NRSCH – PHASE 1. - A Participants View. Two Stage Process. Stage 1 - Eligibility and Tier Form. Entities can nominate their preferred tier however the Primary registrar makes the final decision. Duration – 2 weeks. Stage 2 – Application for Registration
NRSCH – PHASE 1
- A Participants View
Stage 1 - Eligibility and Tier Form.
Entities can nominate their preferred tier however the Primary registrar makes the final decision. Duration – 2 weeks.
Stage 2 – Application for Registration
For NSW participants not dissimilar to previous annual Compliance Assessments. Duration 6 weeks.
1.Eligibility Tier and Business evidence
3.Housing Assets evidence
4. Probity evidence
5. Tenant and Housing Services evidence
6. Community Engagement evidence
7. Financial Viability evidence
8. Supplementary evidence
(Applicants can nominate alternative evidence sources and indicate the performance outcome to which it relates)
Performance outcome 1 - Tenancy Management
Performance outcome 2 - Housing Assets
Performance outcome 3 - Community Engagement
Performance outcome 4 - Governance
Performance outcome 5 - Probity
Performance outcome 6 - Management
Performance outcome 7 – Financial viability
(Much of the data is similar to Unit Level reporting requirements however that reporting continues and is different for each jurisdiction)
Many of the performance outcomes have related threshold values with a “traffic light” indicator.
A “red indicator” requires explanation/clarification.
Respective review dates need to be within specified time intervals.
(No clarity around the agreement of thresholds
e.g. Tenant Survey response rates)
There has been a strong demonstration of consultation and a genuine desire to improve the supporting documentation, portal, clarity of definitions, site navigation and core evidence requirements.
Comprehensive launch meetings
3 Online surveys
2 Teleconferences - ARTD Consultants
1 Teleconference - CHFA
Not a significant change for NSW CHP’s – have been operating under a similar system for some time.
Hopefully the feedback will generate changes to system and processes prior to Phase 2.
The Regulator encourages reasoned challenge e.g. Support Agreements
Have a clear picture of the evidence you will use to support your application – read the application , then read it again.
The application does not need to be completed in one sitting – you can save the application progressively.
Keep all of your evidence/source documents in one place/drive/folder – it makes it easier to attach.
Talk to your IT provider about ad-hoc/customised report writer tool to populate eligibility/application forms.
Phase 1 participants have only provisional determination – still need to apply for registration in February but can rely on evidence supplied thus far – unnecessary overhead.
Class 3 & 4 CHP’s may be overwhelmed by the task – alliances may be a possibility and intense support and regular formative contact needs to occur. Perhaps look at a more scalable process.
Some providers in other jurisdictions may struggle to deliver satisfactory ratios and some of the evidence requirements. The financial viability tool is a “one size fits all” response.
Providers in other jurisdictions have challenged the detailed evidence requirements and the legitimacy of some of the data collected that is not directly related to the provision of housing.
The requirement to have a “wind-up” provision in the constitution may present a difficulty to some – “no clause – no registration”.
The Tier eligibility criteria are not as clear or transparent as they could be.
Rationalisation of regulatory and jurisdictional reporting is a lost opportunity.
The big take away message:
This is a bold and progressive change initiative.
It balances commerciality, enterprise autonomy, probity and stewardship.
Iencourage you to embrace it .
It is good for the sector and ultimately good for the vulnerable people we serve.