The research was based on a postal survey of shared owners in the London Boroughs of Brent, Ealing and Newham, and on in depth interviews with a black and minority ethnic shared owners, owner occupiers and potential shared owners (tenants not in receipt of housing benefit). Interviews and focus groups were also conducted with housing professionals and with representatives of the BME communities in the survey areas.
Research summary
Shared ownership's role in housing black and minority ethnic communities
The proportion of people from BME communities responding to the postal survey conducted for this research reflects their representation in the community as a whole. However, there were a number of differences in the responses which indicate that specific strategies need to be adopted to encourage BME communities into shared ownership:
- BME households are particularly disadvantaged in terms of finding appropriate information about shared ownership.
- BME households are larger on average and are more likely to contain children than their white counterparts. This difference is reflected in their higher take up of DIYSO than white households.
- Another reason for the greater popularity of DIYSO among BME communities may be the increased choice of location it offers.
- BME households may find it more difficult to raise enough money both to enter shared ownership and to maintain their housing costs than their white British counterparts. The postal survey found that white British households were more likely than any other ethnic group to buy an initial share in their property of over 50 per cent. There is a concern among some black led housing associations, that Homebuy will exacerbate entry problems for BME households.
Barriers to shared ownership among black and minority ethnic communities
Owner occupation is clearly the tenure of choice for most people. However, there may be particular reasons why this is the case for BME communities:
- Research participants stressed the cultural significance of owner occupation for Asian ethnic groups. This was linked to a perceived stigma associated with social landlords.
- There was a general distrust of social housing providers, particularly on tackling racial harassment and on allocation systems.
- Mortgage lenders, by contrast, were thought to be neutral on the question of race. Their only concern was that an applicant had sufficient income to meet the mortgage payments.
- Other low cost home ownership, such as TIS and Right to Buy schemes may be more attractive to BME communities as they offer the chance of full owner occupation at a reduced price.
Information and promotion
The subject of information and promotion came up frequently during the research. In addition to issues of general concern, such as the clarity of some promotional material, there were issues specific to BME communities:
- Partnerships between providers and community groups to improve promotion were suggested as a means of improving the attractiveness of shared ownership to BME communities.
- Community groups complained that the little information they received about shared ownership was not in community languages. However, one black led housing association had found that concentrating on plain English and using more face to face communication with clients was effective, as long as it was backed up with the provision of an interpreter where necessary.
- Word of mouth was how most people heard about shared ownership but it was less effective for BME communities. The potential role of community networking in stimulating word of mouth promotion was raised by interviewees.
Location
Participants in the in depth interviews raised location more frequently than any other factor that might influence their housing choices:
- Community groups felt that conventional shared ownership schemes were located in areas which were unpopular with BME communities.
- Participants in the in depth interviews stressed the importance of being in areas which were ethnically mixed, not known for racial harassment and close to culturally appropriate shops and places of worship.
General issues
The research revealed a number of issues which had less specific relevance to BME communities, but were raised by participants and may be of interest to shared ownership providers in attempting to improve their service:
- Most of the postal survey respondents were generally satisfied with shared ownership but there were specific areas of dissatisfaction. These included the level of the service charge and the shared owner's responsibility for repairs.
- Shared owners were more satisfied with their properties than they were with the tenure as a whole. There was a preference (particularly among potential shared owners) for houses rather than flats, for street properties rather than estates and for gardens.
Only three per cent of respondents to the postal survey had bought further shares in their property. The in depth interviews revealed that households felt that it was difficult and expensive to staircase to full owner occupation.
Recommendations
Improving information and promotion
- Providers should develop partnerships with BME community groups to promote shared ownership.
- Information about shared ownership should be in plain English and avoid the use of jargon. It should make clear that it is possible to provide a translation or interpreting service.
- Promotional material should contain positive images of people from BME communities.
Location of schemes
- Care should be taken to locate schemes in appropriate areas.
- Providers should ensure that BME applicants for shared ownership are aware of other low cost home ownership options such as TIS and DIYSO (and in the future, Homebuy) which offer more choice to the applicant.
Tackling the distrust of social housing providers
- Providers' policies on equal opportunities and racial harassment should be publicised in any information about shared ownership.
- Providers should actively demonstrate their commitment to promoting equal opportunities and tackling racial harassment. Possible methods are:
- working with local authorities to promote anti-racist strategies
- including an anti-racial harassment clause in the lease
- giving victims of racial harassment priority for transfers
- supporting victims of racial harassment through legal processes.
Further areas for research and policy development
- The attraction of shared ownership is that it offers a route into full owner occupation. However, in the majority of cases, this is not the way it operates. A review of the tenure focusing on ways to make staircasing simpler would be beneficial and could reduce dissatisfaction among shared owners.
- Alternatively, attention should be given as to how best to promote shared ownership as a genuinely alternative long term tenure. This might focus on the security the involvement of the housing association offers the shared owner.
- Research to further define sectors of the housing market would provide valuable information on which to base targets for BME participation in shared ownership.
Downloads
Shared Ownership and BME Communities 
January 1998 (132KB / 63 pages)
Links
The Housing Corporation
Greater London Authority
The research project was funded through an Innovation and Good Practice Grant provided by the Housing Corporation. The summary reproduced above and the full report are ©The Housing Corporation 1998.
The project was undertaken by the London Research Centre (now part of the Greater London Authority)
|
