The future of BME

The future of BME associations is part of a wider question about how rigorously the regulators (the Housing Corporation and Audit Commission) pursue change in the sector's approach to BME communities, how they use the expertise of BME associations as benchmarking models and in capacity building – and how this fits in with wider race equality policies.

Many people are arguing for a stronger national forum for BME associations, a body that lobbies on their behalf, develops a vision of their role and promotes their achievements. So is there a case, if BME associations want it, for the National Housing Federation and the Chartered Institute of Housing to be more active in supporting the emergence of such a body?

How should they be defined?
We questioned dozens of people and few were happy with the current definition of a BME association, which is based on having a minimum level of representation from BME communities on its board. Many argued for a definition that would more strongly reflect the ethos of BME associations. But it would have to reflect the diverse ambitions of today's 64 BME associations, which range in size from three large London ones to numerous smaller ones owning fewer than 200 units each. Is this possible?

Are BME associations viable?
BME associations, like mainstream ones, exist in a risky environment. But are they any less viable and more exposed than mainstream ones? Is their track record better or worse? Rent restructuring is affecting the viability of many associations, but BME associations have claimed that they are more vulnerable. Is that true? Are special measures justified to protect them if they become vulnerable, and in what circumstances?

Can BME associations expect to grow through development?
The conventional route by which registered social landlords grow is to build more houses. But that is becoming more difficult, especially for smaller associations, given the Housing Corporation's new investment regime, which favours a select group of larger RSLs for long-term funding partnerships.

Can BME associations generally have realistic growth expectations through this route? If development partnerships are the answer, how do BME associations improve their prospects of joining them? What role should corporation policy play in fostering BME associations' development role?

What about stock transfer?
Adding stock by building it is only one route to growth; another is to receive homes in a stock transfer. BME associations already figure large in the list of those managing stock that another association owns. Should this be one route to growth – the transfer of stock already in management? Are there other possibilities for stock transfer from mainstream associations? Local authorities have transferred more than 800,000 houses to housing associations, but mainly to ones set up for the purpose. BME associations have so far had a very limited role in large-scale transfers. Could this be changed? What would be needed for this to happen?

Should BME associations diversify?
Some BME associations essentially serve the same communities in much the same ways they did when they started. But others have changed their remit and some even house more people from outside the communities they originally served than from within.

If BME associations are to maintain a distinctive identity, there is little point in them simply following the same opportunities in the same way that mainstream associations do.

But if they are to diversify, can they do that in ways that build on their strengths? Are there already examples of BME associations broadening their scope in ways that might be followed by others? And are there new needs that are not being addressed, or where the BME associations' skills would be particularly useful?

How should BME and mainstream associations relate to each other?
Some of the strongest opinions expressed by the people contacted for this research were around this issue. Misunderstandings and suspicions seem to abound. Given that the future is one of partnerships, are there partnerships that work? How could relationships be put on a sounder footing?

Should BME associations join group structures?
Some BME associations do seem to have successfully done so. The sector needs to discuss ways in which more BME associations could enter such structures and still retain their essential focus and identity – what could a BME association bring to a mainstream group and what might it expect to get from it? Are there alternatives to the group structures that have emerged so far and, if so, what are they?

What role do local authorities have in supporting BME associations?
It is much more likely that BME associations will prosper and grow if policy helps them to do so. Local authorities may not be as important in future as they were before in determining where new development takes place and who does it, but this doesn't mean their potential role in supporting BME associations is reduced.

Stock transfer is one significant possibility, but are there other ways in which authorities could help BME associations? Do they even recognise the importance of BME associations and the roles they could play in the future?

What should be the Housing Corporation's future role?
The all-important question for BME associations, especially smaller ones, is how the corporation's role might change as a result of the coming review of its BME policy. If it is not to promote the emergence of new BME associations, should it nonetheless aim to protect the existing ones and help them to expand their capacity? If so, how?

The answers are particularly important at a time of significant change in the sector that could adversely affect BME associations, but at the same time also creates new opportunities.