Diversity and Inclusion: Residents and Staff
A small number of issues relating to diversity in the community were raised in resident and staff interviews. These related in particular to age and, to a lesser extent, to cultural background.
Some residents appeared to miss an environment with younger people, referring to the “joy” of families and children being around:
“a village [should have] the patter of tiny feet and younger people”
(Resident 25)
They noted that they did not want to be “living with old people” (Resident 28). One resident felt that, to the organisation, “we’re just all old people” (Resident 38), even though there could be a 20-year age gap among residents which was a difference of a generation. One resident mentioned how World War II singalongs were inappropriate for people growing up in the 1950s and later. The staff we interviewed recognised that, while similarity of age and needs could be valuable for residents, it could also be a negative. They knew that residents valued different age groups.
Elsewhere [People-place Connections], we have noted the potential benefits of selecting residents from local areas. However this could increase a risk expressed by one resident of seeing people “from different parts of the country” as “strangers” (Resident 47), even though they felt “That’s better, isn’t it? [to have ‘strangers’]”. Among the residents we spoke to, there was a widespread acceptance of difference: “It’s up to every individual how they choose to live, isn’t it?” (Resident 10). This was particularly mentioned in reference to residents who chose not to socialise or take part in community activities.
There were complaints from a few residents that the almshouse residents were not representative of the local community in terms of cultural background and positive mentions of more people of colour joining their community. One said:
“Everybody is different. It would be a poor world if we all were alike, wouldn’t it?”
(Resident 49)
In the staff interviews, different ‘outlooks on life’ among residents was valued. There was critical reflection on the current status:
“we have very little representation I think of different people in society”
(Staff 4)
and some staff interviewees expressed their desire for their charity to become more representative of the local area. There were very few mentions of diversity relating to other protected characteristics such as sexuality, gender identity or disability.
