Nrsch phase 1
1 / 9

- PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

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

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about '' - salma

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Nrsch phase 1


- A Participants View

Two stage process
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

For NSW participants not dissimilar to previous annual Compliance Assessments. Duration 6 weeks.

Stage 1 8 evidence categories
Stage 1 – 8 evidence categories

1.Eligibility Tier and Business evidence

2.Governance 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)

Stage 2 7 performance outcomes similar to national housing standards
Stage 2 – 7 Performance Outcomes(Similar to National Housing Standards)

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)

Metric tolerance
Metric Tolerance

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)

Process improvement
Process Improvement

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

Learning :

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.

Challenges opportunities
Challenges / Opportunities

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

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.