Race and how to approach it is a question housing providers have debated and reviewed on many occasions. As a result, the sector's record on diversity in the workplace and consideration of tenant needs and beliefs is second to none. The 64 associations that specialise in black and minority-ethnic tenants cater for the needs of Irish to Chinese, Jamaican to Somalian, proving how seriously the sector takes inclusion.

Despite this, race remains a concern in society at large – witness the worrying rise of far-right political parties or indeed any week's tabloid headlines – and that's why the whole sector must now engage in one of the most important debates in housing: the future of BME associations.

The Chartered Institute of Housing has bravely set the agenda in a report that lays out a series of questions – summarised exclusively this week on page 18. The issues it raises include whether BME associations have a strong enough voice and whether local authorities and the Housing Corporation could do more to help. It offers serious pause for thought, not only to the leaders of BME associations but to the sector as a whole.

Trevor Phillips, the chair of the Commission for Racial Equality, recently argued that multiculturalism in Britain has failed and has often resulted only in greater polarisation of different ethnic groups.

The fact that there are 64 specialist associations and many more dedicated teams within mainstream associations could be argued to reflect this.

This debate could be an opportunity to address the even more fundamental consideration of whether BME housing providers might be more effective as part of larger organisations. There are strong arguments against this: the skills BMEs have in catering for particular groups; their history of fighting for the rights of their tenants to access housing; the support network and access to other specialist services that they provide.

The whole sector must engage in the debate on the future of BME associations

And, as Tony Stacey rightly says on page 23, it's far from certain that bigger organisations give a better service by default.

But the majority of BME associations own fewer than 200 units and they face the same challenges as other small RSLs: the corporation's move towards favouring larger organisations as development partners; the government's drive to increase efficiency in public service delivery; the trend towards group structures as

a means of achieving both these ends. Ultimately, could the skills of BME housing providers be just as effective as part of larger RSLs that can tick the various boxes the government requires and are thus better able to access funding to help the country's diverse communities?

This could also be a move towards breaking down some of the barriers that have grown up between communities, such as those that being tackled by councils in Oldham and Blackburn. RSLs would be in a prime position to show that it is possible to cater for the needs of disparate communities under the same roof.

Source

Housing Today