TACKLING RACE INEQUALITIES: A DISCUSSION DOCUMENT

Transcription

1 Communities and Local Government TACKLING RACE INEQUALITIES: A DISCUSSION DOCUMENT CIH RESPONSE TO THE CONSULTATION The Chartered Institute of Housing is the professional organisation for people who work in housing. Its purpose is to maximise the contribution housing professionals make to the wellbeing of communities. The Chartered Institute has over 20,000 members across the UK and the Asian Pacific working in a range of organisations - including housing associations, local authorities, arms length management organisations, the private sector and educational institutions. This is the CIH s response to the discussion document on race equality. The response addresses some, but not all, of the questions posed in the document. The questions are set out below, in bold, followed by the CIH comments. Which are the priority areas for Government action on race equality? What responsibilities are there for people from all communities in modern Britain, to others and themselves? We find it surprising that the document barely mentions migration, when there is evidence that new migrants and new migrant communities often suffer greater inequality than long-established BME communities. There is also evidence of growth of racist attitudes, in response to the growth in migration and particularly to the media focus on it. Of course this is not just an issue of race, but racist and anti-migrant attitudes are often mixed together. Therefore a priority area should be action to tackle discrimination against and inequalities faced by recent migrants, and measures to facilitate their integration. There is little or no read-across from this document to the government strategy for integrating migrants, nor to its strategy for integrating refugees. These are important gaps. 1 1 These points are pursued in more detail in Perry, J (2008) The Housing and Neighbourhood Impact of Britain s Changing Ethnic Mix. JRF Round Up.

2 We also find it strange that the document barely mentions community cohesion generally and developments in cohesion policy. Just an example, the whole debate about single group funding instigated by the report of the Commission on Integration and Cohesion, although now resolved at national level, had and continues to have considerable implications for work with BME community organisations. If (as the commission said) cohesion cannot be tackled without taking account of inequality, surely the reverse is also true? Another surprising omission is the whole area of media treatment of BME communities, and the racialised hostility to various groups, that is one of the most important factors in generating tensions between groups and in limiting or even reversing the progress that has been made towards better community relations. We see little evidence of recognition of the massive harm done by the constant rhetoric against migrants and against asylum seekers, and by the emphasis in policies to prevent extremism only being targeted at alleged extremism in Muslim communities. A balanced approach by government to race equality would recognise the damage that is done to a wide range of BME communities who in the public imagination are labelled as migrants, asylum seekers, Muslims, etc, whether they are or not. 2 How should a race equality strategy focus on addressing disadvantage linked with race and ethnicity, as opposed to mainstream programmes? The document indicates some ways in which a more focused approach to tackling disadvantage might be developed, in that it distinguishes between the experiences of different communities and gives examples of communities suffering greater disadvantage than others. A focused approach could be based on further disaggregation to show which groups are most marginalised. Can we disentangle the role that race and ethnicity plays in driving disadvantage from other factors, eg socio-economic status? No, nor is it necessarily a good idea. Disadvantage is bound to result from a range of factors, for example: Differences between ethnic groups, eg the relative prosperity of Indians compared with (say) Bangladeshis. Differences between recent arrivals and long-established communities (the latter having had longer to adapt to the UK and develop and take opportunities here). The inter-relationship between race and religion (not mentioned in the document), so that for example there is evidence that many Muslim groups suffer more hostility and discrimination. Gender differences, so that women from some communities (eg Bangladeshis) may have more difficulty in integrating in the wider community and in expanding the opportunities available to them. 2 See for example Threadgold, T et al (2008) Immigration and inclusion in South Wales. JRF.

3 Generational differences there is evidence that 2 nd and 3 rd generation BME communities have experiences and aspirations that tend to converge with those of the majority community. 3 Some of these differences are recognised in the document, but many seem not to be. What practical measures should we be taking to address disadvantages experienced by different Black, Asian and minority ethnic groups? One issue which is often of great significance for newly-arrived migrants, and for other people in the areas where they live, is ability to speak English. Good quality, accessible and affordable (or free) ESOL classes would be a significant step, which would mean reversing recent cuts in provision. This should be accompanied by outreach work with communities, to reach more isolated people who have less likelihood of attending classes. Another issue on which there was a strong focus in the report of the Commission on Integration and Cohesion was the importance of community development work, and the lack of resources to do it on the scale required. This is mentioned in the document in the context of the health service, but not in the wider context of promoting contact between and the development of communities in mixed-ethnic neighbourhoods, where it is particularly important but rarely the subject of mainstream funding. A further issue is shortage of housing, especially social housing. This has various effects: It limits social mobility. Marginalised BME groups are often concentrated in poorer housing. New migrants experience frequent moves, often because of insecure or poor housing in the private rented sector. 4 The CLG study of family homelessness found that more than 10 per cent of families experiencing homelessness had a family member who at some stage had sought asylum. (This shows the level of housing insecurity experienced by refugees, particularly). 5 Shortage can limit the scope for BME groups to opt to live in less familiar neighbourhoods. Shortage worsens the tendency to blame migrants, asylum seekers etc for lack of housing or for alleged preferential allocation of social housing. 3 See for example, Harries, B et al (2008) Housing Aspirations for a New Generation. CIH for JRF. 4 See Robinson, D et al (2007) The Housing Pathways of New Migrants. JRF. 5 Pleace, N., Fitzpatrick., S., Johnsen, S., Quilgars, D. & Sanderson, D. (2008) Statutory Homelessness in England: The Experience of Families and Year Olds. London: Communities and Local Government.

4 How can government strategies to address social mobility for all also address the effects of historic and residual racism? Housing has an important role in promoting social mobility, because perceived lack of housing opportunities is often a barrier to social mobility. Often the clustering of ethnic minority communities in particular areas is due to perceptions of (and actual) hostility experienced by those groups which may make them reluctant to move to unfamiliar areas. There are now many examples of different ways of tackling this problem and of helping BME groups to widen their horizons and move to new areas, for example by enabling them to take full advantage of choice-based lettings schemes. 6 The document has surprisingly little coverage of racist attacks, racial harassment and race-related hate crime. It is difficult to see how a comprehensive strategy could miss out this issue. Should we expand our policy areas? If we do, do we risk diluting the focus on the five public service areas mentioned above? The above point about community development does not fall within one of the five areas, and the general point about race crime is not covered in the discussion of the role of the criminal justice system. Is there a need for a separate strategy to tackle race inequality? If so, what should the priorities be? How can we help and encourage the public sector, such as local councils, criminal justice agencies and NHS Trusts to prioritise their work on race equality? There is little mention of the role of the respective performance regimes in pushing the race equality agenda. For example, the points in section 5 about the changing landscape emphasise legal provisions and enforcement, which is only part of the picture, and not the wider drive to tackle inequality which should be reflected in the work of the bodies mentioned above. It would have been useful to compare the performance/regulatory regimes for different parts of the public sector, including central government departments and agencies, to assess the extent to which they prioritise race equality. For example, the Audit Commission s system of KLOEs (Key lines of enquiry) has a specific KLOE (no.31) on equality and diversity. However, different performance regimes have different approaches and do not necessarily cover race equality; or if they do, they may give little attention to newer communities such as migrants and asylum seekers/refugees. What role does the voluntary and community sector have to play in prioritising race equality at the local level? 6 See CIH (2007) Community Cohesion and Housing: A good practice guide.

5 How can we focus more effectively on ensuring that mainstream policies meet the needs of Black, Asian and minority ethnic groups? How can we encourage more people from Black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds to get involved in public life and in volunteering? What are the main barriers to civic participation and representation that need to be addressed? In calling for greater recognition of the role of community development, a specific mention should be made of the need to promote the role and build the capacity of BME community organisations, especially those within new migrant communities. This can extend from fostering new community-based groups that are just starting, right up to ensuring that the government s third sector and commissioning agendas properly extend to organisations based in or with skills in relating to BME communities. What more can the Government do to help communities recognise and celebrate the strengths that come from diversity and the values we have in common? This represents a whole area of work around community development and community cohesion which the document does not really cover. Points above make some of the initial links to other areas of government work and policy.