Members only

Ahead of an event on the same subject at the end of April, HQN Associate Colin Heyman looks at what the Social Housing White Paper does, or does not, say about diversity.

As someone who believes in the importance of equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) to most of what people do in social housing, I am, of course, very interested in how major documents, such as the Social Housing White Paper, address this issue and to what extent they place EDI centre stage.

At first glance, the answer might be ‘hardly at all’. A search for some keywords in the document reveals that the words ‘equality’, ‘inequality’ and ‘equity’ are not mentioned at all.

There is one mention of social inclusion, and two of diversity: a reference to diversity of thought, background and experience, and another to increasing the diversity of board members.

Nevertheless, there are parts of the White Paper that do address issues that are part of EDI, and there are also parts that address issues to which EDI is central, even if it is not mentioned. I’ll deal with these in turn.

The following shows the mentions in the paper of subjects which are normally considered to come under the umbrella of diversity:

Board diversity	“Broaden the skills mix and diversity of board members, ensuring that more board members have consumer regulation experience.”
Mental health	The paper highlights the need for social landlords to deal with mental health of tenants. For example, it mentions reviewing “professionalisation to consider how well housing staff are equipped to work with people with mental health needs and encourage best practice for landlords working with those with mental health needs”.
Anti-social behaviour	There will be more clarity for tenants about who is responsible for responding to anti-social behaviour when they raise concerns, and a KPI on handling ASB. (NB: the White Paper doesn’t mention hate crime.)
Domestic violence	The role of landlords in supporting the victims of domestic abuse is recognised, and landlords will be required to have policy surrounding domestic abuse.

So, here are some requirements that encourage good EDI practice. However, they are round the edges, rather than central to the white paper.

So, on to the parts of the paper that are more central, and that address issues to which EDI is, I believe, important (though without mentioning it).

The two key areas here seem to me to be customer experience (including better complaint handling and accountability to tenants) and tenant engagement.

Customer experience

There is a lot about customer experience and the need to look at everything from tenants’ perspective. The Regulator of Social Housing will develop a process for collecting and publishing a core set of tenant satisfaction measures for all social landlords.

These will include the extent to which tenants are satisfied that their landlord listens to their views and takes notice of them.

For me, EDI practice is central to listening to tenants and responding to their needs. How can you listen with respect, understand and respond unless you are able to understand the needs of a diverse group of tenants and provide for those needs?

One possibility not mentioned in the paper is breaking down the tenant satisfaction measures according to protected characteristic. This would help to inform a social landlord whether outcomes and tenant satisfaction are equal for all tenants and reveal if some groups’ needs are not being met.

Meeting with those tenants could then reveal ways in which their needs could be better met through improved EDI practice. I would advise organisations to put systems in place to do this.

Tenant engagement

The White Paper also highlights improved tenant engagement and emphasises giving residents the right tools and opportunities, as well as pointing out that landlords themselves will need to have the right skills and approach for engagement to really work.

The sort of tenant engagement they are talking about, however, seems to be scrutiny panels and other tenant bodies.

Whilst I am wholly in favour of increased tenant engagement, in my experience this sort of tenant engagement can (though doesn’t always) lead to the ‘usual suspects’ being the ones who are involved – often a not very diverse group.

There are more innovative and inclusive methods of tenant engagement, such as world café, participatory budgeting, co-production and so on, that are far more inclusive of all people in the community and can both increase the number and variety of voices heard as well as building social capital for the community.

Again, it is possible to take what the White Paper says and, by using best EDI practice, extend it.

Grenfell and systemic inequality

I was abroad when Grenfell happened so the bits I picked up on the news were all about the cladding, the inability of people to get out, the lack of sprinklers and so on. A tragedy due to technical housing issues, apparently.

The day I got back to the UK the paper had a ‘spread’ on the inside page with the photos and names of many of those who had died. You only had to take one look to realise that equality and inclusion were fundamental to deciding who lived – and died – there.

The White Paper was born out of the Grenfell tragedy, but it is clear (if perhaps unsurprising) that it was not written to address these systemic issues of inequality, especially around race and class.

In many ways, it seems to me, it is a missed opportunity to learn one of the lessons of Grenfell.

Conclusion

For those who prefer to avoid EDI, there is (disappointingly) nothing in the White Paper that compels them to give it more prominence.

Nevertheless, there are good things in it. In particular, for those who are interested in making change in their organisation to make EDI more central – as I believe it should be for all social landlords – the requirements to improve tenant experience and increase tenant engagement are levers that could be used to promote EDI and support improved EDI practice.