Six ways to bring more consistency to housing performance reporting
Across the social housing sector, performance reporting is evolving fast. Boards are seeing more data, more dashboards, and more measures than ever before.
But are Boards measuring the right things, and in a way that helps us compare, learn, and improve?
Campbell Tickell recently carried out a short survey of registered provider CEOs. Responses from the 33 who participated suggest that while organisations are broadly aligned on what matters, there is significant variation in how it is measured and reported. A ‘thousand flowers blooming’ approach has benefits, but it also creates risk.
Here are six observations, and what the sector might do next.
1. The basics are strong, but not always consistent
Financial resilience, safety compliance, and core operational metrics are well embedded across the sector. Most organisations report on operating margin, arrears, Tenant Satisfaction Measures, and the big six compliance areas.
However, definitions, thresholds, and presentation vary. This makes it harder for boards and regulators, to draw consistent conclusions across organisations.
2. Tenant satisfaction is clear, tenant influence is not
Most landlords can tell you how satisfied tenants are. Fewer can demonstrate how tenant feedback has shaped services.
Measures of influence, co-creation, and service change are often narrative rather than KPI-driven. That creates a gap in evidencing compliance with consumer standards and, importantly, in demonstrating accountability.
3. Community impact remains underdeveloped
Anti-social behaviour and estate management are widely tracked. But broader community outcomes such as wellbeing, cohesion, social value are less visible in KPI frameworks.
This matters. As expectations on landlords grow, so too does the need to evidence wider impact beyond the home itself.
4. Data is rich, but insight can be thin
Many boards receive detailed reports, often supported by dashboards and benchmarking. Yet more data does not always mean better insight.
In some cases, KPIs describe performance but do not explain it. Measures such as productivity, return on investment, and long-term asset value are still emerging.
5. Benchmarking is growing, but not embedded
Over half of the organisations involved use sector comparators, often through HouseMark or similar datasets.
However, benchmarking is typically periodic rather than integral to performance reporting. This limits its value in driving real-time decision-making and continuous improvement.
6. A light-touch standard could add real value
The sector does not need rigid, centralised reporting. But there is a strong case for a small, shared set of core KPIs used consistently across organisations.
This could:
- Support clearer regulatory assurance
- Strengthen board oversight and governance
- Enable meaningful comparison across the sector
- Reduce duplication and complexity in reporting
A simple model might include a core set of Tier 1 KPIs drawn from key areas:
- Finance: Operating margin, gearing, liquidity, arrears, management and maintenance costs per home
- Tenants: Satisfaction, complaints handling, evidence of influence
- Communities: ASB outcomes, neighbourhood satisfaction
- People: Turnover, sickness, engagement
- Safety: Core compliance measures
- Assets: EPC ratings, repairs performance
- Growth: Homes delivered, sustainability indicators
Organisations would still retain flexibility to track what matters locally, but within a clearer, shared framework.
In short
The sector is not short of data. But greater consistency in how we define and report a small number of core KPIs could strengthen governance, improve transparency, and support better outcomes for tenants.
A thousand flowers blooming is no bad thing.
But a little structure might help them grow in the same direction.
Catherine Romney, Policy & Research Manager, Campbell Tickell
