Why inclusion isn’t just the right thing to do – it’s the strategic thing to do
Before we get into this, let me introduce myself. My name is Nat, and I’m not only the co-founder of TFG but also a resident in a shared ownership house, and I’ve worked with Housing Associations to improve their communications.
When Housing Associations talk about resident engagement, they often mean engaging with residents who are already engaged. The people who turn up to meetings, fill in surveys, and join tenant panels. But what about everyone else?
The majority of resident panel members who attend focus groups have extensive experience in engaging with their landlords to influence their decision-making. This observation from the government’s Social Housing Resident Panel report exposes a fundamental problem: we’re having conversations with the same voices, while the people who most need our services remain unheard.
In Summary:
- Missing the majority: Housing Associations engage with the same voices whilst up to 60% of residents face digital exclusion, and 64% of under-35 tenants never participate.
- Real costs: Missing voices causes programme resistance, wasted budgets, and regulatory risk.
- They’re not hard-to-reach, you’re hard-to-access: Residents are excluded by design when 18% of UK adults have very poor literacy skills.
- Design for exclusion first: Map your actual audience, use plain language, offer multiple formats, and meet people in community spaces at times that work for them.
- The ROI is there: VIVID Housing saw 39% better sentiment and 978 detailed responses. Proper inclusion changes outcomes.
- Your choice matters: Keep talking to the same people whilst programmes fail, or invest in inclusion that cuts resistance.
The Strategic Cost of Missing Voices
This isn’t just about fairness. When Housing Associations fail to reach harder-to-engage groups, they miss critical intelligence that could prevent programme failures and increase apathy of their residents, all leading to budget waste.
For example, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority estimates that around 260,000 residents of Greater Manchester live in social housing settings, and that up to 60% face levels of digital exclusion. That’s not a minor segment to ignore – it’s the majority of their residents.
Consider the implications:
- Programme resistance becomes programme failure. Retrofitting initiatives that residents don’t understand or trust face higher refusal rates. Meaning grants are not awarded, and the work stalls even before it begins.
- Communication costs multiply. When initial messages don’t land, you’re dealing with reactive complaints rather than proactive engagement.
- Regulatory risk increases. Panel members feel that landlords did not receive enough pressure from the Government and the Regulator of Social Housing to improve and provide meaningful and effective engagement opportunities.
Who Gets Left Behind?
Digital Exclusion
The “hard-to-reach” label often masks the reality that these residents aren’t hard to reach – they’re systematically excluded by how we communicate.
Let’s stay with Greater Manchester, as they have done the due diligence to find out. In this area, one in five residents lives in social housing, and an estimated 60% face levels of digital and social exclusion, unable to participate fully in life or education, which is significantly higher than the population as a whole.
This isn’t just about not having broadband. The government has identified inadequate infrastructure and poor connectivity as the main barriers to digital inclusion, with social housing often being the primary tenure that falls short in this area. But the problem runs deeper than technical access.
2.1 million people in the UK were offline, and c.4.7 million people could not connect to Wi-Fi, impacting their everyday lives.
Neurodivergent Residents
With up to 20% of the UK population thought to be neurodivergent, Housing Associations are likely working with significant numbers of residents who process information differently. Yet stigma and a lack of awareness or lack of appropriate adjustments may be causing exclusion of tenants and residents with neurodevelopmental differences.
Research indicates that overwhelming and discouraging search experiences can have a profound impact on the confidence, self-efficacy, and perspective of neurodivergent individuals when attempting to access services.
Mental Health and Disabilities
Social housing providers are increasingly tasked with addressing the needs of vulnerable and marginalised groups, including the elderly, individuals with disabilities, and those experiencing mental health issues. The scale is significant: 44% of households with a new letting in 2023/24 included at least one person who had a physical or mental health condition or illness lasting or expected to last for 12 months or more.
Age & Time
It isn’t always about vulnerable characteristics.
According to a report by Penrith and Kinross Council, 67% of their residents identified time, health, and interest as the main barriers to involvement. These aren’t character flaws – they’re the reality of managing life on limited resources while dealing with housing stress.
The time commitment required and the level of involvement were seen as major obstacles, particularly for younger and working residents.
Often, this means panel members and engaged tenants are middle-aged, or retired, and often living with a physical disability.
This leaves a massive gap and skewed ways of thinking.
64% of tenants are under 35 years of age - yet these are the residents least likely to engage with formal tenant structures.
Why Traditional Engagement Fails
Most engagement strategies assume that residents have the same capacity, confidence, and communication preferences as people who are already engaged. This creates a feedback loop that reinforces exclusion.
The government’s Social Housing Resident Panel Report highlights that panel members felt that their landlord was intentionally limiting engagement with more critical or outspoken residents. Others believed that landlords were actively preventing broader involvement by failing to provide opportunities for engagement.
This is why all housing landlords need to slow down the digital innovation, step back and take an inclusive approach to engagement to find out what their residents really need.
A Strategic Approach to Inclusion
Click below to expand
Most Housing Associations could tell you more about their property portfolio than their resident demographics. Start with:
- Demographic analysis – age, employment status, language preferences, disability status etc
- Communication Preferences Audit – How do residents currently contact you when they have problems?
- Digital capability assessment – Not just who has smartphones, but who uses them confidently for complex tasks
- What their priorities are – saving money on bills, the environment, maintenance and repairs, and anti-social behaviour
For example, Penrith & Kinross Council reported that 52% of residents identified management of their neighbourhood and repairs as the main issues that mattered to them, which shows that residents have clear priorities – but only if you ask the right questions.
Instead of designing communications for your average resident, design for your most excluded resident first. This benefits everyone.
Plain language isn’t just nice – it’s a strategic advantage. In England, 18% of adults aged 16 to 65, or 6.6 million people, can be described as having “very poor literacy skills”. One in five Britons aged between 16 and 65 can only read at or below the level expected of a 10-year-old.
When TPAS worked with South Holland District Council on tenant engagement, they found that surveys are only effective if tenants feel confident completing them. So they focused on clarity and relevance in designing the survey by using plain language. The survey avoided technical jargon, using simple, tenant-focused phrasing.
Multiple formats should be the default, not the exception. Some residents may have conversation or language challenges. Others may have specific learning difficulties that require additional support in managing their lives or sharing information with family members. Some need additional support due to mental or physical disabilities or because of frailties such as mobility issues or hearing difficulties.
Some may be too busy at the time of a webinar, need a moment to process, or have a full inbox of urgent tasks and/or a busy family life. But they still have something valuable to share.
The Housing Associations with the most resident engagement are those that put something on in the community that benefits their residents, or engage with them face-to-face.
This might mean:
- Community spaces rather than offices – Using libraries, community centres, or schools
- Informal timing – not just business hours or weekdays or only having one date and time
- Familiar faces – using trusted community connectors, not just housing staff and introducing them before showing up
- Doing it more than once – it takes more than one meeting to build a relationship, so be prepared to put some effort in
Meaningful and effective engagement was felt to require governance structures that reflect resident involvement, such as official tenant boards or panels. But meaningful doesn’t just mean formal.
The most successful Housing Associations create multiple ways to have influence:
- Issue-specific engagement for people who care deeply about particular topics
- Seasonal engagement for people whose capacity varies throughout the year
- Peer-to-peer models where residents with lived experience lead conversations or are brought in when needed
The ROI of Getting It Right
When The Typeface Group collaborated with VIVID Housing Association on their Warm Homes programme, we demonstrated that systematic pre-engagement enhances both reach and outcomes. Instead of the traditional “announce and deliver” approach, we implemented a 4-step intelligence-gathering process before any major communications.
The results were immediate and measurable:
- 39% improvement in customer sentiment from the pre-engagement work alone – converting potential resistance into programme support
- 978 comprehensive customer responses providing real intelligence about resident priorities, concerns, and communication preferences
- 73% found materials helpful when accessed, but 69.5% hadn’t read some of the materials, revealing distribution rather than content problems
- Evidence-based resource planning – identifying exactly which 30.9% need additional support, rather than guessing
The Greater Manchester digital inclusion pilot achieved similar success. The results demonstrate what happens when Housing Associations invest in systematic inclusion rather than relying on traditional methods.
When you reach everyone, you’ll find:
- Programme resistance drops because residents understand what’s happening and why
- Complaint volume decreases because you’ve anticipated and addressed concerns proactively
- Regulatory performance improves as satisfaction measures reflect your whole resident base, not just engaged voices
- Funding applications strengthen because you can demonstrate genuine community support
Your Strategic Choice
- Continue having conversations with the same voices, while critical programmes face resistance and budgets get wasted on reactive damage control.
- Invest in systematic inclusion that transforms both resident relationships and operational outcomes.
The organisations that get ahead of this shift will have a competitive advantage.
Those that don’t will find themselves explaining to regulators why their engagement data doesn’t reflect their actual resident base, and to boards why programme delivery keeps hitting unexpected resistance.
The voices you're not hearing aren't silent by choice. They're excluded by design.
Change the design with us.
View our VIVID Housing case study to discover what happens when Housing Associations finally hear from everyone.