Minority ethnic employment in the Scottish social housing sector: evidence scoping review

6. Minority ethnic employment in the social rented housing sector

6.1 Evidence from the UK

It is within living memory that ethnic minority people were excluded from many types of employment in the UK. Across the decades, minority ethnic employment in the social housing sector has progressed alongside that of other industries (Somerville et al 2001). Since the mid-1980s there has been a recognition of the need for leaders in the social housing sector to better represent minority ethnic communities. The response in England at the time was to form minority ethnic led housing associations, but the response in Scotland (from the then regulatory body for RSLs, Scottish Homes) was to focus on employment provision within mainstream organisations, representing a different approach to employing minority ethnic people in the social housing sector (Tomlins 1999).

In the early 1990s, the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) published a report that sought to analyse the effectiveness of the UK social housing sector’s performance in eradicating unlawful racial discrimination. Despite the UK Housing Corporation’s minimum equal opportunities requirements, established in their 1992 Code of Guidance, the report found that only 25% of organisations had plans for implementing racial equality policies. Findings from the CRE report indicated that social housing organisations did not generally employ individuals from minority ethnic backgrounds, or record the ethnic background of their tenants , although it was then known by both social housing organisations and researchers that minority ethnic renters, on average, would be allocated poorer quality accommodation than white households (Tomlins 1994).

Research towards the end of the century found that the situation had changed little since the CRE report (Somerville & Steele 1998). The general sense at that time was described as one of indifference and complacency towards discrimination (Somerville et al 2001). The UK social housing sector entered the new century with neither concrete equality policy plans nor comprehensive training programmes for their staff. Sommerville et al (2001) found the number of minority ethnic individuals employed in the social housing sector had increased since the publication of the CRE report in the early 1990s; however, minority ethnic employees mostly remained in the lowest strata of the occupational hierarchy. The authors reported a ’glass ceiling’ that many minority ethnic employees faced in their careers, despite UK law stipulating equal and fair treatment to all employees. In this sense, like many other firms in other industries, social housing organisations have the potential for institutional racism^[8].

6.2 Evidence from Scotland

A recent mixed methods study focused on the social rented sector in Scotland carried out a systematic review of academic literature and policy documents over the last two decades, in conjunction with interviews with 30 minority ethnic participants and ten white Scottish participants and an online survey with Las and RSLs in Scotland (Menezes et al 2023). The survey was sent to 178 social landlords and was completed by 34 organisations (nine local authorities and 25 RSLs).

The study found that whilst there is some evidence that training in equal opportunities is provided within the social rented sector, skills, knowledge and experience gaps are also evident and whilst awareness and implementation of good practice is apparent in parts of the sector, evidence of positive change in representation within the social housing workforce is lacking. The study found that practices to improve ethnic diversity amongst staff were mainly encouraging regular monitoring of the workforce and equal opportunities training for recruiters. Five RSLs who were part of the survey reported proactive practices, including publishing vacancies though minority ethnic community organisations, but the authors noted concern over the finding that nearly a quarter of social landlords surveyed (n=8) reported they were not taking any steps to encourage ethnic diversity. They found that 35% of the organisations surveyed acknowledged there were racial inequalities in their organisation, but a further 35% of the organisations responding didn’t think there was a need to tackle racial inequalities, and 14% said were not aware of such inequalities. Where reasons were given, these results appeared to be based on the belief that there is already diversity in their workforce, but 44% of survey respondents agreed with the statement that increasing ethnic diversity of staff was an important way to increase minority ethnic access to, and representation within, social housing. The overall finding to emerge was that there are clear variations in levels of awareness and investment in progressing racial equality in the social housing sector (Menezes et al 2023).

Despite a mixed picture and some evidence of continuing inequalities, there is little recent research available to evidence the position and experiences of minority ethnic people working specifically in the social housing sector in Scotland at the present time. Recent publications have also noted the shortage of up to date studies and a related lack of evidence and data (Robinson et al 2022; Shankley and Finney 2020). A review of the policy approaches to race equality in housing across the UK nations carried out by Robinson et al (2022) for the UK Centre for Collaborative Housing Evidence (CaCHE), stated that there is a lack of attention to ethnic inequalities across all sectors of the housing landscape within contemporary research and analysis. The authors point to gaps in the evidence base resulting from a failure to commission and fund exploratory research and a lack of systematic monitoring of and within organisations on race equality. However, the same authors go on to note differences in policy approaches between the UK nations and highlight that the Scottish Government have recognised these deficits and made renewed commitments to research, monitor and report on progress in tackling racial inequality in housing, of which this current report forms a part.

6.3 Statistics on minority ethnic employment in the Scottish SRS

One objective of this evidence review was to determine the number of people from minority ethnic backgrounds who are employed in the social housing sector in Scotland, and the extent to which they are employed in roles appropriate to their qualifications and experience. Between the introduction of the Scottish Social Housing Charter in 2012 and the refresh of the Charter in 2019, the SHR regularly published data on the minority ethnic breakdown of all RSL staff in Scotland at a granular level based on 11 possible minority ethnicity categories and included reporting on Board members and workforce, but not employee grades or roles^[9]. The introductory section of this report set out the process by which social landlords are required to report their Annual Return on the Charter to the SHR. Because the indicators contained within the Charter were changed as a part of the five year review cycle, the last time period for which the SHR collected equalities data under the previous Charter indicators was 2018/9. Equalities data is no longer collected by the SHR; instead the SHR asks landlords to collect this information and to collect more of it, and have produced guidance with the sector to facilitate this (Scottish Federation of Housing Associations et al 2021). Landlords are asked to indicate that they are meeting their equalities obligations in their self-assurance statements provided as part of their Annual Return on the Charter and the SHR may ask them to evidence this.

6.3.1 Statistics on minority ethnic employment rates in RSLs

Tables 1 and 2 show percentages of minority ethnic staff and Board members in all Scottish RSLs based on desk research undertaken using publicly available data from the SHR website^[10]. The period of data is the most recently available in light of the changes explained above, and the tables include the earliest and latest reporting years in the dataset to allow comparison showing any change over time. As identifying housing employees by grade or seniority was not possible, only total workforce data can be presented to give an indication of rates of minority ethnic employment in RSLs. It is therefore not possible to explore the extent to which minority ethnic staff in the social housing sector are employed in roles appropriate to their qualifications and experience based on the available data.

The tables should be read bearing in mind some additional caveats:

1) rates of response showing ethnicity ‘unknown’ vary considerably between RSLs; many RSLs have low rates of missing data, but in some instances there is missing data for up to, and in a small number of instances more than, half of the workforce

2) practices by which the data is collected varied between RSLs, some used data from HR systems and some carried out staff surveys

3) the ethnicity categories RSLs reported against included ‘Other ethnic – Any other group’; as such it is possible some staff reporting in this category belong to white ethnic groups, which have not been otherwise included in the overall scope of this evidence review.

Additionally, because individual numbers are so small in the more granular ethnicity categories, the decision was taken for the purposes of this review to report a total percentage for all minority ethnic groups taken together, but there are differences in rates of staff and Board membership between ethnic groups. Minority ethnic RSL staff and Board members were most likely to be ‘Asian – Pakistani’, or ‘Asian – Other Background’; smaller numbers of ‘Asian – Chinese’ were found and numbers are smallest for people of Bangladeshi ethnicity. Taken together, the variability in reported data, the caveats to the available data and the fact that available data is dated due to the changes made in SHR Charter return indicators after 2019, mean these figures can give only a general sense of minority ethnic employment and Board membership rates in Scottish RSLs.

6.3.2 Statistics on minority ethnic employment rates in LAs

Table 3 shows percentages of minority ethnic employees in each LAs total workforce, based on publicly available data gathered from LA websites. The period of data reported varies between LAs; most recent available data from each LA as of December 2023 is presented. Identifying LA staff data for housing employees was not possible as most LAs do not split workforce data by departmental area; only total workforce data can be presented to give an indication of rates of minority ethnic employment in LAs. This cannot be taken to directly represent rates of minority ethnic employment in LAs social housing sector specifically.

The table should be read bearing in mind three additional caveats:

1) rates of non-response and selection of the option ‘prefer not to say’ vary considerably between LAs; in some instances there is missing data for up to 75% of the workforce

2) practices by which the data is collected vary between LAs, some use data from HR systems and some carry out staff surveys

3) in instances where numbers of minority ethnic staff are very small, some LAs withhold figures for specific minority ethnic groups to protect anonymity.

Taken together, the variability in reported data, the caveats to the available data and the fact that available data is so low in some instances, mean these figures can give only a general sense of minority ethnic employment rates in LAs from which limited concrete meaning can be concluded.

6.3.4 What the statistics indicate about minority ethnic employment in the Scottish SRS

Taking into account the limitations of the data and given the caveats set out above, setting these overall percentages of minority ethnic staff reported in Scottish LAs and RSLs in the context of the percentage of minority ethnic people in the Scottish population suggests that minority ethnic staff may be under represented in the social housing sector. 2022 census data showed 12.9% of the Scottish population comprised minority ethnic people, defined as all other ethnic groups not described as ‘Scottish’ or ‘Other British’ and as such includes some ethnic groups in the ‘White’ category such as Irish, Polish, Gypsy/Traveller, Roma and Showman/Showwoman; analysis of the Scottish Survey Core Questions (SSCQ) 2022 publication indicated approximately 8.7% of the population comprised minority ethnic people. This figure of 8.7% includes the categories ‘Asian’ and ‘All other ethnic groups’ but does not include the category ‘White: Other’.

6.3.3 Evidence from additional data sources

There is little data on this topic available from recent academic studies. In 2001, Bowes, Sim and Wilson (Bowes, Sim and Wilson 2001 in Bowes & Sim 2001) attempted to obtain information on the ethnicity of staff working in social housing in Scotland at the turn of the millennium, but found little information available. The limited data they were able to source suggested that RSLs in Scotland at the time employed proportionately more BME staff than LAs, with 6.6% of RSL staff of BME origin, compared to 0.6% within LAs. Reflecting regional concentrations of minority ethnic groups, the highest levels of BME employment in Scottish RSLs was 7.6% in the Glasgow area. Seventy per cent of BME staff were female but data on BME staff by grade was almost impossible to obtain. Equalities monitoring appeared to have been undertaken in applications processes, but not continuously within organisations, making it difficult at the time to determine anything about minority ethnic employees progression.

By turning to grey literature and industry sources it was possible to glean some further empirical data, specific to minority ethnic employment in the Scottish social housing sector in relation to executive level roles and Board members.

Inside Housing Magazine began monitoring diversity figures and conducting their own annual survey from 2016. Their methodology involves contacting housing associations/RSLs to participate but the questionnaire and analysis methods are not published, nor are all the results broken down into UK nation level data, meaning that these results should be treated with caution. Numbers of organisations contacted and response rates have varied; in different years of the survey between 138-300 organisations were contacted and between 64-101 responded. Self-selection in the sample introduces a risk of bias and the authors note those organisations with better performance are more likely to respond and those without positive stories to tell may be less likely to voluntarily report their performance (Hollander 2019).

At the time the 2017 survey was conducted, three quarters of respondents across the UK had a Board entirely made up of white people (McCabe 2018). Potential signs of change were evident in the 2019 UK level survey results, with a reported 9.1% minority ethnic members of executive teams and 13.6% of board members. Looking at the 2021 survey, 25 of 101 housing associations had all white boards; of the small number of 35 individuals included in the sample working at executive level in Scottish housing associations, 33 were white (McCabe 2021). The 2021 survey was the first in which a breakdown by nation was provided for some findings; it was found Wales and Scotland have less ethnic diversity at board and executive levels. The fact these nations have less ethnic diversity in their populations than England may partially account for this finding but there are still findings of concern; for example Glasgow has the most ethnically diverse population of any area in Scotland, but within the sample responding to the research, large RSLs operating there were still found to have all white board and executive level staff (McCabe 2021).

6.4 Barriers minority ethnic groups face in securing employment in the Scottish SRS

Sommerville et al (2001) identified three pathways through which institutional racism can be expressed: the organisation’s core values; the organisation’s management competence; and how managers exert their autonomy.

Core values are those practices around which there exists a high degree of consensus within an organisation. They are usually operationalised by simple rules and clear procedures codified by organisational regulations, structures and policies. However, these values and the structures which then stem from them, can be favourably biased to white people and insensitive or negatively biased towards people from other ethnic groups. As found by Somerville et al (2001), UK housing organisations had not implemented comprehensive equal opportunities policies by the turn of the century. However, researchers have long suggested that there is a strong business case for equal opportunities: an inclusive business can be more productive, profitable, and provide better services to its customers (Somerville et al 2001; Steele & Sodhi 2004). Open recruitment policies broaden the pool from which a business can draw talent, potentially increasing productivity through attracting people with the best skills for the role. At the same time, businesses with genuinely inclusive core values which support staff to thrive can lower costs by retaining their employees and saving on staff turnover.

Equality of opportunity means that individuals should be hired on the basis of their competence, not on personal characteristics such as gender or ethnic background. This can be problematic in the absence of formalised organisational values and equal opportunity hiring protocols. If there are no stipulated pathways for hiring and promoting, these processes are highly dependent on individual managers’ attitudes towards prospective minority ethnic employees (Woolnough & Rouse 2021). In the absence of clearly defined rules on employment practices, ‘gut feelings’ which may be informed by managers’ potential conscious or unconscious biases, can affect outcomes. Given the authority and leadership of managers, this may shape organisations in a way which may perpetuate the dynamics of racial discrimination (Torrington & Weightman 1994 in Sommerville et al 2001). Autonomy, as a component of competence, is generally considered a positive element within organisations; however, if equality of opportunity is not a core value either for managers or the organisations they work for, the results of autonomy and discretion may be discriminatory outcomes.

All these elements were put to the test in a research project involving a survey of 106 housing associations in England and interviews with 52 minority ethnic and white staff of different levels of seniority (Somerville et al 2001). The results found that most housing associations in England at the time that were not “black-led”^[11] did not have equality of opportunity as a core value, or was not equally important as other values such as customer service or meeting stakeholders’ needs. Moreover, managers in these associations did not provide suitable role models to minority ethnic employees, did not respond constructively to racist incidents, and did not enact career development initiatives.

In terms of recruitment, the study found that less than 25% of English housing associations at the time which were not “black-led” made a special effort to engage with and recruit from minority ethnic communities. Interviews with staff members highlighted organisational practices that could be interpreted as institutional racism. These included making employees change their dress or speech to ‘fit in’ to the organisation and avoid appearing different, and reliance on informal recruitment practices. Thesse practices ranged from making role appointments without consultation or agreement and the use of recruitment methods which were unjustifiably biased towards those with a good command of English and skills in formal testing, to taking advantage of minority ethnic employees’ skills, for example having employees use their language skills to act as unofficial translators, without recognition and reward.

In terms of promotion, interviewees at the time reported that responsibility to identify opportunities and pathways to climb the ladder typically lay with the individual employees themselves. Minority ethnic interviewees highlighted the difficulty of being 'in' with senior managers as a route to identifying and accessing opportunities, hindering the acquisition of knowledge, skills and promotions for minority ethnic employees and advantaging white employees who may not be the most suitable candidates. Some minority ethnic employees gave examples in interviews of being pigeonholed by managers into in lower status jobs, making them feel unappreciated, different and overlooked and nearly a third of interviewees reported that their organisation was indifferent or discouraging. Nonetheless, the study found a small minority of non-minority ethnic-led housing associations that did have a basic non-discriminatory regime — although this was typically due to personal commitments of individual managers.

This dated evidence from Sommerville et al (2001) identified that training and development needs were often identified via supervision and performance reviews subject to individual managers’ discretion and personal biases, which at best created organisational regimes of equality of opportunities without acknowledging diversity or the additional barriers minority ethnic employees encounter. These contexts of quasi-equality were evidenced by the fact that almost 50% of interviewees from this study reported their housing associations encouraged and supported minority ethnic staff; yet as noted above nearly a third of interviewees reported that their associations were indifferent or discouraging. These interviewees referred to the destructiveness of organisational management and culture, lack of opportunities for staff generally, failure to take equal opportunities seriously and to understand and tackle issues of cultural difference and diversity to increase minority ethnic representation. White staff were more likely to be in the group of interviewees who reported positively on their organisations than minority ethnic staff. These results based on English research conducted over 20 years ago reflect social experiences of that time and should not be taken to reflect the modern Scottish context; in the decades since there have been advances in understanding equality and diversity imperatives and putting in place recruitment, training and development policies. There are also differences in approaches to how RSLs have been set up and managed in England and in Scotland that have historic roots; the ‘black-led’ housing associations Sommerville’s work refers to are an English phenomena. However Sommerville’s work does provide insight into the ways that institutional racism can function within a social housing setting and other evidence sources presented in this report point to continuing impacts of some of the barriers described in this research.

6.5 Examples of positive action taken to reduce these barriers

In light of the barriers to employment which may be experienced by minority ethnic people, this section considers literature examining ways in which positive action has been used in an attempt to increase minority ethnic employment in housing associations.

Although it is now over two decades old, the work of Bowes and Sim (2001) provided a comprehensive review of, and research into, positive action designed to mitigate barriers to the representation of minority ethnic people in housing organisations within Scotland^[12]. They detailed the Positive Action Training for Housing (PATH) schemes, originating in England in the 1980s and early 1990s, which were designed to support minority ethnic people with training for employment. The schemes were found to be largely successful. In a major study of PATH, Julienne (2001) found that by the year 2000, 1,382 people from BME backgrounds had been trained through the English schemes, with around 80% of those trainees obtaining jobs they were trained for after completing the course. Julienne’s research reported on outcomes, based on five focus groups with a total of 37 people; discussions with PATH workers and placement provider representatives; 184 valid questionnaires and in-depth interviews with 32 ex-PATH trainees; and 31 non-PATH black housing workers. An overwhelming majority of participants reported positive experiences with the scheme, most obtained formal qualifications during and since their participation in PATH and the majority remained in employment since leaving PATH, with most working in social housing management. Study participants confirmed the findings of earlier academic literature set out in previous chapters of this report, highlighting indirect and direct racism and racial stereotyping as the main barriers to their career progression, with women in the study also highlighting sexism and caring responsibilities as significant barriers.

Following their 2001 review, Bowes at al (2002) reported on a study undertaken by the University of Stirling, commissioned by the Chartered Institute of Housing (Scotland) (CIH (Scotland)), to research the position of BME employees. The background context for the research was an evaluation of PATH (Scotland), conceived from predecessor English PATH schemes and established in 1998 (Conboy 2010). The training scheme, which involves small cohorts receiving a training allowance and undertaking a two to three year placement within RSLs and LAs across Scotland, was positively evaluated (Bowes et al 2002; Conboy 2010).

The study reported by Bowes et al (2002) involved a relatively small sample of 30 drawn from a wide range of organisations and was based on individual interviews. Participants self-selected to be interviewed in response to a letter inviting participation sent to RSLs and LAs by the researchers, and a letter sent by the CIH (Scotland) to BME members. Many participants were trainees, or at a relatively low grade and although there were minority ethnic directors of housing associations within Scotland at the time the study was conducted, none came forward to be interviewed. As such, this study accessed the perspectives of non-senior employees at an early stage of their career.

The study found a strong talent pool amongst the interviewees, with the majority of people interviewed well qualified and with experience of higher or further education. Twenty eight of the 30 interviewees were undergoing or had undergone training approved by the CIH (Scotland). This was contrasted with the overall level of only 20% of Scottish social housing staff who had a professional qualification in housing or a related discipline. While the previous caveats to the study apply, this finding may partially support the view that minority ethnic staff are often highly qualified and barriers to their progression in the sector may prevent them from progressing in line with their level of skill (Scottish Parliament Equal Opportunities Committee 2016; Joseph Rowntree Foundation 2015). Thirteen of the 30 interviewees had undertaken a PATH traineeship as a route to employment; this was the most important means of entry to the housing sector for their sample. Perhaps as a result of their sample being drawn from people who were employed by organisations who had taken on PATH trainees, the authors found an overall positive view of their employers’ policies on diversity and indicated they had monitoring in place to ensure these policies worked in practice. Nine of the 30 interviewees felt there were particular problems for minority ethnic staff in their organisation, with this often relating to the fact they were the only minority ethnic staff member in a context lacking in cultural awareness. However only one of the interviewees suggested there was institutional racism within their organisation and only one instance of racial harassment was reported in the study. Overall those in this study felt their employers policies and practices were reasonably good, and whilst some indicated more could be done, there was a general recognition of the increasing ethnic minority employment in the sector, partly through a commitment to PATH traineeships. The authors noted that despite the success of the PATH (Scotland), and the English schemes that informed its development, issues of long term funding led to a lack of continuity in expanding on these successes (Bowes and Sim 2001).

However, the PATH (Scotland) scheme continues to date (PATH (Scotland) 2022). The most recently available evaluation of its work, which involved questionnaires circulated to individual and organisational beneficiaries, focus groups with individual beneficiaries and one to one interviews with stakeholders, concluded it is a well-established, well-run and highly regarded organisation with a strong record (Conboy 2010). Some respondents noted the training programme works with small numbers of people and would otherwise struggle with capacity, but the overall evaluation also highlighted the important role PATH (Scotland) plays in promoting awareness of positive action and the need for effective equality policy and practice in the social housing sector.

Perhaps partially as a response to the unavailability of long term local authority funding, there are recent examples of industry organisations working with business schools and third sector funded initiatives to provide opportunities for ethnic minority people to train and progress in the housing sector. As noted in the section presenting statistics from the Inside Housing UK survey, there have been some recent increases in minority ethnic employment in the housing sector in some regions. The development of industry supported positive action training initiatives also speaks to a recognition that increasing diversity within the workforce will help address a growing skills gap and bring new perspectives and ideas to support improved service provision for underrepresented groups (CITB 2022a). A lack of cultural awareness amongst mainstream services has been highlighted as a barrier to ethnic minority groups finding and securing housing, and it does appear housing organisations are responding to that in more recent years through meaningful attempts to increase minority ethnic representation, broadening the range of perspectives in order to produce best practice for service users with specific needs.

A contemporary example of this is Leadership 2025, launched in 2017 by a steering group led by BME London Landlords and supported by a number of major housing associations and industry consultants (Amoh 2019). Their stated vision is to dismantle structural inequality in the housing sector. Their ‘Cultural Impact’ strand aims to change the industry mindset by promoting the fact that diversity as not simply a check box exercise, but as an imperative for sound business practice. They aim to achieve a sector wide shift through working alongside trade bodies and political organisations, and producing comprehensive research reports intended to support and inform organisations on how to change (Amoh 2019).

Shah et al’s (2019) report for Leadership 2025 Diversity in the Sector reviewed the Five Point Plan set out in an earlier 2017 review by the Altair Group which made recommendations for housing associations designed to foster cultural change and translate this into concrete actions to address unconscious bias within housing sector employment. The recommendations were to: report annually on key diversity statistics; set aspirational targets for BME recruitment, retention and progression; interview more diverse pools of candidates; develop the leadership pipeline through structured programmes and plans for BME employees; to lead by example through the composition of Board appointments. In contrast to the earlier academic studies which highlighted an adoption of equality of opportunities policies which were vague and limited, this type of work within the industry operationalises the intentions of these policies. This suggests a changing narrative encouraging monitoring and evaluation to be adopted and embedded in more meaningful ways. However, the most recent update on the Altair review found a ‘generally disappointing picture’ with only some organisations demonstrating a genuine commitment to diversifying talent and ensuring representation at Board and executive levels, others have paid lip service to this in stating agreement in principle but doing little to facilitate change and others have ignored the need to change their practices entirely (Amoh 2019).

The Leadership 2025 ‘Support Talent’ strand responds to the fourth point of the plan through provision of a leadership programme in partnership with a business school. Although the Leadership 2025 Board and funding sources are London-centric, the training programme takes in applicants from across the UK and is aimed at supporting minority ethnic progression in the sector, creating leaders who will in turn leave vacancies for others to progress upwards. However, it does not operate on a scale to drive significant or immediate change in minority ethnic employment rates, taking in an annual cohort of only six.

In another recent example of a positive action initiative, Manchester Metropolitan University worked in partnership with 13 housing providers across Greater Manchester Housing Providers (GMHP) to design, deliver and research a pilot programme: Championing Change for Black, Asian and Minoritized Ethnic (BAME) Leadership (Woolnough & Rouse 2021). The project involved reciprocal mentoring partnerships as a means to investigate obstacles to minority ethnic employees’ progression and collectives of mentees, mentors and ‘Change Champions’ to facilitate organisational change in the housing organisations in the study. The ‘Change Champions’ were senior leaders nominated by each of the housing providers to represent their organisation and support other voices to advocate for organisational change. The project involved aspects on training and development, supported reflection, building collective action through good communication between groups and used a ‘Breaking the Silence Enquiry Tool’. This short document, which summarised some of the factors research has shown to cause the under-representation of minority ethnic staff in leadership roles, posed ‘enquiring questions’ to help participants reflect on their own contexts and plan change.

The project revealed obstacles to minority ethnic employee’s progression including: a lack of role models at senior levels, signifying that progression for minority ethnic employees is problematic; experiencing or witnessing poor line management that was sometimes overtly racist, and more often discriminatory, discounting minority ethnic colleagues due to poor understanding and appreciation of their heritage and ways of being; recruitment and selection practices that seek ‘like me’ candidates for leadership roles; and leadership founded in white culture, which means minority ethnic colleagues have to leave their culture ‘at the door’ in order to progress, preventing them from thriving and leading to organisations missing out on the awareness of customer diversity that minority ethnic leaders in the social housing sector can bring to decision making (Woolnough & Rouse 2021).

The issues the project highlights are continuations of many of the barriers identified in the more dated literature included in this review (Sommerville et al 2001), however industry developed partnership projects such as the examples presented in this section represent the social housing sector taking action on the equalities policies which were characterised in earlier academic research as ineffectual as they had not been translated into actions. Most mentees and mentors participating in the Manchester project reported career development value from the reciprocal mentoring relationships. Two mentees were promoted and are progressing in their careers as a direct result of the pilot. The ‘Change Champions’ committed to ethnicity pay gap reporting to drive action and there was recognition that white staff benefit from guided reflection on how power and privilege play out, and that senior white leaders should be supported to understand the legitimacy of their role in creating change.

6.6 The impact of positive action initiatives

Whilst the above represent more recent positive examples in contrast to the academic literature from earlier in the 2000s and before, there is some contradiction between evidence sources as to the extent to which equality of opportunities policies are making an impact and the research reviewed here continues to identify many of the same barriers persisting across time. There is also mixed evidence from industry sources who may have vested interests in the picture that is presented and data gathered by industry bodies is likely to be compromised by self-selection bias. Further, there is a degree of speculation based on housing professional’s opinions within grey literature sources which also carry their own biases, assumptions and interests.

Minority ethnic senior staff from English housing associations spoke of their frustrations at the lack of progress in interviews reported in Inside Housing magazine (Brandon 2022). Whilst there are a handful of examples of positive action like those described above, there remains a general feeling that not enough action is being taken. The three chief executives interviewed by Brandon, all with long range perspectives having spent decades in the housing sector, expressed the same sentiment: that little has truly changed, representation of ethnic minority people in senior roles appropriate to their skills is woefully low and organisations remain unable to give examples of actions they are taking. Also noted was the need to go beyond standard setting and policy documents to tangible forms of monitoring and accountability, highlighting that governmental and industry bodies both have a part to play.

In Scotland, the independent advisor on race equality has recommended that the Scottish Government use existing sponsorship and funding arrangements to require LAs and RSLs to sponsor housing traineeships facilitated by PATH, continuing these positive action measures to increase the number of minority ethnic staff in management roles.