Introduction
C. Differential satisfaction levels:
Introduction
This part considers the findings from the consultation exercise in terms of potential
explanations as to why BME communities are less satisfied with both their housing (focusing on the socially rented and private rented sectors) and their local area. As the background section has highlighted there is a great deal of evidence that differential satisfaction levels between different groups, notably White British and BME, does exist at the local, regional and national level. However, it should also be noted that in many cases (both in terms of tenant satisfaction surveys and area ‘place’ surveys there has been no disaggregation of the finding according to ethnicity and therefore our understanding of this potential difference in views is not comprehensive. Furthermore, where this disaggregation has been undertaken it has been on the basis of distinguishing between the White British and BME
residents/tenants and although further disaggregation of the BME group according to ethnicity could reveal important differences this has usually proved problematic due to the limited sample sizes involved. Hence, we are left with a very general view which groups all ethnic groups together, yet the findings from this consultation exercise suggest that, at least, according to some of the ‘professional’ respondents (RSLs, Council staff and the voluntary sectors), some notable differences exist across the BME community.
This section will document the potential reasons why such differences in satisfaction levels between the BME community and the White British exist looking at this issue from first, the social housing sector, then the private rented sector and thirdly, the local area.
Discussion of the social rented housing sector will examine the following factors: the method of assessment; awareness of service standards; level of service expectation; the wider
experience of disadvantage; and the impact of the locality. Suggestions for potential ways to redress this difference in satisfaction levels will also be alluded to.
Method of assessment
The most commonly used method of undertaking tenant satisfaction surveys is postal, primarily on the basis of cost. However, as noted above, this form of engagement is likely to be problematic for some BME tenants whose first language is not English: while the option of having the survey form translated is offered, this is rarely taken up by tenants and the forms are not routinely translated into the appropriate minority languages. Hence, the use of postal surveys is likely to disengage some BME tenants as well as reinforce their view that their landlords and other service providers do not fully appreciate the needs of this section of the community by the use of more traditional and formalised engagement techniques (as noted above). Certainly, the STATUS requirement for housing landlords to implement postal surveys to ensure appropriate benchmarking has been replaced by the revised STAR consultation document produced by HouseMark which recognises the need for social housing landlords to be flexible in the way they implement satisfaction surveys to reflect both the needs of their tenants and the organisation. Hence, the current methods used for
measuring tenant satisfaction may act as a barrier to gaining a more comprehensive appreciation of the level of understanding among BME tenants with those who might be potentially less positive actively engaging with the process. Unfortunately, little follow-up work has been undertaken to ascertain whether those BME tenants who respond to postal satisfaction surveys are materially different in their views to those who do not.
Awareness of service standards
It is suggested by some of the stakeholders consulted that a contributing factor to the differential satisfaction levels between BME and White British tenants is due to a lack of awareness on the part of the former of the type and nature of the services that should be provided by the landlord. This is explained on the basis that many BME tenants are not fully conversant with the details of their tenant handbook, primarily due to language difficulties and as such, their perception of what service they should receive is based on ill-founded assumptions and anecdotal evidence from family and friends who may be tenants of other landlords. As one of the voluntary groups noted:
‘If you don’t know what you are supposed to receive you tend to think you’ll receive everything.’
Hence, when a service does not live up to their expectations, they may be potentially critical.
Level of service expectation
A further contributing factor is likely to be high expectations of the service they receive, based on either an ‘aspiration’ of the sector derived from their previous experience
especially in comparison with the private rented sector. The perception that the service is ‘free’ in that they do not pay directly for a particular services and the view that a social housing landlord will look after all their needs could mean that they have high expectations of the service.
The wider experience of disadvantage
A number of commentators have alluded to the influence of the wider experience of BME communities to their level of satisfaction with their landlord. A sense of inequality and disadvantage in other areas of their lives, such as difficulties accessing some services and their experience of using these could colour their views of their landlord in that BME tenants may perceive, based on general experience, that other communities, most notably the White British, receive preferential treatment.
The impact of the locality
Experience of and attitudes towards their local area or neighbourhood has also been identified as a factor which can influence tenant’s views on a whole range of issues. A negative experience of an area can be due to a number of factors: a sense of necessity to move to an area which was not their preference to secure suitable accommodation which can leave them feeling socially and culturally isolated; a general lack of knowledge of the local area and the services and facilities available; the level of anti-social behaviour and hate
crime and a more general sense of not belonging. One of the voluntary groups suggested the following:
‘Historically there has been a ghetto mentality of providers who are reluctant to expand and give greater choice of areas to the BME community. They are all ‘placed’ in the same area which leads them to think that they are not receiving the same services as those in other areas.’
The evidence would suggest then that a combination of factors including a lack of
understanding of the services they should receive, aspirationally high expectations of their landlord, a wider sense of injustice and their experiences of their local area all contribute to a greater or lesser extent to the lower levels of satisfaction recorded among the BME social housing tenants.
A number of proposals were put forward to address this issue. First, an assessment of the most appropriate methods for canvassing the views of BME tenants. Research undertaken by one RSL found a preference for the use of more personalised one to one mechanism where the staff member is known to the individual BME tenant and where there is an existing relationship. This further reinforces the need for a range of methods for measuring tenants’ levels of satisfaction appropriate to specific groups of tenants. Second, there is felt to be a need for social housing landlords to have a greater understanding of their BME tenants, their needs and aspirations. One proposal is for greater interrogation of customer profiling information which could assist with this, together with more direct contact with the tenants themselves. Third, a number of potential initiatives which can be grouped under the general heading of ‘cultural awareness’ and include, for example: the recruitment of BME people to work within the organisation and the involvement of BME tenants within the management structure of the organisation (e.g. as Board Members, advisory panels of similar forums), making the organisation more multi-cultural and reflective of their customer base; greater cultural sensitivity around services provision, such as recognising that some BME women do not want to have male contractors working on their properties; and a greater appreciation of the diversity that exists among their BME tenant group in terms of ethnicity, language, culture beliefs and traditions, hence moving away from a generic view of the BME community.
At the same time it must be noted that the issue of lower satisfaction levels among social housing tenants is not necessarily an issue that all social housing landlords either
acknowledge or feel compelled to address. One of the RLSs consulted admitted that the relatively low number of BME tenants led them to conclude that any associated satisfaction level figures were not considered to be statistically reliable and therefore did not warrant investigation. Equally, the suggestion that all BME social housing tenants were less satisfied with the service received was also questioned with one voluntary group suggesting that there was no evidence that the Polish community was less satisfied than the White British.