Are Ethnic Minorities Treaded Equally and Justly in the Allocation of Social Housing - Essay Example

?Are Ethnic Minorities Treaded Equally and Justly in the Allocation of Social Housing? Hills (2007) indicates that social housing accounts for around4 million households in England. According to the UK Government’s statistics (2011), there are also a further 5 million people on waiting lists for social housing. A further quarter of a million social homes are currently overcrowded. Over recent decades, Rutter and Latorre (2009) indicate that there has been a large reduction in social housing stock in many parts of the UK. This is due to existing tenants exercising their right to buy their properties, and a reduction in the building of new social houses. These changes have also occurred at a time when there has been an increase in the number of households in the UK, caused by greater longevity, marital breakdown, and immigration. For example, UK Census data indicates that the UK’s foreign born population rose from 2.1 million (4.2% of population in 1951) to 4.9 million (8.3% of the population) by 2001. Labour Force Survey (LFS) data from 2007 suggests that the current percentage of foreign born UK citizens stands at around 10.7%. The highest percentage of foreign born people currently residing in the UK come from India (approximately 568,700) according to LFS data. All these factors have contributed to larger social housing waiting lists across the UK and the increase in the rise of migrants and different ethnic minority groups immigrating into the UK has led to a debate surrounding the issue of social housing allocation amongst ethnic minority groups. Law (1996:87) believes that social housing allocation and policy can lead to ‘blatant exclusion’ in the extent of housing markets. Ratcliffe (1999:4) believes that this exclusion relates to processes of territoriality, and both immigration control and racial harassment constitute towards exclusion. For example, Ratcliffe views racial harassment as a source of ‘ethnic cleansing’ in its most extreme form, in which existing residents feel like they are ‘pushed out’, and potential new residents identified as ‘out-groups’ due to their different ethnic race are discouraged from moving into an area (1999:4). This can cause the ghettoisation of neighbourhoods based along racial lines, which can lead to increased racial tension and hatred amongst various ethnic groups. The need for adequate social housing allocation policy is therefore necessary to not only reduce inequality between ethnic groups, but to also promote harmony and a peaceful multicultural society in which people from all ethnic backgrounds can coincide. Before identifying existing evidence of (in)equality, I believe it is important to identify this very term. According to Ratcliffe ‘the notion of (in)equality can relate to objectives, forms/degrees of access and outcomes to particular social structures within society’ (1999:5). For example, in order to get good quality housing, people must also have good access and high achievement in other institutional areas, e.g. education and employment. This suggests that housing allocation and inequality between ethnic groups can be determined by wider socio-demographic factors, i.e. the better grades a person achieves at school, the better likelihood they are to get a well paid job, and as such, the increased likelihood they are to live in adequate and safe residential neighbourhoods. In order for local authorities and the government to tackle racial inequality within the housing sector, it appears a holistic approach will be needed. Rutter and Lasorre (2009) highlight that attempts to create fair systems for allocating social housing date back to the Housing Act of 1936, in which local authorities were required to give reasonable preference for social housing to applicants who met ‘certain criteria’. After 1945, there was a strong notion that social housing should be provided for the most vulnerable in society. However, it is this ‘certain criteria’ which people had to meet in order to be eligible for social housing which has been strongly criticised. There is substantial evidence of racial discrimination in the Housing Act of 1936 against those deemed to be ‘feckless or undesirable’. Over the past 30 years a number of studies have highlighted discrimination against black and ethnic minority households in the allocation of social housing. Henderson and Karn (1987) for example highlight that black and ethnic minority people tended to be allocated worst quality housing. Mullings (1991) also highlights how the institutional discrimination of social landlords has failed to provide adequate sized housing for larger families, which are more prevalent among some ethnic minority communities. Homeless and housing charity Shelter (1995) also highlights that ethnic minority families also appear to spend longer in temporary accommodation before being granted permanent social housing. The 2000 British Crime Survey also indicated that over half of racially motivated incidents took place at black and Asian respondent’s dwellings. This suggests that ethnic minority groups are subject to a disproportionate amount of crime compared to their white counterparts. This could be because they are allocated social housing in rougher neighbourhoods where crime rates are higher. The Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) also found evidence of racism and ethnic minority disadvantage in its investigations. For example, the CRE’s 1984 investigation into the London Borough of Hackney found that white housing staff tended to allocate the worst housing to black households. Since the CRE’s Hackney investigation, the Race Relations Act in 2000 has attempted to tackle the social inequalities experienced by ethnic minorities in regard to their social housing needs. However, this has been problematic and in some instances unmanageable according to the report. For example, government research combined by a speech by the then Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescot, in 2005 indicated that ethnic minority communities have less understanding of their housing rights and social housing allocation systems compared to white British groups. Rutter and Lasorre also report that the housing of ethnic minorities has become increasingly segregated, in which local authorities deliberately housed families from ethnic minority communities in groups in particular areas. This was due in part to try and relieve racial tensions in other local areas. However, in the long term, entrenched segregation can also build up racial tensions. In May 2007, Margaret Hodge, MP for Barking also suggested that new migrants should have fewer rights to social housing than established British families. Anti-immigration groups gave great prominence to her views, and minority far right political parties such as the British National Party (BNP) attempted to gain support by focussing on local concerns about the allocation of social housing for immigrants. Their main tactics and policies centred on attempting to highlight how immigrants and ethnic minorities ‘take British people’s jobs’, and take advantage of the British benefit system such as free council housing. However, despite Rutter and Latorre (2009) highlighting the lack of evidence that shows social housing allocation systems favour one ethnic minority group over another, there are strong perceptions that migrants displace British social housing applicants. For example, media reporting of migration issues and social housing allocation is known to be a significant factor in influencing the public’s attitude formation and perceptions about immigration to set the public agenda. These negative attitudes towards immigrants are bound up with fears of diversity and change. Evidence of these anti-immigration views are evident in the British press, such as the Daily Express newspaper, which ran the headline ‘Immigration is out of control’ in June, 2008. The article uses strong biased and emotive language to suggest that immigration is out of control and ethnic minorities are coming to the UK to take British people’s houses and jobs, e.g. ‘it is now clear that 2.3 million people have been allowed to flock through the ‘’open door’’ into Britain’. Publications such as this highlight the racial tensions that still exist within British society, and also influence public opinion, and hence government policy. According to Jones (2010), the issue of overcrowding and how to resolve it has become an increasingly recognised problem for the UK government and refers to the lack of space and insufficient rooms for the number of people living there. Jones (2010) also states that The National Housing Federation (2009) highlights that 565,000 households in England were overcrowded in 2008. Twinch (2010) states that 654,000 households were overcrowded in England by 2009, which homeless and housing charity Shelter describes as the highest level since 1995. They also warn that by 2013, 3 million people will be living in overcrowded homes. However, the 2001 Census data suggests that overcrowding in the UK’s social housing sector is not equal, and ethnic minority groups have a higher likelihood of living in overcrowded accommodation compared to their white counterparts. Figure 1 indicates that Bangladeshi and Black African households experience the greatest levels of overcrowding. For example, 44% of Bangladeshis and 42% of Black Africans resided in overcrowded living quarters in 2001, compared with just 6% of White British households. The Office for National Statistics (2001) also indicates that Bangladeshi households were the largest, containing an average of 4.5 people. Twenty-six percent of Pakistani households were also found to be overcrowded, containing an average of 4.1 people, compared with an average of just 2.7 people in Black African households. However, Black Africans had smaller houses and less living space, which meant 42% of them suffered from overcrowding. In London, Bangladeshi households were 5 times as likely to live in overcrowded households compared to White British households. Figure 1 – Overcrowded Households By Ethnic Group Cited from Office for National Statistics (2001) Jones (2010) highlights a number of factors which have contributed towards overcrowding amongst ethnic minorities including their bigger family size, limited range of housing options and concentration in the social housing sector or in poorer private rented properties. Due to a disproportionate number of ethnic minorities in overcrowded living conditions they also suffer from a disproportionate amount of negative detrimental effects compared to white people. For example, Jones’s (2010) research regarding the needs of Birmingham’s Somali community indicated that overcrowding affected the physical, mental and emotional well-being of all family members, and the health, education and future prospects of their children. Lower than average incomes and higher unemployment amongst ethnic minorities also resulted in a higher proportion of ethnic minorities seeking social housing. As a result, access to housing of a sufficient size is problematic, and results in many ethnic minorities living in overcrowded conditions (Jones, 2010). Ratcliffe (1999) also acknowledges that the minorities in Bradford suffer disproportionately from housing stress within urban areas. For example, the data he collected from the City of Bradford Metropolitan Council (CBMC, 1993) indicated that three-quarters of all Bradford’s Bangladeshi residents lived in areas of multiple stress, with a large proportion of minority households dependent on means tested benefit and dwellings designated as unfit or in series disrepair. This suggests that ethnic minorities face greater inequality when it comes to the social housing sector. However, the CBMC have attempted to rectify the disproportionate experiences of Bradford’s ethnic minority populations. In 1995, Bradford Housing Forum sponsored a major study to determine the housing needs of minority communities, such as larger social houses and employment schemes especially designed for ethnic minorities. Key findings of the inequality experienced by ethnic minorities includes the finding that only 35% of Bangladeshi and 55% of Pakistani households weren’t overcrowded. Levels of reported defects and disrepair such as dampness and leaking roofs were reported in 43% of all minority household, which suggests the council are not adequately catering for the needs of minority groups. This evidence suggests that policy makers have neglected the housing needs of minority groups. The present criteria for allocating social housing is outlined in the Housing Act 1996, which has consequently been amended in 2002 and 2004. Under the act, immigrants including asylum seekers, students and work visa holders have no entitlement to social housing. This indicates that UK-born people have the most rights to housing, regarding of their ethnic background. Analysis of Rutter and Latorre’s (2009) Labour Force Survey also highlights differential patterns of home ownership between the UK born population and the foreign born population. Amongst the UK born heads of households, 74% are owner occupiers (a rise from 66% in 1991), 17% live in social housing, whilst only 7% are private tenants. In stark contrast, only 17% of foreign born people own their own home, whilst 11% live in social housing and 64% are private tenants. The Office for National Statistics (2001) breaks down these statistics even further, and Figure 2 highlights that Indians were the most likely of any ethnic group to own their own homes (76%), whilst White British households were second with 70% home ownership. Black African (26%) and Bangladeshi (37%) were the least likely ethnic groups to own their own homes. Black African and Bangladeshi households were also the two ethnic groups most likely to be living in socially rented accommodation (50% and 48% respectively). Figure 2 – Home Ownership by Ethnic Group Cited from Office for National Statistics (2001) Despite the differences between home ownership, Rutter and Latorre’s (2009) analysis of social housing allocation policies showed no evidence that social housing allocation favours foreign migrants over UK citizens. They highlight that the housing policies represented an attempt to prioritise the neediest at a time of severe shortage in the supply of social housing. This suggests that the allocation of housing policies were as fair as they could be. However, Rutter and Latorre (2009) also admit that there was a small amount of evidence which suggests that housing policies may, unintentionally discriminate against ethnic minority communities. For example, some local authority social housing policies gave priority to certain social characteristics, e.g. a local connection to a specific area. This has the potential to discriminate ethnic minority groups who generally haven’t lived in the UK for a long period of time, or those who don’t have relatives close by. In conclusion, social housing allocation policies represent an attempt to prioritise those in most need with accommodation. However, it appears evident that the severe lack of social housing in the UK has re-ignited the unfair allocation of social housing debate. On the one hand, reduced social housing has led to evidence that racial discrimination has led to the unequal treatment of ethnic minorities within the housing sector. For example, they are generally allocated poorer housing in rougher neighbourhoods compared to their white counterparts. This has led to them suffering from a disproportionate of crime according to the British Crime Survey (2001). There is also evidence that local authorities have (and perhaps unintentionally) segregated ethnic minority groups from mainstream society. Media representations of ethnic minority immigrants migrating the UK and ‘taking British jobs’, abusing the benefit systems and threatening British culture can also affect the public’s perception of ethnic minorities, which in turn can influence government policy. The disproportionate overcrowding of ethnic minority housing, and fewer home ownership amongst ethnic minorities has also contributed to unequal social housing allocation. Rutter and Latorre (2009) also found no evidence that social housing allocation policies discriminated against white groups, which suggests people of ethnic origin are more likely to receive unequal treatment in the allocation of social housing. However, they also state that they found social housing allocation policies showed no evidence that foreign migrants are favoured over UK citizens, and the allocation of social housing is more to do with providing those with the greatest needs help in times of severe housing shortage. References British Crime Survey (2000). Social and Welfare. Available at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/ssd/social.asp Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) (1984) Race and Council Housing in Hackney, London: CRE. Daily Express by Whitehead, M (June 2nd 2008) ‘Immigration is Out of Control’. Available at http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/46564/%3Cscript%20language=Immigration-is-out-of-controlImmigration-is-out-of-controlImmigration-is-out-of-control Henderson, J and Karn, V (1987) Race, Class and State Housing: Inequality in the Allocation of Public Housing. Aldershot, Gower. Hills, J (2007) Ends and Means: The Future Role of Social Housing in England. London: Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics. Jones, A (2010) Better Housing Briefing: Black and Minority Ethnic Communities’ Experience of Overcrowding. Race Equality Foundation Briefing Paper. Law, I (1996) Racism, Ethnicity and Social Policy. Hemel Hempstead, prentice Hall Mullings, B (1991) The Colour of Money: The Impact of Housing Investment and Decision Making on Black Housing Outcomes in London. London Race and Housing Research Unit. National Housing Federation (2009) Home Truths 2009: How the Recession has Increased Housing Need. London: National Housing Foundation Office for National Statistics (2001) Focus on Ethnicity and Identity. Available at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1699 Ratcliffe P (1999) ''Race', education and the discourse of 'exclusion': a critical research note', Race Ethnicity And Education, 2 (1), 149 - 155 (1361-3324) Rutter and Latorre (2009) Labour Force Survey: Social Housing Allocation and Immigrant Communities Report. Available at http://www.reportingthebnp.org/wp-content/uploads/ehrc_report_-_social_housing_allocation_and_immigrant_communities.pdf Shelter (1995) No Place to learn: Homelessness and Education. London: Shelter Twinch, E (2010) Number 10 Rejects Overcrowding Petition. Inside Housing. Read More