The only way is up

It's shocking, but perhaps not surprising: in mainstream RSLs there is still a culture where black and minority ethnic staff have to run up a downwardly moving escalator in order to get on. Too many RSLs appear to be merely marking time on equal opportunities, giving over-riding priority to what is seen as their core business of housing management and development. In some RSLs, the attitude towards racial equality and fairness is one of overwhelming complacency and indifference.

Those were the findings of a new study on the position of black and minority ethnic (BME) staff working for registered social landlords. The project, carried out by a research team from the University of Salford, was commissioned by the Housing Corporation to help it to meet some of the commitments in the BME policy, which it launched in June 1998.

The research found that there were still far too many RSLs with hardly any BME staff. These were not all small RSLs operating in remote rural areas, but included large national RSLs working in areas with large BME populations. In spite of this, very few of these RSLs had effective policies in place to improve the situation, and most of them did not even appear to regard this as an important problem.

In most mainstream RSLs that did employ substantial numbers of BME staff, those staff were stuck on the bottom layers of the organisation. Of the 75 mainstream RSLs which participated in the research, only 17 BME staff were in senior management positions, and there were only two BME chief executives.

Interviews with BME staff threw considerable light on the reasons for this sorry situation. The strongest criticisms were made of processes of staff selection, promotion, and appraisal, and the lack of a supportive culture for BME staff. Complaints related to victimisation or favouritism towards individuals; lack of awareness or understanding of other cultures; lack of understanding or commitment to the principle of equality of opportunity; specific directly and indirectly discriminatory practices; and deeply ingrained patterns of institutional racism arising from the overall structure or culture of the organisation.

Institutional racism was particularly clear in relation to promotion, where the effect of managers' perceptions was most strongly felt. BME staff generally did not trust their employer to handle racist incidents and complaints efficiently or effectively. Interestingly, they appeared to be more concerned about racism from colleagues than from tenants or members of the public, and some of the incidents they described were of a most serious nature.

The research also showed that failure of BME staff to progress was not due to any lack of relevant qualifications or experience, since they compared favourably with their white colleagues in these terms.

RSLs are not unique on this issue. For RSLs the proportion of BME staff who are in senior management is 1.6 per cent, for the UK's top 100 private firms the proportion is 1.75 per cent. This and the findings of the Lawrence report pose a challenge to us all, (including higher education institutions and universities).

What is to be done? In our report, we suggest assigning a wide range of responsibilities to boards, senior managers, and staff generally, for example in:

• developing racial equality strategies
  
• conducting equal opportunities audits
  
• assessing and responding to the cultural needs of individual staff
  
• developing good relations with BME communities
  
• promoting successful diversity initiatives
  
• providing appropriate coaching and mentoring to individual staff with the potential to progress
  
• actively creating promotion opportunities for all staff
  
• using staff appraisal for self-development as well as organisational improvement
  
• training on managing diversity
  
• challenging and disciplining racist behaviour.

Clearly, fundamental cultural change is required, and therefore the attack must proceed on many fronts at the same time. We considered that lessons could be learned from the experiences of those few BME staff who have progressed into senior management. Specific powers and resources must be given to individual staff such as those in human resources to ensure that necessary changes are made. And we believe that external auditing - a carrot and stick approach - is essential to ensure that progress is made.

The Housing Corporation's BME policy has been developed within the framework of Best Value and this approach represents perhaps the most promising way forward in achieving the required organisational change. The Housing Corporation through regulatory policy could:

• require RSLs to produce race equality plans, which detail measures to be taken to improve BME representation generally and in senior positions, and to report annually on their progress
  
• conduct investigations into those RSLs whose annual reports appear unconvincing or problematic
  
• carry out race equality audits of RSLs at random
  
• apply sanctions, such as withdrawing investment, to those RSLs that fail to produce race equality plans or fail in important respects to deliver on those plans.

Why Best Value? Three characteristics of Best Value seemed particularly relevant. BestValue promotes a culture of continuous improvement, which is most suited to moving towards racial equality.

It also provides for the public accountability of an organisation which can help to improve efficiency and is not incompatible with an organisation's business needs.

Thirdly, Best Value requires organisations to compare themselves with others in order for them to see how to move forward. This is arguably more successful in the longer term than the adoption of fixed targets, for example in relation to the representation of BME staff at senior levels of the organisation.

We do not yet know how Best Value will work in detail for the achievement of racial equality. The current Best Value pilots are not specifically considering human resource issues, and Best Value for local authorities does not include race issues. Improvements in human resource policies should follow Best Value, however, and we make the following general suggestions as a way forward. The Housing Corporation could work more closely with DETR at a national level to incorporate racial equality in employment within the Best Value framework. The Housing Corporation is already working towards providing Best Value benchmarks and these could include indicators of progress towards racial equality in employment.

RSLs are supposed to work in partnership with local authorities over Best Value and the Housing Corporation's BME policy requires them to develop BME strategies based on meaningful consultation with local communities. Evidence needs to be provided to the Housing Corporation that this process is taking place.

If adopted, these suggestions would improve accountability for RSLs: to the Housing Corporation, to local authorities and to local communities. There is also the possibility of a fourth line of accountability, to regional bodies. We believe that such a system of multiple accountability could be very effective in moving things forward across a broad front. More specifically, a Best Value approach can be defined under the headings of the four C's: challenge, compare, consult, and compete. Racial equality in employment could be incorporated within this framework as follows:

Challenge: Possible questions that RSLs could ask include:

• Are we delivering quality career opportunities for all our staff?
  
• Does the composition of our staff reflect the communities we serve?
  
• Do we respond to the needs of our staff and potential staff as well as we could?

Compare: Comparisons could be made with other RSLs, local authorities or private sector bodies. The following could be considered:

• comparing the costs arising from the loss of staff, especially BME staff
  
• identifying the under-representation of BME staff at different levels and indifferent areas of work, compared with other organisations
  
• learning more effective methods that may lead to better representation of BMEs within the organisation
  
• learning how to be more accountable to interested residents, board members and BME communities in relation to the achievement of racial equality

Where significant failings are identified, RSLs could be required to produce credible plans to improve their performance. Performance indicators for racial equality could be developed locally, for example through benchmarking clubs.

Consult: The views of BME residents on developing racial equality, along with other residents, could be tested, and their involvement in decision making could be increased. Detailed consultation is necessary in order to ensure that any targets, which are adopted, are appropriate to both the organisation and the communities it serves. Residents should then be involved in drawing up performance plans.

Compete: Many BME RSLs already deliver services for mainstream RSLs in recognition that they are likely to deliver a better service to BME communities. Mainstream RSLs could consider transferring some of their stock to BME RSLs to enable them to grow, which will result in improved career opportunities for BME staff generally.

The Housing Corporation's Best Value framework for RSLs (unlike the DETR's for local authorities) does have a race dimension. We believe the Best Value framework represents an opportunity that housing organisations cannot afford to miss if their work is to be relevant to a multi-ethnic Britain in the 21st century.