星空传媒

Reports into the disturbances that hit Bradford, Burnley and Oldham in the summer of 2001 singled out housing for criticism. Ted Cantle's study in particular blamed housing policy and provision for contributing to residential segregation and undercutting community cohesion.

However, those reports have been less forthcoming on how social landlords can help to solve the problem, and there is a dearth of practical guidance.

In response, the Chartered Institute of Housing, with support from the Housing Corporation, asked a team from the Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research at Sheffield Hallam University to explore how social landlords can support community cohesion.

The Local Government Association guidance defines community cohesion as a common vision and sense of belonging for all communities, where the diversity of people's different backgrounds and circumstances are appreciated and positively valued. Cohesion, it continues, means those from different backgrounds have similar opportunities in life and strong relationships between people from different backgrounds.

Using this definition, we developed a series of broad questions to help landlords review the strengths and weaknesses of current policy and practice (see factfile, below).

These questions raise various concerns.

They include discrimination by individual officers and institutional processes, however well-intentioned. Stereotyped judgements about particular groups and the consequent matching of applicants to areas where they are assumed to be best-suited have also sustained the segregation of ethnic groups. Landlords also fail to tackle the threat of harassment, restricting the housing choices of minority groups.

Getting it right
Recent innovations, however, are beginning to counter these entrenched problems and illustrate the major role that social landlords can play in furthering community cohesion.

A key objective of the Homehunter choice-based lettings scheme in Bradford is to increase access to the sector for south Asian households.

Central to the scheme are the officers who speak relevant community languages and go out to market social housing and support south Asian tenants. They inform people of opportunities and tell them how to apply.

As a result, lettings to minority ethnic households have increased more than fivefold since last year.

Rochdale-based Ashiana Housing Association developed the Canalside Community Induction Project to tackle problems of isolation and alienation among tenants moving into the neighbourhood and the community's fears that a new development to counter overcrowding in the Bangladeshi community could cause local conflict.

The scheme supports new residents, providing a welcome pack of information about the area and a visit from an induction worker who encourages contact with neighbours, helps with access to local services, assesses language needs and can assist with benefit queries.

Meanwhile, local groups have been consulted about concerns and priorities for action, events have brought different sections of the community together and community-led schemes, such as crime reduction initiatives, have been supported.

A review of the Rochdale scheme by Manchester University's Community Work Unit concluded that it had made Canalside a safer place to live by encouraging social cohesion and greater participation. A key factor appears to be the employment of front-line staff representative of the local population and skilled in community languages.

The Chartered Institute of Housing research programme aims to provide many more examples relating to all aspects of landlord activities, to be published in a "what works" guidance report next year.

More details are available on the CIH website at www.cih.org/policy/deliveringhousingservices.doc Contributions should be forwarded to David Robinson, principal research fellow at the Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research, at D.Robinson@shu.ac.uk or Mark Lupton of the CIH at mark.lupton.cih.org

Eight questions on community cohesion

Are new housing developments responding to diverse local needs and helping to counter the constrained housing choices of certain groups?

Do marketing activities challenge negative perceptions and inform key groups about initiatives to make policy and practice more sensitive to their wants and needs?

Are allocations and lettings policies helping to counter residential segregation and ensure that people from different backgrounds have similar opportunities?

Are participation activities designed to improve service standards, performance and responsiveness, ensuring that diverse backgrounds and circumstances are taken into account?

Does tenancy support help households move to new areas and provide a choice of housing opportunities to disadvantaged groups?

Are tenancy management activities bringing people from different backgrounds together in a positive manner, as well as providing a punitive response to racist and antisocial behaviour?

Are housing renovation and maintenance investments, including new investment from stock transfer and PFI, allocated in a fair and transparent manner and explained to local residents?

Is service delivery responding to the situations and diverse needs of current and prospective tenants?