Community-based housing organisations and the local governance debate

This paper examines criticisms of the accountability of housing organisatio ns in Britain and assesses whether community-based housing organisations ca n provide answers. A particular focus is placed on the Committee on Standar ds in Public Life, which has emphasised the desirability of 'downwards' acc ountability to communities while at the same time limiting the central cont rols of autonomous local bodies. The Committee on Standards in Public Life was established in 1994 by the former Prime Minister, John Major. It was a response to concern about standards of conduct among public office holders, including Members of Parliament, but also all other office holders in cent ral and local government, and in other bodies discharging public functions. Its remit is to investigate current arrangements and make recommendations about changes required to ensure "the highest standards of propriety in pub lic life". The paper reports on the governance of community-based housing o rganisations (CBHOs) in Glasgow, which was investigated by means of housing surveys and interviews with key actors. It finds that in many respects the criticisms of extra-governmental housing organisations do not apply: they are regarded as legitimate and trustworthy by local people to a much greate r extent than the local authority and other institutions. They attract acti ve local participation and there are effective mechanisms to ensure that th eir 'governors' are accountable. What is more, they have maintained their p osition over a period of more than 10 years. However, the CBHOs have been m uch less successful in shaping their own destinies, in contrast to extra-go vernmental housing organisations in England. They are, in reality, dependen t rather than autonomous and their power is very limited in comparison to t he government agency and local authority with whom they interact. The paper concludes that the CBHOs have been a successful policy innovation which of fers real gains for communities and also allows local authorities and centr al government agencies to pursue their objectives. However, their small sca le, which is important in their success as locally-accountable bodies, in t urn makes them vulnerable to centralised control.