A wake-up call for BME provision

One prominent downside of the stock transfer process is its disproportionate impact on the housing agenda – a case in point being black and minority ethnic issues.

The 2002/03 approved development prog-ramme effectively penalises local authorities that have no BME housing strategy.

Serving as something of a wake-up call, let's hope it provokes a positive response.

Estimates of population indicate that around 400,000 out of the 2.4m residents of the West Midlands conurbation are of BME origin.

This represents the largest concentration outside London.

And for the most part they live in the worst housing in the poorest neighbourhoods.

It would be unfair to claim that BME communities have not benefited from large-scale housing investment.

Tens of millions of pounds have gone to help owner-occupiers in poor housing, still more in social housing programmes. Yet very little of that money has directly benefited BME communities.

Joe Matthias undertook an analysis of Innovation and Good Practice funded projects on race.

His conclusions make for disturbing reading.

One is that common misconceptions of BME communities are strongly prevalent among some mainstream service providers. Too many have failed to learn the lessons of the past. And lasting damage has been done to community relations. So how do we move forward?

The timing could be fortuitous. The Housing Corporation is reviewing its BME strategy, as are most local authorities. We must find a way of harmonising these to achieve shared understanding and set common and consistent goals.

This then needs to become integrated into the regional housing statement. Within that strategic framework there must be a clearly recognised role for BME service providers.

BME housing associations were set up to address gaps in the market created by the inability of mainstream organisations to deliver key services to the ethnic minority population.

Successful BME landlords, like Ujima, Presentation, Greater London ASRA and Manningham, have shown themselves to be robust, dynamic organisations, richly deserving of their plaudits.

By comparison, the West Midlands is often depicted as a region where the BME landlord sector has "failed".

I believe this to be an oversimplified analysis.

It would be churlish to ignore the obvious difficulties encountered by the likes of Ashram, UCHA, Black Star, Hamac and, in the more distant past, Harambee.

The Housing Corporation has quite rightly intervened. Yet to dismiss the region as a "failure" and "a graveyard for BME RSLs", overlooks the important contribution made over two decades.

Try telling a few thousand vulnerable and disadvantaged ethnic minority people living in customised safe homes this initiative has been a "failure". Try sharing this analysis with statutory authorities where institutionalism has failed BME communities.

It is also a slight against those agencies that have placed considerable support and investment in the sector.

Admittedly, there have been failings and measures are required to put that right.

The standards to which we aspire to are evident elsewhere. Their success adds to the growing list of BME enterprises, underlining that innovation is not confined to industry. As pathfinders, they have shown what can be done.

Finally, to give hope and encouragement to the West Midlands, not so long ago some of the most successful associations elsewhere were "working closely with the Housing Corporation".