Neighbourhood Services Technical Paper
Black & Minority
Ethnic (BME)
Communities -
Housing & Social
Care Strategy
Technical Paper
For 2007 - 2011
January 2007
1 Technical Paper Table of Contents ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
Section Page
Section 1: National Picture: Housing and BME Communities 3
Section 2: National Picture: Social Care and BME Communities 10
Section 3: Milton Keynes Council’s Strategic Aims 14
Section 4: The Milton Keynes BME Population 18
Section 5: Staffing Profile of Housing and Social Care Services 29
Section 6: Housing Needs 31
Section 7: Homelessness 46
Section 8: Social Care & Health Needs 50
Section 9: Consultation 61
Appendix A: Policy Research Institute on Ageing and Ethnicity 64 (PRAIE)’s report for the Housing Learning and Improvement Network (Housing LIN) Appendix B: Milton Keynes Hindu Association Housing Needs 65 Study – Questionnaire Appendix C: Consultation with organisations that work with BME 68 communities Appendix D: Consultation with BME communities 69
Appendix E: Appendix F:
2 Technical Paper
Section 1: National Picture: Housing and BME Communities ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
Over the last 20 years the Government has introduced legislation to improve racial equality. This includes the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 and the code of practice on Racial Equality in Housing and Community Cohesion.
The Race Relations Act 1976 & the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000
The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 amended the 1976 Act and introduced a new positive duty to promote race equality. It requires public authorities to have due regard to the need, in everything they do, to tackle racial discrimination, promote equality of opportunity, and to promote good relations between people from different racial groups.
Under the Race Relations Act, it is unlawful for a person to discriminate on racial grounds against another. The Act defines racial grounds as including race, colour, nationality, ethnic or national origins. There are four main types of racial discrimination: direct, indirect, victimisation and harassment.
Commission for Racial Equality (CRE)
The CRE is a publicly funded, non-governmental body originally set up under the Race Relations Act 1976 to tackle racial discrimination and promote equality of opportunity and good race relations. The CRE is governed by 15 commissioners, including a chair, who are responsible for making policy and providing strategic direction. The commissioners are appointed by the Home Secretary, and serve a four-year term. The CRE also has the following duties:
• To work towards the elimination of discrimination and harassment; • To promote equal opportunities and good relations between people from different racial groups; • To review the Act, and make proposals for amending it, if necessary
The Act also gives the CRE the power to issue codes of practice in the areas of employment and housing.
New Statutory Code of Practice on Racial Equality in Housing October 2006
The CRE first issued statutory housing codes of practice in 1991 (for rented housing) and 1992 (non-rented housing). In October 2006 it issued a new statutory code to replace both the 1991 and 1992 Codes. The aims were to:
• Set standards for achieving racial equality; • Provide practical guidance that will help organisations and individuals involved in all areas of housing to avoid unlawful racial discrimination and harassment, promote equal opportunities for all, and encourage good race relations; and • Make sure that anyone who is considering taking a legal case, or who has concerns about the way decisions on housing matters have been made, understands the legislation, their rights, and what constitutes good practice in the field of housing.
3 Technical Paper The Code also noted that whilst there have been improvements for some BME groups, significant differences still exist in the type and quality of housing available to people from ethnic minorities, who are more likely to live in inferior housing, and to have fewer opportunities to improve their circumstances than people from other groups. It specifically mentions that:
• BME households are more likely to live in overcrowded conditions, be more dissatisfied with their homes and be more anxious to move, compared with households from white groups. • BME communities are up to three times more likely to be represented in statistics on homelessness. • Segregation, mainly in urban areas where one ethnic group predominates over others, continues to pose problems for social integration in parts of the country. • Racial harassment is a continuing reality for BME communities in some areas; for example, they are four times more likely to see racial harassment as a serious problem in their areas than white households.
The Code specifically states that public authorities have a duty to make the promotion of racial equality central to the work, therefore requiring public authorities to take a lead in preventing unlawful racial discrimination, and in promoting equality of opportunity and good race relations. To achieve this, public authorities are required to prepare and publish a race equality scheme and monitor specified employment procedures and practices, by racial group, and make this data public in an annual report.
For more details about the Code see: http://www.cre.gov.uk/gdpract/housing_code.html
Social Exclusion Unit Report “Improving services, Improving Lives” October 2005
A report by the Government’s Social Exclusion Unit called “Improving services, Improving Lives” published in October 2005 found that the BME groups were over-represented in non decent homes. They were also twice as likely to go to the Citizens Advice Bureau for housing related problems as the general population and had problems with accessing social housing stock due to large families.
Survey of English Housing 2005
The Survey of English Housing 2005 also found that:
• 75% of Indian households were owner occupiers as compared to 56% of all households in England; • 52% of Bangladeshi households were in social rented housing; • 47% of Black African households were in social rented housing; • However both the Bangladeshi and Black African households were the largest group that lived in private rented properties; • There were about 500,000 overcrowded households in England (2.5% of all households) and social rented sector has the highest levels of overcrowding. (The survey did not provide a figure for the number of BME households in overcrowded housing).
4 Technical Paper Causes of Homelessness amongst Ethnic Minority Populations 2005
The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) carried out a study investigating the causes of homelessness amongst BME communities in response to the fact that BME communities were three times more likely to become statutorily homeless than the White British population. The study found that the main causes of homelessness were;
• Domestic Violence; • Overcrowding; • Forced to leave private rented accommodation; • Pregnancy, which led to family disputes, overcrowding and family and friends no longer willing to accommodate; • Chaotic lifestyles with complex needs; and • Family and friends no longer willing to accommodate.
The causes of homelessness varied amongst the BME communities.
South Asians (including Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis) • South Asian single women households became homeless because of domestic violence from partners and/or extended family; • South Asian couples with children households became homeless because of being forced to leave private rented accommodation and overcrowding.
Black Caribbean • Black Caribbean Single Female households became homeless because of pregnancy that led to family disputes, overcrowding and family and friends no longer willing or able to accommodate them. • Black Caribbean Single Male households became homeless because they had a chaotic lifestyle with complex needs, these included child abuse, time in care, drug abuse, school exclusion, crime and mental illness.
Black African • Black African households became homeless because either their families or friends were no longer willing to accommodate or evidence of a relationship breakdown.
Irish • The main causes for homelessness for Irish households were domestic violence or financial difficulties that led to non-payment of rent.
The study also found that BME individual’s experiences of council housing services were very poor because they were;
• Too bureaucratic; • Had poor customer service; • Lacked consistency of advice; • Provided poor information about the progress of applications; • Provided inappropriate and poorly maintained temporary accommodation; and • Frequently moved between temporary accommodations.
5 Technical Paper Extra Care Housing for BME Elders
A report prepared by the Policy Research Institute on Ageing and Ethnicity (PRIAE) for the Housing Learning and Improvement Network (Housing LIN) focused on issues around providing specific extra care housing to BME elders as well as improving access more generally. The main findings were:
• BME elders cannot just ‘fit into’ existing majority designed extra care housing, as there are cultural issues to consider like communication and lifestyle behaviours; • Current demand for BME extra care housing outstrips provision; • Demand for extra care housing from BME elders will increase substantially over the next twenty years, as the numbers rise and awareness and improvements of access takes place; • BME housing provision has emerged not out of a desire to be ethnically separate, but as a response to providing care that is appropriate to them in the absence of mainstream housing; • Commissioners and providers surveyed in the report felt that BME elders’ extra care housing is unmet and that they lacked the knowledge, skills and understanding to be able to provide the best housing solution for BME elders.
The report also produced a commissioner and provider checklist, in which to assess the need for BME elders extra care housing, this can be seen in Appendix A.
Provision and condition of Local Authority Gypsy/Traveller sites in England 2003
In 2003, the Department for Transport, Local Government and Regions commissioned the Centre for Urban and Regional Studies (CURS) at the University of Birmingham, with FPD Savills and Alan Hedges (an independent consultant), to conduct research on the availability and quality of local authority Gypsy and Traveller sites in England. The main findings were;
• No clear, widely understood national policy on the accommodation provision for Gypsies and Travellers; • There were around 320 local authority sites providing 5,000 pitches. These sites need to be retained and any closed sites need to be opened; • Expenditure in excess of £16.78 million was needed over five years to bring sites up to standard. Spending at this level could not be met from site income; • Between 1,000 and 2,000 additional pitches is needed over the next 5 years; • Between 2,000 and 2,500 additional pitches on transit sites or stopping places will be needed. However there is little agreement about the feasibility and viability of transit sites, as there are concerns about how such sites should be built, managed and about cost; • The expected barriers to site provision include resistance from the settled community, lack of enthusiasm from local authorities to develop sites and issues with planning permissions to build on sites; • Measures to overcome these barriers could include a statutory duty and central subsidy to ‘encourage’ local authorities to make provision and treating site provision in the same way as housing for planning purposes; • Site management was more intensive than social housing management, as it requires higher staff to resident ratios, with average of one full time member of staff to 16 pitches (there was no discussion around self-management sites).
6 Technical Paper This study provided an insight into the national accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers and future recommendations for Government to improve current provision. As a result, recent measures in the Housing Act 2004, has meant that local authorities would be required to include Gypsies and Travellers in the local housing needs assessment process, and to have a strategy in place which sets out how any identified need will be met.
To see the full report go to: http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1153517
Common Ground: Equality, good race relations and sites for Gypsies and Travellers – A report of a Commission of Racial Equality inquiry in England and Wales May 2006
The Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) carried out an inquiry, which was prompted by the poor state of race relations and lack of social integration between Gypsies, Irish Travellers and local communities, and by concerns about poor life chances for these groups, and unequal standards in accommodation and in education and health. The inquiry involved a survey of all local authorities in England and Wales, to which 236 responded in detail, an in depth study of nine local authorities and a public call for evidence. The evidence provided were assessed according to how local authorities balance Gypsies’ and Irish Travellers’ rights and responsibilities with those groups, and whether they actively seek to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination, promote equal opportunities, foster good race relations and encourage integration.
Through their findings, they were able to establish a vicious circle, which is demonstrated in the Figure 1 below.
Figure 1: Vicious Circle
The report recommended the following model should be used to improve the relations between Gypsies and Irish Travellers as well as improve the life chances and equal opportunities for accommodation, education and health.
7 Technical Paper Informed and strong leadership Figure 2: A virtuous circle
Recognition of current and emerging issues and responsibilities under the race equality duty
Continuous monitoring of Accurate information collected policies and services on local situation (through ethnic monitoring and assessment of housing need)
Balanced and informed response Planned and balanced to proposed sites, permitting consultation and Racial Equality more sites to be provided Impact Assessment
Reduction in community tension Formulation of a long-term and hostility, and in pressure to strategic approach based on the focus on enforcement race equality duty.
Active promotion of good race relations, identifying and dealing with root causes of concerns
Mainstreaming of services and policing for Gypsies and Irish Travellers, in line with their rights and responsibilities
Provision of public and private sites to meet the need for accommodation
8
Technical Paper
The report recommends that local authorities should:
• Encourage dialogue and positive interaction between Gypsies and Irish Travellers and other groups, through effective engagement with leaders and members of the communities. • Actively promote better public understanding of Gypsies and Irish Travellers and the consequences of unmet need for sites; and take steps to counter stereotypes in the media and in public perceptions. • Encourage and support mainstream voluntary organisations to build bridges between Gypsies and Irish Travellers and other members of the public.
The report also recommended that parish and community councils should:
• Make sure councillors represent all groups in their local community, and are aware of the statutory duty to promote race equality and good race relations, and its practical implication in relation to Gypsies and Irish Travellers.
The full report can viewed at: http://www.cre.gov.uk/about/gtinquiry.html
Commission on Integration and Cohesion November 2006
The Commission on Integration and Cohesion is an independent advisory body that has been set up to explore how different communities and places in England work towards a cohesive community that respects the strength of its diversity but also have a shared sense of belonging and purpose. The body is made up of a Chair and 13 commissioners who have been appointed on a personal basis, based on their knowledge and experience in particular fields related to community relations and integration. The body is supported by a small secretariat within the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG). The body has just started a process of consultation to find out what issues are affecting communities and if there are tensions how these can be addressed. Questions that this body will be asking are:
• What does cohesion mean? • What if any, are the tensions between different groups in the local area? • What activities help bring people together? • What schemes in the community build a sense of belonging to your neighborhood or community? And • What schemes in the community help new people when they arrive?
The body will then publish a report in June 2007, which will identify local good practice and recommend it for wider use, provide practical recommendations to central and local government to promote integration and cohesion. For further information see http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/316/CommissiononIntegrationandCohesionYourchance totelluswhatyouthink_id1504316.pdf.
9
Technical Paper
Section 2: National Picture: Social Care and BME Communities ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
National Community Care Statistics April 2004 to March 20061
The National Community Care statistics gave an indication of the client groups for the services.
Table 1: The % of clients receiving services in 2004-2005 by ethnicity and UK population. UK All Difference between Census and Community Care Census 2001 clients Statistics White British 80% White Irish 1% White Other 92.1% 2% Decrease of 9.1% Mixed Ethnicity 1.2% 0.2% Decrease of 1% Asian or Asian British 4% 2% Decrease of 2% Black or Black British 2% 1.6% Decrease of 0.4% Any other ethnic group 0.8% 0.6% Decrease of 0.2% Ethnicity not declared N/A 13% N/A
The Table 1 above shows that 7.5% of clients receiving a service from Social Services were from a BME community. It also shows that 4.4% of clients classified themselves as non- white. However according to the Census 2001, 7.9% of the UK population classified themselves as non-white, therefore illustrating that the non-white ethnic community was under represented in the Community Care statistics.
With closer inspection of individual ethnic groups, it would appear that the Mixed Ethnicity and Asian or Asian British ethnic groups were considerably less represented in the national Community Care statistics than Black or Black British and Any Other ethnic group categories.
However it would also appear that the White population is also under represented in the National Community Care statistics, as 83% of the service users were from a white background whereas the Census 2001 states that 92.1% of population was from a white background. This discrepancy may highlight an issue with the reliability of comparing Census 2001 data with the National Community Care statistics. The census data is based on a snapshot of the UK population in 2001 and the National Community Care statistics are based on service user records between April 2004 and March 2005. It may be that the National Community Care statistics reflect the current UK population, which is likely to have changed since the Census 2001.
Another factor that is likely to affect the representation of ethnic groups in the National Community Care statistics is that 13% of service users did not provide their ethnicity,
1 The full statistics report can be found at the following website address http://www.ic.nhs.uk/pubs/commcare05adultengrepcssr.
10
Technical Paper therefore this may also skew the data to show an under representation of ethnic groups in the National Community Care statistics.
Primary Client Group
Table 2 below shows the distribution of BME service users amongst the primary client groups.
Table 2: The % of clients receiving services in the UK during 2004-20052 by ethnicity and primary client group. Physical Disability, frailty and sensory Learning Mental Substance Vulnerable All client impairment Disability Health Misuse People groups White Irish 70.6 4.7 18.8 1.8 4.1 100 White Other 70.2 5.9 17.7 1.1 5.1 100 Mixed Ethnicity 44.2 20.9 27.9 2.3 4.7 100 Asian or Asian British 64.1 10.8 19.5 0.6 5 100 Black or Black British 58.6 10.3 25.3 1.5 4.4 100 Any Other group 60.4 8.5 22.7 0.8 7.6 100 All BME users 65 9 21 1.2 5 100
It shows that: • 65% of BME service users were people with a physical disability, frailty and sensory impairment; • 21% of BME service users were people with a mental health issue; • 9% of BME service users were people with a learning disability; • 5% of BME service users were vulnerable people3; • 1.2% of BME service users were people with substance misuse problems.
2 [0]Based on figures rounded up to nearest 100 in the Community Care Statistics tables. These figures are estimations based on the data provided by Councils of Social Services Responsibilities in the annual RAP Returns. 3 [0]This includes older people.
11
Technical Paper Types of Services
The National Community Care statistics also provided data on the type of services that BME communities have used in 2004 to 2005.
Table 3: The % of clients receiving services during 2004-2005 by ethnic group and service type. Local Independent Authority Sector Total number Community residential residential receiving based services care care Nursing Care services White Irish 77.8 2.8 12.2 7.2 100 White Other 81.6 1.6 10.8 6.1 100 Mixed Ethnicity 85 1.6 11.2 2.2 100 Asian or Asian British 91.4 0.9 4.6 3.1 100 Black or Black British 84.5 1.4 9.5 4.6 100 Any other ethnic group 84.2 1.8 9.6 4.4 100 Ethnicity not declared 83.1 1.7 9.7 5.5 100 BME Total 84.6 1.5 9 4.9 100
According to Table 3 above, the majority of BME clients used a community based service (84.6%); this was followed by Independent Sector residential care service users, which was 9%.
Completed Assessments and Age of Service Users
Table 4: Percentage of clients with completed assessments or reviews by ethnic group and age group. Completed Assessments or Reviews 18-64 years Age 65 years and over Ethnicity All Age group group Age Group White British 100 24.2 75.8 White Irish 100 25.9 74.1 White Other 100 29.7 70.3 Mixed Ethnicity 100 69.2 30.8 Asian or Asian British 100 50 50 Black or Black British 100 55.6 44.4 Any other ethnic group 100 52.8 47.2 Ethnicity not declared 100 37.6 62.4 Total 100 26.7 73.3 BME Total 100 43 57
According to Table 4 above, there were more completed assessments for clients aged 65 years and over than between 18 – 64 years.
However the analysis of BME service users showed that there was almost an even split between the two age groups, with 43% of BME service users in the 18 to 64 years old age group and 57% of the BME service users in the 65 years and over age group. This is not surprising given that population statistics show that BME communities have a higher proportion of under 65 year population than the White British community.
12
Technical Paper However there was one exception amongst the BME groups, which is the White Irish community. There were 12,000 completed assessments and reviews for the 65 years and over age group, whereas there were only 4,200 for the 18 – 64 age groups. Again, this agrees with the population statistics, as the White Irish population has a higher proportion of over 65 years olds than the other ethnic groups, and also exceeds the proportion of over 65 year olds in the White British population.
Before drawing too many conclusions from this data, it was important to highlight that 13% of the service users did not declare their ethnicity. This was likely to have a significant impact on the current statistics. Also, there were issues with data submitted from Councils with Social Services Responsibilities (CSSRs), for example the data based on completed assessment or review were from 150 CSSRs, whereas details on the number of clients receiving community-based services during the period were provided by 148 CSSRs. Additionally, the final figures provided for the Community Care Statistics were estimations that were grossed up from the actual figures provided by the CSSRs. These would affect the reliability and validity of the data. However, given that this is the only data collected nationally on adult social care, this could give an indication of the social care picture.
13
Technical Paper
Section 3: Milton Keynes Council’s Strategic Aims ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
Local Area Agreements (LAAs)
Local Area Agreements (LAAs) represent a new approach to the way local authorities and their partners can use government funding to support the implementation of national and local priorities in local areas. LAAs are 3-year agreements decided between government, the local authority and its partners in an area (working through the local strategic partnership) to improve public services. The agreements are refreshed annually.
Local Area Agreements seek to:
• Provide intelligent and mature discussion between local and central government, based on a clear framework and shared understanding of national and local priorities. • Improve local performance, by allowing a more flexible use of resources, to achieve better outcomes and devolve responsibility. • Enhance efficiency by rationalising non-mainstream funding and reduce bureaucracy to help local partners to join up and enhance community leadership.
The three year agreement will set out priorities for Milton Keynes as agreed between central government, the Milton Keynes Local Strategic Partnership and Milton Keynes Council. Currently there is a draft LAA, which focuses on the theme of ‘Closing the Gap’. The aim of the draft LAA is to focus on reducing the gap between the wards that fall within the 10% most deprived wards in the UK4, and others that are more economically successful. The draft LAA aims to close this gap by promoting collaboration locally and with the government to address the less well performing aspects of the city.
Milton Keynes Council Corporate Equality Plan 2005-06
The Milton Keynes Council Corporate Equality Plan has identified three objectives, these are:
• As a community leader, the Council will work to ensure access to the democratic process and promote community cohesion. • As an employer, the Council will work towards fair and equal access to all Council jobs, including access to career development and training opportunities for existing members of staff. • As a service provider, the Council will work towards ensuring that all our customers have equal access to services they need, delivered in the way they want.
The Corporate Equality Plan sets out the actions, targets and timescales and resources required to meet the objectives in the Comprehensive Equality Policy. The main priorities set out in the Plan are:
• To consolidate level 2 of the Equality Standard and move towards level 3 of the Standard. • To develop a Disability Equality Scheme 2006-09.
14
Technical Paper
• To promote Community Cohesion. • To develop a Race Equality Scheme 2005-2008. • To suggest the Council of Faiths.
Milton Keynes Council’s Vision
“We will deliver the best possible future for MK by creating sustainable communities and opportunities for all.”
“Our Values:
• We will be a dynamic organisation, known for our innovative and fresh approaches; • We will act as a single purposeful organisation where staff are valued and proud to be ambassadors for MK; • We will promote the distinctiveness and diversity of MK, tackling disadvantage by delivering high quality services that sensitively meet people’s needs.”
One of the most effective ways of achieving the Council’s Vision is to ensure that the Council builds affordable housing for all.
Milton Keynes Community Strategy 2005
One of the main aims of the Community Strategy is to create sustainable communities. To achieve this, it stresses the need to increase housing supply and improve housing conditions within the borough of Milton Keynes. For Young People, the strategy says that;
• Milton Keynes has a high number of young people within the borough; • Milton Keynes will give particular attention to people who are most vulnerable in the community; • Services for Children and Young People and their families will work together more closely for the benefits of Children and Young People.
15
Technical Paper Milton Keynes Council’s Housing Strategy 2005
The Housing Strategy sets out the following Housing Vision for Milton Keynes
The Housing Service Vision
“Well maintained, comfortable homes in safe and attractive neighbourhoods, where people choose to live."
As part of the Council’s Housing vision, the Council will enable housing in sustainable neighbourhoods that will be:
• Mixed tenure (owner occupied, shared ownership, social rent, market rent and sub market rent) • ‘Pepper potted’ in terms of tenure. It will be mixed in terms of the size of properties varying from 2 bed to 5 bed (recognising that people want as much space as they can afford) • Diverse: recognising diversity of our community in terms of:
o Recognising the needs of ethnic minority communities o Recognising the needs of older people o Recognising the needs of younger people o Recognising the needs of people with physical disabilities o Recognising the needs of people with learning disabilities o Recognising the needs of people with mental health problems
Supporting People
Supporting People is a national programme that allows local authorities to commission and monitor housing-related support services funded by a grant made available by the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) formerly known as Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM).
The Council as the Administering Authority for Supporting People in Milton Keynes has the legal responsibility for implementing the programme including commissioning services and contracting with service providers.
The Supporting People Strategy sets out the following vision for Supporting People in Milton Keynes
The Supporting People programme in Milton Keynes aims to enable people to live healthy, fulfilling lives within the community.
Through active partnership we will promote the provision of high quality, housing- related support that enables people to live independently in their own homes.
The programme will fund and support organisations that put the needs of the people they serve at the heart of their service and that contribute to the wider well being of Milton Keynes.
16
Technical Paper Milton Keynes Supporting People aims to ensure that it will engage with BME communities locally and ensure that all services are accessible and reflect diversity and appropriate services are developed to meet identified needs.
17
Technical Paper
Section 4: The Milton Keynes BME Population ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
Census 2001
According to the Table 5 below, the Census 2001 information on ethnicity in Milton Keynes Borough suggested that around 13.2% of the population is from a BME group.
Table 5: Ethnicity Classification Persons % White British 179,694 86.8 Irish 2,918 1.4 Other White 5,240 2.5
Mixed Ethnicity 3,716 1.8
Asian or Asian British Indian 3,967 1.9 Pakistani 1,682 0.8 Bangladeshi 1,072 0.5 Other Asian 850 0.4 Black or Black British Caribbean 1,956 0.9 African 2,596 1.3 Other Black 434 0.2 Chinese or other Chinese 1,835 0.9 Other 1,097 0.5
Total 207,057 100
Of the BME population, just over 9% of the population in 2001 classified themselves as being non-white. The largest BME groups in Milton Keynes were White Other (2.5%), Indian (1.9%), Mixed Ethnicity (1.8%), White Irish (1.4%) and Black African (1.3%) ethnic groups.
Table 6: Ethnicity for MK, South East and UK Ethnicity MK South East National % % % White 90.7 95.1 90.9 Mixed Ethnicity 1.8 1.1 1.4 Asian/Asian British 3.7 2.3 4.6 Black/Black British 2.4 0.7 2.3 Chinese or other 1.4 0.8 0.9
Table 6 above showed that Milton Keynes has a very similar BME population structure as the national BME population, however there were higher percentages of Chinese, Mixed Ethnicity and Black or Black British than the national percentages. Conversely, in comparison to the South East region, Milton Keynes has a much larger BME population.
BME Population size by Estate
According to the Census 2001, 48 estates in Milton Keynes who had a higher percentage of BME communities than the percentage for the Borough of Milton Keynes, these percentages ranged from 13.3% for Blakelands and 32.7% for Central Milton Keynes.
18
Technical Paper The Table 7 below shows that Central Milton Keynes had the highest percentage of BME communities with 32.7%. This was followed by Granby, with 30% and Central Bletchley with 27.3%.
Table 7: Top 20 estates with the highest percentage of BME communities in Milton Keynes. Estate name No. of BME population in Total population of % of Estate from BME Estate Estate communities Central Milton Keynes 417 1,276 32.70% Granby 86 287 30.00% Central Bletchley 987 3,603 27.30% Kents Hill 587 2,407 24.40% Loughton Lodge 21 88 24.40% Fishermead 942 3,915 24.00% Willen Park 206 918 22.40% Conniburrow 685 3,067 22.30% Oldbrook 977 4,599 21.30% Springfield 443 2,271 19.50% Downhead Park 259 1,443 17.90% Bradwell Common 528 3,034 17.40% Loughton 491 2,816 17.40% Neath Hill 336 1,944 17.30% Campbell Park 37 215 17.20% Pennyland 178 1,056 16.90% Tinkers Bridge 164 962 16.90% Shenley Brook End 450 2,732 16.50% Stantonbury 557 3,411 16.40% Willen 234 1,439 16.30%
The Social Atlas provides information on how the each estate scored on the Index for Multiple Deprivation (IMD). The Table 8 below shows the ten estates that experienced the most difficulties in Milton Keynes in 2001 (estates that scored the highest on the IMD index) and shows the percentage of the estate population that came from BME communities in 2001. Eight out of these ten estates had a higher percentage of BME population than for Milton Keynes as a whole (13.2%), with the highest being 32.7% for Central Milton Keynes.
Table 8: Top ten wards that scored highest on the IMD index and percentage of BME population within the estate in 2001. Top ten wards that scored lowest on the IMD index in 2001 % of BME communities in estate in 2001 Netherfield 15.7% Fullers Slade 9.2% Central Milton Keynes 32.7% Water Eaton 12.9% Fishermead 24% Coffee Hall 13.9% Beanhill 10.1% Conniburrow 22.3% Eaglestone 14.1% Tinkers Bridge 16.9%
Since 2001, the ten estates that experienced the most difficulties in Milton Keynes have slightly altered. In 2006, the estates that that scored highest on the IMD index in Milton Keynes were Netherfield, Beanhill, Stacey Bushes, Fullers Slade, Coffee Hall, Water Eaton, Tinkers Bridge, Fishermead, Central Milton Keynes and New Bradwell. It is not possible to compare the BME population for these estates, as there are not any figures for the BME population for each estate in Milton Keynes in 2006.
19
Technical Paper For more information on the Social Atlas 2006, see http://www.mkiobservatory.org.uk/viewArticle.aspx?va_artID=1985&IWCM_wizardType=6&I WCM_resourceIsNew=false.
The Census 2001 data is snapshot of the population at 2001. By comparison the Milton Keynes Housing Needs Study 2006 showed that 17% of the Milton Keynes population were from BME communities.
Milton Keynes South Midlands Study of Population and Migration April 2005
The MKSM Study of Population and Migration found that there were larger numbers of Asian (6.5%), Black (6%) and Chinese (1.75%) people moving into MKSM sub region than the existing populations of Asian (4.5%), Black (2%) and Chinese (1.75%). There was three times more Black or Black British moving into MKSM sub region than the existing Black or Black British population. There were also less White British people moving into MKSM sub region (78.1%) than the existing White British population (87.2%). Therefore suggesting that that the BME population in MKSM sub region is increasing, this would imply that there would be an increase of BME people in Milton Keynes.
Accession country nationals living and working in Milton Keynes
From 1st May 2004 workers from the accession states joined the EU as New Member states. These countries are: Poland Lithuania Estonia Latvia Slovenia Slovakia Hungary Czech Republic
There are two sources of information about the numbers of workers from these states in Milton Keynes.
Worker Registration Scheme
Workers from the new members’ states who find employment in the UK are required to register with the Home Office under the Worker Registration Scheme as soon as they find work. They are then issued with a worker registration certificate, issued for a 12-month period. This proves that they can live and work in the UK while they are working in that job. If they change jobs before the 12 months they have to renew their registration. Once 12 months has been completed under the Worker Registration Scheme they can apply for an EEA Residence permit.
Table 9: WRS first applications approved between 1st May 2004 and 30th June 2006 for Milton Keynes postcode areas Country Czech Estonia Hungary Latvia Lithuania Poland Slovakia Slovenia Total Rep Total 66 15 61 32 192 1,019 93 1 1,479 % Total 4.5 1.0 4.1 2.2 13.0 68.9 6.3 0.1 100
20
Technical Paper As the Table 9 above shows, there have been a total of 1,479 approved WRS first applications in the 26 months since the scheme started. The greatest proportion is from Polish nationals (almost 69%).
Looking at the occupations these people are coming to fill, there are a large number of industrial classifications. The largest proportion (20%) are to work as warehouse operatives, followed by 16% process operatives (other factory workers); 8% cleaners or domestic staff and 5% kitchen or catering assistants.
The applicants are 40% female, 60% male and 86% of them are aged between 18 and 34.
There is no way of knowing how long these successful applicants planned to remain in Milton Keynes for, or whether they have already returned to their country of origin.
National Insurance number allocation
A National Insurance number is required before taking up employment. We have data on the numbers of new National Insurance numbers given to non-UK nationals from 2002/03 to 2005/05. Summary information for Milton Keynes and a number of other comparable authorities can be seen in the Table 10 below.
Table 10: National Insurance number registrations in respect of non-UK nationals for the two financial years, 2004/05 and 2005/06 combined. 2004/05 Swindon Peterborough Luton Reading Slough Milton Bedford Keynes All 3170 8400 9310 6300 6480 5320 3610 Rep of 20 20 40 10 20 20 10 Estonia Rep of Latvia 40 130 70 40 50 40 130 Rep Lithuania 70 1,740 330 150 120 190 350 Hungary 20 30 70 50 30 50 20 Poland 610 2,970 4,100 1,430 2,520 870 1,450 Rep of 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Slovenia Czech Rep 50 240 60 70 40 50 70 Slovak Rep 170 720 240 140 80 70 60 Total 980 5,850 4,910 1,890 2,860 1,290 2,090 Accession % Accession 30.91 69.64 52.74 30.00 44.14 24.25 57.89 NB: numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10
This Table 10 shows the number of National Insurance numbers allocated over the previous two years (24 months). However, the use of two years aggregated data does hide the increasing trend. There were around 380 NI numbers given to accession country nationals in Milton Keynes in 2004/05. By 2005/06 this had risen to around 910. The large increase in the number of accession nationals being allocated National Insurance numbers is also evident in all of the other authorities listed.
It can be seen that of all the National Insurance numbers allocated to overseas nationals, 24% of these have been to accession state nationals over the last 2 years in Milton Keynes. This proportion has risen from just over 2% in 2002/03 to 31% in 2005/06. However, the comparator data from other local authorities shows the scale of this issue is greater in other authorities, with almost 70% of all national insurance numbers allocated to overseas residents in Peterborough being to accession state nationals. The high proportion of Polish nationals being allocated National Insurance numbers can be noted in all authorities.
21
Technical Paper
Although both of these data sources give very similar results, neither can be used as a definitive source of the number of accession state nationals currently resident in Milton Keynes. The National Insurance number data is based on residence at the time of application. However, these applicants may have moved address, or returned to their country of origin. The Worker Registration Scheme data are based on workplace postcode.
The eligibility criteria to access housing through the Council is particularly complicated for Accession State nationals. First, an Accession State national needs to be registered with the Home Office as working in the UK. Once the Accession national is registered at the Home Office as working for a year in the MK, they may be regarded as having ‘habitual residence status’ (there are other criteria that the Accession state national needs to fulfil before they are given habitual residence status, like the intentions whilst living in Milton Keynes, whether they have a family, work or education connections to Milton Keynes). Once the Accession State national has been given habitual residence status they are then entitled to public funds like income support and housing benefit. At this stage they are also entitled to apply for Council housing. Meanwhile the Accession State national will have to rely on private sector for housing. Hence the greater demand on the private housing sector. The rules become even more complicated for self employed and work seeker Accession State nationals.
Age of Population Table 11 below provides the proportion of the ethnic groups population divided into three categories, Children (0yrs – 15yrs), People of Working Age (16yrs – 64yrs) and Retirement Age and older (65yrs +).
Table 11: Percentage of MK population in each age group by ethnicity in comparison to England and Wales (Census 2001). England England and England and and Milton Wales: People Milton Keynes: Wales: Milton Keynes: Wales: Keynes: of Working People of Retirement Retirement age Ethnicity Children Children Age Working Age age and older and older White British 19.6% 22.5% 63.4% 66.5% 17.1% 11% White Irish 5.9% 6.7% 69.1% 75.9% 25.0% 17.4% White Other 13.8% 15.7% 75.8% 76.2% 10.4% 8.1% Mixed 50.0% 54.4% 47.0% 43.1% 29.0% 2.5% Ethnicity Asian or 28.7% 28.7% 66.0% 67.3% 5.3% 3.9% Asian British Black or 26.0% 22.5% 67.5% 74.1% 6.5% 3.3% Black British Other 18.8% 22.4% 77.2% 75.2% 4.0% 2.4%
According to Table 11 above, the BME population was concentrated amongst people of working age with the exception of Mixed Ethnicity, which was concentrated amongst the children. There were less BME people of pensionable age than the White British population, with the exception of White Irish population which has 17.4% of its population being of pensionable age. This would appear to be in line with the statistics for England and Wales, as 8% of the national BME population were Retirement age and older whereas 17% of the national White British people were of pensionable age.
22
Technical Paper Pupil Level Annual School Census (PLASC) 2006
The PLASC is carried out annually and records information about ethnic origin of pupils in schools. The data for January 2006 showed that the BME population is likely to have increased, as the BME groups represent about 22.9% of pupils in Milton Keynes. This compares with the 2005 PLASC findings of 20.7% and 2004 findings of 19% of the pupil population in Milton Keynes were from BME groups.
Table 12 below shows that the Black African ethnic group is the largest BME group, accounting for 4.8% of pupils. The Mixed Ethnicity group (4.3%) is the second largest BME group, followed by the White Other ethnic group (3.4%).
Table 12: Percentage of Pupils by ethnicity with comparison to Census 2001 Ethnicity Census PLASC PLASC Difference between Census 2001 and PLASC 2001 2005 2006 2006 % % % White British 85.4 77.7 75.0 Decrease by 10.4 White Irish 0.4 0.3 0.5 Increase by 0.1 White Other 1.7 2.7 5.1 Increase by 3.4 Mixed Ethnicity 4.0 4.2 4.3 Increase by 0.3 Asian: Indian 2.0 2.2 2.1 Increase by 0.1 Asian: Pakistani 1.2 1.8 2.1 Increase by 0.9 Asian: Bangladeshi 0.9 1.3 1.4 Increase by 0.5 Asian: Other 0.4 1.0 1.1 Increase by 0.7 Black African 0.7 3.9 4.8 Increase by 4.1 Black Caribbean 1.3 0.8 0.8 Decrease by 0.5 Black Other 0.4 0.7 0.8 Increase by 0.4 Chinese 1.0 0.80.8 Decrease by 0.2 Any Other Group 0.5 0.8 0.9 Increase by 0.4 Refuse/Unknown N/A N/A2.1 N/A Total 100 100100
Table 12 above shows that there has been a considerable increase in the Black African ethnic group since 2001, whereas the White Irish, Black Caribbean and Chinese ethnic groups have decreased since 2001. And more significantly, the Black African ethnic group has taken over from the Mixed Ethnicity ethnic group.
BME Housing and Support Needs Study 2006
The BME Housing and Support Needs Study carried out by ORS in 2006, found that in 2001 the majority of BME households were couples with children, which was the same as the White British households. However BME population was more likely to be living alone than White British population and less likely to be living in a pensioner only household than the White British population. There was also twice as many BME households in ‘Other’ households category than the White British, this category included student and other multi- adult households in shared accommodation, inter-generational households and other less common groups.
23
Technical Paper They also found that in 2001 owner occupation rates were lower among the BME population than among the White British population, with the exception of Chinese and Indian households who 80.2% and 77.3% respectively were owner occupiers, which was higher than the White British households (71.4%). Mixed Ethnicity and Black ethnic groups were over-represented among social renters with the highest rate being 39.8% of all Black Other households being in socially rented accommodation. The Other Ethnic group population had the highest rates of private renting, with 50.4% of all households being in this form of accommodation. Finally there were a lower proportion of BME households in socially rented housing (17.9%) than White British households (20.7%) in 2001.
Milton Keynes Housing Needs Study 2006 (MK HNS) – Opinion Research Services (ORS)
The Milton Keynes Housing Needs Study 2006 was carried out be Opinion Research Services (ORS). The total sample size of the household survey was just over 2,400 households. The survey was carried out on a random sample basis. This produced results that were accurate to within +/- 2% at the 95% confidence interval5.
The MK HNS 2006 interviewed 418 BME households (17% of the total households interviewed). This consisted of a household with at least one household member who is not White British. By implication therefore the total BME population in Milton Keynes in 2006 had increased to 17%.
The Study also contained a profile of all BME groups who were interviewed in the household survey. This is accurate to +/-4.7% at the 95% confidence interval. The Table 11 below shows that the largest ethnic group was Black African (2.9%) followed by Indian (2.4%) and Any Other White (2.2%).
However once you start looking at individual BME groups the sample sizes become smaller in terms of numbers. In turn this means that the findings will be less representative of the individual BME groups.
Table 13: MK HNS 2006 Respondents by Ethnicity in comparison to Census 2001 Ethnicity MK HNS 2006 MK HNS 2006 Census 2001 Difference between Census No. of % % 2001 and MK HNS 2006 respondents White British 2,049 84.9 86.8 Decrease by 1.9 White Irish 30 1.2 1.4 Decrease by 0.2 Any other White 52 2.2 2.5 Decrease by 0.3 Mixed Ethnicity 26 1.0 1.8 Decrease by 0.8 Asian: Indian 58 2.4 1.9 Increase by 0.5 Asian: Pakistani 28 1.1 0.8 Increase by 0.3 Asian: Bangladeshi 16 0.7 0.5 Increase by 0.2 Asian: Other 12 0.5 0.4 Increase by 0.1 Black Caribbean 28 1.1 0.9 Increase by 0.2 Black African 69 2.9 1.3 Increase by 1.6 Other Black 11 0.4 0.2 Increase by 0.2 Chinese 17 0.7 0.9 Decrease by 0.2 Any Other Group 21 0.9 0.5 Increase by 0.4 Total 2,417 100 100
The Table 14 below shows that the majority of BME households were couple with children, with 31%, which was 5 percentage points higher than for all households, with 26%.
5
24
Technical Paper However there were more than half as many pensioner households when compared to all households and there was a considerably lower percentage of couple without children households in comparison to all households.
Table 14: Household type of BME households Household Type Percentage of BME households Percentage of all households Single Person 16% 16% Adult Couple 17% 22% Single Parent 10% 9% Couple with children 31% 26% Group of adults 14% 13% Group of adults with children 5% 2% All pensioners 5% 13%
Other Key Findings:
• 63% of BME households were earning £31,999 or less a year compared to 57% of all households earning the same annual income. • 16% of BME households lived in a flat or maisonette (compared to 11% of all households); • 32% of BME households owned with a mortgage, which was less than all households, which was 42%; 30% rented privately, which was more than twice as many as all households, which was only 12%; 12% owned outright, whereas 20% of all households owned outright; 11% rented from the Council, which was a similar figure to all households which was 12%; 7% rented from a Housing Association, which is the same figure for all households and 6% had a shared ownership property, which again was the same for all households. • A greater proportion of BME households lived in private rented accommodation when compared with the corresponding figure for all households; and • A slightly higher percentage of BME households (16%) received Housing Benefit compared to the figure for all households (13%).
As the sample size is small, the profile can only suggest the income, household type and tenure of BME groups in Milton Keynes.
Asylum Seekers
The BME Housing and Support Needs study carried out be ORS in 2006, found that there are quarterly statistics available from the Home Office that show the number of asylum seekers in each local authority who either claim support from National Asylum Support Service (NASS) or live in accommodation provided by NASS. It is evident from the graph below that there are very few asylum seekers in Milton Keynes and that there has been a decline in the last 3 years.
25
Technical Paper
Figure 3: No. of asylum seekers receiving Subsistence Only Support from NASS: Q4 2002 – Q4 2005
200
175
150
125
100
75
50 Number of Asylum Seekers Asylum of Number Q4 2002 Q1 2003 Q2 2003 Q3 2003 Q4 2003 Q1 2004 Q2 2004 Q3 2004 Q4 2004 Q1 2005 Q2 2005 Q3 2005 Q4 2005
Quarter
However it is important to highlight that asylum seeker population are likely to become refugee populations and experience elsewhere has shown that refugee populations are prone to struggle to find jobs and adequate housing.
It is also noteworthy that the total Somali born population of Milton Keynes was 616, which is consistent with evidence of former asylum seekers who became refugees and remained in Milton Keynes.
Gypsies and Travellers
There is very limited information on the Gypsy and Traveller population, as these communities were not recorded in the Census 2001. The most accessible information about Gypsies and Travellers is the former Office of the Deputy Prime Minister’s (ODPM) bi annual count of Gypsy and Traveller caravans.
Authorised Sites
According to the results of the ODPM bi-annual count in January 2006, there were 18 Gypsy and Traveller Caravans in Milton Keynes on authorised sites. It is evident from the Table 15 below that this tends to vary seasonally and annually.
Table 15: Number of caravans on socially rented authorised sites in Milton Keynes between Jul 2003 and July 2005 Date No. of caravans on socially rented authorised sites Jan-06 18 Jul-05 18 Jan-05 25 Jul-04 27 Jan-04 20 Jul-03 18
26
Technical Paper Unauthorised encampments
Figure 4 below shows that there is not a consistent trend of unauthorised encampments in Milton Keynes.
Figure 4: Number of caravans on unauthorised sites from July 2003 to July 2005
35
30 30
25
20 No.of Unauthorised 15 15 Encampments
Encampments 10 10
No. of Unauthorised Unauthorised of No. 5 6 5 0 0 Jul-03 Jan-04 Jul-04 Jan-05 Jul-05 Jan-06 Date of recording
Appendix A in the Strategy gives more details of the assessment of Gypsies and Travellers accommodation needs in Milton Keynes.
27
Technical Paper
Section 5: Staffing profile of Housing and Social Care Services ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
Milton Keynes Council Housing Service
The Figure 5 below provides a breakdown of staff ethnicity in the Housing service.
Figure 5: Percentages of staff ethnicity in Housing Services. 3% 2%
1% White British 3% White Irish 3% White Other Mixed Asian or Asian British 0% Black or Black British 86% 2% Other No Return
According to Figure 5, 86% of the Housing Services workforce gave their ethnic group as White British and 14% were from a BME group. Whilst this suggests that the Housing Service is representative of the BME population (as at the Census 2001), the latest figures from the Milton Keynes Housing Needs Study 2006 (MK HNS) suggests that 17% of the population is from a BME background, which would suggest that this is under representative.
Milton Keynes Social Care Service
The Figure 6 below provides a breakdown of staff by ethnicity in the Social Care service.
28
Technical Paper
Figure 6: Percentages of staff ethnicity in Social Care Services.
1% 0% 1% 5% 0% White British 2% 12% White Irish White Other Mixed Asian or Asian British Black or Black British Other 79% No Return
Figure 6 above shows that 79% of the Social Care workforce was White British and 21% were from a BME background. This workforce has a better representation of BME communities than the Housing Service workforce. There is also a higher percentage of BME staff working in Social Services than in the Milton Keynes BME population, which was 17% according to the Milton Keynes Housing Needs Study 2006.
29
Technical Paper
Section 6: Housing Needs ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
Current Housing Situation in Milton Keynes
Table 16: Tenure distribution over time. Tenure Census 2001 Housing Needs Study 2006 Owned outright 18.3% 19.8% Owned with a mortgage 46.9% 41.8% Rented privately 9.2% 12.6% Shared ownership 5.2% 6.0% Rented from council 14.0% 12.7% Rented from Housing Association 6.4% 7.2% Total 100% 100%
According to the Housing Needs Study 2006, 19.8% of households owned their home outright, 41.8% owned with a mortgage, 6% were Shared Owners (part mortgage and part rent), 12.6% rented from a private landlord, 12.7% rented from the Council and 7.2% rented from a Housing Association. The Table 16 above shows the changes in tenure between Census 2001 and Housing Needs Study 2006. It would appear that there has been a marginal proportionate reduction of owner occupied properties from 65.2% in 2001 to 61.6% in 2006. More significantly the private rented sector has increased substantially from 9.2% in 2001 to 12.6% in 2006.
The Council has a Local Plan that sets out the rules for building new houses in the Borough. It has to make enough land available for building the new homes required by the Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan (around 2,000 new homes a year). Despite this, the amount of housing built in Milton Keynes each year (completions rate) has been lower than the Plan requires. For example, in the 2005/06 year 1,808 homes were built. These completion rates are far higher than those of five or six years ago, where only 1,231 houses were completed in 2001/02 and 1,183 in 2002/036. This would indicate that the gap between the targets set out in the Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan and actual completions is even greater, with the shortfalls in previous years.
Currently, for all new housing built in Milton Keynes, 30% of it is classed as affordable housing7 of which 25% is intermediate housing8 and 5% is social rented housing9. The Milton Keynes Housing Needs Study 2006 suggests that the percentage of social rented housing needed to meet the needs of the Milton Keynes population should be higher than the current percentage. On the basis that just over 4,000 new homes are built every year, 13% needs to be social rented housing, 15% needs to be intermediate housing and 72% needs to be market housing (using the DCLG guidance on affordability testing). It is also worth noting that when the housing needs of Milton Keynes are considered on the basis of the McClement’s Equivalence Scale, an affordability test that includes variables like the
6 Housing completions and forecasts data: http://www.mkweb.co.uk/statistics/documents/Housing%5FForecast%5F2006%2D07%5Famended%5FAug06 %2Exls 7 Affordable Housing: Subsidised housing for people who cannot afford to rent/buy on the open market. 8 Intermediate Housing: for those households able to afford more than target social rents, but unable to afford to buy and unable to afford to rent market housing, based on lowest quartile market prices. 9 Social Rented Housing: Rent a property owned by a Council or Housing Association that is heavily subsidised and significantly lower than market rent.
30
Technical Paper number of dependents within the household, that in fact 22% of affordable housing should be social rent and 7% should be intermediate housing.
House Prices
In January 2006, the average price of a second hand one-bedroom flat was £105,000. Assuming a mortgage multiplier of 3x for a joint income, the household would need to earn £35,000. The Milton Keynes Housing Needs Study 2006 showed that 63% of BME households earned less than £32,000 per annum. This meant that the majority of BME households would not be able to afford a one-bedroom flat. To add to this, 65% of the BME households consisted of a household type that would require more than a one-bedroom property, for example a couple with dependent children, a group of adults with dependent children and single parent, therefore these households were likely to require a two-bedroom property at the minimum.
Private Rent Prices
Private rented accommodation in Milton Keynes also appears to be an unaffordable option for BME households, as the average rent for a one-bedroom flat was £480 per month (January 2006). Here, affordability is based on the National Housing Federation’s target of no more than 25% of disposable income being spent on housing costs. This would mean that a household would need an income of approximately £20,000 per annum. Data from the Milton Keynes Housing Needs Study 2006 suggested that 53% of BME households would not be able to afford to rent a one-bedroom flat. However for those BME households that may need more than a one-bedroom home, the average rent in January 2006 was just over £600 per month. This requires the household to be earning nearly £30,000 per annum. Again, this would make private renting unaffordable. Having said this, according to the Milton Keynes Housing Needs Study 2006, 30% of BME households lived in private rented housing, whereas only 12% of all households lived in private rented accommodation.
Social Rent
According to the Census 2001, there were 27,775 people living in council housing. Of those living in council housing, 9.6% were from a BME background. When compared to the total BME population, it was evident that BME households were under represented in Council housing.
The Milton Keynes Housing Needs Study 2006 found that of the BME households interviewed, 19% lived in social rented accommodation. This would indicate a significant increase since 2001.
However, in December 2005, our records showed that of those Council tenants, who provided details of their ethnicity, 85.7% were White and 14.3% were from a BME background. Care is needed when interpreting these figures, as a high proportion of council tenants did not provide their ethnicity, which could skew the statistics.
31
Technical Paper
Table 17: Ethnicity of Council tenants who recorded their ethnicity in housing survey. Ethnicity January 2005 (% or recorded ethnicity) December 2005 (% of recorded ethnicity) White 87.8 85.7 Mixed 0.1 0.4 Ethnicity Asian 3.3 3.8 Black 3.1 3.8 Other 5.6 6.3
Tenant Satisfaction Survey
A postal questionnaire was distributed to the tenants and leasehold/shared owners of Milton Keynes Council. The questionnaires were based on the National Housing Federation’s standardized tenants satisfaction survey (STATUS) with additional questions. The questionnaires were completed between August and September 2006. 1,490 tenant questionnaires and 643 homeowner (leasehold/shared owners) questionnaires were completed, which yielded a 32% response rate. The results of the survey should be accurate to +/- 1.9% points at 95% level of confidence.
Council Tenants
12% of the council tenants who participated in the survey were from BME communities, this would suggest that BME council tenants are under represented in the Council’s rented housing stock (when comparing with the Milton Keynes Housing Needs Study 2006 figure of 17% of population are from BME communities). However given the nature of a postal survey, this could be due to BME council tenants were unable to complete the survey and therefore under representing the BME council tenant population. The Table 18 below shows the ethnicity of Council tenants who participated in the Tenants Satisfaction Survey 2006.
Table 18: Ethnicity of Council Tenants who participated in the Tenants Satisfaction Survey 2006 Ethnic Group Number of tenants % of tenants White British 1281 86% White Irish 31 2.1% Any other White 16 1.1% Mixed Ethnicity 23 1.5% Asian: Indian 13 0.9% Asian: Pakistani 8 0.5% Asian: Bangladeshi 9 0.6% Asian: Other 8 0.5% Black: Caribbean 15 1.0% Black: African 45 3.0% Black: Other 5 0.3% Chinese 2 0.1% Other 10 0.7% Did not declare ethnicity 24 1.6% Total 1490 100%
Table 18 above shows that the majority of BME council tenants were from Black or Black British ethnic groups, with Black African having the highest percentage amongst BME groups, of 3%.
The survey also found that:
32
Technical Paper
• 53.8% of BME council tenants were not working, whereas 75.1% of White British council tenants were not working at the time of the survey. • 12.1% of BME council tenants had been tenants for under 1 year, whereas only 5% of White British council tenants had been tenants for under 1 year. • 17% of BME council tenants had been tenants for 21 years or more, whereas 43.1% of White British council tenants have been tenants for 21 years or more. • Most BME council tenants were one adult under the age of 60 years household type (30.6%) whereas the most of the White British council tenants were one adult aged 60 years or over household type (36.8%). • 79.6% of the BME council tenants were satisfied with the Council as a landlord, whereas 81.1% of White British council tenants were satisfied with the Council as a landlord. • 79.2% of BME council tenants felt that they got good value for money from the Council whereas 83% of White British council tenants felt that they got good value for money. • 76.3% of BME council tenants were satisfied with their accommodation, whereas 84% of White British council tenants were satisfied with their accommodation. • 77% of BME council tenants were satisfied with their neighbourhood and 79.4% of White British council tenants were satisfied with their neighbourhood. • 71% of BME council tenants were satisfied with the repairs service, whereas 69.6% were of White British council tenants were satisfied with the repairs service.
Leaseholders/Shared Owners
7.8% of the shared owners were from BME communities and 17.1% of leaseholders were from BME communities. The Table 19 below shows the breakdown of ethnicity for shared owners and leaseholders.
Table 19: Breakdown of ethnicity for shared owners and leaseholders Ethnicity No. of Shared % of Shared No. of % of Leaseholders Owners Owners Leaseholders White British 364 89.2% 181 79.4% White Irish 7 1.7% 8 3.5% White Other 6 1.5% 4 1.8% Mixed Ethnicity 7 1.7% 4 1.8% Asian: Indian 1 0.2% 6 2.6% Asian: Pakistani 3 0.7% 0 0% Asian: 0 0% 0 0% Bangladeshi Asian: Other 0 0% 1 0.4% Black: Caribbean 5 1.2% 4 1.8% Black: African 2 0.5% 7 3.1% Black: Other 0 0% 0 0% Chinese 0 0% 1 0.4% Other 1 0.2% 4 1.8% Did not declare 12 2.9% 8 3.5% ethnicity Total 408 100% 228 100%
According to Table 19 above, Mixed and Black or Black British ethnic groups were more likely to be shared owners (with 1.7% for Mixed and 1.7% for Black or Black British) than Asian or Asian British and Other ethnic groups (1.0% and 0.2% respectively). Black or Black British ethnic group was more likely to be a leaseholder, with 4.8% than Mixed, Asian or Asian British and Other ethnic groups (1.8%, 3.1% and 2.2% respectively).
33
Technical Paper
The survey also found that:
• 74.1% of BME shared owners and leaseholders were satisfied with their neighbourhood, whereas 74.1% of White British shared owners and leaseholders were satisfied with their neighbourhood. • 58.7% of BME shared owners and leaseholders were satisfied overall with the council’s service, whereas 70.9% of White British shared owners and leaseholders were satisfied overall with the council’s service. • 50% of BME shared owners and leaseholds were one adult under the age of 60 years households, whereas 30.7% of White British shared owners and leaseholders were one adult under the age of 60 years.
Milton Keynes Council’s Housing Waiting List
Milton Keynes Council’s housing department has various waiting lists, these are • The general waiting list – for anyone who applies for housing through the Housing Register application form. • The homeless permanent waiting list – for clients who are in hostels or temporary accommodation not owned by the Council • The transfer list – for clients who are already in Council housing but wish to transfer to another area; • The Housing Association transfer list – for clients who live in Housing Association accommodation and want to be housed in a Council property and • The transfer list for accepted homeless - for clients who are in Council non-secured tenancies but not in their preferred area, type or size of property.
The Waiting List and all Transfer Lists are ranked according to a points scheme, which takes account of statutory reasonable preference grounds. The scheme compares the household with accommodation needs, resulting in an award of points. Applicants can apply for as many areas as they choose. However, they will only list for properties for which they are eligible. For example a single person will be eligible for a one-bedroom flat but not a three-bedroom house. When properties become available, a shortlist is drawn up in points order of eligible households who have requested the estate the property is in.
According to the Council’s waiting list in July 2006, there were 7,029 households waiting to be accommodated, 21.9% of these households were from a BME background. This was more than the representation of BME communities in the Milton Keynes population according to the Census 2001, as well as the Milton Keynes Housing Needs Study 2006. 7.4% of the households on the waiting list did not provide their ethnicity.
Table 20 below shows that the majority of BME households was single parents, with 38.3%, followed by 34.1% were single people. The majority of white households were single people, with 38.2%, followed by 30.9% who were single parents.
34
Technical Paper
Table 20: Household types of households on the Council’s waiting list by ethnicity. Household Asian or Black or Mixed Other BME White Ethnicity Total Type Asian Black Ethnicity Total not British British stated Single 84 255 36 149 524 1,900 210 2,634 Person (25.1%) (38.5%) (47.4%) (32.2%) (34.1%) (38.2%) (40.5%) (37.5%) Adult 22 22 5 16 65 527 55 647 Couple (6.6%) (3.3%) (6.6%) (3.5%) (4.2%) (10.6%) (10.6%) (9.2%) Single 103 264 28 194 589 1,535 143 2,267 Parent (30.7%) (29.8%) (36.8%) (41.9%) (38.3%) (30.9%) (27.6%) (32.3%) Couple with 125 118 7 94 344 978 106 1,428 children (37.3%) (17.8%) (9.2%) (20.3%) (22.4%) (19.7%) (20.5%) (20.3%) Expected 0 0 0 1 1 15 1 17 Mother (0.0%) (0.0%) (0.0%) (0.2%) (0.1%) (0.3%) (0.2%) (0.2%) Unclassified 1 4 0 9 14 19 3 36 (0.3%) (0.6%) (0.0%) (1.9%) (0.9%) (0.4%) (0.6%) (0.5%) Total 335 663 76 463 1,537 4,974 518 7,029 (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%)
Table 21 below shows that 38.2% of BME households required a one-bedroom property, which was closely followed by 34% requiring a two-bedroom property. More white households required a one-bedroom property (46.8%) than BME households. There are also a higher percentage of BME households requiring at least a three-bedroom property (26.9%) than white households (17.5%), which suggests that BME households are more likely to require larger housing than white households.
Table 21: Size of property required for households on the waiting list by ethnicity Size of Asian or Black or Other Ethnicity property Asian Black Mixed Ethnic BME not required British British Ethnicity groups total White stated Total One-bedroom 102 278 40 167 587 2328 251 3166 property (30.4%) (41.9%) (52.6%) (36.1%) (38.2%) (46.8%) (48.5%) (45.0%) Two-bedroom 126 218 24 154 522 1758 159 2439 property (37.6%) (32.9%) (31.6%) (33.3%) (34.0%) (35.3%) (30.7%) (34.7%) Three- 81 146 12 107 346 737 87 1170 bedroom (24.2%) (22.0%) (15.8%) (23.1%) (22.5%) (14.8%) (16.8%) (16.6%) property Four-bedroom 24 16 0 25 65 128 17 210 property (7.2%) (2.4%) (0.0%) (5.4%) (4.2%) (2.6%) (3.3%) (3.0%) Five-bedroom 1 1 0 3 4 1 8 1 (0.2%) property (0.3%) (0.2%) (0.0%) (0.2%) (0.1%) (0.2%) (0.1%) 1 4 0 14 19 3 36 9 (1.9%) Unclassified (0.3%) (0.6%) (0.0%) (0.9%) (0.4%) (0.6%) (0.5%) 335 663 76 463 1537 4974 518 7029 Total (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%)
Milton Keynes Council Housing Allocations
The following data analyses the housing allocations for households on these waiting lists. There were 1,175 housing allocations made from the waiting lists between April 2005 to March 2006 and 20% of these housing allocations were made to BME households, which is almost in line with the representation of BME households on the waiting list. However 5.7% of the households did not provide their ethnicity.
35
Technical Paper According to the Social Atlas 200510, Netherfield, Stacey Bushes, Beanhill, Tinkers Bridge, Fishermead, New Bradwell, Water Eaton, Conniburrow, Granby and Greenleys were rated as the 10 areas that experienced the most difficulties in Milton Keynes. Table 22 below shows the number of housing allocations made to these areas in Milton Keynes.
Table 22: Housing allocations made from the various waiting lists to the ten areas that experienced the most difficulties in Milton Keynes in 2005 by ethnicity. Area BME White Ethnicity not Total households households provided (%) (%) (%) (%) Netherfield 22 ( 9.4%) 72 ( 8.2%) 3 (4.5%) 97 ( 8.3%) Stacey Bushes 5 ( 2.1%) 20 ( 2.3%) 3 (4.5%) 28 ( 2.4%) Beanhill 11 ( 4.7%) 26 ( 3.0%) 1 (1.5%) 38 ( 3.2%) Tinkers Bridge 1 ( 0.4%) 10 ( 1.1%) 0 (0.0%) 11 ( 0.9%) Fishermead 18 ( 7.7%) 42 ( 4.8%) 4 ( 6.0%) 64 ( 5.4%) New Bradwell 6 ( 2.6%) 22 ( 2.5%) 1 ( 1.5%) 29 ( 2.5%) Water Eaton 29 (12.3%) 110 (12.6%) 5 ( 7.5%) 144 (12.3%) Conniburrow 12 ( 5.1%) 15 ( 1.7%) 1 ( 1.5%) 28 ( 2.4%) Granby 30 (12.8%) 39 ( 4.5%) 6 ( 9.0%) 75 ( 6.4%) Greenleys 2 ( 0.9%) 14 ( 1.6%) 1 ( 1.5%) 17 ( 1.4%) Total housing allocations made to 136 (57.9%) 370 (42.4%) 25 (37.3%) 531 (45.2%) these 10 most deprived areas in MK Total housing allocations 235 (100%) 873 (100%) 67 (100%) 1175 (100%)
The Table 22 above shows that 57.9% of BME households were allocated housing in the ten areas rated as having the most difficulties in Milton Keynes, whereas only 42.4% of the white households were allocated properties in these areas. The biggest difference between BME and white housing allocations was households who were allocated housing in the Granby area. This is because 12.8% of the BME households were allocated housing in this area compared with only 4.5% of white households.
There could be many reasons for the variations in areas of housing allocations between white and BME households (for example the locations in which properties become available for allocations and the size of the household). Figure 7 below shows the ten most likely areas that properties became available for allocations between April 2005 and March 2006. It is important to add that, this pool of properties was shared between homeless households allocations as well as households on the various waiting lists. The quota is roughly 70% available to households on the waiting list and 30% available for the homeless households.
10 For more information on the Social Atlas, see http://www.mkiobservatory.org.uk/download/wtdrqkawvitzlj55afaoh455/1984/SA2005New.pdf.
36
Technical Paper
Figure 7: Top ten areas where properties were available for housing allocations.
120 100 80 60 40
No. of Properties 20 0 l y y d ll e or hl anb hes Eaton tchley atf e Gr r us letc St Beanhi B ter y a t B Netherfield y w Bradwel e W Fishermead Far Bl Ne tac Wes Fenn S Areas in Milton Keynes
The Figure 7 above shows that seven out of the ten areas rated as having the most difficulties in Milton Keynes in 2005 were the most likely areas that properties would become available for housing allocations, with Water Eaton being the most common place where properties became available for housing allocations. Its not surprising therefore, that the majority of housing allocations are made to these areas. However, this does not give an explanation for the difference between BME and white households who have been allocated properties in these areas. The Table 23 below may provide a partial explanation for the difference, as it shows the size of properties that were allocated to white and BME households.
Table 23: The size of properties allocated to households on the various waiting lists. Size of BME White Ethnicity not Total property households households declared households 1 bedroom 128 (54.5%) 530 (60.7%) 51 (76.1%) 709 (60.3%) property 2 bedroom 54 (23.0%) 193 (22.1%) 10 (14.9%) 257 (21.9%) property 3 bedroom 49 (20.9%) 143 (16.4%) 5 ( 7.5%) 197 (16.8%) property 4 bedroom 3 ( 1.3%) 3 ( 0.3%) 1 ( 1.5%) 7 ( 0.6%) property 5 bedroom 1 ( 0.4%) 4 ( 0.5%) 0 ( 0.0%) 5 ( 0.4%) property Total 235 (100%) 873 (100%) 67 (100%) 1175 (100%)
Although the majority of BME households were allocated one-bedroom properties, the Table 23 above also indicates that there was a higher percentage of BME households allocated two -, three - and four - bedroom properties than white households. This suggests that BME households had a higher need for two -, three-, and four- bedroom properties than white households. The following Figure 8 shows the areas in which properties were available for housing allocations and the size of those properties.
37
Technical Paper
Figure 8: Area that properties available for housing allocations between Apr 2005 and Mar 2006 by size of property
60 50 One bedroom Property 40 Two Bedroom Property 30 Three Bedroom Property 20 Four Bedroom Property Five Bedroom Property
No. of properties 10 0
h d s n h c inf e to c L a CMKConni yStrat Beanhill n Granby Bradville FarBlet Great NewBrad Fen Netherfield Wolverton Brad Comm FishermeaFullersSlade NewportPagWaterEWestBlet StaceyBush Areas in Milton Keynes
Figure 8 above shows that the majority of one-bedroom properties were available in Granby, which means that there was a higher likelihood that a household would be allocated housing in this area. It is also evident that a five-bedroom property would rarely become available and that the majority of these were in Water Eaton, again another area in Milton Keynes that has been identified as experiencing the most difficulties. This Figure 8 also shows that Beanhill, Conniburrow and Netherfield were areas in which two-, three- and four-bedroom properties were likely to be available for housing allocations. This could provide an explanation as to why BME households had a higher percentage of housing allocations in these areas than white households.
Registered Social Landlords (RSLs)
The BME Housing and Support Needs study also looked at relets of Registered Social Landlords (RSLs, also known as Housing Associations) between 2001 and 2005 through the Housing Corporation CORE statistics. 28.9% of all relets by RSLs were to BME households. This was higher than the share in the MK HNS 2006, which was 17%. It would also appear that the largest proportion of BME groups in RSL relets was the Black African group, with 15.1%.
Decent Homes
In July 2000 the Government introduced the Decent Homes Standard. It established a target to ensure that all social housing meets a set standard of decency by 2010 (with most of the improvement taking place in the most deprived local authority areas11). The Government extended the target to the private sector with a focus on vulnerable households. The amended target is now “by 2010, to bring all social housing into decent condition, with most of the improvement taking place in deprived areas, and increase the proportion of private housing in decent condition occupied by vulnerable groups”'.
11 [0]Page 1: A Decent Home – the definition and guidance for implementation 38
Technical Paper There are specific targets for the proportion of vulnerable households (including families with children) in the private sector whose homes should achieve the decency standard. The baseline for 2001 is 57% and the target is to increase this to 63% by 2005, to 70% by 2010, and to 75% by 2015/2012. The Government defines vulnerable households as those in receipt of at least one of the principal means tested or disability related benefits13. In the Government’s view, the approach to making private sector homes decent will be different from the social sector. This reflects the different ownership responsibilities and the legislative framework guiding enforcement powers.
The English Housing Conditions Survey 2004 Headline report showed that nationally the number of homes that failed to meet the decent home standard continues to fall at a steady rate. Since 1996 the number of non-decent homes has reduced from 9.1 million (45% of all homes) to 6.3 million (29% of all homes). Whilst homes in the private sector continue to be less likely to be non-decent compared to social sector homes (29% and 31% respectively), homes in the social sector have seen a greater rate of progress since 1996 and consequently the gap between the two sectors has narrowed.
Failure to provide adequate thermal comfort remains the most common reason for failing the decent homes standard (4.6 million or 21% of all homes). 3.7m (21% of) private sector homes fail the thermal comfort criterion while 0.9m (23% of) social sector homes fail the criterion.
Around half of the Council’s own homes currently do not meet the Decent Homes Standard. The Council has around 12,000 rented homes and it is estimated that 1,716 people from a BME background rent them. We are on course to meet the target date for 2010. This would suggest that for those who are living in social rented accommodation, the condition of housing for BME households should improve over the next 5 years.
By contrast, in Milton Keynes we estimate that the number of non-Decent Homes in the Private Sector14 (vulnerable households only, using ODPM Ready Reckoner): 2,161 dwellings (2.9%). However we do not know how many of them are likely to be occupied by people from BME communities.
Meanwhile the Milton Keynes Housing Needs Study 2006 found that 11% of the BME households who took part in the study felt that they had serious or minor problems with the physical condition of their property. This compares to 15% of all households who took part in the survey. The main concerns that the BME households had were with damp penetration and condensation.
At Risk of Homelessness
As highlighted in the Section 1, difficulties accessing homelessness services and appropriate support, problems linked to racial discrimination and harassment, overcrowding
12 [0]Page 1: Source:Circular05/2003 http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_housing/documents/page/odpm_house_609809.pdf 13 Page 1: The English House Condition Survey took into account the following benefits when it established the national 2001 baseline: income support, housing benefit, council tax benefit, income based job seekers allowance, working family’s tax credit, attendance allowance, disability living allowance, industrial injuries disablement benefit, war disablement pension.
14 Based on 72,508 private sector dwellings.
39
Technical Paper and loss of National Asylum Seeker Support were identified as factors that increase the risk of homelessness specifically amongst BME households in the Tackling Homelessness Amongst Ethnic Minority Households: A Development Guide, produced by the Office of Deputy Prime Minister (now known as the Department of Local Government and Communities) in September 2005. The paragraphs below provide statistical information for each of these risks in terms of BME households in Milton Keynes.
Racial Discrimination and Harassment
Racial harassment statistics between January 2002 and December 2004 suggested that incidents of racial harassment have increased, as in 2002 there were 240 recorded incidents whereas in 2004 there were 356 recorded incidents. However caution needs to be taken with these records, as there were a variety of factors that could have influenced the recording of racial harassment incidents. One such factor is the work that has been carried out to improve the recording of such incidents, as victims have been encouraged to report the incidents to the police. The most common form of racial harassment was verbal abuse. It was also recorded that the perpetrators were most likely to be White and the victims were White (13.2%), Black Caribbean (12.4%), Black African (11.8%) or Asian Other (11.2%). The majority of reported incidents of racial harassment (55.6%) claimed that they did not know the perpetrators, 31.5% claimed that they knew the perpetrator and 12.9% claimed that it was their neighbour15. There are several Racial Incident Reporting Centres situated throughout Milton Keynes. See Appendix C of the Strategy for details of Racial Incident Reporting Centres.
Overcrowding
The BME Housing and Support Needs Study found that in 2001 Asian or Asian British, Black or Black British and Chinese and Other Ethnic groups were more likely to have a household with two or more dependent children than White British households, with 59.2% of Bangladeshi households with two or more dependent children. This would suggest that BME households were more likely to experience overcrowding than White British households.
A more accurate measure of overcrowding, the room occupancy rate appeared to reiterate the overcrowding issue for Bangladeshi and Black African communities. The room occupancy rate assumes that every household requires at least two common rooms excluding bathrooms and that the number of bedrooms required depends on the composition of the households. A rating of –1 or less indicates that the household has at least one too few rooms for its occupants. 41.2% of Black African households and 40.7% of Bangladeshi households had a rating of at least –1, which suggests that they were overcrowded. This compares to only 6.3% of White British households who had a rating of at least –1.
More recently the Milton Keynes Housing Needs Study 2006 also identified that there were issues with overcrowding amongst BME households. 10% of the BME households were overcrowded this compares to only 4% for all households who took part in the household survey. This would suggest that overcrowding was more of an issue for BME households than households in the general population.
15 These are based on figures produced by the Milton Keynes Police (Community and Race Relations Officers) for the Anti Harassment Group in 2004.
40
Technical Paper A further problem here is that the Milton Keynes Housing Needs Study Update 2003 showed that the affordable housing requirement in the Borough is more pronounced for smaller properties. This is in part linked back to affordability – the larger the home, the more it costs and the less affordable it becomes to people on low incomes. The Update showed for instance that no households requiring a four-bedroom home can afford more than a 40% share of a shared ownership property and that discounted four-bedroom market housing was simply unaffordable. So trying to build more large houses will not necessarily be a solution unless they are clearly affordable.
Additional Factors
The BME Housing and Support Needs Study 2006 included analyses based on the Census 2001 for BME households. They found that there were significantly higher unemployment rates amongst Black African (8.6%), White and Black African (8.2%) and Black Other (8.9%) populations than any other groups in Milton Keynes. These were almost three times higher than the unemployment rates for White British households, which was 2.8%. Occupational classifications also indicate that the BME population was more likely to work within the lower grades of employment. For example the lower grade occupations show that the Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Black African ethnic groups were over-represented in these occupations, which suggest that they were likely to be in the poorest paying jobs and therefore unlikely to be owner-occupiers.
Single parenthood varied considerably amongst BME households, with Mixed Ethnicity and Black or Black British households having a higher percentage of single parenthood than White British households (9.9%). The highest levels of single parenthood were amongst Mixed White and Black Caribbean (22.1%). Whereas Asian or Asian British households demonstrated equal or lower levels of single parenthood than the White British households, Asian Indian had the lowest levels of single parenthood of just over 5%.
The Bangladeshi community had the highest levels of people with no formal qualifications, with 53.4% of the adult population. This was over twice the percentage for the White British population (24.6%). However, Asian Other, Indian and Other Ethnic Groups had over 35% of their population with a degree or above. This indicates that there is a wide variation amongst BME in terms of qualifications.
Gypsies and Travellers
Local planning authorities are expected, where reasonably possible to identify and allocate sites for Gypsies and Travellers in local plans. The Housing Act 2004 now requires local housing authorities to assess the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers in their housing strategies. Milton Keynes Council is fortunate in that it has been working on this issue for some time. Currently there are three new sites allocated to Gypsies and Travellers in the Milton Keynes Local Plan, these are located at Bottledump Roundabout, Fenny Lock and Newton Leys. The Council has also taken part in two pieces of research into Gypsies and Travellers accommodation needs. See Appendix A of the strategy for details.
Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs assessment for the Thames Valley Region (Association of Councils for the Thames Valley Region - ACTVaR)
This study was carried out by Tribal Consulting research consultancy on behalf of the Association for Councils in the Thames Valley Region (ACTVaR). The main purpose is to
41
Technical Paper provide the regional picture of accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers in the Thames Valley area. The study found that for Milton Keynes:
• There are currently 18 pitches provided for Gypsies and Travellers in Milton Keynes (Calverton Lane and Willen Road sites). • Between 2006 and 2011 there will be a need for a total of 36 pitches. • The Council has planned for 27 new pitches allocated across three new sites in Milton Keynes. • As long as the Council builds the new pitches between 2006 and 2011, the Council should meet the need for new pitches through their current plans.
This Assessment for the Thames Valley region will form part of the evidence base for the South East Plan Review, but will not provide the final word on the decision on number of permanent and transit sites in the region. The South East Plan Review will also include extensive consultation with local authorities as well as Gypsies and Travellers in the area. The South East of England Regional Assembly (SEERA) will then make a decision about site provision for Gypsies and Travellers based on the Accommodation Needs Assessments being carried out across the South East region, including the ACTVaR research as well as the consultations with the local authorities. SEERA may be encouraging neighbouring local authorities to partner up with each other to assist with the consultation process.
As part of the South East Plan Review, three groups will be set up. They will be: • An Officer Task Group, • A Gypsy and Traveller Reference Group and • A Member Task Group.
The full report can be viewed at http://www.actvar.gov.uk/pdfs/REPORT%2015-09-061.pdf
Milton Keynes: Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment
The second piece of work is a specific part of the Housing Needs Study 2006. It is a qualitative study that considers the need for additional pitches and sites in Milton Keynes. This study supplements and, in terms of detail, goes beyond the ACTVaR study by using a qualitative methodology based on in-depth semi-structured interviews in small group discussions in which a total of about 50 Gypsies and Travellers actively participated while a number of others listened. The work is currently underway and is likely to finish end of September.
The study covered Gypsies and Travellers in the following circumstances: • Authorised sites • Unauthorised roadside encampments • Bricks and mortar accommodation In general, Gypsies and Travellers in bricks and mortar accommodation are difficult to identify because few housing waiting and transfer lists identify Gypsies and Travellers as a separate ethnic group, but in this case Milton Keynes Council liaison staff were able to introduce the researchers to Gypsies and Travellers living in bricks and mortar accommodation. As well as considering the need for new pitches and sites, the study considered the needs of all the above groups in terms of any extra service provision that may be required. 42
Technical Paper Methodology
The study was conducted through in-depth semi-structured interviews that took place between May and June 2006
There were good reasons for using in-depth semi-structured interviews in small group discussion – for the approach allowed people to respond freely in a conversational style with an open-ended exchange of ideas, thereby giving much more information than a conventional questionnaire could elicit. Such an approach is qualitative rather than quantitative in nature – conceptual rather than statistical, and interpretative rather than mathematical – and is concerned with the diversity, meaning and intensity of people’s views rather than with their statistical distribution. The aim was to understand people’s opinions, to see why and how they believe as they do. Qualitative projects cannot be certified at a determinate confidence level as being statistically representative of the opinions of Gypsies and Travellers in Milton Keynes. In this case, however, the interviews and discussions included a very substantial number and range of people, and while exploring not just ‘instant’ opinions (when asked an artificially simplified set of questions) but also their arguments and assumptions. Hence the researchers believe the findings reported in the study are reliable.
The main findings from this study were:
• Gypsies and Travellers living (sometimes reluctantly) in houses and those living in unauthorised roadside encampments tended to agree on the following priorities: o Willen Road and Calverton Lane sites could accommodate more pitches; o The Council should act through its own site managers rather than through site heads of family groups; o The sites should be managed as places of residence; o Business and manufacturing operations should be strictly limited and regulated in terms of health and safety, amenity and quality of life; o Allocations to the two current sites should be more regulated, transparent and open; and o New permanent sites may not need to be developed if the two existing sites could yield 20 new pitches.
• However residents on authorised sites disagreed with many of these points and felt that: o At least one new permanent site is needed; o The number of pitches on the permanent site should not be expanded – but size of pitches should be increased significantly; o The permanent sites should have autonomy and be left alone as far as possible to run their own affairs in their own way, without interference with respect to business, ‘manufacture’ and stock rearing issues; o The sites need significant improvement in two main ways: • Substantial enlargement of current pitches; and • Substantial upgrading of kitchen and washroom sheds.
These issues identified by Gypsies and Travellers in the study suggest that the Council needs to make some decisions about site allocation and management, role of liaison officers, the need for new permanent sites and whether the Council should invest money improving the current sites or lease or sell the sites to the current residents. Appendix xx of
43
Technical Paper the Strategy provide further details on the accommodation issues for Gypsies and Travellers.
44
Technical Paper
Section 6: Homelessness ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
Between April 2005 and March 2006, the Council accepted 352 households as homeless, of these 20.2% were from BME communities. This compares to 705 homeless acceptances between April 2004 and March 2006, with 23.4% from BME communities.
In comparison to the Census 2001, the percentage of BME homeless acceptances between April 2005 and March 2006 was one and half times over represented in the homeless acceptances statistics. However when comparing to the more recent population data from the MK HNS 2006, the BME homeless acceptances were only 3.2 percentage points higher than the percentage of the BME population, which was 17%. The figure of 20.2% is also lower than the current national homeless acceptances statistics, which was 27.4%.
Table 24: Percentage breakdown of homeless acceptances by ethnicity between 2005 and 2006. Ethnic Group No. of Homeless % of Homeless % of MK % of MK Acceptances Acceptances Population Housing (Census 2001) Needs Study 2006 White (includes White Irish 273 77.6% 89.5% 88.2% and White Other) Mixed Ethnicity 10 2.8% 1.8% 1.0% Asian or Asian British 17 4.8% 3.6% 4.7% Black or Black British 32 9.1% 2.4% 4.4% Other 12 3.4% 1.4% 1.6% Not Stated 8 2.3% N/A N/A Total 352 100% 100% 100%
The Table 24 above shows that the Black or Black British ethnic group was four times over represented in the homeless acceptances statistics, when comparing to the Census 2001 statistics. However when comparing to the more recent MK HNS 2006 data, Black or Black British were only two times over represented. The Mixed Ethnicity and Other Ethnicity groups were also over represented in the homeless acceptances.
Caution needs to be taken when considering the comparisons with the Census 2001 data, as this data is only representative of the Milton Keynes population in 2001. This is why comparisons have been made with the recent MK HNS 2006 data. However it is important to note that even though the BME group as a whole will be representative of the Milton Keynes BME population. The breakdown of each ethnic group is not representative of the individuals BME groups in Milton Keynes population. See page19 of this document.
Table 25: Main reasons for homelessness amongst BME groups. No. of homeless acceptances from BME Reason for homelessness applicants Friends or families no longer willing to accommodate 23 Termination of Assured Shorthold Tenancy 21 Violent associated others relationship breakdown 8 Other 4
The Table 25 above shows that the main reasons for homelessness for BME groups were “Friends and family no longer willing to accommodate” (with 23 applicants) and “Termination of Assured Shorthold Tenancy” (with 21 applicants). This would suggest that the overcrowding identified in the Milton Keynes Housing Needs Study 2006, might have resulted in family and friends having to ask people to leave. The “Termination of Assured
45
Technical Paper Shorthold Tenancy” reason suggests that this could be due to BME households being forced to leave private rented accommodation. It is not possible to compare these statistics with the national homeless statistics, as this was not recorded. However this would match the findings of the national study of causes of homelessness, carried out by ODPM.
Table 26: Number of BME homeless acceptances by household type and ethnicity Household Type White Asian or Black or Mixed Other BME Total Asian Black Ethnicity ethnic Total British British groups Single Person 84 2 5 5 2 14 98 Adult Couple 8 1 0 0 0 1 9 Single Parent 111 7 18 3 5 33 144 Couple with 77 Children 56 7 9 2 3 21 Expectant Mother 4 0 0 0 1 1 5 Couple with 4 Expectant Child 3 0 0 0 1 1 Unclassified 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 Total 273 17 32 10 12 71 34416
The Table 26 above shows that the majority of BME homeless acceptances were single parents, with 46.5%, which was higher than White homeless acceptances, which was 40.7%. This could suggest that they were seeking at a minimum of two-bedroom properties.
Analysis of gender and ethnicity amongst the homeless statistics also revealed that females had by far the highest proportion of homeless acceptances. Table 27 below shows that 66.2% of the homeless acceptances amongst BME applicants were from females, which was similar to White homeless acceptances of 69.2%.
Table 27: Number of homeless acceptances by gender Gender White Asian or Black or Mixed Other BME Total Asian Black Ethnicity ethnic Total British British group Male 84 6 8 4 6 24 108 Female 189 11 24 6 6 47 236 Total 273 17 32 10 12 71 344
A report carried out by Hazel Wallace on behalf of the Metro Centre in London in 2005, called Time to Think provided some insight into the housing experiences of young Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) people from BME communities. It would appear that the majority of non-white LGBT people had not disclosed their sexuality to their parents and of those who had disclosed their sexuality to their parents, were forced to leave the home. The report also suggested that BME LGBT people may be more at risk of experiencing violence from their family after disclosure. This would suggest that with the risk of homelessness and threat of violence from families, BME LGBT people were less likely to disclose their sexuality to their families. This report, therefore suggests that LGBT BME people are likely to be at risk of homelessness specifically due to their experiences of homophobia. However this report is focused on a group of young LGBT people living in London and caution needs to be given as to whether this can be a true representation of Milton Keynes. Currently the Milton Keynes Council's Housing Options service does not record whether a person is homeless because their families forced them to leave home
16 8 homeless acceptances did not provide their ethnicity.
46
Technical Paper after disclosing their sexuality or because they have experienced violence from the family after disclosing their sexuality, so it is not possible to say whether this is happening to young BME LGBT people in Milton Keynes.
Emergency housing allocations for homeless households
When a household is accepted as homeless, the Council has a duty to ensure that accommodation is made available. This accommodation is most likely to be temporary, although permanent solutions may be provided on occasions. When the Council has a duty to provide temporary accommodation (e.g. whilst enquiries are being made) housing is provided on the basis of what properties are available at that time. This can range from bed and breakfast accommodation to properties in the Council’s own housing stock. Table 28 analyses allocations from the Council’s own housing stock by area and ethnicity for the period of April 2005 to March 2006.
Table 28: Emergency homeless housing allocations by area and ethnicity BME White homeless homeless Ethnicity not Area allocations allocations provided Total Water Eaton 11 (22.9%) 37 (22.8%) 3 (50%) 51 (23.6%) Netherfield 7 (14.6%) 19 (11.7%) 26 (12%) Far Bletchley 6 (12.5%) 15 (9.3%) 2 (33.3%) 23 (10.6%) Granby 2 (4.2%) 16 (9.9%) 18 (8.3%) Fenny Stratford 2 (4.2%) 15 (9.3%) 1 (16.7%) 18 (8.3%) West Bletchley 3 (6.3%) 14 (8.7%) 17 (7.9%) Fishermead 3 (6.3%) 7 (4.3%) 10 (4.6%) Conniburrow 5 (10.4%) 3 (1.9%) 8 (3.8%) Neath Hill 3 (6.3%) 4 (2.5%) 7 (3.2%) Central Milton Keynes 1 (2.1%) 5 (3.1%) 6 (2.8%) New Bradwell 2 (4.2%) 2 (1.2%) 4 (1.9%) Fullers Slade 0 4 (2.5%) 4 (1.9%) Wolverton 0 4 (2.5%) 4 (1.9%) Greenleys 0 3 (1.9%) 3 (1.4%) Newport Pagnell 0 3 (1.9%) 3 (1.4%) Great Linford 1 (2.1%) 1 (0.6%) 2 (0.9%) Bradville 0 2 (1.2%) 2 (0.9%) Hodge Lea 0 2 (1.2%) 2 (0.9%) Stacey Bushes 0 2 (1.2%) 2 (0.9%) Stony Stratford 1 (2.1%) 1 (0.5%) Danesborough 0 1 (0.6%) 1 (0.5%) Hanslope 0 1 (0.6%) 1 (0.5%) Stantonbury 0 1 (0.6%) 1 (0.5%) Woburn Sands 0 1 (0.6%) 1 (0.5%) Tinkers Bridge 1 (2.1%) 1 (0.5%) Grand Total 48 (100%) 162 (100%) 6 (100%) 216 (100%)
As previously mentioned, the areas rated as the ten most deprived in Milton Keynes were Netherfield, Stacey Bushes, Beanhill, Tinkers Bridge, Fishermead, New Bradwell, Water Eaton, Conniburrow, Granby and Greenleys. The Table 28 above shows that 64.7% of homeless BME households were allocated housing in these areas, whereas 54.9% of white homeless households were accommodated in these areas. There could be several reasons for the difference between the percentage of BME homeless households and white homeless households allocated housing in these areas for example the over representation of BME households in homelessness statistics but also the size of the homeless household
47
Technical Paper and the availability of properties. The Table 29 below shows the size of properties allocated to homeless households by ethnicity.
Table 29: Emergency homeless housing allocations by size of property and ethnicity BME Ethnicity not provided homeless White homeless for homeless households households household Total One bedroom property 28 (58.3%) 102 (63%) 4 (66%) 134 (62%) Two bedroom property 13 (27.1%) 34 (21%) 1 (17%) 48 (22.2%) Three bedroom property 7 (14.6%) 26 (16%) 1 (17%) 34 (15.7%) Total 48 (100%) 162 (100%) 6 (100%) 216 (100%)
The Table 29 above shows that the majority of BME and white homeless households were allocated one-bedroom properties, however a higher percentage of BME homeless households were allocated two-bedroom properties (27.1%) than white homeless households (21%). This could provide an explanation for the percentage difference between BME homeless households and white homeless households. However a further look at what properties were available for housing allocations could also add a better understanding for the difference.
Figure 8 on page 29 shows that seven out of the ten most likely areas for available properties were in the areas rated as the ten most deprived areas in Milton Keynes. It is not surprising, therefore that there are likely to be more housing allocations in these areas. Figure 8 on page 29 also shows the size of properties that were available for housing allocations and the locations that these properties were available. The Table 29 shows that two-bedroom properties were most likely to be available in West Bletchley, Far Bletchley, Water Eaton and Netherfield. This indicates that BME homeless households have a slightly higher need for two-bedroom properties than white homeless households and therefore more likely to get allocated housing in areas where two-bedroom properties were likely to be available, which would include the areas where more BME homeless households were allocated housing than white households, for example Water Eaton, Netherfield and Far Bletchley.
Current Situation
Between April 2006 and July 2006, the Council has only accepted around 50 households as homeless. Of these, only around 16 were in bed and breakfast accommodation. Whilst unfortunately the Council does not record the ethnicity of households placed in bed and breakfast accommodation17, as the overall numbers are small there does not appear to be a major issue. The overall number of households in temporary accommodation had also fallen from 821 in July 2005 to 745 in July 2006.
17 This is purely to a technical issue around the databases as First Housing can not record data on properties that we do not own (e.g. b & b)
48
Technical Paper
Section 8: Social Care & Health Needs ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
Milton Keynes Social Care Statistics
Every year Milton Keynes Council submits a Referrals, Assessments and Packages of Care (RAP) return to the Government. This provides data on the number of services users, the types of services they used and the primary client group.
Table 30: Percentage of clients receiving services during 2004-2005 by Ethnicity and MK population All Milton Keynes MK HNS Ethnicity Clients Census 2001 2006 White British 88% 86.8% 84.8% White Irish 1.6% 1.4% 1.2% White Other 2.1% 2.5% 2.2% Mixed Ethnicity 0.7% 1.8% 1.0% Asian or Asian British 1.7% 3.6% 4.7% Black or Black British 0.7% 2.4% 4.4% Any other ethnic group 0.4% 1.4% 1.6% Ethnicity not declared 5% N/A N/A
It is evident from the Table 30 above that 7.2% of service users were from a BME community, and that 3.5% of the service users were non-white. In terms of representation of service users from the BME community, there were 5.9 percentage points lower than the percentage of people from BME groups in the Milton Keynes population according to the Census 2001 and 9.8 percentage points lower than the MK HNS 2006. This suggests that BME communities were significantly under represented in people using social care services.
With closer inspection of the individual ethnic groups, there were differences in representation in the social care statistics, for example the White Irish ethnic group had a higher representation in the social care statistics than the Milton Keynes population in 2001 and the Milton Keynes Housing Needs Study (MK HNS) 2006 and White Other service users had slightly higher representation to the White Other population in 2001 however more or less the same as the figure for the MK HNS 2006. The Mixed Ethnicity, Asian or Asian British, Black or Black British and Any Other ethnic groups demonstrated a considerably lower representation in the social care statistics than in the population in 2001 and the MK HNS 2006. Therefore it would appear that people from a non-white background were more likely to be under represented in the social care statistics than people from a white background.
However there are two factors that need to be considered with regard to the reliability of the comparison between the population data and the social care statistics. The population data is based on a snapshot of the population of Milton Keynes in 2001, whereas the social care statistics were based on the service users recorded between April 2004 and March 2005, which is the reason for the comparison to the more recent MK HNS 2006 data. However the breakdown of each ethnic group in the MK HNS 2006 is not representative of the individual BME groups in the Milton Keynes population. See Section 3, page 19 of this document.
49
Technical Paper In relation to the national Community Care statistics, it is evident from the Table 31 below that Milton Keynes had a higher percentage of White British, White Irish, and Mixed Ethnicity service users than the national perspective and that the proportion of White Other service users was fairly similar to the national statistics. However, in terms of the Black or Black British, Asian or Asian British and Any Other ethnic groups, these were lower than the national percentage, with the largest difference being between the national Black or Black British and Milton Keynes Black or Black British service users, where there was 0.9% difference. Again this would illustrate that there is an under representation of non-white service users in Milton Keynes social care services.
Table 31: Comparison between the National and Milton Keynes Community Care statistics National Community Milton Keynes Community Ethnicity Care Statistics Care Statistics White British 80% 88% White Irish 1% 1.6% White Other 2% 2.1% Mixed Ethnicity 0.2% 0.7% Asian or Asian British 2% 1.7% Black or Black British 1.6% 0.7% Any other ethnic group 0.6% 0.4% Ethnicity not declared 13% 5%
Age
Table 32 below shows that there were more completed assessments for clients aged 65 years and over than between 18 – 64 years. There were proportionally more BME service users in the 18 – 64 years age group than in the 65 years and over age group (16.4 % of the 18 to 64 years old compared to 11.6% of the 65 years and over group. This appeared to be fairly similar to the national Community Care statistics, (13.5% between 18 and 64 years old and 6.5% were 65 years old and over).
Table 32: Completed assessments or reviews by ethnic group and age group. Completed Assessments or Reviews 18-64 years Age 65 years and over All Age group group Age Group Ethnicity (no. of clients) (% of clients) (% of clients) White British 1985 27% 73% White Irish 33 30% 70% White Other 46 24% 76% Mixed Ethnicity 10 60% 40% Asian or Asian British 31 35% 65% Black or Black British 16 50% 50% Any other ethnic group 5 100% 0 Ethnicity not declared 153 35% 65% Total 2275 28% 72% BME Total 294 35% 65%
When looking at specific groups White Irish, White Other and Asian or Asian British were proportionally higher amongst the 65 years and over age group than the 18 to 64 year olds. In terms of the White Irish and White Other ethnic groups, this was not surprising (as the White Irish and White Other ethnic groups had a higher proportion of 65 years and over
50
Technical Paper population than the remaining BME populations). However 65% of the Asian or Asian British service users were 65 years and over, which appears to contradict the proportion of 65 years and over population in 2001 (as this was only 4% of the Asian or Asian British population). A possible reason for this difference is that as the Asian or Asian British population has aged there has been a developing need for social care services and therefore the social care statistics might be a more accurate representation of the 65 years and over Asian or Asian British population.
The Table 33 below shows the proportion of social care clients by ‘ten year’ age groups in order to establish whether social care clients are likely to be over or under represented in these age groups.
Table 33: Number and percentage of social care clients by ethnicity and age in comparison with Census 2001 population data. 19-24 year No. of White White White Mixed Asian Black Other Not olds clients British Irish Other or or Ethnic stated Asian Black group British British No. of clients 85 72 0 0 3 4 3 3 0 % of clients 100% 84.7% 0% 0% 3.5% 4.7% 3.5% 3.5% 0% Comparison to 100% 86% 0.8% 2.5% 2.2% 4.6% 2.7% 1.2% 0% Census 2001 (19-24yr olds) 25-34 year No. of White White White Mixed Asian Black Other Not olds clients British Irish Other or or Ethnic stated Asian Black group British British No of clients 124 112 0 0 6 3 1 1 1 % of clients 100% 90.3% 0.0% 0.0% 4.8% 2.4% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% Comparison to 100% 83.8% 1.2% 3.6% 1.4% 4.6% 4.0% 1.5% 0.0% Census 2001 (25-34yr olds) 35-44 year No. of White White White Mixed Asian Black Other Not olds clients British Irish Other or or Ethnic stated Asian Black group British British No. of clients 150 129 1 1 3 5 4 1 6 % of clients 100% 86.0% 0.7% 0.7% 2.0% 3.3% 2.7% 0.7% 4.0% Comparison to 100% 85.7% 1.4% 3.2% 1.0% 3.5% 3.1% 2.1% 0.0% Census 2001 (35-44yr olds) 44-54 year No. of White White White Mixed Asian Black Other Not olds clients British Irish Other or or Ethnic stated Asian Black group British British No. of clients 149 137 2 1 0 1 2 0 4 % of clients 100% 91.9% 1.3% 0.7% 0.0% 0.7% 1.3% 0.0% 2.7% Comparison to 100% 88.3% 2.2% 2.5% 0.6% 3.0% 1.5% 1.8% 0.0% Census 2001 (45-54yr olds) 55-64 year No. of White White White Mixed Asian Black Other Not olds clients British Irish Other or or Ethnic stated Asian Black group British British No. of clients 195 167 7 4 1 4 6 0 7 % of clients 100% 85.6% 3.6% 2.1% 0.5% 2.1% 3.1% 0.0% 3.6% Comparison to 100% 89.7% 2.9% 2.3% 0.6% 2.5% 1.4% 0.6% 0.0% Census 2001 (55-64yr olds) 65-74 year No. of White White White Mixed Asian Black Other Not 51
Technical Paper
olds clients British Irish Other or or Ethnic stated Asian Black group British British No. of clients 310 265 9 5 3 13 10 1 4 % of clients 100% 85.5% 2.9% 1.6% 1% 4.2% 3.2% 0.3% 1.3% Comparison to 100 91.2 2.6 2.3 0.5 1.9 1.0 0.4 0.0 Census 2001 (65-74yr olds) 75-84 year No. of White White White Mixed Asian Black Other Not olds clients British Irish Other or or Ethnic stated Asian Black group British British No. of clients 695 623 10 18 6 6 6 5 21 % of clients 100% 89.6% 1.4% 2.6% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.7% 3% Comparison to 100 93.8 2.3 1.8 0.3 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 Census 2001 (75-84 yr olds) 85 year olds No. of White White White Mixed Asian Black Other Not and over clients British Irish Other or or Ethnic stated Asian Black group British British No. of clients 802 753 13 9 3 5 3 1 15 % of clients 100% 93.9% 1.6% 1.1% 0.4% 0.6% 0.4%^ 0.1% 1.9% Comparison to 100 96.1 1.4 1.3 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.0 Census 2001 (85 yrs and over)
The Table 33 above shows that representation of BME groups can differ when looking at smaller age groups. It would appear that BME groups tend to be under represented in the 25 to 64 year olds age groups, whereas for 65 years and over there appears to be representation of BME groups. However there is an issue in the validity of comparing the social care statistics for April 2005 to March 2006 with population statistics for 2001.
Primary Client Group
The Table 34 below shows the distribution of BME service users amongst the primary client groups.
52
Technical Paper
Table 34: Numbers (Percentages) of clients receiving service during 2004-2005 by ethnicity and primary client group. Physical and All Sensory Learning Mental Substance Vulnerable Clients disability/frailty Disability Health Misuse People Ethnicity (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) 80 58 0 21 1 0 White Irish (100) (72.5) (0) (26.3) (1.3) (0) 104 74 2 27 0 1 White Other (100) (71.2) (2.0) (26) (0) (1.0) Mixed 37 23 5 9 0 0 Ethnicity (100) (62.2) (13.5) (24.3) (0) (0) Asian or 84 60 5 18 1 0 Asian British (100) (71.4) (6.0) (21.4) (1.2) (0) Black or 36 19 5 12 0 0 Black British (100) (52.8) (13.9) (33.3) (0) (0) Any other 19 12 3 4 0 0 ethnic group (100 (63.2) (15.8) (21.1) (0) (0) All BME service 360 246 20 91 2 1 users (100) (68.3) (5.6) (25.6) (0.6) (0.3)
The Table 34 above shows that with regards to BME service users: • 68.3% were clients with a physical disability; • 25.3% were clients with a mental health issue; • 5.5% were clients with a learning disability; • 0.6% were clients with a substance misuse problem; • 0.3% were vulnerable clients.
The Milton Keynes Community Care statistics appeared similar to the national picture. This was both in terms of the percentage of clients using a service from a BME group (7.2% for Milton Keynes, 7.5% nationally) and the percentage of BME clients with a physical disability (68.3%, 65% respectively). However in terms of mental health, learning disability, vulnerable person and problem with substance misuse, the figures between the national and local situation varied as follows: • Nationally 20.8% of BME service users had a mental health problem, however for Milton Keynes this was higher, at 25.3%; • Nationally 8.7% of BME service users had a learning disability, compared to 5.5% for Milton Keynes; • Nationally 5% of BME service users were identified as a being a vulnerable person, compared to only 0.3% for Milton Keynes; and • Nationally 1.2% of BME service users had a substance misuse problem, compared to only 0.6% for Milton Keynes.
Service Type
Table 35 below shows that the majority of BME clients (89.2%) used community-based services in own home and 8.3% used Independent Sector residential care. This was similar to the national picture shown in the Community Care statistics (with 87.1% and 9.3% respectively).
53
Technical Paper
Table 35: Numbers (Percentages) of clients receiving services during 2004 – 2005 by ethnicity and service type. Community- Independent Total of based services LA Residential Sector all clients in own home Care Residential Care Nursing Home Ethnicity (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) 80 68 0 4 8 White Irish (100) (85) (0) (5.0) (10) 104 96 1 10 3 White Other (100) (92.3) (1.0) (9.6) (2.9) Mixed 37 32 2 2 1 Ethnicity (100) (86.5) (5.4) (5.4) (2.7) Asian or Asian 84 79 0 6 2 British (100) (94.1) (0) (7.1) (2.4) Black or Black 36 29 2 6 2 British (100) (80.6) (5.6) (16.7) (5.6) Any other 19 17 0 2 0 ethnic group (100) (89.5) (0) (10.5) (0) Ethnicity not 249 216 1 23 17 declared (100) (86.7) (0.4) (9.2) (6.8) All BME 360 321 5 30 16 Service Users (100) (89.2) (1.4) (8.3) (4.4)
Health
The BME Housing and Support Needs study found that in 2001, the White Irish population was more likely to suffer from limiting long-term illness, with 22% falling into this category, compared with 14.1% of the Milton Keynes’ population. However when this is compared to the White British population, it was a very similar figure. The Bangladeshi and Pakistani over 50 years population had a higher proportion of people living with a long-term illness than the White British population.
The Milton Keynes Housing Needs Study 2006 contained a profile of BME communities in Milton Keynes. Here 15% of BME households had at least one member of the household with a health problem. This compares to 21% of all households who had a member of the household with a health problem. 5% of the BME households also contained at least one member who experienced walking or mobility difficulties, this compares to 8.5% for all households. This could explain the under utilisation of the social care services by BME communities.
Supporting People
The BME Housing and Support Needs study identified that 27.5% of all new clients between 2003 and 2005 for Supporting People in Milton Keynes came from a BME background. However this was not spread evenly across all BME groups, with the largest proportion of BME new clients were Black African ethnic group, with 9.8% and around half of these cases related to people who are homeless. There were approximately 5,700 MKC Community Alarm clients in November 2006, 4.1% (232) of these were from BME communities and 3.8% (216) did not provide their ethnicity.
Table 36 below shows that 40% of BME Supporting People clients between April 2005 and March 2006 were aged between 16 to 24 year olds and 36% were aged between 25 to 34 year olds. This compares to 54.8% of White British Supporting People clients aged between 16 and 24 years and 19.7% were aged between 25 to 34 year olds. It would appear that there is a higher proportion of White British Supporting People clients aged 35 years and
54
Technical Paper over (25%) than BME Supporting People clients (18.7%). Having said this over 50% of all Supporting People clients were aged between 16 and 24 years, which suggests that Supporting People tends to support younger clients.
Table 36: No. of Supporting People clients in 2005/06 by age and ethnicity Asian or Black or Other White White White Asian Black Ethnic White Age British Irish Other Mixed British British group British Total 16 to 24 239 1 7 8 13 26 1 239 296 year olds (54.8%) (20.0%) (29.2%) (47.1%) (37.1%) (49.1%) (20.0%) (54.8%) (51.4%) 25 to 34 86 2 12 5 11 16 4 86 136 year olds (19.7%) (40.0%) (50.0%) (29.4%) (31.4%) (30.2%) (80.0%) (19.7%) (23.6%) 35 to 44 55 4 3 8 9 55 79 year olds (12.6%) 0 (0.0%) (16.7%) (17.6%) (22.9%) (17.0%) 0 (0.0%) (12.6%) (13.7%) 45 to 54 41 1 1 1 2 2 41 48 year olds (9.4%) (20.0%) (4.2%) (5.9%) (5.7%) (3.8%) 0 (0.0%) (9.4%) (8.3%) 55 to 64 14 1 0 0 1 0 14 16 year olds (3.2%) (20.0%) (0.0%) (0.0%) (2.9%) (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) (3.2%) (2.8%) 65 years 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 and over (0.2%) 0 (0.0%) (0.0%) (0.0%) (0.0%) (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) (0.2%) (0.2%) 436 5 24 17 35 53 5 436 576 Total (100%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100%) (100%) (100%)
Physical Disability Service Equalities Report February 2006
An equalities report prepared and updated by Older People’s Services Manager in February 2006 found that 7.5% of Physical Disability service users aged between 18-64 years were from BME communities. The Office for Population Censuses and Surveys’ (OPCS)18 disability surveys estimated that 20% of the UK population has a disability. The prevalence rate for disability is therefore, 134 per 1,000 adults, which in turn suggests that there are 17,600 adults in Milton Keynes with a disability. This is likely to increase to 20,254 adults with a disability by 2011 (based on current population growth). The Milton Keynes Council’s Disability Service plans to:
• Build links with BME communities to inform about services and ensure services are appropriate to their needs; • Make information available in appropriate languages and formats; and • Ensure that staff mix and skills allow the service to work effectively with BME communities.
Learning Disability
Our Social Care statistics suggest that there is an under representation of learning disability clients from BME communities. This in turn indicates that there are likely to be people with a learning disability within BME communities that are not known to our Social Care service. However research carried out by a project worker in the Learning Disability service found that the only specific requirement made by BME communities was to ensure that any literature about the learning disability service was translated into the appropriate languages. BME communities did not express a need for specific day services for people with a
18 The OPCS surveys of disability were originally commissioned by the DHSS in 1984. They aim to provide up-to-date information about the number of disabled people in Great Britain with different levels of severity and their circumstances for the purposes of planning benefits and services.
55
Technical Paper learning disability. This indicates that there may not be a strong need for a learning disability service amongst BME communities in Milton Keynes. There are two pieces of work currently underway in the Learning Disability Service; the Learning Disability Housing and Support plan and the Learning Disability BME Action Plan. Both of these projects will include looking at the social care needs of BME people with learning disabilities.
Milton Keynes Public Health Report 2005 – Mental Health
According to the Milton Keynes Public Health Report 200519, research into the mental health needs of BME found that that there was a high demand in areas of major mental illness such as schizophrenia, as levels of admissions amongst BME groups for schizophrenia were much higher than the expected admissions. This was particularly true for Black or Black British patients, as 2.4% of the mental health patients admitted to hospital for Schizophrenia were expected to be Black or Black British, however 11.2% of the patients were actually Black or Black British, this was 8.8% more than they had expected.
Mental Health Needs Assessment - BME Groups (Milton Keynes)
In a recent study (unpublished) commissioned by the Joint Commissioning Manager: Mental Health and the Joint Mental Health Service (constituting The Council and Primary Care Trust) to look into the mental health needs of BME Groups in Milton Keynes, housing issues were paramount for most respondents irrespective of gender, ethnicity, or age (the study covered adults from 19 years and above). The study found that;
• People who suffer from mental health issues were more likely to have problems with managing their finances, which means that they were more at risk of losing their home. • Lack of appropriate housing could also affect the recovery process for people with a mental health problem. • Language could also act as a barrier to getting housing, as BME individuals were unable to fully explain their needs. • BME individuals did not have knowledge of the eligibility criteria for social housing and also did not know where to go to get information about housing.
The study recommended that:
• There should be strong interagency partnership to ensure effective and appropriate housing needs are met for BME groups • Training needs should be identified and addressed • Policies and procedures need to be reader friendly and thoroughly explained to individuals from BME groups • Provide clear information about the services and eligibility criteria and find innovative ways of distributing the information, for example places where a community gathers together (churches, community centres) as well as areas they are likely to visit (health centres, hospitals, dentists). • Ensure that where appropriate interpreters are available for BME groups.
19 There weren’t any other references to BME in this report.
56
Technical Paper Older People
The Council’s Social Care statistics suggest that there is a growing demand from older people in Asian communities for our services. This increase could be the result of the community becoming more established within Milton Keynes and having a better understanding of the social care system.
Currently 2.9% (42 older people) of the population in Milton Keynes Council’s Sheltered Housing schemes were from BME communities.
The Council has a well-established Older People’s BME Elders Forum. The main purpose of the Forum is to monitor unmet needs, work with BME communities to identify new service initiatives and to monitor and develop provision. The Council chairs the Forum and other Council services are represented (e.g. Sheltered Housing, Community Development). A Community Psychiatric Nurse represents the Primary Care Trust and Council (this is a joint service) and a Community Race Relations Officer represents Thames Valley Police. There are also representatives from the Community and Voluntary Organisation and Age Concern. This is a good platform for sharing information and developing new services initiatives.
The Forum has played a major role in developing the lunch clubs for BME elders. Lunch clubs provide social contact and a nutritious meal for older people and sometimes respite for carers. They help combat social isolation and many promote well-being activities such as exercise and movement to music. There are 22 lunch clubs operating via Age Concern, many out of Council sheltered housing schemes. A further 5 lunch clubs operate specifically for BME communities - Dosti (for Asian Elders), African & Caribbean, Sikh Community, Somali Community and the Pakistani Community at Granby Mosque. The levels of dependency vary from club to club. Some lunch clubs are supporting very frail people who find a short period at a lunch club easier to manage than a longer day attending a formal day centre. Age Concern provides subsidised transport for several clubs. The Forum has also raised awareness on issues such as Direct Payments, meals provision and the Community Language Service. Community representatives on the Forum have also contributed to meals tasting sessions when the Milton Keynes General Hospital Trust was developing patient menus.
Older People’s Services Equalities Report January 2006
An Equalities report prepared by the Older People and Hospital Social Work Manager showed that:
• Only 4 (3.5%) BME service users attend formal day centres. They provide high levels of personal care support and most of the 194 white older people using this type of service provision are 80 years plus and have significant physical and/or mental health dependency needs. • At present, older people from BME communities are choosing to attend lunch clubs run by their own communities. Most people attending the lunch clubs are in their 60s and do not currently have high personal care needs. Nevertheless as the dependency levels of lunch club users increases over the coming years, the present structure and support system within the clubs will not be adequate to meet significant personal care needs. • The feedback received to date from the Older People’s Ethnic Minorities Forum is that the majority of communities prefer their own specialist day care provision and personal
57
Technical Paper care support will therefore need to be developed as an integral part of this type of service. • Currently the Council’s Meals service provision is not very popular amongst BME communities, as there is little trust that the food will be prepared according to religious and cultural beliefs. However there was interest in having meals provided in the future. Meanwhile Flow Foods, a meal’s service provider for Milton Keynes Council, recently attended an Older People’s Ethnic Minority Forum and members had the opportunity to taste some of the meals. Flow Foods also gave assurances regarding how the food is handled and prepared in line with particular religions and cultures. They also invited members to visit and inspect their kitchens. However take-up of the service still remains low, as some BME communities still think that the meals provided by Flow Foods are not the “real thing” and expensive. An alternative option may have been provided by the MK Hindu Association, as the association has suggested that when they open their community centre they will provide hot meals on a daily basis and provide a delivery service to people’s own homes. This will assist the Asian community, but evidently further work is needed to ensure that all elderly BME communities have access to some kind of meal provision. • In terms of Domiciliary Care, it appears that BME communities do not wish to receive personal care support from carers outside their own community. So as the BME community ages, specialist service provision needs to be developed to meet the personal care needs of older BME people. • Only 9 older people (4.6%) in residential care homes funded by the Council are from BME or Mixed Ethnicity communities. The Council funds 313 white older people (95.4%) in long term residential care homes. As with nursing home care, there is no local provision specialising in Care for older BME people. The new extra-care village at Willen Park (due to be open Spring 2007) may give BME service users the option to retain their independence and lifestyle within their own apartment whilst accessing personal care provision equivalent to residential care and nursing home care. The care village however, will have to meet the challenge of providing an appropriate mix of care staff to achieve this as well as offering BME meal provision in the care village restaurant. This is an issue being considered by the care village steering group. • The take up of places in nursing homes by BME service users is low. Some communities such as the Sikh community have advised the Older People’s BME Forum that their culture is against this type of care and there is an expectation that families or the community itself will provide the necessary care rather than the person entering a home. Compared to some other local authority areas the BME population in Milton Keynes is small. This means that specialist service provision in Milton Keynes is less viable. People currently have to choose between local non-specialist provisions or move to out of area provision, which may reduce contact with family and friends. • Twenty older people currently receive Direct Payments and five of these are from BME communities. This represents 25% of older service users receiving Direct Payments. This type of service provides more flexibility and scope to meet diverse cultural, religious, language and dietary needs.
Hindu Elders Scheme
Milton Keynes Hindu Association has been working with English Partnerships & Luminas Housing Association to develop a housing scheme for Hindu Elders, together with a Community Centre at Broughton. The Council granted planning permission last year and work is due to start later this year.
58
Technical Paper Gypsies and Travellers
Although the Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs assessment for the Thames Valley region (ACTVaR) work is based more around accommodation needs, the research also gave a picture of the social care needs of the Gypsy and Traveller communities in Milton Keynes. The study found that for those Gypsy and Traveller households interviewed in Milton Keynes:
• Of those on unauthorised encampments in Milton Keynes 80% reported that they had been visited by the local authority, 20% said that their health, educational welfare needs assessed (60% did not know) and 40% said they had not been offered support with health, education or welfare (40% did not know). • A high proportion of those interviewed (63%) were not registered with a local dentist. • A high proportion of those interviewed (83%) do not have their children in a local school. Most said this was because they were travelling and frequently moved on.
59
Technical Paper
Section 9: Consultation ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
The Ethnic Group categories used in the 2001 Census are as follows:
• White • Mixed • Asian or Asian British • Black or Black British • Other Ethnic Group
Each of these Ethnic Groups is further sub-divided as follows:
White
• British • Irish • Other White
Mixed
• White and Black Caribbean • White and Black African • White and Asian • Other Mixed
Asian or Asian British
• Indian • Pakistani • Bangladeshi • Other Asian
Black or Black British
• Black Caribbean • Black African • Other Black
Other ethnic group
• Chinese • Other Ethnic Group
60
Technical Paper The CIA World Factbook lists India’s religions as follows:
Hindu: 81.3% Muslim: 12.0% Christian: 2.3% Sikh: 1.9% Other: 2.5% (including Buddhist, Jain, Parsi)
So we could take the view that with regards to Milton Keynes, 80% of those shown as being from the Indian ethnic group are Hindus.
Milton Keynes Hindu Association
A housing needs survey (Appendix B) was distributed to just over 700 members of the Milton Keynes Hindu Association. Milton Keynes Council received 54 responses. The survey asked whether there was anyone in the household looking for accommodation. The main findings were:
• A total of 28 (51.9%) respondents had a least one person in the household who is looking for accommodation, with 15 (53.6%) of these looking for accommodation now; • 11 (39.3%) of the households members looking for accommodation were a couple with children, 9 (32.1%) were a single person and 8 (28.6%) were a couple; • 15 (45.5%) of the household members looking for accommodation stated that the reason why they were looking for accommodation was because they were living with family, 9 (27.3%) claimed that the housing was unsuitable and 9 (27.3%) claimed that they were experiencing health problems; • 12 (31.6%) of the households members looking for accommodation needed a house, 10 (26.3%) of the household members looking for accommodation needed a bungalow for the elderly, 8 (21.1%) needed sheltered housing for the elderly, 6 (15.8%) needed a flat and 2 (5.3%) needed accommodation for the disabled; • 9 (32.1%) of the household members looking for accommodation would prefer to buy a property, 8 (28.6%) would prefer to rent, 3 (10.7%) would prefer to buy or shared ownership, 3 (10.7%) would prefer to buy, rent or shared ownership, 2 (7.1%) would prefer to shared ownership, 2 (7.1%) would prefer to buy or rent and 1 (3.6%) would prefer to rent or shared ownership. • 10 (35.7%) of the household members looking for accommodation earned below £8,000, 9 (32.1%) earned £25,000 and over, 5 (17.9%) earned between £12,000 and £16,999, 2 (7.1%) earned between £17,000 and £24,999 and 1 (3.6%) earned between £8,000 and £11,999. 1 (3.6%) household member did not provide their income details.
The survey also asked whether anyone in the household required support in their home. The main findings were:
• 29 (53.7%) out of the 54 responses stated that a household member requires support in the home. • The main health problem, illness or disability reported was difficulties with walking, which was 18 (40%) of the households with a member who required support in the home. 2 (4.4%) households with a member who requires support in the home reported difficulties with seeing, 2 (4.4%) were a wheelchair user, 2 (4.4%)and 1 (2.2%) reported difficulties with hearing. 22 (48.6%) of the households with a
61
Technical Paper member who requires support in the home reported a variety of health problems including arthritis, asthma, diabetes, heart problems, Osteoporosis, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and Parkinson’s Disease. (Respondents may have reported than one health problem) • Although 29 households had a member who required support in the home, 13 (33.3%) did not report what type of support they required. • 9 (23.1%) households with a member who requires support in the home required help with cooking and cleaning, 8 (20.5%) required adaptation to the home, 5 (12.8%) required help with washing and bathing and 1 (2.6%) required help with hard work. (Respondents may have reported more than one type of support required).
62
Technical Paper
Appendix A: Policy Research Institute on Ageing and Ethnicity (PRIAE)’s report for the Housing Learning and Improvement Network (Housing LIN) ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
Commissioner and Providers Self Assessment Checklist
• Do you know how many BME elders live in your local authority area and what are the projections on the number who would benefit from extra care housing over the next 10-15 years? • Does your existing provision of extra care housing reflect the ethnic diversity of your local population? • Is there a written statement of equal opportunity policy or a documented agenda for diversity and inclusion in your organisation? • Can you evidence that the way you assess the housing with care needs of BME elders promotes equality of opportunity? • Have you identified necessary information to work with BME elders • Have you consulted with BME elders and their representative organisations to establish what information they require to make informed choices on extra care housing in your area? • Have you reviewed how accessible your existing information on extra care housing is for BME elders in your area and how it is communicated? • Do you know what barriers BME elders experience in accessing extra care housing in your area? • What consideration has been given to the location of the existing or proposed extra care housing schemes. • How does it reflect the needs and hopes of BME elders? • What mechanisms are in place for engaging with existing and prospective residents from local BME communities? • What links does your organisation have with BME elders and organisations? • What arrangements do you have in place to develop these links, maintain relations and produce tangible housing results? • What consideration has been given to the design and management of the extra care scheme so that it reflects the needs and aspirations of residents? • How do you prepare for, and evidence that the care and support needs of BME elders in extra care housing are reflected in the delivery of person-centred services? • Have you identified sources and methods to attract investment in extra care housing for BME elders in your area? • What consideration has been given to influencing regional housing strategies and future regional allocation arrangements to maximize the housing with care needs of BME elders? To what effect is this carried out?
63
Technical Paper
Appendix B: Milton Keynes Hindu Association Housing Needs Survey – Questionnaire
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
HOUSING NEEDS SURVEY BY MILTON KEYNES COUNCIL AND MK HINDU ASSOCIATION
This Questionnaire is divided into two parts: Part One: To be completed by all households Part Two: To be completed by those in need of a change of housing PLEASE COMPLETE THE QUESTIONNAIRE BY TICKING THE APPROPRIATE BOX
PART ONE: TO BE COMPLETED BY ALL HOUSEHOLDS 1) Is there any member of your household looking for accommodation within Office Milton Keynes? (Please include anyone who has moved away during the last Use five years and who would like to return to the area)
No Yes, now 1)
Yes, there will be within the next five years
IF YOU ANSWERED "NO", PLEASE GO ON TO QUESTION 3 2) How many people within your household are looking for separate accommodation?
One Two Three Four or more 2)
3) Is there any member of the household who has a health problem, illness or disability?
Yes No 3)
Yes, there will be within the next five years
4) What type of health problem, illness or disability do they have?
Difficulties with seeing Difficulties with walking 4)
Difficulties with hearing
Wheelchair user
Other, please state ______
5) Do they require any support in the home, such as;
Help with cooking, cleaning Meals on wheels 5)
Help with washing, bathing
64
Technical Paper Adaptation to the home like stair lifts, ramps, flat floor showers
Other, please state ______
None of the above
PART TWO: To be completed by each member of your household who is looking for separate or different accommodation in Milton Keynes now or within the next five years. (Further copies can be photocopied or obtained from the Council) 6) How many years have you lived in Milton Keynes? Office Use
0-5 years 6-15 years Over 15 years 6)
7) What is your family status? (Tick one box only)
Single? Couple without children? 7)
Single person with children Please state how many
Couple with children Please state how many
8) Why do you need separate or different accommodation?
Living with family Living with friends 8)
Health Problems Living in unsuitable housing
9) What type of accommodation do you need?
Flat House Bungalow for elderly 9)
Sheltered housing for the elderly Nursing Home
Accommodation for disabled
10) Would you prefer to:-
Buy Rent Shared ownership 10)
11) Income: To help us plan for new housing we need an idea of the TOTAL household income of those in need: please tick the appropriate box. All information will be treated in strict confidence.
Below £8,000 £8,000-£11,999 0 £12,000 - £16,999 11)
£17,000-£24,999 £25,000 and above
65
Technical Paper
12) If you do not live in Milton Keynes, what is your connection?
Employment Family Used to live there 12)
If you would like to participate in future research, please leave your contact details below: Name: Address:
Telephone No.: THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME IN COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. COULD YOU PLEASE NOW RETURN IT USING THE PRE-PAID ENVELOPE BY ASAP. If you have any difficulties completing this questionnaire, please contact Clem Smith Milton Keynes Borough Council on 01908 253405.
66
Technical Paper
Appendix C: Consultation with Organisations that work with BME Communities ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ Structured interview script
Housing • What factors affect BME communities in terms of housing? (Prompts: affordability, unable to access social rented housing, lack of information about types of housing, homelessness?) • Have BME communities experienced any problems accessing any housing services? What were these problems? • How do you feel that these problems can be overcome? • Were there any housing issues that specifically relate to a BME group?
Social Services • What factors affect BME communities in terms of social care? (Prompts: lack of knowledge of social services, experience when made contact with services, know anyone in the community that would benefit from social services but haven’t made the connection?) • Have BME communities experienced any problems accessing the Social Services? • How do you feel that these barriers can be overcome? • Were there any social care issues that specifically relate to a BME group?
Health Services • Are there any health issues specific to BME groups?
Organisations contacted
Milton Keynes Council Homelessness Team Housing Options Team Children Services, Social Inclusion Older People’s Services Safer Communities Unit Adult Social Care – Community Development Officers Learning Disability Service Traveller Education Unit
Services with BME communities Milton Keynes Race Equality Council Gypsy and Traveller Action Forum Connexions Personal Advisors Grassroots Older People’s Ethnic Minority Forum
Generic Support Services Shelter Opendoor Citizen Advice Bureau Primary Care Trust – Mental Health Interagency Floating Support Group HASTE Housing 21
67
Technical Paper
Appendix D: Consultation with BME communities ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
Structured interview script
Housing • What factors affect you and your community in terms of housing? (Prompts: affordability, unable to access social rented housing, lack of information about types of housing, homelessness?) • Have you and your community experienced any problems accessing any housing services? What were these problems? • How do you feel that these problems can be overcome?
Social Services • What factors affect you and your community in terms of social care? (Prompts: lack of knowledge of social services, experience when made contact with services, know anyone in the community that would benefit from social services but haven’t made the connection?) • Have you or your community experienced any problems accessing the Social Services? • How do you feel that these barriers can be overcome?
Health Services • Are there any health issues specific to BME groups?
BME communities contacted:
Indian Community Somali Community Irish Community Ghanaian Community Bangladeshi Community
68