Category: Social Audit

Volunteer groups of Woodsworth members surveyed the membership about key goals for the co-op in 1989 and 2001. The results were published with main findings and a review with implications and recommended actions.

Social audit 1989: Objective 5 – Quality of housing

That the co-op provide its members with high-quality housing that is properly and efficiently maintained and serviced.

FINDINGS

1. In  1988,  maintenance staff received  1128 work orders.   On average, 92% of the work orders are completed in the same month. Staff report that  work  is  generally  begun  the  day  the  order  is  received. Outstanding work orders are usually due to ordering of special parts which the Co-op does not stock.

2.  Based on the total number of work orders received last year, the average per unit was 5.8.

3.  88% of the members stated that the quality of housing at Woodsworth is good or excellent.  All groups of members were similarly positive.

4. 73% of all members stated that maintenance service at Woodsworth is good or excellent.  Again, most groups of members were similarly positive, with the exception of single parents, with only 47% saying good or excellent.

5. 70% of all members stated the quality of Woodsworth is better than the housing they occupied  previously.   All groups of members were similarly positive.

6. The most recent unit inspection report (1988) shows that condensation is a problem in 60% of the units inspected.   Smoke detectors that were not working or too sensitive were a problem in 43% of the units inspected.

7. Parking problems were frequently cited by members as a problem at Woodsworth.

IMPLICATIONS

While problems do exist and specific matters were cited by members as problems, the survey shows that members are generally ver] positive  about the  quality of  housing  at Woodsworth.   The  major implication for the future is ensuring that high-quality maintenance wort continues  and that the co-op plan  and  budget for major capita replacements as required.

RECOMMENDED ACTlONS

The Maintenance Committee should be asked to review, update and implement the recommendations made in the capital replacement study

The Maintenance˛ Committee and staff should set up a regular smoke detector inspection, maintenance and education program as a high priority.

Home page with table of contents for Social Audit 1989

Social audit 1989: Objective 6 – Pricing

That the pricing of units ensures that the co-op remains affordable and available to people who are seeking and/or need alternatives to private rental housing or private home ownership.

FINDINGS

1.       85% of all members felt housing charges are “just right”.

2.      Woodsworth’s housing charges are dramatically lower than market rents in Toronto.   Our housing  charges are  also lower than those  in  four other similar co-ops that were studied.

lMPLlCATlONS

The study shows that current members are quite satisfied with their housing charges.  The only possible issue is whether housing charges are too low for members with  higher incomes.   As noted in the discussion related to Objective #2, Woodsworth is meeting only the minimum government requirement for subsidized units for lower-income people.

RECOMMENDED ACT1ONS

The Board should determine whether any other housing co-ops have implemented higher housing charges for higher income members to help build a subsidy pool for lower income members.  After study of any existing models, the Board should bring forward a proposed model for discussion by members and implementation in 1990.

Home page with table of contents for Social Audit 1989

Social audit 1989: Objective 7 – Progressive employer

That the co-op strive to be a progressive employer, providing a quality workplace that allow employees to meet job responsibilities while enhancing  their  own  career  and  personal  development objectives.

FlNDlNGS

1. 64% of all members characterized the co-op as a good or excellent employer. 67% believe that working conditions are good or excellent.

2.  Only 22% of all members feel they have meaningful input into the staff evaluation process.  Only 8% of current and former Board members feel they have meaningful input into the staff evaluation process.

3. Due to variations in staff structure, it is difficult to compare salaries with others in the market.  However, it appears that Woodsworth salaries are generally comparable to those at four similar housing co-ops as well as those paid to Cityhome employees.

4. Woodsworth coordinators and administrative staff have generally been women. All maintenance workers have been men. This also seems to be the pattern in other similar co-ops.

5. In the early years of the co-op, member input to staff evaluation  was actively pursued.  While member input used to be invited through the Weekly, little or no response was received.  One problem in the past was members bringing forward petty grievances in the process.

Currently, there is no standard procedure for evaluating staff.

The co-op had a detailed personnel policy adopted by the members in 1980.  When the practice of using individual employment contracts was introduced, the personnel policy was effectively shelved.

IMPLICATIONS:

Members generally feel that Woodsworth is a good place to work and that the co-op treats employees fairly.  Certain jobs seem to be filled by staff of a particular gender (i.e., office staff are female, maintenance workers are male).  Salaries in general appear to be in line with the market.

The co-op does appear to have a problem in the performance review process.  Most members feel they do not have meaningful input in the staff evaluation process – but the questionnaire did not ask if they wished to have input.  Given that the Board hires and evaluates the Coordinator,  negotiates  salaries,  and  generally  monitors  employee issues, it is frightening to learn that only 8% of current and past Board members feel they have meaningful input to staff evaluation.  The Board should be fully responsible for ensuring regular staff evaluations.

The lack of a working personnel policy could lead to inconsistency in personnel matters.

RECOMMENDED ACTlONS

The Board should see that the existing personnel policy is reviewed updated, and brought before the members for adoption.

The Board should develop and implement a standard evaluation system for all staff.

On all job postings circulated by Woodsworth, a line should be placed at the top of the notice emphasizing that both men and women are invited to apply for all positions.

To: Home page with table of contents for Social Audit 1989

Social audit 1989: Objective 8 – Participation

That  members  be  provided with ample  opportunities and encouragement to participate in coop activities and community life at Woodsworth.

FlNDlNGS

1.  Five  years  ago,  block reps had a range of duties:  welcoming  new members, presenting them with an information packet, arranging cleanup details with the staff, delivering the Weekly, and meeting periodically with other block reps.  Today, the block rep system appears primarily to sen/e as a delivery mechanism for the Weekly.  There is no longer a block rep coordinator and no joint meetings.

2.  51% of all members report knowing the name of their block rep.

3.  A review of Board  minutes shows that the topic of participation  has come up on Board agendas only once (Oct 1987) in the past three years.   The issue was on members’ meeting agendas frequently in 1983-84, but has since been an infrequent topic.

4. In  June,  1984,  the  membership  passed  a  participation  by-law  and policy, making  mandatory an average of 4 hours volunteer time per month, with exceptions granted by the Board.  The policy is apparently still  on the  books,  but is not enforced.

5.  The  Co-operative  Housing  Federation  of  Toronto  is  currently  reexamining the clause  in the  model  by-laws  making  participation mandatory.

6. 85% of all members report that they believe the co-op provides ample opportunities  for  members  to  participate  in  volunteer  and  social activities.

7. 66% of all members report taking part in last year’s spring clean-up. 51% report attending a social in the penthouse after a members’ meeting.  37% report attending last year’s street dance.

IMPLICATIONS

The block rep system has degenerated from being a major part of the co-op’s infrastructure for supporting participation to being a newsletter delivery service.

Members  seem  to  believe  that  Woodsworth  provides ample opportunities to participate.   Participation in spring clean-up and the social after members’ meeting is positive, but street dance attendance does seem to be falling and this should be considered.

The development and enforcement of participation by-laws as a means of increasing  participation has not been successful  and should be abandoned as a strategy.  Maintaining the current level of participation and building on that base should be accomplished by identifying and promoting the benefits (i.e., education and skills enhancement, meeting neighbours,  etc.)  rather than  by  devising  unenforceable  rules  and punishment.

RECOMMENDED ACTlONS

1. The production of a revised members’ handbook must be a major priority.   The members should budget in 1989-90 an adequate amount of money to support a committee that will hire the necessary help to write, print and distribute one copy of a revised handbook to each coop unit by December 1, 1989.  In each following year, a budget and policy should be put in place to ensure regular annual updates for the handbook.

2. The  Board should make the  rejuvenation of the block rep system a major priority in the coming year.

3. The  Board should gather information and  report to the  membership about other housing co-ops that have hired full or part-time community development workers in order to support participation and volunteer committees.

4. The Board should bring forward to a members’ meeting a plan for designating and honouring a Woodsworth Member of the Year, as a means of rewarding outstanding co-operative spirit within our community.

To: Home page with table of contents for Social Audit 1989

Social audit 1989: Objective 9 – Committees and volunteer workers

That the co-op fully  supports the organization of member committees and the activities of other individuals or groups o% people who are part of the volunteer efforts to support and enhance life at the co-op.

FlNDlNGS

66% of all members have served on non-elected committees; significantly lower-than-average percentages included: under 30 yrs. of age (40%); 60+ years of age (36%); lower income (45%); and newer members (35%).  49% of all those serving on non-elected committees found it a positive experience.

In our research, five non-elected committees were studied.  Three have been in existence since the early days of the co-op:  maintenance, social, landscaping.  All have a small core of regular members, with a slow but steady turn-over.   In general, there has been little Board contact/involvement in these committees.  Staff contact is minimal, with the exception of maintenance, though the staff relationship is generally seen as supportive.

Two non-elected committee that were studied had shorter lifespans. In the course of five years, there were two separate member committees dealing with member education / participation/ involvement.  Woodsworth also had a Personnel Committee for about five years.

IMPLICATIONS

It  is very positive to see that two-thirds of  all members  report  having served on non-elected committees, making that a major means of involvement in the co-op.  It follows that these committees, which are responsible for some major tasks, should be fully supported by the staff and Board, and through the budget.  In the past, it seems that these forms of support have been erratic.

TO: Home page with table of contents for Social Audit 1989