Ask the board

You probably know your own board members pretty well, but how much do you know about the housing association board member as a species? If we are to have an informed debate on policy relating to these people, it's important to know who they are. That's why the Housing Corporation asked Oxford Brookes University to undertake a survey of housing association board members. The results, published this week, reveal a diverse and dedicated set of people, who serve on boards because they want to make a contribution to society and who see their role as primarily a supportive but questioning one, in which they seek to ensure that the association keeps to its values and vision.

This is the first national survey to include data on ethnicity. Questionnaires were sent to all English registered social landlords with more than 250 homes on their books. Responses came in from 3567 board members, of whom 12% were chairs.

More diverse boards
The survey shows that we are, at last, beginning to move away from the middle-aged white man as typical board member. Housing associations are now more successful at attracting members from black and minority-ethnic groups. The highest proportion of non-white British members are found on the boards of BME associations but, even when membership of these associations is excluded, about 9% of housing association board members are from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. Among board members who joined during the past year, this figure increases to about 19%.

This is higher than the BME membership of the population at large (about 13%) and compares well with the 2.5% of local authority councillors from ethnic minorities and 12% of non-executive directors of NHS trusts. The recommendations of the Race and Housing Challenge Report have clearly had some impact.

Large-scale voluntary transfer associations are an exception to this increasing diversity: their boards are still 95% white British. This looks like the next challenge.

Associations could still do better in the number of women they recruit – and especially for those who hold office. Only 30% of board members are women; this is only a slightly better record than local authorities, where only 29% of councillors are women, and it is worse than NHS trusts, where 48% of members are women. And although 46% of association vice-chairs are women, only 22% of chairs and 16% of treasurers are female. Tenant members, however, do something to redress the balance, as women represent nearly half of this particular group.

The majority of board members are older than 55, but to some extent this reflects England's ageing population. London's board members tend to be younger than average, while those in the North are likely to be older. BME association board members have a younger age profile, and are likely to be more highly educated and professionally qualified. In fact, in general, housing association board members are well above the national average in terms of qualifications and educational attainment: 91% have some sort of qualification.

Tenant board members form a distinct group. There are demographic differences: they are more likely to be women, older and with some form of disability; but their motivation for joining the board, and perception of their role on it, are also different. They are very much focused on representing the interests of local people and on ensuring the improvement of services to tenants. They also tend to spend more time on their duties than do other board members.

Training and professionalism
The corporation's regulatory regime, with its emphasis on outcomes and self-assessment, places an increasing burden of expectation on board members. Between them, they need a wide range of expertise as well as the ability to work together in a positive and constructive fashion.

The survey reveals that training is playing an increasingly important part in delivering high board performance. This is not yet universal, although 91% of board members say their board has provided some training. However, most associations provide at least some induction for new members, and members who have joined in the past 12 months tend to have been given more initial training than those who joined earlier. New members cited meetings with staff, visits to other associations and briefing packs as being most useful.

The use of other aids to board performance – such as annual appraisal, succession planning and skills audits – is not yet widespread even though they are generally acknowledged to be effective. They are important in achieving the highest standards of governance and are promoted through training materials by both the corporation and NHF. It is perhaps a little disappointing that they are not more widely used.

But while there is always room for improvement, and the survey gives some helpful indications as to where associations might start to direct their efforts, the report gives a positive picture of the commitment and enthusiasm of the diverse range of people who are responsible for the governance of housing associations.