer outcomes however,
the introduction of social return on investment (SROI) has taken this
one step further as it has assigned monetary values to outcomes,
either anticipated, or achieved. The New Economics Foundation (2016)
outline the concerns with traditional cost-benefit analysis approaches
not considering anything “anything beyond simple cost and price.” The
SROI approach measures a “much broader concept of value, taking
into account social, economic and environmental factors.”
(New Economics Foundation (NEF), 2016)
Potential SROI Benefits Potential SROI Limitations
It can help organisations
understand what social value an
activity creates in a robust and
rigorous way and so manage its
activities and relationships to
maximise that value
If there are not already good
outcomes data collection
systems in place, it can be time-
consuming to conduct an
evaluative SROI analysis first
time around
The process opens up a dialogue
with stakeholders, helping to
assess the degree to which
activities are meeting their needs
and expectations
There is a danger of focusing
narrowly on the ratio. The ratio is
only meaningful within the wider
narrative about the organisations.
Just as an astute investor would
not make a financial decision
based on just one number, the
same practice applies to this
social measurement tool. For this
reason, comparisons between
£1 invested in high-quality residential care for children generates a
social return of between £4 and £6.10.
£1 invested in alternative, non-prison based sentencing for women
offenders generates a social return of £14.
Monetary vs Non-
monetary
48 | P a g e
organisations just based on the
ratio are not recommended
SROI puts social impact into the
language of 'return on
investment’, which is widely
understood by investors,
commissioners and lenders.
There is increasing interest in
SROI as a way to demonstrate or
measure the social value of
investment, beyond the standard
financial measurement
SROI is an outcome, rather than
a process evaluation. The
dialogue with stakeholders yields
some insight into what works and
what doesn’t and why, but there
may be instances where a more
specific process evaluation would
be useful
Where it is not being used
already, SROI may be helpful in
showing potential customers (for
example, public bodies or other
large purchasers) that they can
develop new ways to define what
they want out of contracts, by
taking account of social and
environmental impacts
SROI requires a diverse skill set
– from stakeholder engagement
to working with Excel
spreadsheets. This can be hard
to find in one person
SROI can also be used in
strategic management. The
monetised indicators can help
management analyse what might
happen if they change their
strategy, as well as allow them to
evaluate the suitability of that
strategy to generating social
returns, or whether there may be
better means of using their
resources
New Economics Foundation (NEF), 2016)
Attaching a monetary value can be a useful way of measuring
outcomes, either projected or achieved and can provide quantitative
data to inform the most cost effective investment decisions however,
there are also some risks of using this approach. Wood and Leighton
(2010) discuss NEF’s evaluation of two rounds of SROI in 2008 in
which it worked with several social enterprises to carry out an SROI
analysis of its work. The subsequent report made a number of
important findings: although organisations participating in the study
found the process of SROI analysis a useful one, many found it
challenging to collect all of the data they needed – often the data was
outcome rather than output based, and monitoring and follow-up
49 | P a g e
processes were simply not in place in most organisations to collect this
sort of information.
Many organisation had to try to collect data retrospectively and found
SROI time consuming and resource intensive, with few participants
able to spare the staff to carry out the tasks required. Many also found
the methodology and concepts hard to follow. As a result, there was a
wide variation in the SROI ratios, as some organisations provided
incomplete or incorrect data or did not follow the process properly.
Tuan (2008) discusses the subject of ‘silver bulletism’ which is the
theory that there is ‘one special number’ that tells an organisation
whether it is succeeding or failing, driven by the “desire to define a
‘bottom line’ that will do for the philanthropy and public sector what
profit/loss statements do for the private sector.”
KE
Y P
OIN
TS
1. A number of models of measuring social value
assign a monetary value to outcomes
2. Attaching a monetary value can provide useful
quantitative data
3. This approach can be challenging in terms of
data collection
4. This approach can be time and resource
intensive
In Wales there are a number of methods of calculating and measuring
social value used throughout the social housing sector. Outlined below
are descriptions of the most widely used methods:
Social Return on Investment (in addition to the information
above):
Social Return on Investment (SROI) is a method for measuring and communicating a broad concept of value that incorporates social, environmental and economic impacts. It is a way of accounting for the value created by our activities and the contributions that made that activity possible. It is also the story of the change affected by our activities, told from the perspective of our stakeholders SROI can encompass all types of outcomes – social, economic and environmental – but it is based on involving stakeholders in determining which outcomes are relevant. There are two types of SROI:- Evaluative SROIs are conducted retrospectively and are based on
Models of Social
Value
50 | P a g e
outcomes that have already taken place. Forecast SROIs predict how much social value will be created if the
activities meet their intended outcomes. SROI was developed from social accounting and cost benefit analysis, and has a lot in common with other outcomes approaches. However, SROI is distinct from other approaches in that it places a monetary value on outcomes, so that they can be added up and compared with the investment made. (Social Impact Scotland, 2016)
HACT Wellbeing Valuation Toolkit:
Wellbeing Valuation allows you to measure the success of a social intervention by how much it increases people’s wellbeing. To do this, the results of large national surveys are analysed to isolate the effect of a particular factor on a person’s wellbeing. Analysis then reveals the equivalent amount of money needed to increase someone’s wellbeing by the same amount. The main advantage of Wellbeing Valuation is that the values are consistent and robust. The consistency means that while you may be examining values for different types of outcomes, you are still comparing like with like. Wellbeing Valuation is in HM Treasury’s Green Book – the UK Government’s core guide to policy evaluation – as a method for placing values on things that do not have a market value through being bought and sold. (HACT, 2016)
Centre for Regeneration Excellence in Wales (CREW) – Landscape, Atmosphere and Horizon: This toolkit has been designed to provide a detailed understanding of life in a community. You might use it to establish a baseline measurement before you implement a programme of regeneration or you can use it to assess the impact of recent regeneration activity. Understanding the conditions in a locality before interventions commence is essential if you are to fully understand what effect policies and programmes are having. Regular monitoring of programmes as they are delivered is equally essential if they are to remain on track and meet intended objectives. Finally, an assessment of the impact of a programme when it ends will allow judgements to be made of its success or failure which can inform future delivery and also encourages the development of good practice. This toolkit combines statistical sources with local knowledge to develop a comprehensive understanding of what is happening at community level. (Centre for Regeneration Excellence in Wales, 2012)
51 | P a g e
Global Value Exchange: The Global Value Exchange is a crowd sourced database of Values, Outcomes, Indicators and Stakeholders. It provides a free platform for information to be shared enabling greater consistency and transparency in measuring social & environmental values. The site empowers users by giving them a voice to share their experiences and allow them to become the 'creators of knowledge'. The site is an exciting development because unlike anything else... It holds detailed information on Stakeholders, Outcomes, Indicators & Values - all together for the first time! All four sections of the site are inter-connected so you can see the relationships between entries. E.g. which outcomes are related to which stakeholders and which indicators are related to which outcomes or what value can be associated to that outcome. The Chain of Events feature allows you to develop theories of change and link outcomes to other outcomes. The Outcomes Matrix allows you to see which outcomes are being used by which organisation. The site has links to research that supports the information within each section. Users of the site are able to interact with the information. They have the ability to comment, rate and say how they use the existing entries. This crowd sourcing provides a form of validation and guidance for users. Users are able to add their own entries. Open Source. (Global Value Exchange, 2016)
Value Wales Toolkit: Value Wales is responsible for shaping policy, monitoring practice, supporting and advising professionals, developing the procurement profession, and compliance with EU regulations. The Wales Procurement Policy Statement sets out the procurement practices and actions required of all public sector organisations in Wales. Value Wales helps the Welsh public sector realise improved value for money through ‘smarter procurement’ by
1. Increasing savings through collaboration 2. Improving process efficiency especially through use of
technology 3. Protecting the economy by encouraging smaller and more local
suppliers and seeking re-investment in local communities 4. Building procurement capability
Value Wales' Procurement Route Planner provides step-by-step guides to buying goods and securing services. It enables a consistent approach that mirrors the Welsh Government's 4-stage commissioning cycle. (Welsh Government, 2014)
52 | P a g e
Monetary Models of
Social Value
Non- monetary
Models of Social
Value
53 | P a g e
KE
Y P
OIN
TS
1. SROI is a method of measuring and
communicating a broad concept of value that
incorporates social, environmental and
economic impacts
2. There are two types of SROI:
- Evaluating: retrospective analysis
- Forecast: predictive analysis
3. The HACT Wellbeing Valuation Toolkit measures
the success of an intervention by how much it
increases people’s wellbeing
4. The HACT model values things that do not have
a market value through being bought and sold
5. The CREW approach provides a detailed
understanding of life in a community
6. The CREW toolkit can be used to establish a
baseline measurement of to assess impact
7. The CREW toolkit combines statistical sources
with local knowledge
8. The Value Wales toolkit helps the Welsh Public
Sector realise improved value for money through
smarter procurement
9. Global Value Exchange measures social and
environmental values
10. The Global Value Exchange has developed a
crowd sourced database of values, indicators
and stakeholders
11. The chain of events feature allows users to
develop theories of change
54 | P a g e
There are a number of key themes that have emerged from this
Review. The main regards the difference between ‘upward’ and
‘downward’ accountability. The discussion of the different models and
approaches across sectors shows the importance of considering this
key question of accountability. In the housing context, are VfM
measurements in place to providing assurance for service providers,
service users, or both?
The approaches proposed by HouseMark in both Scotland and Wales
focus on the inclusion on tenants; ensuring a form of ‘downward’
accountability. This is echoed in approaches within International
Development and Health which look at how VfM measurements can
take account of the impact that investment in services can have on
individuals’ lives.
This approach could be built on in terms of creating a Welsh model for
VfM for Housing Associations. This would enable the Welsh
Government to take a ‘made in Wales’ approach to this concept, and
align this with broader priorities. By focusing on tenants and what they
are able to do and be, National Indicators related to the Wellbeing of
Future Generations (Wales) Act can be met. In particular, this can be
seen to map across to the Wellbeing Duty included in this piece of
legislation.
Recommendations for VfM in Wales:
1. Focus on achieving a balance between downward and upward
accountability
2. Look at developing a tool which combines financial measures
with an indicator of what tenants are able to do and be because
of this investment
3. Take a co-regulation approach to developing a new model of
VfM – including tenants
4. The Regulator to take an enabling rather than enforcing
approach to VfM, thus supporting the co-regulation approach
6.0 Recommendations
Value for Money
Literature Review
September 2016
55 | P a g e
Alwardat, Benamraoui, and Rieple. 2015. Value for Money and Audit
Practice in the UK Public Sector. International Journal of Auditing 19
(3), pp. 2016 – 217
Cabinet Office. 2012. Social Value Act: Information and Resources.
Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/social-value-
act-information-and-resources/social-value-act-information-and-
resources (Accessed: July 2016)
Cookson, R. 2005. QALYs and the Capability Approach. Health
Economics 14, pp. 817-829
Centre for Regeneration Excellence in Wales. 2012. The Atmosphere,
Landscape and Horizon Regeneration Impact Toolkit. Available at:
http://www.regenwales.org/resource_17_The-Atmosphere--Landscape-
and-Horizon-Regeneration-Impact-Toolkit (Accessed: July 2016)
Emmi, et al. 2011. Value for Money: Current Approaches and Evolving
Debate. London: LSE.
Glendinnig, R. 1988. The Concept of Value for Money. International
Journal of Public Sector Management. 1 (1), pp. 42 – 50.
Global Value Exchange. 2016. Discover Your Social Value. Available
at: http://www.globalvaluexchange.org/ (Accessed July 2016)
HACT. 2014. Measuring the Social Impact of Community Investment:
A Guide to using the Wellbeing Valuation Approach. Available at:
http://www.hact.org.uk/measuring-social-impact-community-
investment-guide-using-wellbeing-valuation-approach (Accessed:
July 2016)
HCA. 2016. Regulating the Standards. Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_d
ata/file/535067/Regulating_the_Standards_July_2016.pdf. (Accessed:
July 2016)
7.0 Bibliography
56 | P a g e
HCA. 2016. Delivering better value for money: understanding
differences in unit costs – summary report. Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_d
ata/file/527847/Unit_cost_analysis_-_summary_report.pdf. (Accessed:
July 2016).
HouseMark. 2015. How do you know if you are providing value for
money? Defining, managing, and demonstrating Value for Money in
Scotland. Available at:
https://www.housemarkbusinessintelligence.co.uk/Events_pdf/How%20
do%20you%20know%20if%20you%20are%20providing%20value%20f
or%20money%20REPORT.pdf (Accessed: June 2016)
HouseMark. (forthcoming). Defining, delivering, and demonstrating
Value for Money in Wales.
New Economic Foundation. 2016. Social Return on Investment.
Available at: http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/entry/a-guide-
to-social-return-on-investment (Accessed: July 2016)
Pawson, et al. 2014. Assessing Management Costs and Tenant
Outcomes in Social Housing: Developing a Framework. AHURI
Pawson, et al. 2015. Assessing Management Costs and Tenant
Outcomes in Social Housing: Recommended Methods and Future
Directions. AHURI
Smith, P. 2009. Measuring value for money in healthcare: concepts
and tools. London: The Health Foundation.
Social Impact Scotland. 2016. What is SROI? Available at:
http://www.socialimpactscotland.org.uk/understanding-social-
impact/methods-and-tools/sroi/what-is-sroi/ (Accessed July 2016)
Social Value UK. 2016. What is Social Value? Available at:
http://www.socialvalueuk.org/why-social-value/ (Accessed: July 2016)
Straub, et al. 2010. Systems Approach and Performance Measurement
by Social Enterprises. Emerald Insights.
Tremolet, et al. 2015. Value for Money analysis of DFID-funded WASH
programmes in six countries. Available at: http://vfm-wash.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/08/OPM-2015-Synthesis-report-of-6-VFM-
WASH-studies.pdf (Accessed: June 2016)
Trosa, S. and Williams, S. 1996. Benchmarking in Public Sector
Management. Performance Management in Government:
Contemporary Illustrations. Occasional Paper No. 9. Paris: OECD
Tuan, M. 2008. Measuring and/or Estimating Social Value Creation:
Insights into Eight Integrated Cost Approaches.
57 | P a g e
Van der Flier and Gruis. 2002. The Applicability of Portfolio Analysis in
Social Management. Routledge.
Welsh Government. 2014. Value Wales. Available at:
http://gov.wales/topics/improvingservices/bettervfm/?lang=en
(Accessed: July 2016)
Wood, C and Leighton, D. 2010. Measuring Social Value: The Gap
Between Policy and Practice.
Zijlstra and van Bortel. 2014. Will Scale Finally Deliver? Delft University
of Technology
