Andy Steele. Alison Tickner

Transcription

1 Facing the Facts A base-line study of the housing and related needs of the Black and Minority Ethnic community in Essex.

2

3 Facing the Facts A base-line study of the housing and related needs of the Black and Minority Ethnic community in Essex. by Andy Steele Salford Housing & Urban Studies Unit University of Salford & Alison Tickner ATH Consultancy Ltd

4

5 Acknowledgements This study would not have been possible without the vision and commitment of the members of Essex Housing Officers Group (EHOG) and particularly the Essex Housing Research Network who were responsible for overseeing the study and provided invaluable advice and support to the project team. The Steering Group comprised: Philip Sullivan: Tim Gray: Carl Hockey: Nhi Huynh-Ma: Tim Lucas: Helen McCabe: Sue Moore: Jan Plummer: Wendy Smith: Chris Sobey: David Tant: Donna Upham: Guinness Trust - Chair and EHOG representative Estuary Housing Association Chelmer Housing Partnership Chelmsford Borough Council Braintree District Council Thurrock Borough Council Chelmsford Borough Council Essex County Council Housing Corporation Epping Forest District Council Essex County Council Basildon District Council Funding for the study was made available by EHOG and the Housing Corporation through its Innovation and Good Practice programme. The research team are particularly grateful to the Housing Corporation for providing funding to support the engagement of the Community Interviewers in a pivotal role in this study. Finally, we would like to express our gratitude to all those from the Black & Minority Ethnic (BME) community who participated in the study. This study would not have been possible without their involvement and commitment.

6

7 Contents Section I: Introduction 8 Introduction 8 Study Aims 9 Section II: Background Information 11 Introduction 11 Overview 11 Section III: General Approach and Methodology 16 Introduction 16 Stage 1: Review of existing secondary information 16 Stage 2: Service provider interviews 16 Stage 3: Interviews with BME households 17 Interviewer Training 19 Interviewer Support 20 Stage 4: Focus Group discussions 20 Section IV: Mapping of the BME Communities 22 Introduction 22 Section V: Views of Service Providers 24 Introduction 24 Consultation Findings Existing secondary information on the BME communities 24 Access to Services 26 Gaps in service provision 28 Race Equality and Cultural Awareness 29 The Community Organisations Perspective 30 Section VI: Household Survey 32 Introduction 32 Respondent and Household Characteristics 34 Current Property 34 Housing Need 36 Views on the Area of Residence 37 BME-Specific Community Facilities 45 Access to Housing and Advice 46

8 Awareness of Local Authority and Housing Association Services 48 Consultation 49 Health and Support Needs 52 Future Moving Intentions 53 Section VII: Emerging Issues 56 Introduction 56 Knowledge of BME Issues 56 Consultation with BME Communities 57 Specialist BME Services 58 Barriers to Accessing Services 58 Community Organisation 59 Housing and Health Care Needs 59 Inter-agency Co-ordination 60 Section VIII: Discussion 61 Introduction 61 Access to Services 61 Provision of Information 63 Consultation 63 Inter-agency Collaboration 64 Community Cohesion and Sustainability 64 Further Work and Dissemination 64 Section IX: Lessons for the Future 66 Introduction 66 BME Community Involvement 66 Publicity around the Study 66 Timescales 67 Inclusivity 67 Appendix I: Good Practice Guidance 68 Appendix 2: Full List of Organisations Contacted 69

9 Tables Table 1: Broad Ethnic Grouping 11 Table 2: Individual Ethnic Grouping (Census 2001) 12 Table 3: Distribution of BME groups across Essex 13 Table 4: Approximate comparison and Table 5: Distribution of recruitment posters 18 Table 6: Ethnicity of community interviewers 19 Table 7: BME community residence patterns 23 Table 8: Number of interviews achieved per Local Authority area 32 Table 9: Ethnic origin 33 Table 10: Tenure of property 35 Table 11: Level of overcrowding by area according to household survey 37 Table 12: Views on measures to improve housing situation 39 Table 13: Rating of facilities/aspects 40 Table 14: Rating of potential problems in the area 42 Table 15: Level of satisfaction with the area 44 Table 16: Problems accessing housing 46 Table 17: Awareness of council and housing association services by Local Authority 48 Table 18: Preferred Method of consultation 49 Table 19: Incidence of health problems 52

10

11 Section I: Introduction Introduction The County of Essex, located in the South East of England, is administered by fourteen local authorities, two of which are Unitary (Southend and Thurrock), and consists of a number of important urban centres and rural hinterlands. Its proximity to London means that some areas of the county are within commuter distance of the capital. Its population according to the 2001 Census was 1,310,835, with the largest concentrations in Basildon, Southend-on-Sea and Chelmsford. The Essex Housing Officers Group (EHOG), which consists of senior representatives from Local Authorities and Registered Social Landlords across Essex, has become increasingly aware of the paucity of information on the needs of the Black and Minority Ethnic communities living in the County. The results of a survey among the RSL and Local Authority sector, sponsored by the Essex Research Network (ERN) which reports to EHOG, found that of twelve social housing providers who responded to the survey from across the County: Only two had dedicated equalities officers and less than half of the completed questionnaires portrayed contact with BME groups in the relevant areas; There was less activity with BME groups among the RSL sector; Most organisations offer a form of translation service and offer staff training in equalities; and that Generally, there was very little contact with groups across the County. At the same time, the local authorities and housing associations were keen to ensure that their policies and practices were inclusive, that consultation approaches involve representation from all groups and that future housing provision meets the varying needs of all the population. Hence, the general consensus among the social housing providers was that to meet their legal requirements and endeavour to adopt good practice approaches in relation to their diverse communities, they needed to have a greater appreciation of the housing and related needs of the BME population. To this end, a research brief was developed by the ERN which was put out to tender. The Salford Housing and Urban Studies Unit at the University of Salford and ATH Consultancy, based in Lancashire, were commissioned to undertake the work.

12 Study Aims The principal aim of the study was to assist all Essex Local Authorities and housing providers to give equal access to services for people from BME backgrounds, ensuring that the culture exists that will empower these communities and integrate their needs and aspirations into every day housing provider activities. In order for this to be accomplished it was recognized that the research study would need: To collate and document the information held by housing providers across Essex as well as other agencies on the BME communities in specific localities; To define which services may need to be promoted to minority groups, such as housing advice, welfare rights; To define those groups most likely to benefit from enhanced communication (including access to services) and information in a range of formats, such as minority languages, tape recorded information, web-based information and so on; To identify methods for on-going engagement and communication between service providers and identified BME groups as well as specific means of facilitating this on-going engagement; To identify the full range of issues, which may act as a barrier to BME communities to access services; and To ensure that any research findings that have a bearing on investment strategies either for existing or potential new housing are highlighted. In essence the research objectives can be summarised as: Documenting the housing and related needs of all BME communities resident in the County; Identifying their views on accessing services in their locality; and Identifying appropriate ways to engage with these communities at the operational and strategic level. No previous study of the housing needs of the BME community in Essex has been undertaken and, with the exception of one other study in Bedfordshire, this

13 is the first study of its kind to adopt a county-wide approach to a BME housing needs assessment. This report details the findings of this study. Section two provides a background to the study drawing heavily on the 1991 and 2001 census information to present a picture of the current size and composition of the BME community in the County. Section three describes the methodology that was employed in the study and especially the recruitment and involvement of community interviewers, one of the unique features of this project, while section four attempts to map the BME communities across the County based on the household survey findings. Section five then provides an overview of the main issues derived from the interviews with key service providers and other stakeholders. The sixth section presents the findings from the household survey which incorporated the views of a range of different communities among the sample of 736 interviews. The seventh section summarises some of the pertinent issues to arise from the study, collating the information from the range of data collection methods used while the penultimate section provides a discussion of these issues and more particularly, gives guidance on possible ways forward. Finally, the last section provides a reflective comment on the study and in particular considers what aspects of the study were deemed to be successful and why as well as highlighting those elements which could be improved. This will ensure that similar, future studies can benefit from the lessons learnt from this project.

14 Section II: Background Information Introduction The Census of Population 2001 provides the most up-to-date and authoritative information on the resident BME population within Essex. However, due to the selected release of the Census details it is only possible at this point in time to provide a general overview of the information relating to the ethnic grouping of the population together with a comparison with the 1991 Census findings. Overview The 2001 Census asked households to indicate their country of birth. In 1991, 2.4% of the residents from Essex reported being born outside the EU. In 2001 this had risen to 3.1%. In terms of ethnic origin 2.9% of residents, equating to 38,000 people, belonged to Mixed, Asian, Black, Chinese or other (non-white) ethnic groups in A further 2.6% belonged to the white minority groups of White Irish or White Other, making a total of 5.5% of people from all BME groups within the county. This is considerably lower than across England, where 9% of residents reported being from these former groups and a further 3.9% were White Irish or White Other, making a total of 13%. The largest broad ethnic group in Essex is that of Asian or Asian British, accounting for 13,000 people or the equivalent of 1% of the population. There are also 11,000 people who described themselves as being of Mixed heritage, 6,000 Black/Black British people and 7,000 people from Chinese or other ethnic groups. Table 1 shows a breakdown of the BME population according to broad ethnic group, while Table 2 considers specific ethnic groups. Table 1: Broad Ethnic Grouping Broad Ethnic Group No. Essex % Essex White 1,272, Mixed 11, Asian/Asian British 13, Black/Black British 6, Chinese or Other 7, Total 37,

15 Table 2: Individual Ethnic Grouping (Census 2001) Ethnic Category Ethnic Group No. % Essex Essex White British 1,238, Irish 11, Other White 22, Mixed White & Black 3, Caribbean White & Black African 1, White & Asian 3, Other Mixed 2, Asian or Asian British Indian 6, Pakistani 1, Bangladeshi 1, Other Asian 2, Black or Black British Caribbean 2, African 2, Other Black Chinese or other ethnic group Chinese 4, Other ethnic group 2, All people 1,310, The largest minority ethnic groups in Essex are White Other, White Irish, Indian, Chinese, Mixed: White and Asian and Mixed: White and Black Caribbean. In comparison with the rest of the East of England, Essex has a lower BME population. Within the region Luton has by far the highest proportion of nonwhite residents (35%). The counties of Bedfordshire (6.7%), Hertfordshire (6.3%) and Cambridgeshire (4.1%) all have higher proportions of non-white residents than Essex (2.9%). Distribution of BME groups across Essex Harlow and Epping Forest have the highest proportion of non-white residents in Essex, with 5.1% and 4.9% of residents belonging to these groups respectively. They also have the next highest proportion of residents in all ethnic minority groups, including white minorities at 8.8% in Epping Forest and 8.2% in Harlow. The highest proportions of non-white residents are in Colchester (3.8%), Brentwood (3.6%), Chelmsford (3.3%) and Basildon (3.1%). The other districts have lower levels at 1.8% or less.

16 A breakdown of the individual ethnic groups (2001) according to district within Essex is shown in table 3. Table 3: Distribution of BME groups across Essex Area White British White Irish Other White M ixed White & Caribbean M ixed White & Bla ck Caribbean M ixed White & Asian Other Mixed Indian Pakistani Bangladeshi Other Asian Caribbean African Other Black Chinese Other Essex Basildon Braintree Brentwood Castle Point Chelmsford Colchester Epping Forrest Harlow Maldon Rochford Tendring Uttlesford Southend Thurrock

17 Although an ethnicity question was included in the 1991 census, it is difficult to compare the results of the 2001 census with that of the 2001 since the ethnic categories differ in important ways. The 1991 categorisation failed to adequately record a number of ethnic groups, such as the Irish, Black British as well as mixed identities. Furthermore, the white group was not sub-divided and as such White British and other white minority groups were combined. Those who were from a mixed heritage were asked to choose the one group to which they felt they belonged or to tick other and write in details, concealing them in the tables. The inclusion of the new Mixed categories in the 2001 census is a major obstacle to comparison with 1991 for Essex. The Mixed group contains one third of all non-white Essex residents, a substantial proportion. Even a comparison between white and non-white must be approximate, as in 1991 some people of mixed heritage may have identified themselves as white and some white people may have recorded their ethnicity as Other. An approximate comparison suggests that people from non-white minority groups have increased over the ten year period by around 1%, from 2% to 3% of the population. The Mixed, Asian, Black, Chinese and other (non-white) population have grown considerably in absolute terms, from about 22,000 people in 1991 to about 38,000 in As the Mixed category did not exist in 1991 and therefore, people with a mixed heritage were distributed across all the other groups it is impossible to tell in precise terms which groups have experienced an increase or decrease in numbers. It would seem that particular BME groups have increased at a faster rate than the white population. The Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities were the fastest growing, however, in numerical terms they were the smallest to start with and only gained an additional 700 and 800 members, respectively, over the intervening period.

18 Table 4 shows an approximate comparison between 1991 and 2001 with ethnic groups combined to give the best fit. Table 4: Approximate comparison and 2001 Ethnic Group % Population % Population % Change in 1991 in 2001 White Indian Pakistani Bangladeshi Other Asian Black or Black British Chinese Other Mixed Total

19 Section III: General Approach and Methodology Introduction In order to meet the study objectives a four stage research programme was developed. In addition to this, a series of briefing sessions were convened at various sites around Essex with a range of service providers from the social housing sector invited to attend. The intention of these sessions was to acquaint the key agencies with the main elements of the study and encourage them to actively participate in it, for example by publisicing the study within their own locality and to their customer base. A pro forma was also distributed during these sessions seeking information from the service providers firstly, about the BME community groups in their area and any contacts, either informal or formal that they were aware of and secondly, any reports or publications on BME housing, health and social care needs. Following on from this the formal methodology was implemented. Stage 1 consisted of a review of the available background literature on the housing and related needs of the BME community. Stage 2 involved in-depth interviews with a range of service providers from the statutory and voluntary sector to gauge their views on the needs of the BME community while stage three consisted of interviews with BME households and the final stage, that of focus group discussions, was designed to glean additional information either from underrepresented groups within the sample survey or to enable elaboration on some of the issues arising from the survey. Stage 1: Review of existing secondary information The range of secondary sources available within the county which focused on the needs of the BME communities was limited. Use was made of the 1991 and 2001 census, research based reports provided by health and social care agencies and Local Authority and housing association policy documents Stage 2: Service provider interviews In conjunction with the Project Steering Group a wide range of service providers and community groups were interviewed. These organisations included: Local Authorities Housing Associations Representatives of the County Council Community groups representing specific communities, e.g. the Chinese Faith groups Police Citizens Advice Bureau

20 A full list of these organisations contacted is included in Appendix 2. The focus of the interviews was on their views of the needs of the BME communities from their own perspective as well as gauging an understanding of their knowledge of the BME communities in their area. In total 28 interviews were completed. Stage 3: Interviews with BME households The traditional approach to BME housing needs studies where the emphasis is upon a more quantitative approach, is to employ the services of a specialist market research agency (Market Research UK) with fully-trained bi-lingual interviewers to undertake the personal interviews. However, more recently, the benefits of using BME people from the local community, who receive training in interviewer techniques, has received wide-spread support due to the benefits it brings to the communities themselves. This latter approach was initially adopted for the study on the basis that it provided: The opportunity for non-economic members of the community, such as those with child care/family responsibilities or those who are currently unemployed to be engaged in flexible employment; The opportunity for members of the BME community to acquire new skills or to update existing skills which could lead to new employment or training opportunities; The potential to increase the capacity of the community to participate in similar research ventures in the future and especially their possible future involvement in any formal consultation with service providers; and The opportunity for individual members to be paid for their time which contributes directly to the financial and economic stability of the community. In addition, this study also highlighted two other inter-related and indirect benefits of employing community interviewers: The potential for increasing social integration within and between BME communities; and The opportunity for people from different communities to appreciate issues of culture and tradition relevant to specific community groups.

21 As well as benefiting the individual interviewers and their community, their involvement, it has been argued, engenders a greater sense of ownership of the study and its findings by the BME communities. In this sense, the research represents a true partnership between the research commissioners, the consultants and the BME communities. In this way the research is undertaken in conjunction with the communities rather than them being seen as passive research subjects, in other words, research is done with them and not to them. Furthermore, this approach can often result in the views of the more hard to reach BME groups being included in the study. Given the spatial distribution of the BME communities throughout Essex and the lack of formal or even informal networks among the different communities, a recruitment strategy was developed to target as many BME communities as possible. This strategy had a number of elements: The dedicated website for the project carried an advertisement for the recruitment of community interviewers; Posters advertising the needs for community interviewers were sent to all the main social housing providers within Essex who were subsequently asked to display the posters in a range of local public venues, including post offices, health centres/gp surgeries, community centres, libraries and local housing offices. One testament to the level of commitment to the study by these service providers is the number of posters which were sent to a wide range of venues as highlighted in the table below: Table 5: Distribution of recruitment posters Venue No. displaying poster Post offices 22 Places of worship 21 Educational establishments 14 Community centers 13 Dentist practices/gp surgeries 21 Local Authority local housing offices 32 Voluntary groups 28 Other (e.g. libraries, parish councils etc.) 74 Total 225 Note: 13 Primary Care Trusts were also contacted and 350 posters distributed via these organisations Advertisements placed in Local Authority and Housing Association Tenants Newsletters; and

22 A Community Interviewer information pack together with an application form was distributed to all known BME community and voluntary groups in Essex. Although prospective community interviewers had to complete an application form there was no formal selection procedure. Rather it was decided that the potential to be a community interviewer should be open to all, provided they had the necessary literacy skills and that once they had completed the interviewer training programme their role in the study would be discussed on an individual basis. A total of 25 people took part in the training days which were held at two central venues in Basildon and Colchester. Interviewer Training The programme for the interviewer training was similar to that advocated by the Market Research Society and included the following topics: aims and purpose of the study; the role of the interviewer, interview techniques, issues of confidentiality and personal security, sample identification and selection techniques and recording information. The participants were also introduced to the interview schedule and given the opportunity to practice using it within the group setting. All those who completed the training were awarded a Certificate of Attendance by the University of Salford. The interviewers were recruited from a range of ethnic groups as shown below: Table 6: Ethnicity of community interviewers Ethnic group Number Bangladeshi 2 Pakistani 1 Indian 2 Black African 11 Black Caribbean 4 Mixed origin 2 Chinese 2 British Asian 1 Total 25 While interviewers from a number of important ethnic groups were recruited, they did not represent the full range of ethnic groups resident within Essex, for example, no Irish community interviewers were engaged.

23 Sample selection In the absence of any comprehensive sampling frame for BME households in Essex, quota sampling was used on the basis of the 2001 census. In this way, specific targets were given to each interviewer in terms of the ethnicity of the household to be interviewed and the location (i.e. Local Authority area which was identified via the relevant postcodes). Based on the weekly completed interview returns from the community interviewers, the decision was taken to engage a market research agency to assist in completing the required number of interviews. Within the timescale allocated for the fieldwork only 736 of the required 800 interviews had been achieved with 50% of these being undertaken by the community interviewers. Interviewer Support A range of mechanisms were put in place to support the community interviewers in the field including: Initial briefing session following the completion of the first two or three interviews to identify and discuss any problems encountered; Accompanied interviews with an experienced interviewer where requested/required; On-going telephone contact to review progress; and Final debriefing session. Stage 4: Focus Group discussions In addition to the household interview, seven focus groups were convened with members of the following: The Chinese community; Asylum Seekers and Refugees; Young Africans; Asian women; Sikh community; the Community Interviewers; and those who had taken part in the household interview and agreed to be further involved in the study

24 These discussions were used to gather more detailed information on some of the pertinent issues arising from the household survey with the questions tailored to the specific community groups in question. The findings from these discussions have been incorporated within the section considering the findings from the household survey.

25 Section IV: Mapping of the BME communities Introduction The 2001 Census provides an indication of the BME groups and their relative size, which are resident within each Local Authority area. The household survey gives a more up-to-date picture of the current settlement patterns of the BME community. This section highlights the distribution of minority communities throughout Essex. However, it needs to be borne in mind that this mapping exercise is only indicative since a sample survey was undertaken rather than a census of all BME households. Although the numbers within the sample of the different ethnic groups in some areas is quite small, previous studies suggest that, at least for some ethnic groups, members of the same community tend to be geographically concentrated. It should also be noted that from the point of view of residence patterns, Local Authority boundaries are not particularly relevant as kinship/community networks may extend across a number of Local Authority areas.

26 Table 7: BME community residence patterns LA area British Irish Other white White & Black Caribbean White & Black African White & Asian Indian Pakistani Bangla - deshi Other Asian Caribbean African Other Black Chinese Malaysian Other Basildon X X X X X X X X X X X X Braintree X X X X X X X X X Brentwood X X X X X X X X X Castle Point X X X X X Chelmsford X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Colchester X X X X X X X X X X X Epping Forest X X X X X X X X X Harlow X X X X X X X Maldon X X X X Rochford X X X X Southend X X X X X X X X X X X X Tendring X X X X X X X X Thurrock X X X X X X X Uttlesford X X X X X The above table reveals that there is a wide variation in the number of individual BME groups at the Local Authority level. Those authorities which appear to have the greatest diversity of ethnic groups include: Chelmsford; Colchester, Southend; and Basildon. In contrast, Maldon, Rochford, Castle Point and Uttlesford would appear to have much fewer individual ethnic communities within their boundaries. The other notable feature from the table is that certain BME communities are more widespread across Essex than others. Those which are more geographically dispersed include the Black Africans (evident within all 14 local authorities), the Indian community (residing in 13 of the 14), the Irish (12), and the Chinese. By way of contrast, the Bangladeshi community live in just 3 areas and the Pakistani in 7. This is a different picture to that highlighted by the 2001 Census which suggests that these two communities can be found in all 14 council areas, although the proportions in each do vary considerably. In this case, the survey findings are likely to reflect the accessibility of these groups in particular Local Authority areas. Those in the Other category include one Thai, one Brazilian and one Latin American.

27 Section V: Views of Service Providers Introduction This section considers the views of a range of organisations operating within Essex who either provide services to the public (and as such include BME communities) or act as advocates for or represent the interests of BME communities. A variety of methods were adopted for this first stage of the study, where the emphasis was upon consultation with as many service providers and community groups as possible and included: Interviews (either personal or telephone) with key personnel from all the Local Authorities within Essex and the majority of the mainstream housing associations with relatively large numbers of properties within the County. Contact details were provided by EHOG and generally included Policy Officers or Senior Managers. Interviews with key staff from twelve community groups from across the county. A postal survey among other community groups. Eight such groups responded to a request for information via this method. Telephone contact with service providers outside Essex but whose operational interests and client groups were drawn from the Essex area; The community groups who were consulted represented a wide range of BME communities including Indian, Bangladeshi, Chinese, Italian, Bosnian, Jewish, African and Caribbean. Consultation Findings Existing secondary information on the BME communities With the exception of one Local Authority, none of the remaining local authorities or housing associations were aware of any locally based information which identified the profile or composition of the minority groups in their area. Although most of the local authorities did maintain records of their clients, either as applicants for rehousing or current tenants, few felt that this information was comprehensive for a variety of reasons:

28 The inclusion of ethnicity within the relevant forms was, for some, only recent addition and therefore the ethnic origin was only available for the most recent applicants/tenants: We ve only recently incorporated ethnicity in the form so we don t know about the ethnic origin for the majority of our applicants. The use of limited ethnic categories which did not enable differentiation among specific community groups (e.g. Black Africans and Black Caribbeans) and particularly the inability to differentiate between white minority groups. `Our classification has been very simplistic. We now realize that this makes it difficult to compare the information with the 2001 census. Completion of information about a person s ethnic origin is not compulsory and therefore, there were omissions within the information collected as some people from the BME community were reluctant provide this information. `We can t make people give us this information. For some people it is sensitive. With it not being obligatory, this makes it difficult for us to know the complete picture. The lack of comprehension of these databases raised concerns about: The ability to accurately profile the ethnicity of their tenant or applicant populations; The problem of undertaking longitudinal assessment of the changing profile of BME applicants and tenants; and The development of BME specific services based on an incomplete appreciation of their BME client database. In response to this perceived deficit in knowledge of the ethnicity of their tenants, some of the organisations were in the process of undertaking tenant surveys which would include an ethnicity question in order to update their database. However, concerns were noted about the response rates often elicited by such surveys. Hence, despite recognizing the importance of identifying the ethnicity of their clients (either as potential or actual tenants or service users), few were in a position to comment in an informed way about the BME composition of their clients.

29 While some of the social landlords reported an increase in the use of their services by minority groups, others were more sceptical, suggesting that any apparent increase was more likely to be a reflection of staff s increased awareness of the need to cater for BME communities. Hence, rather than an actual increase in BME service users, it was suggested that there had been an increase in observance or detection. Only anecdotal evidence existed about the range of BME communities resident in each locality and this was based on information gleaned from the 1991 Census and knowledge of community groups operating in the area. None of the organisations had undertaken housing needs studies of the BME communities in their locality. In some cases Borough-wide housing needs assessments had been undertaken which had included, by chance rather than by design, a small BME sample. However, invariably, due to the size of the sample, no separate analysis of this sub-sample had been undertaken and it had proved impossible to differentiate the specific BME groups in any meaningful way. A number of studies which focused on the health and social care needs of BME communities had been undertaken, for example, RBA Research (2001) and Green (undated). A study commissioned by the Mid Essex District Joint Consultative Committee, focusing on Mid-Essex (Braintree, Chelmsford and Maldon) was undertaken by Hindley (1999). Both of these studies independently highlight a range of social care needs among the different BME communities. In summary then, few service providers had little in the way of a comprehensive understanding of the composition, profile or size of the ethnic minority communities resident in their area. However, there was a general appreciation, despite the small number of BME people within some locations within Essex, of the need to be more informed about this section of the population and in particular their housing needs and aspirations and social and health care needs. The housing needs study was seen as an important vehicle for identifying the BME communities and developing appropriate consultative strategies: This [housing needs study] is just the first step to us finding out more about the minorities that live in our area. We need to know which communities live here and what they want from our services. We need to be in a position to consult with these groups. Access to Services Few of the service providers were able to comment in an informed way about the issue of access to services for BME groups, except to comment generally on the low-take up of services. This was seen to reflect a number of issues including: A perceived lack of knowledge on the part of the BME communities concerning the range of services that were available:

30 The lack of culturally sensitive services which were subsequently seen as being potentially discriminatory by BME groups; and The lack of front-line staff from the BME community and the implication that the service was white dominated and white centered and as such unwelcoming to BME people; It was suggested that historically few BME people had used their services and it was felt that such community groups had had to rely on self-help. The general perception elicited from the service providers was that the incidence of racial harassment among their tenants or other residents was nominal. However, there was no evidence to support this assertion since many of the organisations did not operate a racial harassment complaints policy, or if they did, the ethnicity of the perpetrator or victim was not always recorded. None of the service providers had established specialist services catering specially for BME communities. Some of the organisations were, however, supportive of such developments provided that sufficient demand for such services could be demonstrated. In contrast, others strongly opposed what they felt was a separatist approach which further served to only marginalised BME communities. This latter group preferred an approach which ensured that mainstream services were inclusive of all communities and were seen as such. Two of the housing associations held the middle ground position, that of developing specialist provision within a mainstream service, for example, employing outreach workers to work specifically with BME communities. Few of the organisations provided publicity material about their services in minority languages. This was explained in a number of ways: A lack of familiarity with the main minority languages used within the community; A perception that unless the publicity was specifically targeted at the BME community it was likely that it would not been seen by people within the BME community; The cost of translating written material for small minority groups where the demand for such services was generally seen as being low; The assumption that translation was not necessary, especially for the younger BME generations, whom it was assumed, could read and write English;

31 The view that having staff with a BME background negated the need for translation of written material; and Written translation was generally available upon request, for example in relation to the Tenants Newsletter and from experience, no one had requested such a service. Most of the organisations did subscribe to Language Line. However, few were aware if this facility had been used or had been involved in an evaluation of this service. Simply having access to this service was seen by some organisations as being all that they felt they had to provide in the way of interpretation and translation. `We use language Line so we don t need to provide anything else. We advertise where they should go what more can we do? Gaps in service provision Representatives from the Local Authorities and Housing Associations were asked to consider whether or not they felt that specialist provision was required for either particular BME communities or sections of these communities, for example women or older people. The responses revealed a lack of appreciation of the diversity of cultures and groups within the BME community and more specifically the cultural traditions and values of many of these groups. There was an implicit assumption made by some of the interviewees that if the BME person could speak English then they could not see why there was a need for specialist services. However, at the same time, over half of those interviewed did feel that there might be a need for specialist services for some groups including: Asian women and BME women generally fleeing domestic violence; Older Asians, given the changing pattern of extended family living among this community which could result in older members of the household requiring independent accommodation. However, some of the service providers were not convinced of the need for separate accommodation for older people from each of the minority groups suggesting instead that a facility for older BME people would suffice; I think there might be a need for independent housing for older minority people. It would be good to mix the cultures. Young people with support needs. However, there was a lack of clarity generally concerning the type of provision necessary, who should provide it and where it should be located.

32 Race Equality and Cultural Awareness All the service providers consulted had an equal opportunities policy of some description, although for some, upon further examination, it could be said that these represented little more than paper policies since: They were not necessarily inclusive in the groups that they covered (e.g. race was referred to in some cases but not religious affiliation or culture); They lacked detail in terms of the activities covered by the policy (e.g. staff development and access to services); They were not monitored or reviewed/updated regularly; and Responsibility for the policy generally rested with a junior member of staff and as such equal opportunities were generally not perceived to be a core feature of the organisation. In response to Central Government requirements, most of the organisations were in the process of developing or intended to develop in the near future, Race Equality Schemes. However, none of those organisations who had developed these schemes had consulted with BME communities about the detail of such policies, which is acknowledged to be an integral element of the good practice approach to developing these documents. Only one organisation had consulted with internal BME staff. What is particularly interesting is that some of the organisations felt that the time for consultation with BME communities was following the approval of the Scheme by their governing body. As one respondent noted: `We need to get council member approval before we go outside with it. There appears to be confusion here between the notion of consultation and that of dissemination. Most of the organisations had instigated some form of race and diversity training for staff. However, this varied greatly in terms of: the frequency of training (often the training was seen as a one-off session rather than something that would require a longer period of time to reflect changes in policies and practices; who the training was targeted at (for some organisations this training was only provided for recently appointed staff, with for other it was directed exclusively at senior staff; the content of the training; and further work in this area, such as an evaluation of the training or its impact on working practices.

33 The Community Organisations Perspective Despite a number of different community groups being consulted, representing a range of BME communities, the issues identified were generally common to all. It is important to bear in mind that many of the groups contacted declined to be seen as representing the interests of particular BME community groups, rather they felt that they only represented the needs of a specific minority of such communities. Many of the groups were very geographically localised in their membership and furthermore, the groups tended to see themselves as having a predominantly social rather than political/pressure group or advocacy role. Others offered some form of self-help, such as assistance to those who are unable to speak English. Furthermore, the lack of suitable meeting places (for instance community venues) was seen as an important barrier to the wider involvement of the communities. As the secretary of one of the community groups serving the Asian community commented: The groups are scattered around in tiny parts of all areas and we cannot bring these groups together if there is nowhere to bring them to. I realize that the answer is the same for everybody but premises are important if we want to cater for these people. A number of issues were identified in relation to access to services: There is a lack of targeted publicity about the range of services provided by individual agencies; The services are often only available or accessible within the main urban areas and not necessarily in the areas where the BME communities live; There was a reluctance to access some of the services as they were seen as overly bureaucratic and faceless ; `Black people sometimes want to see a black face to know that they will understand their needs. All they are often faced with is a sea of white faces. This acts like a barrier to some people. There was some concern that some of the services were not sufficiently sensitive to the cultural or religious needs of some BME clients. This was particularly felt to be the case for Asian women. Most community groups had had very little contact with service providers and few had been consulted about the services available from the statutory and voluntary sector or about the services provided by the community organisations to the BME community. As one of the respondents remarked:

34 We do a lot with the community but no one outside the community will be aware of it. These small community organisations were involved in a wide range of activities with BME groups, some of which were based on faith/religion (such as organizing prayer meetings) or social events (such as reading classes). Other activities undertaken were those that would normally be provided by the statutory sector, such as providing social care to older members of the community. A number of the groups provide a specialist service to specific groups within the community, for instance women, young people and those with specific language needs. An important role for some of the community groups, especially those who reported an influx of people from their own community in Essex, was that of acting as a translator/interpreter. Many of the groups felt isolated both geographically and in terms of assistance from other community groups. Only three of these organisations reported that they were part of a wider network which they felt would provide them with support. However, this network was seen as being very informal and based on personal contacts rather then being formalized. There was a call for the statutory authorities to be more pro-active in developing the capacity of community groups to enable them to reach out to a greater number of BME groups. One of the recurrent issues to arise from the interviews with the community organisation representatives was that there was felt to be an important socioeconomic divide within the BME communities. On the one hand it was suggested that professional people had moved into the county from the London area for work reasons. Many of this group were felt to be financially independent and generally regarded the community organisations as a means to network with people from their own ethnic group and social background. It was suggested that this group had few needs, especially housing needs, as they had been able to access services as and when required. The ability to speak English and awareness of and indulgence within the British culture were regarded as being important factors. At the other end of the spectrum were those from the community who had either recently moved to the area or who were economically and socially isolated. The view expressed was that this group had a range of needs which were not currently identified or being met.

35 Section VI: Household survey Introduction A target sample of 800 was identified across the whole of Essex with quotas being given to the community interviewers and latterly the market research company in terms of the required number of interviews per ethnic group per Local Authority area based on the 2001 census. However, at the same time, a degree of flexibility was built in to the sampling design to enable those community groups not specifically identified by the census (such as the white minority groups) to be included within the study. Ultimately, a sample of 736 household interviews was achieved. This provides a robust sample from which to draw conclusions about the BME community generally. However, where some of the smaller BME communities are referred to, given their size in the sample, some caution needs to be exercised in interpreting the findings. The same is true for those Local Authorities where the sample size is relatively small. The distribution of these across the 14 Local Authority areas is shown in table 8. Table 8: Number of interview achieved per Local Authority area Local Authority No. Achieved No. % Basildon Braintree Brentwood Castle Point Chelmsford Colchester Epping Forest Harlow Maldon Rochford Southend-on-Sea Tendring Thurrock Uttlesford Total According to the 2001 census the six local authorities with the largest BME populations are: Epping Forest; Harlow; Brentwood; Thurrock; Colchester and Southend-on-Sea. The table above shows that five of these six had the largest proportion of BME households within the sample. At the same time, there was an over representation within the survey of households from Southend-on-Sea