Social housing providers have been aware for some time of the all-important tenant satisfaction measures, that came into force from April 2023. The Transparency, Influence and Accountability Standard requires all registered providers of social to ‘collect and report annually on their performance using a core set of defined measures’, these measures are called the Tenant Satisfaction Measures.^[1] This is ultimately aimed to drive up standards and hold providers accountable. Ranked on differing scales, the consumer standards, for which involves those that affect tenants directly, are graded on a scale from C3 to C2 to finally C1 being the best possible outcome. The most recent judgements have been updated, and there are some spotlights and lessons that can be learned on what effective governance in anti-social behaviour means. 

Of the 31 providers recently graded, 8 were provided with a C1 grading. We will focus on a few of these providers, what they were deemed to do well, and what they are continuing to do well and what it means for anti-social behaviour governance. 

External Partnership Working

There were a few consistent themes present in those granted a C1 ranking, one of those was effective partnership working. Gentoo group was one such provider. The regulator remarked that they had ‘gained assurance that Gentoo works with relevant organisations to deter and tackle anti-social behaviour in its neighbourhoods’ the key element for the regulator was seeing ‘examples of this happening in practice’.^[2]Gentoo also went further, and it ‘engaged with its customer committee and scrutiny panel’ in pursuit of reviewing its approach to anti-social behaviour reporting’. This is reverberated in other positive grading to Saffron Housing Trust, who had also provided evidence ‘that it works with relevant organisations to deter and tackle anti-social behaviour’ Saffron confidently could ‘evidence examples of this happening in practice’.^[3] This underlines one of our key objectives when it comes to anti-social behaviour, that being a effective record keeping process, and a collaborative approach to anti-social behaviour. 

Data Management and Monitoring

We know how important data is to best target and deal with reports of anti-social behaviour. Large amounts of anti-social behaviour are left unreported and uncollected and is often not adequately shared. The House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts has note ‘how the lack of published data on the effectiveness of different measures’ has therefore impeded how local areas can use interventions available.^[4] This correlates with social housing, effective data management can not only highlight where best to target resources, but to also spot trends and themes. As anti-social behaviour targets discriminately, leaving certain demographics more negatively affected, it is key in order to implement systems that collect data in an effective manner. This was also found reverberated through the regulator’s judgements. For example, Nottingham Community Housing Association, who received a C1 grading, was found to have ‘specific targets on ASB performance and regular reports to board on a range of data to allow scrutiny’ in managing anti-social behaviour. Salix homes also was praised for their use of data, the regulator stated that ‘it makes effective use of its performance data to improve services and provides a range of information to tenants to support effective scrutiny’. This data was then used to drive improvements because of scrutiny reviews, including ‘how Salix manages anti-social behaviour cases. 

Transparency and Scrutiny from Tenants

As the Grenfell Inquiry is under way, we are made ever more aware how important it is to communicate and effectively engage with tenant’s concerns. It is also key for the social housing regulator, the consumer standards being transparency, influence and accountability. North Devon Homes for example, was lauded for it’s practices, with the regulator stating that ‘NDH provides a wide range of meaningful opportunities for tenants to influence and scrutinise its strategies, policies and services’ there is concrete evidence that this engagement has ‘directly and positively impacted service delivery and strategic direction’.^[5] Phoenix community association was another example of effective tenant engagement, as it was highlighted that they had ‘arrangements in place that support the involvement of tenants in decision making at all levels’ this is strengthened by giving opportunities for scrutiny, proving a ‘wider variety of opportunities’ to do so, with evidence seen form the regulator that this ‘has led to improved outcomes for tenants’.^[6] Tenant transparency and engagement often seem to go hand in hand with effective data monitoring. Gentoo for example, have effective ‘oversight of its performance information on complaints handling’, they considered ‘tenants’ diverse needs’ and they strengthen this by monitoring ‘its performance’. 

The social housing regulators tenant satisfaction measure, and consequently the Transparency, influence and accountability standard, are now in force, and will continue to highlight successes and failures across the sector. Despite challenges, it is clear that there is much to be praised and reflected on and highlight what we at Resolve have been saying in regards to effective anti-social behaviour governance namely that being effective and open partnership working, data management systems and a willingness to 

^[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/regulator-of-social-housing

^[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-judgement-gentoo-group-limited--2/gentoo-group-limited-l4313-regulatory-judgement-28-august-2024

^[3] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-judgement-saffron-housing-trust-limited--2/saffron-housing-trust-limited-lh4412-regulatory-judgement-14-august-2024

^[4] House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts (2007) Tackling Anti-Social Behaviour, London: The Stationery Office.

^[5] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-judgement-north-devon-homes/north-devon-homes-lh4249-regulatory-judgement-14-august-2024

^[6] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-judgement-phoenix-community-housing-association-bellingham-and-downham-limited/phoenix-community-housing-association-bellingham-and-downham-limited-l4505-regulatory-judgement-28-august-2024