Social housing sector: engaging with tenants from ethnic minority backgrounds

7. Findings

7.1 Data collection and representation

In the landlord survey, almost all respondents (93.6% / 29 out of 31) reported that they collect data on tenants’ ethnicity. One landlord said they did not, and one was unsure. When asked to estimate the percentage of tenants from minority ethnic backgrounds, 25.9% (8 out of 31) said they were not sure or that the data was incomplete. Several noted that although they collect ethnicity data, it is not routinely analysed in relation to participation.

“We ask tenants for this information, but many choose not to disclose. Large gaps remain.” – Landlord survey

“We collect ethnicity data but don’t currently analyse it in relation to participation.” – Landlord survey

When asked if they collect ethnicity data on participation activities, 38.7% (12 out of 31) said “Yes,” while the majority (54.8%) said “No,” and 6.5% “Not sure.”

On board membership, 80.8% said they collect ethnicity data. However, most reported zero minority ethnic board members, with only a handful noting one or two. When asked if they take action to attract minority ethnic candidates, 18.5% (5) said “Yes,” 44.4% (12) said “No,” and 37.0% (10) “Not sure.”

The website audit supported these findings. Out of 30 landlords, only 6 had a tenant participation strategy publicly available online. Three published equality monitoring data, but none of this was broken down by ethnicity. Governance pages for housing associations rarely showed minority ethnic board members.

At a glance:

• 93.6% (29/31) collect tenant ethnicity data.
• 38.7% (12/31) collect data on participation activities.
• 80.8% (21/31) collect board ethnicity data.
• 18.5% (5/31) take action to recruit minority ethnic board members.
• Most landlords reported zero minority ethnic board members.
• 6/30 landlord websites had a TP strategy online.
• 3/30 published equality monitoring data (none by ethnicity).

7.2 Participation opportunities and barriers

Landlords described offering a range of tenant participation opportunities, including surveys, forums and panels, scrutiny groups, and community events. When asked whether any participation activities were designed specifically for tenants from minority ethnic backgrounds, most responses indicated “no targeted activity”, with a smaller number describing examples such as refugee-only meetings, translated surveys or forms, and outreach via community or faith groups.

When asked whether the ethnic makeup of tenants who take part is reflective of the overall tenant base, 51.6% (16/31) answered “Yes,” 35.5% (11/31) “No,” and 12.9% (4/31) “Not sure.” Some respondents added that limited monitoring data made it difficult to assess this.

Landlords highlighted barriers to engagement in free-text comments. The most frequently mentioned were language, low awareness of opportunities, low confidence/mistrust, and digital access. Illustrative survey comments include:

“Our structures tend to attract older, white tenants. We’ve struggled to get a wider mix of people involved.” – Landlord survey

“There is a level of mistrust. Some tenants feel their views won’t make a difference.” – Landlord survey

Across the 30 websites reviewed, participation information was usually presented in general terms (e.g., “get involved,” “have your say”). Very few sites referenced participation opportunities specifically for minority ethnic tenants, and several provided only brief descriptions of tenant participation without detail on formats or support available.

Tenants reported mixed experiences of being invited and of finding opportunities meaningful:

“I have done some [surveys]… they’re so stinted that it’s impossible to give a realistic answer.” – Tenant voice

A number of tenants said participation spaces they had attended lacked diversity, and one described hearing negative attitudes at meetings:

“When I used to take part, there was very little diversity… some of them had very racist ideas.” – Tenant voice

Practical factors also affected participation. Tenants referred to childcare, transport, and language as important in determining whether they could attend/feel included:

“They… provided transport… they come near to your house and they take you to where the meeting is.” – Tenant voice

At a glance:

• Landlords reported a range of participation formats (surveys, forums, scrutiny, events).
• Most free-text responses said no targeted participation for minority ethnic tenants; a minority provided examples (refugee meetings, multilingual surveys).
• Reflectiveness: 51.6% said participation is reflective; 35.5% not reflective; 12.9% not sure.
• Common barriers (free-text): language; low awareness; low confidence/ mistrust; digital access.
• Desktop audit: participation pages were generally not tailored to minority ethnic tenants.
• Tenants reported limited invitations/meaning, lack of diversity in spaces, and practical barriers (childcare, transport, language).

7.3 Translation, communication, and accessibility

When asked about translation and interpreting, 77.4% (24/31) of landlords said they provide both services. A further 3.2% (1/31) provide translation only. 9.7% (3/31) said they offer neither, and the same proportion were not sure.

Landlords described different approaches:

“We use the ‘Happy to Translate’ scheme, but uptake has been very low.” – Landlord survey

“Tenants often rely on family members to interpret. We know this isn’t ideal but it is what usually happens.” – Landlord survey

Some landlords highlighted that while translation is available, it is usually “on request” rather than built into participation activity. A few described producing translated surveys or leaflets, though this was not common.

The website audit found that around half of landlords indicated some form of translation support online. The most common examples were Google Translate plug-ins or “Happy to Translate” logos. A small number of sites offered downloadable documents in other languages. Very few made participation-specific materials available in multiple languages.

Follow-up interviews confirmed variation in practice. One landlord explained they used interpreters who were also tenants, which led to clearer communication:

“We’ve got a couple [of interpreters] who are actually tenants… it’s a more meaningful interpretation… because they understand what they’re talking about.” – Landlord interview

Another described working with tenants to check plain-English communication before publication:

“We get [tenant] to look over anything we’re putting out… if he doesn’t understand it, there’s no point us putting it down.” – Landlord interview

Tenants raised language as a barrier. Some described relying on friends or family for help, while others had positive experiences when translation was offered:

“Many of my friends have problem with English language… they don’t have a contact with the language every day… it generates problem everywhere.” – Tenant voice

“It’s only Ukrainian, and is already a big problem because no one can help her explain. She just uses her finger to show.” – Tenant voice

One tenant noted that interpreters were provided for one-to-one appointments but not for group meetings, which limited wider involvement.

At a glance:

• 77.4% provide both translation and interpreting.
• 3.2% provide translation only.
• 9.7% provide neither; 9.7% not sure.
• Translation often described as “on request.”
• Half of audited websites showed some language support (mostly plug-ins or logos).
• Very few had multilingual participation-specific materials.
• Landlords cited challenges with uptake & reliance on family interpreting.
• Tenants described language as a major barrier, with mixed experiences of support.

7.4 Training and cultural competency

When asked if staff and boards receive training on equality, diversity, or cultural awareness, 45.2% (14 out of 31) said “Yes,” 29.0% (9) said “No,” and 25.8% (8) “Not sure.” Training was most often described as being provided at induction, with fewer landlords offering ongoing or refresher sessions.

“Board members have not had specific training on cultural awareness.” – Landlord survey

“Training is provided at induction, but there is little ongoing reinforcement.” – Landlord survey

When asked if they felt they had the knowledge and resources to engage effectively with minority ethnic tenants, 25.8% (8 out of 31) said “Yes,” 67.7% (21) said “To some extent,” and 6.5% (2) said “No.”

“Staff confidence varies—some are very proactive, others feel unsure about saying the wrong thing.” – Landlord survey

In interviews, some landlords described using interpreters who understood housing contexts, or checking materials with tenants before publication, as ways of building cultural competence into everyday practice.

Tenants did not directly comment on landlord training, but their accounts of language barriers, lack of consultation, and cultural inclusivity at events suggest areas where greater staff awareness and preparation could make a difference.

At a glance:

• 45.2% said staff/board receive equality or cultural awareness training; 29.0% said they did not; 25.8% unsure.
• Training often one-off at induction; few examples of refreshers.
• 25.8% feel confident they have the knowledge/resources; 67.7% “To some extent”; 6.5% “No.”
• Survey comments highlighted staff confidence as uneven.
• Interviews showed some landlords building competence through interpreters and tenant feedback.

7.5 Partnerships and community links

When asked if they worked with community organisations, faith groups, or equality bodies to support participation of minority ethnic tenants, 39% (12 out of 31) of landlords said “Yes.” Examples included links with refugee resettlement programmes, collaboration with local cultural associations, and partnerships with interpreting services. The majority (61%) said they did not currently have partnerships of this kind.

“We work with local resettlement officers and they have been key in making introductions.” – Landlord survey

“No specific partnerships at present. We recognise this as a gap.” – Landlord survey

The website audit found limited evidence of partnerships being promoted or highlighted publicly. Most landlords described participation in general terms, with little mention of collaboration with external community or equality organisations. Only a small number of websites referenced joint events or partnership initiatives linked to minority ethnic tenants.

Follow-up interviews and case studies provided fuller examples of partnerships working:

• One housing association reported attending Eid celebrations and working alongside local resettlement officers.
• Another described collaborating with faith leaders to encourage participation.
• A local authority highlighted its refugee resettlement programme and the support of bilingual officers in engaging communities.

These examples illustrated how partnerships could build trust and increase participation, although they were not widespread across the sector.

At a glance:

• 39% of landlords said they work with community groups, faith groups, or equality bodies to support minority ethnic participation.
• 61% reported no such partnerships.
• Website audit: little visible evidence of partnerships being highlighted online.
• Interviews showed examples of partnership in practice (resettlement, faith leaders, community events), but these were not widespread.

7.6 Good practice examples

While most landlords said they did not run targeted activity for minority ethnic tenants, a smaller group described initiatives where they had adapted their approaches. These were explored in more detail through follow-up questionnaires and interviews.

Argyll Community Housing Association (ACHA):

ACHA highlighted its work alongside local authority resettlement officers to support refugee households. Staff members attended Eid celebrations and other cultural events, which they reported helped to build trust and strengthen relationships with tenants from different backgrounds.

Bield Housing & Care:

Bield introduced multilingual surveys as part of its digital engagement systems. This ensured tenants could take part in consultations and provide feedback in their own language, without relying on ad hoc translation. Bield described this as an important step in removing barriers to participation.

Ayrshire Housing:

Ayrshire Housing gave the example of adapting events by providing kosher food. Although a small change, they explained that it made participation more comfortable for tenants with dietary requirements linked to faith. This was cited as a straightforward way of showing awareness and respect.

Paragon Housing Association:

Paragon described how translation had been embedded into core systems, including tenancy letters, Facebook posts, and other communications. They also held meetings specifically for refugee tenants, conducted in their own languages, which they reported led to stronger participation and engagement from those groups.

Elderpark Housing Association:

Elderpark described working with local faith leaders to help encourage attendance at meetings and events. They also spoke about reframing Burns Night as an inclusive celebration, which brought together tenants from different cultural backgrounds.

North Ayrshire Council:

The Council pointed to several strands of work: its refugee resettlement programme, the support of a Gypsy/Traveller Registered Tenant Organisation (RTO), and the contribution of bilingual staff in engaging with minority ethnic communities. They reported that these measures had improved levels of participation in consultations and events.

Tenants’ experiences confirmed the importance of these practical steps. For some, the difference between taking part and not taking part was determined by whether support such as childcare or transport was available.

“They email me… sometimes they even provide childcare… if you can’t participate because of child issues.” – Tenant voice

“They… provided transport… they come near to your house and they take you to where the meeting is… they do send reminder[s].” – Tenant voice

Food and hospitality were also mentioned as factors that helped to create a more welcoming atmosphere at events.

7.7 Recruitment challenges as evidence of exclusion

The limited number of minority ethnic tenants who were able to take part in interviews is not only a methodological limitation but also a significant finding. Despite repeated outreach efforts, engagement with these communities remained low. This underlines the wider reality that many minority ethnic tenants are not currently connected to existing participation structures, and that barriers to access extend beyond formal opportunities to include being visible, invited, and trusted as participants in the first place.

The difficulty of recruitment is itself evidence of exclusion: if tenants are absent from tenant organisations, scrutiny panels, or consultation processes, they will also be harder to reach for research of this kind. This highlights the urgent need for more proactive, targeted approaches to building trust, relationships, and pathways into participation for tenants from ethnic minority backgrounds.