Mercy Denedo and Amanze Ejiogu report on the findings of their latest research.
In July 2021, we published our report “Stigma and Social Housing in England”, which was
summarised in Housing Quality Magazine, Issue 7, January 2022 edition. We highlighted how people living in social housing are negatively impacted by a deep-rooted and prevailing stigma in almost all aspects of their day-to-day lives. Our report explored how the bias towards social housing and its residents has been constructed over the years, considering how tenants, politicians and government policy, social housing providers and the media have all contributed to reinforcing stigma, and how tenants have, as a result, been affected for the worse in their lives and life chances.
To drive the social change desired by our study’s participants, we sought to give impetus to the national conversation on stigma. We invited diverse stakeholders including policymakers, housing providers, advocacy groups, trade and professional bodies, and social housing residents among others to respond to our study by providing their views on some key questions.
The responses were substantial and wide-ranging. The analysis of these responses led us to author another report, titled “Stigma and Social Housing in England: feedback on the consultation responses” and, additionally, a policy briefing titled “Reducing social housing stigma in England: recommendations for the housing sector” to provide a route forwards for decision-makers in the sector.
Below, we focus on key issues and recommendations identified, as well as the implications for housing professionals in tackling and challenging social housing stigma.
Tenants’ voices at the local level
First is that the stigma from social landlords cannot be challenged without the presence of a strong tenant voice within the organisation. Tenants highlighted the power imbalance between the housing associations and themselves, which often results in stigmatising behaviour that leaves them feeling unwelcome, undervalued and feeling unable to speak out for fear of repercussions on their tenancies.
The consultation responses highlighted a lack of meaningful local engagement with tenants. Tenants believe that it would be beneficial for housing providers to embed tenants’ voices in their organisational culture, similar to the way they embed value-for-money in their operations. Doing so would ensure that tenants are heard, and their opinions are taken into consideration when making decisions. Going further, tenants could then co-design decisions and practices with their housing providers, empowering tenants to be directly involved in making those difficult choices and ensuring that services can deliver what they need to.
Tenants also highlighted the need to be heard and consulted at every level – from board down. Tenants want a say in policies and procedures and crave genuine interactions with decisions-makers without it being a box-ticking exercise. This implies that housing professionals have a role to play in ensuring that tenants’ voices and experiences are taken on board when making the decisions that will affect their lives.
Housing providers need to establish clear lines of communication between their tenants and the board. Tenants want a more robust and user-friendly system of communication that would encourage them to openly discuss issues without fear of losing their tenancies. In addition, tenants would like to see more action taken by their housing providers and not merely be told that “someone is dealing with their issue” without any substantial evidence to show that their complaints were being dealt with.
The consultation also highlighted the need for housing providers to ensure transparency and clarity to all, including their tenants, in their decision-making and future planning. This, many tenants claimed, would promote a co-design culture, and see issues acknowledged and quickly tackled. Both tenants and housing professionals felt that such action would help tackle the internal stigma and establish a culture of trust, accountability and inclusion. This, in turn, could enable perspectives and experiences to be better shared and valued — and subsequently enable housing providers and their tenants to jointly celebrate the successes that could emerge from such engagements.
Regional and national tenant voice
Second, our respondents also alluded to the power that a strong tenant voice at the regional and national levels may have in influencing policies and providing counter-narratives to challenge stigmatising rhetoric. The lack of an effective tenant voice thus far means that tenants have lacked the power, mechanisms and resources to lobby, control or even challenge housing policies and regulations. Nor have they been able to effectively demand accountability from housing providers. Our respondents overwhelmingly emphasised that this needs to change.
Having tenants’ voices heard at the national level would itself be a significant driver to ensure they’re heard within their housing associations and can hold the power to influence the decisions and behaviours of their social landlords. A national tenant voice (NTV) organisation would provide a good opportunity to build a forum through which to drive such change. Importantly, the NTV needs to be established and run by the tenants, to ensure that power and voice are directly placed in the hands of the tenants and not with any third parties.
Accountability of landlords
Third, there’s a need to revisit accountability arrangements in the sector. Several respondents voiced a need for enhanced accountability when it comes to service delivery. To establish this, tenants should be included in setting service standards, assessing landlord performance and in agreeing a sanction regime which imposes meaningful penalties on landlords. While the new approach to consumer regulation is a step in the right direction, it doesn’t go far enough. A more robust system of regulation which has a significant element of tenant involvement will encourage landlords to embrace a more tenant-centred culture and improve their service delivery.
Mission drift
Finally, one of the issues which featured strongly in responses was the sense that social landlords had lost sight of their “social mission” and had become more focused on making profits than on challenging politicians and government to improve the lived experiences of social housing residents. Putting profits before people, tenants felt, had contributed to poor services and continued stigmatisation. Furthermore, it had also meant that those socially aware social landlords had been reluctant to speak out against housing policies which held stigmatising effects on their tenants. There were clear indications that as social landlords became bigger, the mission drift became more pronounced.
What’s required now is a culture shift within the sector which places its social mission at the core, so that social landlords are required to focus on the impact their actions, or inactions, have on local communities, and that the right balance between social purpose and size of organisation is maintained.
Conclusion
Stigma in social housing is complex and deep-rooted. To challenge it, we must all act together and focus on removing the structural and other inequalities which create and drive stigma. We hope that our reports serve as a call to action and that the conversations which have been ignited will lead to the necessary and fundamental change.
About the authors
Dr Mercy Denedo is an Assistant Professor in Accounting at Durham University Business School.
Dr Amanze Ejiogu is a Senior Lecturer in Accounting at Newcastle University Business School.
Enquiries can be sent to us via [email protected]
