Resident-led self-regulation:Enhancing in-housescrutiny and performance

A Policy and Practice report by the Chartered Institute of Housing

www.cih.org your work is our business

Abigail Davies and Mark Lupton

22

Authors: Abigail Davies and Mark Lupton

Project sponsored by: The Tenant Services Authority’s Tenant Empowerment Fund

Project advisory group:Mike Babb Sandwell HomesPiali DasGupta LGAShirley Davies GreenSquareAndrew Furtek Mole Valley HousingRoger Jarman Audit CommissionAngela Lomax TribalNigel Long TPASRichard Monk Whitefriars Housing Group Alan Rickman Winchester City CouncilSteve Smedley HouseMark

Particular thanks go to:The staff and tenants at Aldwyck, Cambridge City Homes, New Charter, Salix, Sovereign, andTeign for sharing their experiences.

The members of the advisory group for their constructive comments.

John Thornhill, Janet Hale and Debbie Larner for their research support.

Deborah Ilott and Lisa Pickard at the TSA, and Roger Jarman at the Audit Commission, forsharing their ideas on regulation policy.

The Chartered Institute of HousingThe Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH) is the professional body for people involved in housingand communities. We are a registered charity and not-for-profit organisation. We have a diverseand growing membership of over 22,000 people – both in the public and private sectors – livingand working in over 20 countries on five continents across the world. We exist to maximise thecontribution that housing professionals make to the wellbeing of communities. Our vision is to bethe first point of contact for – and the credible voice of – anyone involved or interested in housing.

Chartered Institute of Housing, Octavia House, Westwood Way, Coventry, CV4 8JP Tel: 024 7685 1700 Email: customer.services@cih.org Website: www.cih.org

Whilst all reasonable care and attention has been taken in compiling this publication, the authors and the publishersregret that they cannot assume responsibility for any error or omission that it contains.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in anyform or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission ofthe publishers.

© Copyright: Chartered Institute of Housing March 2010Registered charity No. 244067/R

Cover photograph by Okea/istockphoto.com

33

Foreword 4

1. Introduction 5

2. Policy context: The case for more resident-led scrutiny 6

3. Resident-led self-regulation: An introduction 9

4. Implementing enhanced resident-led scrutiny: Lessons from the vanguard 13

5. Policy development: RLSR and the new regulatory system 29

Appendix: Different approaches to resident-led self-regulation 41

Contents

44

The Tenant Services Authority (TSA) is committed to setting out a new approach for housing thatensures tenants get a fair deal. To support that approach, and underpinning our emphasis onlandlords working with tenants on service delivery, we want to see tenants holding landlords toaccount for those services.

Resident-led self-regulation (RLSR) is one way that emphasis can be realised. Although the TSAwill not prescribe the ways in which landlords and tenants work together I believe that there ismuch to learn from the early pioneers of RLSR that will inform discussions about the principlesand practice that underpin effective tenant scrutiny.

Phil MorganDirector of Tenant ServicesTSA

Foreword

CIH developed the concept of resident-ledself-regulation (RLSR) as a way to enhanceresident involvement and internalperformance management and to enablechanges in external regulation. The case forthis reform and suggestions of how it couldbe developed within housing organisationswere presented in several reports, whichculminated in Leading the Way (CIH 2007).

Since that time, a number of housingorganisations have developed and begun touse resident-led self-regulation. In addition,a regulatory framework is now beingestablished which expects organisations tobe more proactive in self-regulation and ininvolving residents. Early lessons fromorganisations which have already adoptedresident-led self-regulation can supportemerging practice in other organisations, aswell as informing development of the newregulatory framework.

This report explores and assesses howhousing organisations have implemented

resident-led self-regulation, as conceived in Leading the Way. Drawing on theexperience of the leading providers in thefield, it identifies the practicalities andpitfalls of setting up and running RLSR; andprovides suggestions, guidance, andexamples to help housing providers andtenants to take this approach forward. Italso considers how RLSR could link into theTSA’s co-regulatory framework, both interms of assuring quality of providers’performance and in reducing externalintervention.

This report will:

• Support the social housing sector indeveloping and making effective use ofresident-led scrutiny by drawing onexisting practice

• Help tenants increase their involvementand capacity in internal scrutiny activitiesthrough individual and collective activity

• Inform development of regulatory policyand practice within the TSA.

55

1. Introduction

Concept of RLSR

The concept of resident-led self-regulationwas developed for the social housing sector,with the aim of giving tenants more influenceover the priorities and performance of theirlandlord.

Put simply, it is:

‘an approach where residents’ priorities,views and engagement with relevantprocesses are at the heart of housingorganisations’ frameworks for directing,accounting for, monitoring, assessing andmodifying their own behaviour andperformance’.

It gives tenants a formal role in self-regulation, and gives them power tochallenge the organisation and effect change.

Legal framework

Public policy has increased its emphasis andfocus on customer/user service andinvolvement in recent years. This runs throughnational education, health, and communitiespolicies, as well as housing. There areobligations on service providers to involve thepeople who use particular services in theirdelivery and appraisal. There are alsoexpectations on bodies that overseeperformance and delivery to concentrate onoutcomes and experience for users of servicesmore than on the providers’ internalprocesses.

The new regulatory system for social housingwill be a hybrid of direct regulation and self-regulation. The regulator will expect landlordsto take a high level of responsibility forsetting and monitoring their ownperformance standards, but there will still beexternally set standards, monitoring andinterventions.

The foundations for a regulatory system thatformally takes account of tenants’ views andconcerns were set in the Housing andRegeneration Act 2008. The act gives the TSAstatutory objectives to empower tenants andensure they have the opportunity to beinvolved in management. It also creates anability for the regulator to take account ofviews or information received from tenantswhen deciding whether to exercise itspowers. This does not mean that tenants cantrigger regulatory action, but it sets anexpectation that the TSA will take seriouslyany concerns raised by tenants.

The activities and reports arising fromresident-led self-regulation may be a robustway for tenants to be empowered andinvolved with their own landlord, and forthem to raise concerns with the TSA whereother avenues have been exhausted or wherethey indicate issues around regulatory failure.In addition, direct engagement with theregulator could strengthen tenants’ ability tochallenge and change their landlord’sbehaviour and performance.1

66

2. Policy context: The case for more resident-led scrutiny

1 The TSA is not accountable for leaseholder interests and its very name suggests its focus will be on tenants.However, most providers will still wish to ensure appropriate accountability to their leaseholders (and are encouragedto do so by the Audit Commission). We have therefore retained the name ‘resident-led self-regulation’ (RLSR), ratherthan referring only to ‘tenants’.

For local authorities, the Local Governmentand Public Involvement in Health Act 2007introduced a ‘Duty to Involve’ from April2009. This means that local authorities mustinvolve representatives of people who arelikely to be affected by, or have an interest in,the exercise of a particular local authorityfunction. These people do not have to belocal residents, but could be involved withlocal companies, civil society organisations,etc. Involvement can mean provision ofinformation, consultation, or some other formof involvement.

There is an expectation that authorities willconsider where other forms of involvementmight be desirable. Activities might include:

• Influencing, or direct participation in,decision-making

• Giving feedback on services, outcomes,decisions, or policies

• Involvement in design of policies or services

• Involvement in delivery of services

• Involvement in assessment of services.

Several of these forms of involvement couldbe delivered in a housing service throughresident-led self-regulation.

The Duty to Involve clearly does not requirethe enhanced level of resident scrutinyoffered by resident-led self-regulation, butlocal authorities may choose to pursue it,particularly if residents express a desire tohave a stronger form of involvement thanbeing informed or consulted. Involvement inhousing services will not be new, and manylocal authorities already have tenantparticipation compacts which will set outtheir approach to involvement.

Emerging regulatory framework

The Tenant Services Authority (TSA) wants tocreate a regulatory framework for socialhousing that:

• Delivers excellent services to tenants

• Works on a co-regulatory basis – wherelandlords, the regulator and tenants worktogether to set, monitor and enforcestandards, rather than the regulatorprescribing all the rules.

The idea of co-regulation is to move the focusof decision-making and performancemanagement for housing services away fromspecific regulatory expectations and ontolocal needs and priorities.

The TSA wants to use the co-regulationmodel to reduce its direct activities withlandlords, and instead to rely on activitiesbeing carried out by others, such as scrutinyfrom within the landlord, by their tenants, orby professional independent ‘outsiders’.

In particular, the TSA wants ‘tenants andproviders to work together to raiseperformance and share best practice’ and hasstated its expectation that tenant scrutiny willbe one of landlords’ self-regulatory activitiesthat enable a co-regulatory model to beadopted.

It has long been accepted that residentinvolvement is in itself a good thing for thehousing sector. It gives personal developmentopportunities to residents; it creates a senseof collective identity and responsibilityamongst residents; and it deliversaccountability to a customer group with littleconsumer choice.

77

There is also a belief in the benefits that itcan bring for service delivery. It brings theexperience and values of the customerdirectly into the way services are deliveredand refined, and responding to this canproduce better services and higher levels ofsatisfaction. Involvement also helps customersto better understand how their landlordworks and the opportunities and barriers theyface.

The new approach to regulation will require achange in culture and practice within manyorganisations, in which the board will takegreater responsibility for corporate

performance and tenants will be better ableto shape their decisions and hold them toaccount.

Resident-led self-regulation offers greatpotential to help landlords work well with thenew freedoms of self-determination and newexpectations around internalising drivers forcontinuous improvement. It also offers theregulator a way to deliver aspects of the newco-regulatory approach it envisages. Inchapter 5 we consider ways in which RLSRcould interact with external regulation, andthe procedural and practical consequenceswhich would arise.

88

Definition and principles

Resident-led self-regulation is an approach tothe internal management of an organisationthat can bring residents, staff, andgovernance closer together. Because it is anapproach rather than a rigid model, it canwork in any kind of housing organisation –local authority, housing association or ALMO;general needs or specialist; large or small.

It puts residents’ priorities, views andengagement with relevant processes at theheart of housing organisations’ frameworksfor directing, accounting for, monitoring,assessing and modifying their own behaviourand performance.

Resident-led self-regulation enables a smallgroup of residents to:

• Oversee a range of scrutiny activities (thatcan be run by tenants, staff, or externalpeople)

• Integrate these activities with wider self-regulation work within the business

• Use findings from these activities tochallenge and shape the activities of seniorstaff and governors.

It is therefore about embedding residentfocus in the way the provider goes about itsbusiness.

CIH has already published a number of freereports that staff, boards/councillors andtenants can use to help decide whether topursue resident-led self-regulation and todesign a model that works for their specificorganisation. They have been used by many

of the organisations cited in this report andthey contain more detailed information onthe case for RLSR and the characteristics,scope, design and application of enhancedresident scrutiny.

• Leading the way sets out a robustapproach to effective residentempowerment that links in to regulation. It works through key issues and options insome detail, giving organisations aframework to consider their own approach.www.cih.org/policy/LeadingTheWay.pdf

• RLSR: development and applicationpresents practical ideas about howorganisations can develop and applyresident-led self-regulation. It considerswhat it might look like in practice, and theactivities and procedures required toimplement it. www.cih.org/policy/resident-led-self-regulation-development-and-application.pdf

• RLSR: potential and prospects proposesways that resident involvement activitiescould be formally drawn into theseframeworks and strengthened so residentsare at the heart of self-regulationprocesses. It also identifies the changes thathousing associations will have to make tomove from existing resident involvementand self-regulation activities to a resident-led self-regulation approach. www.cih.org/policy/resident-led-self-regulation.pdf

Scope

Resident-led self-regulation can be usedacross the whole of a housing business. Keyareas of the business where resident-led

99

3. Resident-led self-regulation: An introduction

scrutiny activity can be brought into self-regulation are:

• Services – scrutiny and subsequentinterventions around frontline servicesoffered, considering matters such asoperational performance, contractors used,specifications set, etc.

• Business – scrutiny and subsequentinterventions on strategic decisions such aswhich activities the company/departmentwill get involved with, which to prioritise,which geographical areas to focus on, etc.

• Governance – scrutiny and subsequentinterventions around the skills andcomposition of governance structureswhich oversee the housing business

• Constitutional – scrutiny and subsequentinterventions on decisions about the legalstructure of the housing function, such asdecisions on groups and mergers.

Many landlords and tenants will feel mostcomfortable if they start by developingresident-led self-regulation in service delivery.Most resident scrutiny activities already usedwithin a housing organisation will focus onservice delivery and so provide a goodfoundation to adopt a resident-led approach.Existing resident involvement in businessplanning, increasingly common in the sector,may also provide a foundation for enhancedscrutiny work of the business. It is importantto be aware that some residents are likely tohave an appetite for involvement in theactivities of the whole company ordepartment, including strategy andgovernance, and that they can make a veryvaluable contribution (as has beendemonstrated in several housingorganisations). Introducing RSLR at this levelmay, however, need more time and resourcesto be devoted to building the necessary

confidence, skills and capacities within theorganisation.

Not all tenants want to be involved with theirlandlord, and there is no expectation thatthey should be. But research shows that sometenants may be reluctant to get involvedbecause they do not believe their involvementwill be meaningful or effect real change.These views will need to be challenged acrossthe sector if enhanced scrutiny is to be widelyused.

Key characteristics

Resident-led self-regulation is about involvingresidents in the running of a housingbusiness, and about empowering them toinfluence decisions made and directionstaken.

Three key characteristics are required forgenuine resident-led self-regulation:

• Independence from other governance andmanagement structures

• Formality in operation

• Power for residents to challenge and effectchange.

Independence means that the people whocontrol the scrutiny and intervention activitiesof resident-led self-regulation are not thesame people who manage or govern thecompany/department. The benefit ofenhanced resident scrutiny is that it allowsanother perspective to complement orchallenge the perspectives of management orgovernance. This independence means thatdirections of scrutiny and conclusions reachedwill not be influenced by people who havealready settled on their own views andpreferred directions. This requirement doesnot preclude board members or senior staff

1100

from attending scrutiny group meetings as aformal link between scrutiny and governance/management, as we discuss later.

Formality helps to give residents confidencethat they are justified in asking forinformation, and that their activities will betaken into account and take place at the righttime to fit other work taking place across thebusiness/department. It also gives staffconfidence about the role and legitimacy ofresident scrutiny. It can be achieved byprescribing structures, remit and roles.

Power is very important in making resident-led self-regulation an effective partnership ofequals between tenants and those runningthe housing function. Without power,scrutiny activities can be simply a consultativeprocess which the landlord does not have toheed.

Achieving these three key characteristics willrequire commitment from the outset from theprovider’s governing body as well as fromtenants, involvement staff, and performancemanagement staff.

1111

Residents’ groupIn resident-led self-regulation, a tenant-ledgroup forms the central point for residentscrutiny within the organisation – establishingresident priorities and coordinating activities –and is the official link into corporate self-regulation. Group members look at a

landlord’s performance and decisions,examine and question these areas, and canalso make recommendations to the landlord.The panel is embedded into the managementand the customers of an organisation throughthe board (or LA equivalent) and residentpanels. Through these activities and

Senior Management Board

Resident Scrutiny GroupIndependence, formality

and power

Constitution Self-Regulation– review of board

performance

Governance Self-Regulation

– residents options appraisal andscrutiny of group structure

proposals

Service Self-Regulation

– resident inspection– mystery shopping

– complaints– estate inspection

Business Direction Self-Regulation

– performance evaluation– set priorities and targets

– input to business planning

For many providers, this domain is thestarting point

Resident Reps on Board and SG kept separate to maintainindependence/avoid conflict of interest = true scrutiny role

SG can influence and require action

Board responds with action plans; SG monitors action plan

Board can bring in external scrutiny of SG

Alternative Dispute Resolution

structures, resident-led self-regulation bringsextra accountability and challenge to the waya landlord is run.

Without some form of empowered tenantpanel, residents will struggle to truly leadenhanced scrutiny work, and so it may beinaccurate to describe the result as being trueresident-led self-regulation.

There are no particular parameters for whatthe panel can scrutinise. Areas already beingexamined by organisations using RLSR include:

• Housing and community services (such asallocations, repairs, and plannedmaintenance)

• Policies

• Complaints

• Development and design

• Corporate priorities and targets (includingwhat they are and whether they are met).

Some tenants and organisations are alsoconsidering whether they can examinestrategic issues, such as:

• Board decisions

• Priorities

• Resource allocation.

The panel will draw on established residentscrutiny activities such as:

• Estate inspection/walk-about

• Service review panels

• Complaints review groups

• Contractor review and appointment panels

• Performance indicator monitoring andreview

• Mystery shopping

• Citizens’ juries

• Tenant audit/tenant inspection.

The remit and composition of the group, andthe ways it links into the wider organisation,can be designed to suit the needs andpreferences of the tenants and their landlord.Leading the way sets out options fororganisations to consider when they aredesigning their own model for enhancedscrutiny. It includes options for:

• The activities of the residents’ group– carrying out, co-ordinating, or

commissioning scrutiny

• Recruitment and composition

• Ways to support effective performance ofthe group– skills, training, mentors

• Ways to integrate resident-led scrutiny intowider self-regulation and performancemanagement

• Ways for the residents’ group to ensuretheir landlord responds to their questionsand challenges

• Ways to deal with poor performance of thegroup

• Checks and balances on the group– influence of the wider tenant body– reporting and transparency.

The early experiences of organisations thathave implemented resident-led self-regulationhave provided valuable lessons for those nowlooking to adopt the approach. Theseorganisations have enhanced their approachto resident scrutiny, moving it to resident-ledself-regulation, by drawing existing and newscrutiny feedback mechanisms into a coherentapproach which is an integral part ofprescribed processes for monitoring,directing, and shaping the activities of thebusiness.

1122

Moving to resident-led self-regulation doespresent challenges, even for organisationsthat already have strong involvement andempowerment structures. We have spoken atlength with staff, board members and tenantsof organisations who are using and preparingto use resident-led self-regulation. They toldus how they had worked through the mainissues and explained why their decisionswould work for them. The recommendationsand ideas presented here are drawn fromdescription and analysis of the experiences ofthese organisations.

The organisations and their scrutiny groupsprofiled here are:

Aldwyck Customer Scrutiny Panel

Cambridge Housing Regulation PanelCity Homes

New Charter Tenant Management Team

Salix Customer Senate

Sovereign Group Residents’ Forum

Teign Scrutiny Panel

Different approaches to resident-led self-regulation

The structures and activities relating to RLSRwill (and should) look different in differentorganisations, but the overall aims andpurpose of RLSR should be the same.

Across the case studies, there were variationsin approaches to:

• Composition, administration and resourcingof groups

• Reporting structures and location withincorporate structures

• Relationships with other tenant involvementactivities

• Activities undertaken by scrutiny groups.

These different approaches had been chosento fit with the needs, aspirations, capacities,culture and history of the organisations.

Although organisations have developeddifferent mechanisms for delivering RLSR, thefindings from the case studies for thisresearch showed that providers were clear onthe overall aims and purpose of RLSR – toenable informed scrutiny, empower tenants,and drive improvements.

A key aspect of RLSR is therefore that tenantsare not just in a consultative role or part of anoperational tool but do have power because,for the mechanisms of RLSR to be effective,they must plug into the strategic andperformance management frameworks ofproviders.

See the appendix for detail of the modelsused by each case study organisation.

Remit of RLSR scrutiny groups (activitiesand breadth of influence)

Board, staff and tenants may have differentideas and aspirations for scrutiny work. Theywill need to work out together what ispossible, based on the organisation’s existingculture, resources, performance managementstructures, and involvement base. They should also take account of ambition andaspiration.

1133

4. Implementing enhanced resident-led scrutiny: Lessons from the vanguard

Sovereign’s Group Residents’ ForumPurpose: to scrutinise and challengeSovereign’s work to ensure continuousimprovement in service delivery forresidents, subject to appropriateregulatory and financial constraints.Role: to ensure that residents are involvedat the highest level of decision-makingand that the group’s strategic direction inservice delivery reflects the needs andaspirations of its customers. Aim: to strengthen the links betweencurrent resident involvement activity andgovernance structures, to ensure thatresidents are able to influence the group’sdecision-making process, complementingexisting structures.

Teign’s Scrutiny PanelPurpose: to increase resident scrutiny sothat residents gain the formalopportunity to take part in strategicperformance monitoring and servicereview. The aim is to give a residentperspective to the way in which TeignHousing regulates and improves itsperformance as an organisation.

Organisations and their tenants may decide touse the scrutiny groups’ activities to:

• Improve the existing services andinvolvement activities offered

• Inform changes in the type of servicesprovided.

The activities of the group may go beyondscrutiny, and include a role of ensuring thatthe resident voice is heard across theorganisation. For example to:

• Ensure that outcomes from resident

1144

✎✎

✎✎ ✎✎

✎✎

involvement activity feed into operationaland strategic decision-making

• Represent residents on:– policy and procedure reviews– standard setting– corporate responses to national

consultations.

If group members are to ‘represent’ otherresidents, there is a need to have a mix ofexperience amongst members, and ensurethat they have regular contact with a rangeof tenants and can understand and empathisewith the full range of tenant concerns.

The areas scrutinised must meet the needs oftenants and the organisation, and so a mix ofstaff-selected and tenant-selected areas forscrutiny may be appropriate.

Sovereign’s Group Residents’ Forum intention is to jointly agree itspriorities for scrutiny with the GroupManagement Board and GroupOperations Forum, on an annual basis.National, regulatory, legal and organisa-tional priorities will be incorporated.

New Charter’s Tenant ManagementTeam (TMT) selects three topics to revieweach year, and New Charter itself choosesone. Tenants’ moving-in experience wasconsidered as the pilot topic – identifiedby New Charter to promote and supportthe introduction of TMT as well as toidentify service improvements. TMTmembers wanted their second reviewtopic to have a wide impact, and theyselected estate management, concentrat-ing on the grounds maintenance aspect,after examining results of the customersatisfaction survey.

Salix’s Senate determines its ownpriorities but receives information from the board to inform these choices. Forexample, the executive discussed areas for attention highlighted in an AuditCommission inspection with the Senate.

Confidence in the group and its impact willchange over time, and there should beflexibility in the group’s constitution so that theformal remit can change. For example, RLSRgroups may want to have a role in signing offAnnual Standards Reports or ImprovementAction Plans in the new regulatory system; orat a later date they may want to look beyondservices. A lack of flexibility in remit couldprevent development or evolution of groups.

Organisations will need to be careful to avoid:

• Replicating existing groups which reviewcomplaints

• Replicating existing groups which receiveand comment on performance information.

To avoid replication, RLSR groups will need toeither:

• Draw on the work of and comments fromthese groups

• Replace these groups if the originalstructures are no longer needed.

And to be a true shift to enhanced residentscrutiny, they will need to:

• Have power to request information and driveactions in response.

Salix’s Senate has unfettered access to information within the company, subjectto data protection requirements. This rightis contained in the terms of reference.

Some RLSR groups will carry out scrutinywork directly, and others will draw on tenant-and staff-led scrutiny done elsewhere in theorganisation to inform their own activities.RLSR groups may determine the workprogramme for other scrutiny activities, suchas tenant inspection.

The work of Sovereign’s GroupResidents’ Forum is supplemented byResident Inspectors, who are asked tocommit to providing for a group-wideself-assessment of core service areasacross a framework agreed by theGroup Residents’ Forum.

Teign’s Scrutiny Panel recommendsareas where ‘mystery shops’ should becarried out and themes for CustomerPanel surveys, but does not carry themout itself. The group receives anddiscusses feedback from both activities.The panel also has the ability toundertake reviews on service areas thatresidents have identified as a priority, andalso areas where Teign Housing requestsa resident-led service review.

Decisions on which model to adopt should beinformed by:

• Strength and structure of existing scrutinyactivities

• Number of active tenants

• Confidence of group members to interpretreports and information prepared andpresented by others

• The breadth of coverage and influencedesired for the group.

1155

✎✎

✎✎

✎✎

✎✎

Time demands on group members will besignificantly higher if the RLSR group carriesout scrutiny activities itself.

Organisations, with their tenants, shouldreflect on the definition and keycharacteristics of resident-led self-regulationwhen determining how the RLSR group willrelate to scrutiny work across theorganisation. If the group is passive, beingtold what to scrutinise or simply receivingresults of scrutiny conducted elsewhere tolook at, resident-led self-regulation is not inplace. Resident-led self-regulation requires the group to be an influential part of a co-ordinated internal self-regulation processwhich can affect what is scrutinised and how;it must not be just a tool.

Outcomes desired and achieved

In general, organisations using RLSR wantchanges to result from challenges made byscrutiny groups – this will be the measure ofsuccess. The changes hoped for could bearound:

• Improved satisfaction or performance(quantitative measures)

• The nature of services provided (morequalitative measures).

Aldwyck could identify benefits of their scrutiny work:

• Contractor replacement based ontenant-led assessment of performance

• Increased resident involvementopportunities.

Success may also be judged by the number ofrecommendations accepted and implemented.

Organisations will need to determine theirmeasures of success before the RLSR group isset up.

It will be some time after set up beforebenefits of RLSR groups can be seen –perhaps around 12 to 18 months. Theprocesses of scrutiny, negotiation based onfindings, and implementation of a responsewill take time to work through. Expectationswill need to be managed on this basisbecause it will be important to get it rightrather than start the new approach toscrutiny quickly. Boards, staff and tenants willneed to be aware of the slow lead time whenforming a view of the RLSR group and whendeciding whether to commit ongoingresources to it (staff, personal or financial). It may be possible to undertake somefoundations training whilst scrutiny work isunderway, although this will increase pressureand time demands on scrutiny panelmembers.

Visible and positive assessment of impact willbe important if support for RLSR is to bemaintained.

Salix carries out customer impactassessments at the end of eachconsultation. These identify the staff timeutilised as well as qualitative outcomes,which give an indication of value formoney.

Process and timescales for set-up

TimescalesIt can take around a year to set up RLSR – toget from proposing the idea to launchingstructures and activities. Key activities include:

1166

✎✎

✎✎

• Development of a concept, purpose, andmodel to fit the specific landlord

• Preparation of job description and personspecification

• Preparation of terms of reference and codeof conduct

• Decisions on membership, selectionprocesses, appointment periods, payment,training, support, interface with the board,communication strategy, groupadministration, grievance procedures,performance review, frequency of meetings,procedures for decision-making andagendas, circulation of minutes

• Proposal to, and approval by, board

• Consultation with residents – including thewider tenant base and existing activetenants

• Integration into performance managementand tenant involvement strategies,including revisions to existing structures andactivities where necessary

• Delivery of training to tenants and staff inadvance of the launch.

FoundationsThe historical structure and approach toresident involvement in the organisation willhave an impact on capacity for RLSR in mostcases. Organisations able to take RLSRforward will usually have mature and effectiveinvolvement activities already in place, andmay have benefited from active tenantsendorsing and promoting RLSR.

However, some organisations haveimplemented RLSR from a very low base ofinvolvement. Although the organisation’shistory is important in its ability to takeforward RSLR, an active desire for culturechange can enable RLSR to be adopted inorganisations that do not start from anadvanced base.

DriversThe drive to introduce RLSR may come fromboard, staff, or tenants, and work may beneeded to gain support from the other keyparties.

Sustaining effectiveness and existenceof RLSR groups

Sustainable RLSR groups need to:

• Have a fairly stable membership, to ensureknowledge and capacity are retained

• Have some turnover of members, to keepperspectives and challenges fresh

• Avoid appointment cycles which result inthe whole membership changing at once

• Ensure demands on members are not toogreat

• Have a mix of skill and knowledge levels(to ensure capacity but supportdevelopment)

• Drive themselves (the group sets its ownagenda, etc.)

• Have a diverse membership, or one whichunderstands the diversity of the provider’stenants

• Be understood and supported by the staff,board, and wider tenant membership.

Some members of early RLSR groups havefound that the time demands are too much,especially those who work full time andconventional hours. The structure andsupport for groups can help address this.RLSR groups do not have to undertake allscrutiny activity, and can focus their time on assessing, cross-referencing, and actingon findings from mystery shopping,customer panels, etc., undertaken by others.Groups may consider co-opting experts toincrease capacity and reduce demands ontime.

1177

Sovereign’s Group Residents’ Forum members are asked to commit to six days per year. To give additionalflexibility, the GRF members decidethemselves the date, time and location ofmeetings.

Teign’s Scrutiny Panel members areasked to commit to two hours everythree months for meetings, pluspreparation time. Service reviews will becarried out by panel members and otherinvolved residents, and will involvefurther time commitment.

A membership of around 10-15 shouldprovide enough scrutiny group members tohandle a reasonable workload, give a mix ofexpertise, and be manageable. Larger scrutinygroups may be harder to administer and mayfind it more difficult to focus their work andviews. Smaller providers (i.e. those without alarge number of tenants) may be daunted bythe prospect of identifying a group this large.Providers’ positive experiences of the level ofinterest in RSLR group membership are setout below, but for organisations with a verysmall tenant base it may be appropriate todevelop cross-provider scrutiny groups.

A meeting frequency of four times per yearseems adequate for the group to be effective.

Group members who are looking atperformance information will need to receivethe information in good time before themeeting, so that they are able to digest it andprepare scrutiny questions to enable athorough analysis of the position beingpresented.

Recruitment

The recruitment process and its outcomes willbe of central importance to organisationsusing RLSR. Recruitment should aim to:

• Create a strong, capable RLSR group

• Offer opportunities for members to buildon their potential

• Be transparent, to build confidenceamongst stakeholders.

Recruitment can be carried out by interviewor election. Each method has merits but maydeliver different things. For example,interviews make it easier to specify and selectfor a clear set of skills and competencies(which are crucial to the success andeffectiveness of the group) but elections giveclear control of the group to the wider tenantbody (an important message to send tostakeholders). A decision on which method touse should be based on the ambitions andculture of the organisation and its tenants.Consultation with residents may help to givea clear steer on what to do.

Open recruitment is a good way to achievethese aims because it will reach all potentialcandidates, could attract capable candidateswho were not previously known to theorganisation, and be seen as neutral fromstaff control.

Housing providers will need to draw attentionto new panels or vacancies. The in-housemagazine or tenants’ newsletter is a goodvehicle to reach many tenants.

InterviewsInitial interviews could be conducted by staffand/or board members and/or active tenants.Subsequent interviews may involve RLSRgroup members, or the chair of the group.

1188

✎✎

✎✎

The composition of the interview panel willsend strong messages about the futuredirection and independence of the scrutinypanel, so should be carefully considered.

Six members of Salix’s Senate wererecruited from its Service Specific Panels.The process was overseen by the board’schampion for customer involvement anda customer interview panel.

The selection criteria should be clear andpublically available to ensure transparencyand build confidence.

Recruitment to Teign’s Scrutiny Panel was carried out on a skills basisand considering the demographic anddiversity profile of Teign Housingresidents.

New Charter asked applicants tocomplete a self-assessment form to setout the skills and qualities they couldoffer. Informal interviews/discussion werethen held jointly with TPAS and theTenant Involvement Manager at NewCharter.

To establish a new RLSR group, when tenantsare not yet familiar or confident with theconcept, those leading the process may wantto invite applications from existing activetenants as part of the open recruitment. Thiswill:

• Send a clear message that RLSR is a newpart of the menu of involvement

opportunities, and is not a threat toestablished activities

• Ensure applications come forward fromsome candidates who are familiar with theorganisation and its processes.

Recruitment of Teign’s panelmembers was carried out alongside atenant board member recruitmentprocess. All residents were given theopportunity to apply to be a member ofthe Scrutiny Panel.

If particular individuals are approacheddirectly, there is a risk that this will beperceived negatively as the staff trying tocontrol membership of the group. This riskwill need to be carefully managed.

Staff who are familiar with the organisation’sactive tenants may want to exclude peoplewho have been difficult to work with in thepast. It is reasonable not to recruit peoplewho demonstrate at interview that they maynot have the right skills or motivation to workin a team for the benefit of the organisation.However, a decision not to recruit someonewho is known to be perceptive, assertive andcomfortable in challenging authority may notbe so easy to justify. Care should be taken toavoid intentional exclusion of capable butchallenging tenants, so that the reputationand effectiveness of the group is protectedfrom the outset.

ElectionsElections could be used to recruit groupmembers, and would give tenants‘ownership’ of the scrutiny group, sending aclear message that tenants on the group arethere to help with wider tenant body.

1199

✎✎

✎✎

✎✎

✎✎

The initial members of Cambridge City Homes’ Housing RegulationPanel were drawn from the steeringgroup which set it up. Subsequentmembers will join the panel in 2011,through an election process timed tocoincide with elections to the HousingManagement Board. Six residentrepresentatives will be elected by a ballotof all tenants and leaseholders and theywill sit on the group for a fixed term.

Consideration should be given to the existinguse and perception of elections to tenantbodies or governance posts within theorganisation. Hurdles may be experienced ifelected board members object to beingscrutinised by an unelected group, forexample. Such objections should be stronglychallenged on the grounds of transparency,accountability and inclusivity, and byreiterating the role and remit of elected boardmembers, which is not one of tenantrepresentation or collective empowerment.The new local authority Duty to Involve maybe a good way to illustrate how scrutiny ofelected bodies can strengthen rather thanundermine the democratic process.

Recruitment outcomesEvidence to date suggests that places on theRLSR group are attractive and that sufficientcandidates do come forward. This isreassuring. Many providers consideringmoving to resident-led self-regulation are notconfident that there will be enough interestedtenants to make RLSR work, and haveconcerns that the existing pool of activetenants will be spread too thin to support allinvolvement activities available. Earlyexperience suggests this may not be aproblem.

Salix received 80 applications frompeople wishing to be on its Senate,compared to six from people wanting tojoin the board.

The high level of interest in places on theRLSR group can be attributed to:

• The potential offered by involvement with anew group with new and attractive powers

• The new opportunity to be involvedbetween the board and the residents’association

• Good communications about the newgroup.

It is likely that these positive recruitmentoutcomes can be maintained if the work ofthe RLSR group is well known and seen asbeneficial, and if other involvement activitiesare used as a stepping stone into groupmembership.

Active tenants are often profiled as beingover 50, retired or disabled, and white. Manymembers of new scrutiny groups fit thisprofile, and this may present risks that theywill not represent all tenants (i.e. not speakfor the interests of all), or that they will beperceived to be unrepresentative. See belowfor comment on representation.

Restrictions on other involvementactivities

Board members (from any level of theorganisation) should not be allowed to bemembers of the scrutiny panel in a true RLSRmodel. Scrutiny panel members would beunable to provide independent evaluationand challenge to another body of which theywere a member.

2200

✎✎ ✎✎

Tenants may use scrutiny panel membershipto build their skills and confidence until theyfeel able to apply for a seat on the board. Inthis way, RLSR can support successionplanning and movement within the menu ofinvolvement. Equally, tenants may feel thatthe scrutiny panel offers them somethingdifferent from board membership, andactively choose to be involved with one ratherthan the other.

There may be possible conflicts of interestwhich are less clear, for example wheremembers of the same household sit on theboard and the RLSR group. Whilst suchresidents may find their allegiances tested onoccasion, it is likely that rules to prevent ithappening would be considereddiscriminatory.

Salix does not allow customer inspectors to sit on its Senate becausethey are a support mechanism to ensurethat the Senate is able to gatherobjective evidence in relation to areas of the business under scrutiny. Theinspectors are independent of the Senateand would be given a specific remit toinvestigate which ensures all scrutinyactivities remain impartial.

Support needs of organisations andtenants and how to meet them

Organisations and tenants will have supportneeds when setting up and running RLSR.

Set upOrganisations with mature involvementstructures may feel that RLSR can evolve fromexisting structures.

Aldwyck established a ResidentConsultation Committee (RCC) 16 yearsago to provide a mechanism for tenantconsultation within the organisation.More recently, they wanted a tenant bodywhich would be pro-active in challengingservice delivery in the organisation and sothe RCC developed into the CustomerScrutiny Panel. Wider consultation withtenants is now carried out using adatabase of 800 tenants who haveexpressed an interest in being involved.

All the case studies felt it was too early to saywhether this approach is right or whether itbrings unforeseen problems – they wouldneed at least a year of operation to give afeel for this.

Consultants may be useful to help set upRLSR where confidence or staff capacity islacking, and they can continue to providementoring support. This adds cost but mayalso add capacity.

New Charter’s Tenant ManagementTeam has a dedicated support workerwithin the Tenant Participation Team andretains a mentor who provides one day ofsupport each month.

TrainingGood preparation for implementation of RLSRwill require financial and practical supportand training programmes.

A skills assessment can help identify thetraining needs of individual members and theRLSR group collectively, as well as preferredlearning methods.

2211

✎✎

✎✎

✎✎

At Teign, a skills assessment has beenundertaken to develop individual trainingplans, and appraisals will be carried outannually by the chair.

A mix of internally and externally providedtraining will be beneficial – to understandareas of the business, to draw on in-houseknowledge, and to bring in external expertisewhere necessary.

Sovereign’s Group Residents’ Forum members received externallyprovided training on resident strategicinvolvement and resident inspections andan annual review of training needs willbe undertaken.

Teign’s Scrutiny Group receivedinduction training on the QuarterlyManagement Information Report, whichthey receive at each meeting. Thetraining took the form of a workshopwith staff, where each member of staffexplained their area of the business andthe performance information they report.Training on audit skills and service reviewis currently being carried out.

The case studies offered training on a rangeof topics, including:

• The regulatory framework

• The financial framework

• Individual areas of the business and howthey are delivered

• Resident involvement/empowermentactivities and how they link together

• Governance expectations and structures

• Audit and scrutiny

• Interpreting numerical data

• Presentation skills

• Interviewing and questioning

• Report writing

• Information and communicationstechnology (ICT)

• Confidence building

• The work of existing RLSR groups.

It would also be beneficial to offer equalityand diversity training so that group membersunderstand new and existing legalrequirements as well as the practical benefitsof being aware of and proactive aboutcustomer diversity.

Members of New Charter’s TenantManagement Team have individualpersonal training plans, regular one-to-one appraisals with the support worker,and an annual performance review withthe corporate organisational developmentteam. This gives a tailored personalbenefit as well as supporting the TMT.

Organisations may wish to offer accreditedtraining to tenants. As well as giving aguarantee of quality and relevance, accreditedtraining can be used by tenants to build aportfolio which demonstrates their suitabilityfor other paid or voluntary workopportunities.

One advantage of having long-standing active tenants on RLSR groups is that theirlevel of understanding is usually greater so

2222

✎✎

✎✎

✎✎ ✎✎

development needs are fewer. This will needto be balanced with the benefits of bringingnew participants into involvement structures –this will bring new ideas and skills, and alsoreduce the strain on active tenants who maybe called on for a range of activities acrossthe organisation.

Staff supportRLSR groups are likely to need dedicated staffsupport. This could include:

• Secretariat (meeting preparation, minute-taking, room bookings, budgetmanagement)

• Skills support (perhaps from a performance,governance, or involvement officer).

The amount and type of staff involvementmay vary according to organisational needand ambition.

Sovereign’s Group Residents’ Forum has a clear link into the corporatePerformance Team. An officer providesadministrative support to the forum.

Staff support will reduce time demands ontenants and can help build skills, but there isa need for the RLSR group to retain its abilityto direct itself (independence). Groups may infact be staff-led if:

• The organisation determines which staff thegroup can or must work with

• Staff determine meeting agendas or workprogrammes

• Staff provide analysis of performanceinformation which is accepted uncritically

• Staff retain oversight of recruitment beyondthe first round.

If these characteristics are present, it isreasonable to question whether theorganisation is really operating resident-ledself-regulation.

Alongside staff support, RLSR groups couldbe provided with:

• Laptops

• Internet access

• A budget which they control (tocommission support, consultancy, otherscrutiny work).

Salix’s Senate has a small budget, and also raises its own income e.g. byorganising a learning day for other socialhousing providers.

Inter-group networksTenants and staff involved with RLSR willbenefit from discussing their own approachesand experiences with others.

Salix and New Charter are involvedwith organising RLSR networks tofacilitate discussion and development.New Charter held a joint seminar event with Salix on RSLR in December2009 to engage with housingassociations.

New Charter’s Tenant ManagementTeam members attended a TPASconference as part of their training, andto help them develop external supportnetworks.

2233

✎✎

✎✎

✎✎

✎✎

Cost and resource requirements

Paying scrutiny panel membersMost RLSR group members are not paid, evenwhere tenants involved in other scrutinyarrangements in the organisation (such asmystery shopping) are. A decision not to paymay:

• Recognise strong tenant feelings about thevalue of voluntary effort

• Demonstrate independence of groupmembers from the organisation they arescrutinising

• Avoid causing problems with benefitentitlements.

Alternatively, organisations may wish to paygroup members. For example GreenSquare,another organisation at the forefront ofdeveloping resident-led self-regulation, paysan independent chair of its scrutiny group£7000 a year. Payment may:

• Recognise the level of responsibility andtime demands placed on panel members

• Demonstrate the value of the work beingundertaken

• Attract an experienced chair who has theskills and confidence to lead the group withgreater independence from theorganisation.

Sovereign’s Group Residents’ Forum members are not paid, butreceive expenses.

Teign Housing’s Scrutiny Panelmembers receive a £10 gift voucher aftereach meeting attended, in addition toout-of-pocket expenses.

2244

✎✎

✎✎

✎✎

Running and set-up costsIt may be difficult to identify the exact cost ofRLSR because different activities will be paidfor from different budgets. Staff support,mentoring, resident inspection activities – aswell as the RLSR group itself – will contributeto the overall cost.

Despite the difficulties of tracking the costs, it is important to try to do this so thatefficiency and value for money can beassessed.

New Charter calculated that publicitymaterials, printing, letterheads, postage,IT equipment, internet access, externaltraining, external meeting rooms, travelexpenses, and refreshments for an RLSRgroup may cost around £15,000 per year.On top of this allocated budget they havea dedicated full-time support worker,admin support, internal training andaccess to the Tenant Resource office.

Aldwyck has allocated £72,000 per year to cover staffing, administration,training, and allocation of a budget for its Customer Scrutiny Panel.

Relationships with governance structures,staff members and existing tenant groups

Boards and tenant groups will need tounderstand and endorse the introduction ofRLSR before it can be set up. Disagreementsover territory will undermine the benefits oftenant-led scrutiny. Once there is support forthe approach, organisations will still need towork out the procedures for relationships

✎✎

between each body and deal with overlapsbetween their remits.

Communication about the activities of eachrelevant group will need to be formalised e.g.each group to receive the non-confidentialminutes of the others.

Sovereign Housing consulted on anumber of options for how its GroupResidents’ Forum (GRF) should interfacewith members of the subsidiary andgroup management boards. The majorityof residents supported:

• The chair and vice-chair of GRF meetwith the chief executive and chair ofGroup Management Board for a formalmeeting twice a year

• Minutes are circulated to GroupManagement Board and GRF and formpart of their agenda.

Teign’s Scrutiny Panel provides reports and recommended actions to theSenior Management Team followingservice reviews. It makes quarterly reportsto the Board Performance and AuditCommittee, and the chair meets with thechief executive on a quarterly basis.

Salix’s Learning and DiversityCommittee receive minutes of theSenate’s meetings, and the Senate’s chairattends board meetings as an observer soreports can be presented directly to theboard. In addition, board membersinterface regularly with Senators.

RLSR in group structuresRLSR groups which operate within groupstructures may:

• Look just at their own operating association

• Scrutinise across operating associations,sharing expertise and spreadingrecommendations

• Report to group board, so recommendationsand changes resulting from scrutiny in oneassociation can be implemented in others

• Scrutinise at group level – looking atstrategic matters.

In particular, there is a good opportunity touse RLSR, co-ordinated at group level, acrossoperating associations to gain consistency andimproved performance in all geographicalareas covered by members of a housinggroup.

Sovereign’s Group Residents’ Forum operates across the whole group,scrutinising subsidiaries and liaising withthe group board. It is part of the OrionProgramme, which aims to facilitateeffective sharing of best practice across alloperational areas, to set and maintainhigh standards, ensuring that they areconsistently delivered and provide forcontinuous improvement.

If RLSR is to operate across a housingassociation group, scrutiny group memberswill need to be drawn from the whole group.It may feel fairest to allocate an equal numberof places on the group to each operatingassociation. However, where one association issmall or has few active tenants, equalallocation of places may need to be a longer-term aspiration.

2255

✎✎

✎✎

✎✎

✎✎

Other tenant groupsRLSR groups will be stronger if they candraw on the work and views of other tenantgroups within their organisation, but theroles and expected outcomes of each groupmust be clear and complementary.

Teign Housing’s Tenant Forummeets every six weeks to discuss andmake recommendations about issuesaffecting Teign Housing and itsresidents. Its Senior Forum focusesspecifically on the needs of customersaged 50+. The Chairs of both forumshave a seat on the Scrutiny Group, inaddition to the eight independenttenant members. This helps to embedthe customer experience into the workof the Scrutiny Panel, making surescrutiny work is directed at the rightissues and business areas.

Other tenant groups, such as tenant forumsor customer panels, will need to becomeaware of, and comfortable with, the role ofthe RLSR group. Presentations, and theopportunity for discussion and ongoingdialogue, will be good ways to boostunderstanding and work through anyconcerns.

Difficult or uncomfortable choices may needto be made about existing tenant groupswhen introducing RLSR. Groups may alreadyexist which have some scrutiny duties, suchas tenants’ forums that receive service

performance information. For it to beeffective and valued, a scrutiny group’s remitshould be designed so that existing roles arebeneficial or complementary to the work ofa new scrutiny group. But there can be aresistance to change or a desire not tochallenge established groups, which can leadto a decision to duplicate rather thanrationalise or restructure groups andfunctions when a scrutiny group isestablished. Duplication and lack of claritycan bring confusion, which damages supportfor and satisfaction with involvement. It canalso lead to unnecessary work, wasting thetime and money of tenants, staff and thewider organisation.2

However, creation of a new approach toscrutiny can be an opportunity to re-invigorate tenant involvement andempowerment activities which have become a bit flat.

New Charter’s Tenants’ Federationhad been running for many years but ithad lost its vibrancy and impact and wasstruggling to get tenants involved. Thefederation was disbanded and with thechange in focus of government policyNew Charter engaged with its residentsto develop a new involvementframework, to include the set up of ascrutiny panel. The Tenant ManagementTeam was launched with a clear remitand significant publicity, and attractedmany new participants.

2266

2 A recent report by Tribal Choosing Choice found that while landlords continue to add new methods ofinvolvement/empowerment they rarely discontinue methods that are not effective. This creates a multi-layeredapproach, which if used well may be useful in providing options as to how tenants might wish to be involved, butdoes in many organisations cause a lack of focus and can be resource-intensive.

✎✎

✎✎

Ensuring interests of all tenants arerepresented (E&D issues)

It is likely to be difficult in practice to get ascrutiny group which mirrors thedemographic make-up of the wider tenantbody, and early experiences suggest that thedemographic composition of groups maytend to be quite narrow. In setting up ascrutiny group, it will be important to ensurethe group has the capacity to fulfil itsobjectives – and these are likely to includeacting in the interests of all tenants. As in therest of society, groups whose members havesimilar ages, life experiences, and ethnicbackgrounds may not sufficiently prioritise orappreciate the needs, views and experiencesof people who are significantly different fromthem.

If scrutiny group members fit a narrowdemographic profile, organisations shouldassess:

• The risk of poor representation of the widertenant body

• The risk of a perception of poorrepresentation of the wider tenant body

• Whether there are real or perceived barriersto certain groups or individuals becominginvolved with the group.

Action should be taken if any of these factorsare identified.

Organisations could:

• Try to diversify the group so it betterrepresents the profile of all theorganisation’s tenants

• Ensure that group members have a goodunderstanding of the views and needs of alltenants, providing information fromcustomer insight and involvement activities

2277

✎✎

✎✎

✎✎

The wider tenant bodyTenants who are not active within theirlandlord are likely to be familiar withopportunities for individual involvement(reporting a concern or making a complaint),but may have low awareness of collectiveinvolvement activities. To supporttransparency, show impact, build confidence,and encourage new people to becomeinvolved, organisations will need to find waysto raise awareness of the activities of thescrutiny group.

The chair of Teign Housing’s Scrutiny Group reports on progress in a blog, available on the association’swebsite.

Aldwyck’s Customer Scrutiny Panel gives a short summary of itsmeetings with the Aldwyck board in thequarterly residents’ magazine.

Staff membersMost staff will be accustomed to being askedquestions by residents about performanceand decisions, but enhanced scrutiny will be anew experience for many. Staff groups at alllevels will need to be aware of the role andremit of the group, and its procedures.

New Charter’s Tenant ManagementTeam and the support worker havedelivered training and presentationsabout its work and remit to all staffteams. Team members also deliver aninformation session at staff inductionsessions.

• Use the terms of reference to requiremembers to maintain knowledge of thebroad base of tenant views and needs, tohave regular personal contact with thewider tenant group, and to respond to thisknowledge.

Sovereign’s Group Residents’ Forum terms of reference state:‘ultimately the SHG Board has anoversight role for all group activities andwill intervene if the GRF is failing to takeaccount of the views of the widerresident body’.

Care should be taken not to make tenantswho fit the ‘usual’ profile feel unwelcome orthat their contributions are not valued.

Over time, it may be possible to reach out toyounger people and other under-representedgroups. Organisations will need to consider

ways to reach these groups, because usualcommunication methods (newsletters, etc.)may not reach them.

Members of New Charter’s TenantManagement Team (TMT) want tomake themselves known and have avisible presence within the tenant base.Recently they ran a showcase event withworkshops to promote the recruitment ofboth TMT representatives and ResidentInspectors. Other ideas to promote theirwork include door-knocking, a DVD ofthe work of TMT, and posters andhandouts for use in schools andcommunity venues.

Sovereign Group’s most recentrecruitment to the GRF used theircustomer profile to successfully recruitfemale heads of households aged 35-55.

2288

✎✎

✎✎

✎✎

As the case studies show, robust RLSR modelscan be designed and implemented to enhancethe levels and impact of resident scrutiny inhousing providers.

All of the case studies had decided toimplement RLSR to deliver improvements inservice and accountability – their primary goalwas not regulatory compliance. However, allrecognised that they were in a good positionto perform well against new regulatoryexpectations (both around residentinvolvement and taking responsibility for theirown performance) because they were usingRLSR.

Many of the case study organisations werekeen that their enhanced approach to residentscrutiny and self-regulation should berecognised by the TSA and the AuditCommission as supporting and demonstratingregulatory compliance. They were particularlykeen to avoid the need to be scrutinised twice.

Meaningful RLSR by landlords is still very muchin its development stage whilst the newregulatory system is about to go live. However,the TSA has been clear that it will ‘need toevolve over time its approach to monitoringand compliance’. This means that there is anopportunity for RLSR to play a significant roleover time in the development andimplementation of the new regulatoryframework. Ideally the role played will be toenable the TSA to be less hands-on and toconsolidate co-regulation in the sector.

For RLSR to play a role in external regulationthere needs to be clarity around a range ofissues. In this chapter we consider options for

the future policy framework adopted by theTSA. We look at ways in which RLSR couldinteract with external regulation, aspects itcan support and complement, and theprocedural and practical consequences whichmay arise, including:

• Assurances provided to the regulator byeffective RLSR

• Regulatory activities which could bereplaced by effective RLSR

• Links into the proposed local standards andfee structures

• Relationships between RLSR groups and theregulator

• Interactions between external inspectionand RLSR

• Potential expectations of the regulatorrelating to RLSR.

This report is not making a case for aregulatory requirement on providers to useRLSR. Rather, it is about what needs tohappen for:

• RLSR to become recognised as a trustedand effective way to embed self-regulationwithin providers

• RLSR to become recognised as a trustedand effective way to ensure anddemonstrate compliance with regulatorystandards

• This recognition to enable reducedinteraction between providers and theregulator.

Co-regulation and RLSR

The TSA intends to implement a co-regulatoryapproach to regulation of social housing.

2299

5. Policy development: RLSR and the new regulatorysystem

A new regulatory framework for socialhousing in England, the TSA’s statutoryconsultation, defines co-regulation as being abalance between ‘direct regulation by the TSAand self-regulation by providers’. The TSA hasproposed a non-prescriptive approach. Thenationally determined standards it expectshousing providers to meet are thereforedefined in terms of broad outcomes, with astrong emphasis put on local agreementsmade between tenants and providers onstandards that will shape local services andpriorities.

This is a radical approach by the TSA which isunderpinned by several expectations:

• The primary focus for discussions on servicedelivery and improvement should bebetween providers and their tenants ratherthan between the regulator and the provider

• Essential elements of co-regulation mustinclude honest and robust self-assessmentthat is evidence-based, and incorporatesindependent audit and tenant scrutiny ofperformance where appropriate

• Providers must be transparent, especially inproviding performance information to theirtenants, in order to help strengthen theiraccountability to their tenants, prospectivetenants and the wider public

• Tenants should be able to hold providers toaccount, including by scrutinisingperformance.

RLSR is well-placed to help providers to meetthese co-regulatory expectations aroundtenant focus, self-assessment, localism, andaccountability. It will also provide a real spur toimprovement if it is accepted that a providerwith effective RLSR in place will have met keyaspects of the national service deliverystandards.

RLSR as a self-assessment toolThe TSA is clearly putting the onus onproviders to develop and justify their ownapproach to meeting the new standards. A new regulatory framework for socialhousing in England says that all providerswith more than 1,000 properties should,between 1 April and 1 October 2010,publish ‘for the benefit of their tenants, andsubmit to the TSA’, a report that sets out:

• Their plans for meeting all the nationalstandards

• Any identified gaps and associatedimprovement plans

• Their plans for developing local standards

• How they will assure or measure theircompliance against these standards infuture.

In conjunction with this, the tenantinvolvement and empowerment standardputs an expectation on providers todemonstrate how tenants are being involvedin scrutinising and monitoring performance.

We have seen from the case studies thatRLSR is developing as an effective tool forproviders to both improve their service andmake it more accountable to their tenants.

RLSR could therefore develop as a significantmechanism for providers to demonstratethat they are effectively self-assessing inrelation to these standards. If RLSR systemsare in place and delivering the necessaryoutcomes this could provide a clearassurance to the TSA that they are meetingthe standards.

A key issue for the new regime generally ishow providers demonstrate to the regulatorthat they are self-assessing and scrutinising

3300

their service in an effective way. Theconsultation document says:

‘It is providers’ responsibility to determinehow they develop a systematic approachto self-improvement and learning fromeach other through peer review andbenchmarking. They must have effectivescrutiny mechanisms, including forexample self assessment, board orcouncillor scrutiny, tenant scrutiny ofperformance and have considered the useof external validation and accreditationservices. It is also providers’ responsibilityto set out how they will improve theirservices and develop their accountabilityfor this to their tenants, particularlythrough their approach to establishinglocal standards.’

RLSR could be a key way for manyorganisations to develop a form of self-assessment that is considered to be effective.There is obviously an issue about what‘effective’ means. The case studies that wehave considered principally saw this as beingabout activity that leads to positive change.There are, however, also issues of efficiencyhere and effectiveness need not always beabout change. In some cases it might beimprovement of the existing service/resultsbut in others it can be a validation of theeffective use of resources to meet tenants’needs. The important point here is that theprovider and tenants define what they aretrying to achieve and can demonstratewhether they did.

To enable RLSR to fit with regulatory self-assessment requirements, RLSR processesand reports would need to align with theproviders’ duty to provide an AnnualStandards Report. Providers will also need toshow how RLSR fits into corporate self-

assessment, linkages with the board(including existing tenant board members)and whether changes are necessary to theterms of reference for the board and RLSRbody.

So that it can accept self-assessments as validand accurate, the regulator will need to feelsure that tenant scrutiny groups have theresources to make decisions and that theirjudgements are not made in a vacuum.Providers will need a means to demonstratethat scrutiny groups are well resourced andintegrated for the regulator to be confident.

It is important to be realistic about how manystandards RLSR can cover, especially as it isjust developing. A scrutiny group whichexamines three or four topics in a year willnot have capacity to provide assurancesagainst all of the national standards, but itcan clearly make a significant contribution onseveral of them.

Local standardsThe TSA expects locally set and monitoredstandards to be a central feature of the newregulatory system. The consultation paperrecognises that ‘priorities of tenants will varyconsiderably across the country and withinregions and neighbourhoods’ and emphasisesthat local standards are ‘central to our co-regulatory vision’. The TSA expects localstandards to ‘complement the nationalstandards to strengthen them and tailor themto local priorities’.

There are four service areas in the statutoryconsultation where the draft standardspecifically states that ‘registered providersmust ensure their tenants have theopportunity to agree a local standard’. Theseare:

3311

• Repairs and maintenance

• Quality of accommodation

• Neighbourhood management and anti-social behaviour

• Value for money.

The national standard on tenant involvementand empowerment sets out what is expectedfrom providers as they develop localstandards and involve their tenants. The TSAwill have to find ways to monitor whethereffective local standards are developed and tointervene in a sensitive but effective way interms of poor performance and encouragingimprovement.

The case studies in this report show thatsome RLSR groups are being used to overseestandards and that some go further,informing the development and refinement ofstandards.

There are two ways in which RLSR couldtherefore support the TSA to monitor thatlocal standards are developed and deliveredeffectively:

• Reviewing local standards: Theconsultation paper talks about providershaving in place ‘arrangements for reviewingthe local standards on an annual basis’.Given the way RLSR systems are beingdeveloped specifically to scrutinise andreview, they could clearly play a key role inproviding information to feed into thisreview process. Their independence,formality, and power should demonstrateto the TSA that the local standards set, andtheir reported outcomes, are supported andagreed by tenants. It will be important that

providers help the wider body of tenants todevelop a wider knowledge of scrutinymodels and the role they play, so that thereis an understanding of how local standardsare being monitored and how the providermay respond to monitoring.

• Developing local standards:3 The TSAexpects that these will be developed ‘wheretenants want them’, and so providers willneed to develop effective mechanisms fordetermining what tenants want in terms oflocal standards. In some of the case studieswhich we considered RLSR was alreadyhelping to highlight areas of concern andinform changes in the type and standard ofservices provided. Setting a local standardcould be a way for a provider to respond toproblems highlighted through scrutiny, andtherefore to demonstrate to the TSA thatappropriate standards are being set.However, whilst scrutiny can help toidentify where local standards may beneeded, providers should go to tenantsbeyond the scrutiny group to agree theexact content, wording and actions of localstandards. Setting standards is not ascrutiny matter and should draw on widerinvolvement activities.

Process or self definition?

There was a shared understanding across thecase studies for this project of what RLSR isabout, although organisations havedeveloped different mechanisms for deliveringRLSR. If RLSR is going to be developed in away that allows the TSA to use its existenceand outputs for obtaining assurance thatproviders are meeting the standards oraspects of the standards, we must decide

3322

3 HouseMark has considered RSLR in the context of setting and monitoring local standards in the report How todevelop and monitor local performance measures: a guide for tenants and landlords.

whether it is important to develop a cleardefinition of what constitutes resident-ledself-regulation. Should there be a specifiedmodel that landlords can be judged on, or isform and structure something that should beleft for landlords and their tenants todefine?

The emphasis in the consultation paper onself-regulation, where landlords developclear published policies on self-assessmentand tenant involvement and empowermentwith their tenants, would suggest it is notfor the TSA to define a specified model.

The case study RLSR groups were interestedto know what information the TSA mightaccept as proof of effective scrutinyarrangements. It might provide a degree ofclarity for the TSA when regulating, and forproviders in developing their approaches tomeeting the standards, if the TSA supportedor endorsed the development of goodpractice models for RLSR. The TSA wouldthen be able to signpost providers to theseto help them develop an approach thatwould be considered effective. Any form ofguidance or recognised good practice wouldneed periodic refreshment as RLSR andregulatory practice develop. The strongerRLSR (and other accountability mechanisms)become, the more hands-off the TSA’sregulatory practice can be. If, as seems likely,the TSA seeks to highlight good practicerather than issue guidance, it will beimportant for TSA staff to understand whatis distinct about RLSR and to track andrespond to its development in the sector.

Either way, RLSR could provide a focus forthe way interaction with tenants operateswithin landlords, and for providers’consideration of how to make a clear

statement of what they are doing and how ithas been derived from tenants’ views andpreferences. Regulation could then focus onchecking whether landlords are doing whatthey say, that the way tenants’ views havebeen gained is robust, and how far they haveinfluenced service delivery. This would help toensure the focus of external regulation movesfrom process to outcomes; consolidating amove to co-regulation.

Which standards?

It will be necessary to determine which of theproposed standards RLSR might reasonably beapplied to. Whilst RLSR can be used acrossthe whole of a providers’ business, our workwith the case studies showed that landlordsand tenants often start by focusing on servicedelivery.

The evidence from the National Conversation’swork with tenants shows that their primaryinterest is in the service delivery aspects ofproviders’ activity. It is therefore clear that thedraft standards under these headings:

• Home

• Tenant involvement and empowerment

• Value for money

• Neighbourhood and community

would be particularly applicable to RLSRapproaches.

In terms of value for money, for example,RLSR can help to decide appropriate prioritiesand use of resources, and to identify wherevalue for money can be improved. The way itis delivered can impact negatively on thevalue for money of tenant involvementactivities however, where setting up RLSR hasnot involved rationalisation of existinginvolvement mechanisms.

3333

Tenants would also have a strong interest in the tenancy standard. Providers aresignificantly constrained in how far tenantscrutiny could drive change here becausegovernment retains control of rents, andcriteria for allocations and tenure aredetermined by legislation. However, the casestudies show that there are some ways inwhich RLSR can be used to good effectaround this standard, particularly in terms ofallocations.

As we saw in the case studies, someresidents have an appetite for involvement in activities beyond service delivery, and thedraft tenant involvement and empowermentstandard states that providers must have theopportunity to ‘influence their registeredprovider’s strategic priorities’.

In terms of the governance and viabilitystandard there are wider and complex issuesin terms of the providers’ business and public policy, including the need to satisfylenders. This means that formal regulationwill continue to have a significant hands-onrole to play. Tenants do clearly have aninterest here and some of those developingRLSR approaches have included governance,but external pressures mean that the TSAmay be less comfortable about reducing itsown scrutiny and relying on RLSR in this area.

In addition, use of RLSR should directlydemonstrate compliance with elements ofthe empowerment standard because it offers high levels of involvement and power.RLSR will not (and should not) be the onlyway for providers to meet expectationsaround involvement, but it will be helpful ifthe TSA can give an idea of what sorts ofinvolvement it considers adequate and what it does not. This will help providers to

plan for development of their ownapproaches.

Interestingly, some case study RLSR groupsdistinguished between formal audit (e.g. ofpublic assets and equality), which was clearlythe role of the regulator, and less formalaudit (e.g. of tenant satisfaction and servicequality), and felt that the RLSR panel shouldwork on areas covered by less formal audits.

It will take a while for Annual StandardsReports to bed in – for providers to work outhow to make them concise but robust, andfor the TSA to feel comfortable with the leveland type of evidence that demonstratescompliance. To support this process it wouldbe helpful for providers and tenants if, havingconsidered these ideas, the TSA could stateclearly which standards or aspects of themcould have compliance demonstratedthrough RLSR, and which could not. Ideally,the TSA would be able to make an explicitstatement confirming that when it can seethat effective RLSR is in place it will feelconfident that a provider’s self assessment ofperformance against certain standards will berobust and accurate. The TSA may feel thatRLSR is not able to give enough assurance ofperformance in some areas. For examplealthough RLSR may look at governance, theTSA may expect external audit to beconducted to provide assurances of goodgovernance that it is confident to accept.

Outcome-basedIf regulation is to be ‘outcome based’ –focusing on providers delivering the servicesthat their tenants want, rather than focusingon what the regulator and inspector say –then there is a need to move away fromprescribed definitions of how services shouldbe provided.

3344

Outlining the proposed Annual StandardsReport the TSA says that:

‘To limit burdens, we want the AnnualStandards Report to rely, as far aspossible, on information that providerscollect for their own purpose and istherefore “used and useful”. It should bebased on self-assessments that providersshould be routinely undertaking and inthis way should not be a significantadditional burden.’

There is a danger of the outcome-focusedapproach leading to an emphasis on‘outputs’ rather than ‘outcomes’ if it drivesa move towards setting numerical targetsand away from focusing on the customerexperience.

In many ways an evaluation of ‘outcomes’needs to make judgements which are ineffect more subjective and not easilymeasurable. So an evaluation will need toconsider what has changed for tenants andhow they feel about the changes to theservice. Here RLSR may have an importantrole in keeping the Annual Standards Reportoutcome-focused, and therefore compliantwith regulation, as the tenants involved inthis process are in a good position to makethese judgements.

The use of RLSR would therefore helpensure that the ‘tenant experience’ is placedat the centre of service delivery regulation,rather than pre-defined targets which mayor may not be relevant to tenants in aparticular area. This should help with thedevelopment of effective local data whichwill allow tenants to understand and

monitor their landlord’s performance. Itwould also allow targets to be set andmonitored that are relevant to theirexpectations and aspirations.

Assurances provided to the regulatorby effective RLSR

The TSA is clearly putting the onus onproviders to develop and justify their ownapproach to meeting the new standards. IfRLSR is to be a key aspect of providers’approaches to meeting standards, thengiving an assurance that RLSR systems are inplace and delivering necessary outcomeswill be crucial.4 Development of assurancesaround RLSR needs to be considered as partof the TSA’s stated aim that:

‘The TSA will work with tenants, providersand other stakeholders in the lead up toApril 2010 and beyond to assess whichforms of validation and peer reviewwould best support the standardsframework.’

Few providers will have RLSR in place forthe first Annual Standards Reports, so theirability to demonstrate tenant-endorsed self-assessment may be limited. However,starting to develop RLSR now could help todeliver a very robust second round ofAnnual Standards Reports.

If providers are setting up RLSR approachesto meet the timetable for self-assessments,they could request that a framework ofstaged goals is accepted by the TSA.

The sort of approach envisaged is sketchedout briefly in the box on the next page.

3355

4 This will be the case for any approach to meeting standards which is selected by providers, not just RLSR.

Once RLSR is in place, the TSA and tenants willneed to feel sure that it is delivering so thatadditional external regulatory scrutiny ofperformance is not needed.

Three possible mechanisms for providers todemonstrate that their approach to RLSR isrobust, and that it is being used todemonstrate that standards are met, are setout below.

1) Peer review and benchmarking (internal)A potential problem with a focus on providersdefining and reporting on their ownperformance is that the outcome produced at a local level may not be easily comparablewith other providers. RLSR can help providersand the TSA to deal with this problem.

An important aspect of RLSR is that theeffective internal processes are complementedby measures which ensure that tenants canmake comparisons with other providers. Whilstthe TSA will publish comparative data onlandlord performance this is likely to provideonly a high-level snapshot. It is therefore vital

that, as providers work with their tenants onRLSR, effective benchmarking information isdeveloped which allows clear comparisonswith other relevant providers.5

RLSR may well strengthen the developmentand provision of benchmarking informationbecause it actually gives tenants the ability todo something with it. Comparative data is notmuch use without power to act on it, andRLSR gives this power. Two of the case studiesfor this research were developing networks forRLSR groups to look at each other’sperformance information.

The TSA’s desire to see the development ofnew peer review type approaches is important.Peer review is becoming fairly well developedin the sector, but it is important that this is notjust about one set of professionals looking atwhat another set of professionals do. Oneinteresting development of the RLSR processcould be if scrutiny groups from differentproviders were able to look at what each otherwere doing and help each other to developand improve.

3366

Possible developmental timetable for RLSR approach

Year 14 months to establish the framework 4 months to work through integration with, and amendment of:

– existing corporate priorities and improvement plans– resident involvement framework and governance links

4 months to populate membership, undertake training and capacity building Full operation by the end of year one.

Year 2Annual Standards Reports show clear evidence of the impact of RLSR and can demonstratetenant-endorsed self-assessment of performance against standards.

5 See HouseMark’s Local Standards Monitoring System.

Whilst peer review is important, it may be tooearly in development of RLSR and the newregulatory system to allow full reliance on it togive assurances of quality and effectiveness.

2) Inspection (external regulatory)To date, inspection has been the main tool bywhich the landlord’s performance is assessed.The move away from a comprehensiveprogramme of inspection and towards a focuson poor performers will mean that thegeneral incentive to do well posed byinspection is lessened.6 RLSR should replacethis incentive by internalising empoweredscrutiny and the ability to call forimprovement.

The regulatory regime could use inspection tosupport the development of effective RLSR(and indeed self-assessment generally). If theTSA determined that there would be a setnumber of random, short-notice inspectionsof providers’ self-assessments/RLSR this wouldmean that providers would always have thepossibility of inspection in their minds andensure that they had robust RLSR processesand outcomes.

Such an approach would fit with the qualityaspects of the TSA risk assessment and theprospects for improvement approach. Randominspections of self-assessments or RLSR couldask questions such as ‘Can the provider showevidence of a track record of improvement?’‘How are they using their performancemanagement framework to facilitateimprovement?’ and ‘Do they have thecapacity to continue to improve?’

A key issue would be focussing the inspectionon checking that the self-assessment andtenant empowerment are effective rather than

looking for specific service outcomes orspecific processes using a KLOE-typeapproach. The TSA and Audit Commissionhave recognised that under new standardsand a new regulatory approach, themethodology for inspection will need to bereviewed to reflect these changes, so thiscould be part of that review.

If this could be developed then a number ofrandom inspections could be programmed atan early date to develop the process andensure that inspection has a role in driving upperformance, not just focusing on the worstperformers.

3) Accreditation or validation (externalindependent)An external approval which is separate fromthe regulator could also check and giveconfidence in RLSR. The TSA says that:

‘Accreditation schemes may be a usefulmeans of supporting improvement. We willconsider, once the standards framework isin place, how or whether the TSArecognises new or existing accreditationschemes and their relationship to other co-regulatory tools.’

This is understandable as the TSA is unlikely tohave the capacity or the desire to closelymonitor the full range of landlords andstandards. It is therefore interested in whetherit can place reliance on external accreditationscheme judgements as a means of making itsregulatory task more manageable.

There are, however, few examples of suchschemes available in the sector at the presenttime. QHS and the TPAS accreditation schemesfor tenant involvement are the only twoexisting examples.

3377

6 Although arguably a good inspection result meaning that an provider could expect not to be inspected forseveral years lessened the motivational impact of inspections anyway.

Normally a body carrying out accreditationevaluates a service, process, or method bycarrying out conformity assessment work to afixed methodology against an agreedstandard. However the focus in relation toRLSR would need to be less on a fixedmethodology and more about ensuring thatproviders were doing what they say they aredoing in their self-assessments, and inparticular that tenants are genuinelyscrutinising and influencing services.

Use of accreditation raises the issue of‘accrediting the accreditors’. Should the TSAplace reliance on accreditation schemes, amultiplicity of providers are likely to emergein search of market share. Inevitably thequality of their services will vary and the TSAwill need to be sure that it receives assurancefrom quality providers and avoids reliance onschemes which are methodologically flawed.

Validation could also offer assurances aroundthe quality of RLSR systems and theiroutcomes. It is less formal than accreditationbecause it is not carried out within amembership or certification framework, but itcould offer an agreed framework where someform of external check gives confirmationthat the RLSR model and its activities areappropriate, accountable and effective.Validation would therefore give more choicearound the manner in which scrutiny isassessed. Like accreditation, however, therewould need to be confidence in the credibilityof external validations.

Tenant complaints and RLSR

The TSA faces a difficulty in responding tocomplaints from tenants or groups of tenantsbecause it must determine how far particularcomplaints indicate failure of an aspect of

service delivery or contravention of thestandards.

One particular advantage that RLSR may havefor the regulator is the existence of a trainedand organised tenant scrutiny group which isin a key position to comment on whether theprovider is meeting stated standards.

Whilst it will be important to ensure thattenant scrutiny groups go through theirprovider’s board first with any complaints, thepossibility of them then using informationgathered by scrutiny to bring unresolvedproblems directly to the regulator may be auseful tool in holding providers to accountand empowering tenants.

The statutory consultation suggests that theTSA will provide a foundation for thisapproach. The TSA has proposed thatjudgements about whether it will investigate acomplaint will depend on whether the:

‘...complaint, either from an individualtenant or a group of tenants, is receivedwith evidence that a registered provider isnot complying with national or agreed localstandards and its processes for dealing withtenant concerns either through itscomplaints process or involvement andempowerment standard are ineffective.Collective complaints will not, inthemselves, be treated differently toindividual complaints but they may helphighlight potential evidence in relation tothe number of tenants affected and thescale of concerns about the issues involved.’

If the TSA is to have confidence to intervenewhen a board will not respond to a scrutinygroup, it will need to see that the terms ofreference for scrutiny groups demonstratecommitment to mutual value and respect for

3388

the board. There would also need to beclarity about challenge and independence,and accountability about how timescales andformat for the board to react to issues raisedby RLSR.

There are some issues around how far RLSRscrutiny mechanisms provide a potentialforum for tenants to bring their concernsdirectly to the regulator, however. Care needsto be taken that the RLSR process does notbecome all about complaints, becausecomplaints should be a clear procedureavailable to all residents whether involved inRLSR or not.

Incentives

Providers are likely to choose RLSR for theinternal benefits it brings, but its use could beincentivised by the regulator if its benefits arerecognised at national level. There are twoclear areas where providers could beincentivised to have effective RLSR in place –if they were to have less interaction directlywith the regulator, or lower fees.

The TSA has said that ‘those organisationswhere we have no indications of risk ofstandards failure, and about whom there areno other contra-indications of compliance,can expect to be subject to only minimumlevels of regulatory engagement’.

It is difficult at this stage to see which aspectsof regulation could be reduced given that it isnot yet clear what detailed compliancemechanisms will be put in place by theregulator to underpin the broad approach ithas taken.

There would be advantages if the regulator,when developing these compliance

mechanisms, was clear about the possibilityof providers that have effective RLSR schemesin place being substantially free of otherregulatory scrutiny or intervention.

RLSR can offer more than just demonstratingcompliance with the empowerment standard– it can also show a reduced risk of standardsfailure and confirm providers’ assessments ofcompliance.

The development of RLSR approaches byproviders would be helped if the TSA wasable to state whether it recognises this offerand to spell out the circumstances in whichlandlords may be able to gain the benefits ofless formal regulation because of the use ofRLSR.

A more direct incentive would be to reducefees payable to the regulator by providerswhich have effective RLSR in place. Thisreflects the reduced level of activity requiredby the regulator and also acknowledges thestart-up and running costs involved indeveloping an effective tenant scrutiny.Again, it would be helpful if the TSA wouldconsider the value of making a link betweenfee levels and RLSR.

Possible scenario

Resident-led self-regulation has greatpotential to contribute to embedding the co-regulatory approach and culture in the socialhousing sector, and it is therefore possible tosee a co-regulatory approach whichincorporates RLSR. The approach would havethe following elements:

• The TSA encourages effective RLSRapproaches as part of providers’ self-assessment and tenant empowerment work

3399

• The TSA encourages the development of –and signposts providers towards –practical or written guidance on whatthese approaches might entail and how tomake them work well

• The specifics of RLSR approaches arespelled out in providers’ empowermentstrategies and Annual Standard Reports

• The TSA carries out a desktop analysis ofapproaches described to check that theyare robust.

Providers would then have the option of:

• Gaining external accreditation for theirapproach (which means that they couldguarantee not to have their RLSR/self-assessment mechanisms inspected) or

• Proceeding without accreditation on the understanding that they could besubject to random inspection of their RLSR approach to check it delivers aspromised.

In this scenario, providers that adopted anddemonstrated effective RLSR could assumethey would only be subject to otherregulatory action if their tenant scrutinygroup complains to the regulator or if thereis other hard evidence of the failure todeliver against national standards.

Finally, it currently appears that the TSA willonly consider using RLSR as evidence ofperformance against the involvement andempowerment standard. However, as wehave shown, it can potentially contribute toregulation of other standards, and werecommend that the TSA considers these

ideas in some detail as it develops and refinesthe regulatory framework.

Conclusion

RLSR is already being used by some providersto significantly strengthen their tenantinvolvement, their accountability to tenants,and improvements in service delivery. Theefforts to date of committed staff, boards and– in particular, residents who give their time,knowledge and skills for free – are to becommended.

Lessons from these providers will be of greathelp to those interested in building onexisting tenant panels and scrutiny activitiesto implement an RLSR approach. Experienceshows that it is a realistic and achievable ideathat can really enhance tried and testedscrutiny activities by providing a hub for themand linking them into the wider tenant bodyand governance structures.

RLSR can also offer a great deal todevelopment and consolidation of the newapproach to regulation. It delivers on theproposed involvement and empowermentstandard; it can help providers to meet theexpectation that they will internalise andaccount for their own performanceimprovement; and it can give assurances tothe regulator that regulatory engagement canbe light touch.

If RLSR becomes widespread in the sector andits potential is recognised and embedded inthe new regulatory system, it will bring clearbenefits to providers, the regulator, andtenants alike.

4400

AldwyckCustomerScrutiny Panel

April 2008

15 tenants whomeet on aquarterly basisto scrutiniseperformanceand twice a yearto meet theBoard andExecutive.

Openapplication andinformaldiscussion by astaff memberand CSPmember. If thereis one positionvacant, thecandidate thenattends ameeting to beco-opted intothe CSP for ayear. If thereare a number ofpositionselections will beheld.

New CharterTenantManagementTeam

In 2009

12 tenantmembers.

By interview;open to all.

Cambridge CityHomes HousingRegulationPanel

April 2010

11 tenantmembers.

Some initialmembers drawnfrom thesteering groupcreated to setthe Panel upand othersselected by openapplication.Additionalmembers to beelected to thePanel in April2011.

SalixCustomerSenate

November 2008

14 customers,who meet atleast fortnightlywhenundertakingscrutiny whichcould mean atleast 24 timesper year.

Run byCustomerInvolvementPanel. 7 senatorsrecruited fromthe neighbour-hood areas (1from eachgeographicalarea) and 7 fromSSPs (1 fromeach panel). TheBoard championfor customerinvolvement andcustomerinterview paneloversaw therecruitment ofindividuals fromthe SSPs.

TeignScrutiny Panel

February 2009

10 residentmembers,including theTenants’ ForumChair, and theSenior ForumChair. A place isreserved for aleaseholder orshared owner.The Panelformally meets 4 times per year,and alsoundertakesindependentservice reviews.

By interview,looking forparticular skillsand to representthe tenants’widerdemographicprofile as far aspossible.Interviewed by aresident Boardmember, theCommunityDevelopmentTeam Leaderand an HR staffmember.

SovereignGroup Residents’Forum

October 2009

Up to 16 tenantmembers, 4from eachAssociation, andmeets at least 6timeseach year.

By interview,looking forparticular skillsand capabilitiesto represent thetenants’ widerdemographicprofile as far aspossible.Interviewed byManagingDirector, GroupPerformanceDirector and aresident fromthe GroupResidents’Forum.

4411

Appendix: Different approaches to resident-led self-regulation

Laun

chda

te

➔

Mem

bers

hip

Recr

uitm

ent

4422

AldwyckCustomerScrutiny Panel

Support andexpenses paid.

A boardmember acts asmentor to thegroup.Administrativesupport is alsoprovided.

n/a.

£72,000 per year(budgetcontrolled byCustomerScrutiny Team).

New CharterTenantManagementTeam

Expensescovered.

Administrativeand practicalsupport fromthe tenantinvolvementteam andsupport worker.Independentmentor for 12months.

£15,000 to payfor publicitymaterials,printing,letterhead,postage forsurveys, ICTequipment/broadband,externaltraining, travelexpenses andthe physicalresources(tenants’resource room),laptops,broadband.

Unknown.

Cambridge CityHomes HousingRegulationPanel

Administrativesupportavailable.

To be decided.

Not yet known.

SalixCustomerSenate

None.

Direct supportfor the Chair bya director, andsecretariat.

The Senatecontrols a smallbudget and canraise its ownrevenue throughrunningconferences andevents.

AbsorbedthroughCustomerInvolvementBudget.

TeignScrutiny Panel

£10 gift voucherfor eachmeetingattended, plusexpenses.

Yes.

£12,000 for2010/11.

SovereignGroup Residents’Forum

Members receiveexpenses andthe loan of alaptop.

Dedicated stafftime is allocatedto provideadministrativesupport to thegroup.

Yes.

Unknown.

Paym

ent

Staf

f sup

port

Budg

etCo

st

➔

4433

AldwyckCustomerScrutiny Panel

CSP meets theBoard formallytwice a year, andit helps to setperformanceindicators.

The CSP has thepower toscrutinize staffand call Headsof Service toaccount forservice delivery.The Panel canchallenge servicedeliveryindicators at aBoard level.

New CharterTenantManagementTeam

Regularmeetings withthe GroupManagementTeam and Board.Annual reportcompleted forboth the GMTand Board.

Access torelevantinformation.Budget control.Ability tochallenge atBoard level,Group Manage-ment Team andHeads ofService.

Cambridge CityHomes HousingRegulationPanel

Panel to reportregularly and ina standardformat toHousingManagementBoard (HMB)about itsactivities andwork. HousingManagementBoard willrespond in anagreed format,includingproviding atimetable foractions andresponses.

Request orcommissionreports; askofficers,contractors,members ofresidents’groups andotherstakeholders toattend Panelmeetings to giveverbal evidenceas part of anyinvestigation,issue a ‘call foraction’, submit awhistle blowingreport.

SalixCustomerSenate

Learning andDiversityCommitteereceives minutesof the Senate’smeetings, andthe Senate’schair attendsBoard meetingsas an observerso reports canbe presenteddirectly to theboard. Reportsgo to Boardwith an actionplan and thesetranslate intoperformanceoutcomes.

Unfetteredaccess toinformation.

TeignScrutiny Panel

The Panel makesquarterly reportsto the BoardPerformanceand AuditCommittee, andwill providereports withrecommendedactions to theSeniorManagementteam followinga service review.The ScrutinyGroup does notappear beforethe Board. ThePanel Chairmeets with theChief Executiveon a quarterlybasis.

SovereignGroup Residents’Forum

The Chair andVice Chair of theGRF meetformally twice ayear with theChief Executiveand Chair ofManagementBoard, andminutes of themeeting becomean item onManagementBoard and GRFagendas. TheGRF will reportto the GroupBoard asnecessary.Li

nks

to c

orpo

rate

man

agem

ent/

gove

rnan

cePo

wer

s

➔

4444

AldwyckCustomerScrutiny Panel

The CSPmonitors against11 internallyagreedperformanceindicators. SomeCSP membersalso conductother scrutinyactivities.

The CSP decideswhich corporateperformanceindicators toprioritise forscrutiny.

New CharterTenantManagementTeam

TMT run scrutinyactivities.Commissionwork to gatherevidence forscrutiny usingany involvementmethod withinthe involvementstructure, e.g.residentinspectors,mysteryshoppers,working groups.

TMT chooses 3topics per yearand NewCharter choosesone, there areno restrictionson what TMTcan choose. Atpresent focusingon servicedelivery withactions toscrutinisegovernance,businessdirection andconstitutionperformance.

Cambridge CityHomes HousingRegulationPanel

Group to runinquiries, andcan call onmysteryshoppers ortenantinspectors togatheradditionalevidence.

SalixCustomerSenate

The Senateserves noticesrequestinginformation andcan call oncustomerinspectors, whoare not able tobe Senatemembers, togatheradditionalinformation. TheSenate directsthe work of theinspectors.

Priorities aredetermined bythe Senatetaking accountof informationprovided by theBoard and ascoring systembased onperformance indifferent arease.g. complaints.The Senate canalso respond toa CommunityCall for Actionthat would bescoredappropriatelyand built into itsschedule ofactivities.

TeignScrutiny Panel

A mixture ofscrutiny ofstrategicperformanceindicators andresident-ledservice reviews.

The aim of thePanel is to keepa balancebetweenindependenceand strong linksand partnershipworking withthe TeignHousing SeniorManagementteam and Board.Priorities areidentified inconjunction withthe SeniorManagementTeam and theother tenantinvolvementstructures acrossTeign.

SovereignGroup Residents’Forum

GRF determinesscrutinypriorities inconjunction withthe GroupOperationsForum, anddirect scrutinywork isundertaken bystaff supportedby residentinspectors.

Mod

el o

f scr

utin

yD

eter

min

ing

prio

ritie

s

➔

4455

AldwyckCustomerScrutiny Panel

Organisation-wide (no groupstructure);though thereare plans tochange to agroup structurein 2010 andwork has beencarried out toelect anddevelop 2 CSPsfor eachgeographicalarea.

Mysteryshopping,complaintsreviews, servicereviews.

New CharterTenantManagementTeam

Only NewCharter, notother groupmembers.

One to oneappraisals ofgroup memberswith SupportWorker, annualperformancereview withOrganisationalDevelopmentdepartment.

Mysteryshopping,residentinspection, focusgroups, workinggroups,involvementpanels, sharedinterest forums.

Cambridge CityHomes HousingRegulationPanel

Organisation-wide (across thehousing servicefor CambridgeCC).

Not finalised attime ofinterview.

Mysteryshopping,tenantinspectors.

SalixCustomerSenate

Organisation-wide (no groupstructure).

Annual reviewand impactassessmentreported toLearning andDiversityCommittee. TheSenate is alsoopen to scrutinyby Salix Homes’board should itbe perceived tobe failing.

Customerinspectors.

TeignScrutiny Panel

Organisation-wide (no groupstructure).

Mysteryshopping,tenant-ledtelephonesurveys, servicemonitoring.

SovereignGroup Residents’Forum

Group-wide,with links intoGroup Boardand GroupManagementTeam.

Group boardwill intervene ifGRF does notrepresent widertenant interests.Assessments ofGRF are carriedout viaindividualappraisalscarried out bythe Chair of theGRF.

Tenantinspection,service panels,resident boardmember,residentassociations.

Leve

l of o

pera

tion

Safe

guar

ds in

pla

ceO

ther

invo

lvem

ent o

ppor

tuni

ties

invo

lvin

g sc

rutin

y

Resident-led self-regulation is about embedding resident focus in the way social

landlords run their business. It is an approach to the internal management of an

organisation that can bring residents, staff, and governance closer together. It puts

residents’ priorities, views and engagement with relevant processes at the heart of

housing organisations’ frameworks for directing, accounting for, monitoring,

assessing and modifying their own behaviour and performance.

Because it is an approach rather than a rigid model, it can work in any kind of

housing organisation – local authority, housing association or ALMO; general needs

or specialist; large or small.

A number of housing organisations have developed and begun to use resident-led

self-regulation. In addition, a regulatory framework is now being established which

expects organisations to be more proactive in self-regulation and in resident

involvement.

This report explores and assesses how housing organisations have implemented

resident-led self-regulation. Drawing on the experience of the leading providers in

the field, it identifies the practicalities and pitfalls of setting up and running

resident-led self-regulation; and provides suggestions, guidance, and examples to

help housing providers and tenants to take this approach forward. It also considers

how resident-led self-regulation could link into the Tenant Services Authority’s co-

regulatory framework, both in terms of assuring quality of providers’ performance

and in reducing external intervention.

Chartered Institute of Housing

Octavia House

Westwood Way

Coventry CV4 8JP

Tel: 024 7685 1700

www.cih.org