The Cinderella service

Still recovering from the impact of the 2002 Homelessness Act as its measures continue to come into effect, housing departments must now consider the Audit Commission's finding that performance across this service area is "disappointing".

Drawing on the results of the 50 best value inspections done so far, the commission's recent report seems to confirm homelessness assessment as the Cinderella service of the housing world. Just one service (Herefordshire) has received an "excellent" grading, with 11 others getting two stars. In contrast, three-quarters of homelessness and advice services inspected got ratings of "fair" or below. Why?

Inspection results appear to reflect widespread difficulty in tackling performance weakness, despite additional investment from the Bed and Breakfasts Unit and a much greater focus from the government. It could simply be that local authorities are slower to respond to the best value agenda in this unglamorous service area. But more likely, it is that there are inherent structural and resource constraints in applying best value principles to homelessness.

The Audit Commission acknowledges these difficulties, at least as far as the complex statutory homelessness framework is concerned, but it avoids explicit acknowledgement of the underlying causes of this admittedly poor performance.

Best value principles do not sit easily with homelessness service delivery for a number of reasons. The first is the effect of local market factors on the nature of homelessness and advice services. There are few other areas of local government in which regional variations in levels of need have such a fundamental effect on processes and outcomes. While authorities in the Midlands and north of England are struggling to market properties to prospective applicants, London and the South-east are managing an irreconcilable mismatch between demand and supply. Thus, the examples of best practice used in the report do not necessarily transfer across regions.

Also, the Audit Commission, in seeking to impose a common philosophy on radically different services, falls short of providing any real framework for authorities to develop good practice. I would argue that the only similarity between some of the featured authorities is the intractability of the management problems they face.

The best practice suggestions are useful to a point but do not provide a framework for choosing between the many competing demands on a manager’s time

The second issue is the lack of an explicit acknowledgement of the capacity problems facing most homelessness services, particularly those in high demand areas.

The Audit Commission's recommendations contain no surprises, but neither is any relative priority attached to any single action. The report therefore reproduces the dilemma facing most homelessness managers on a daily basis – a bewildering array of new but conflicting priorities and the additional challenge of managing change in the face of seemingly limitless demand for services.

Although the best practice suggestions included in the report are helpful to a point, they do not provide a framework for choosing between many competing demands. Some indication of how to prioritise between statutory obligations, customer care and best practice would have provided a more helpful template for operational managers.

Finally, and perhaps most crucially, the report lacks any explicit acknowledgement of the problems of trying to establish a customer-focused service in the face of a highly customer-unfriendly statutory framework and stringent resource constraints. Although the usual concepts of openness, courtesy and fairness are especially valid for homelessness assessment services, their practical application is far from straightforward in an environment where no one wants to hear your message or consume your goods. In low-demand areas, a customer-focused homelessness service must respectfully and courteously sell a product that no one wants. In high-demand areas, customer service involves ensuring that as few customers as possible get within 10 miles of a council house with a viewing letter. No wonder then, that operational managers struggle with the concept of customer-focused service when the conflict between rationing and demand and good customer care can make performance objectives appear as difficult to unravel as a Greek paradox.

It is important to acknowledge that some authorities are managing homelessness services successfully and should be commended for doing so. But, whatever the differences in size and complexion, all the authorities identified in the report have been successful in absorbing the constraints and conflicts of homelessness management into both long-term strategies and local systems.