Refugee Community Development and Public Policy

Transcription

1 Refugee Community Development and Public Policy A report on an action research commissioned by the National Refugee Integration Forum, Communities and Media Sub-committee February 2006

2 Foreword This document is a summary of the concluding report of a study undertaken by Praxis for the Community Development Sub-group of the National Refugee Integration Forum (NRIF). It stems from a desire within the group to establish a distinctive community development agenda in relation to the process of settlement in the UK by refugees. We have undertaken this work in the conviction that whatever is meant by integration cannot be achieved just through mechanical and bureaucratic processes. The movement towards belonging is multidimensional and involves a number of actors and interactions. Difficult though it is to describe, we believe that there is a human experience of community building which answers to the name Community Development which is employable in the day-to-day realities of refugees in the UK. Praxis has approached this work with the intention of providing what is now called the Community and Media Sub-committee of the NRIF with a working tool with which it can make its own contribution to the development of public policy in coherence with a realistic community development process. We are some years now into the dispersal of asylum seekers to the different regions and countries of the UK. Much interesting and exciting work has taken place both from statutory providers and voluntary organisations. The phenomenon of Refugee Community Organisations has also extended throughout the country. There is now Dr Berhanu Kassayie Praxis 02/02/2006 2

3 considerable community based activity and policy debates with which to engage. Equally there are many challenges. It is not possible to escape the realities of impoverishment, exclusion and injustice experienced by refugees and asylum seekers. The work contained in this report does not avoid either the positive or the negative. It has sought, without resorting to polemic, to look at the realities and to find the tools with which we can move forward. The tools come from generic community development practice. This research has been undertaken in parallel with other research projects led by the Community Development Foundation and the Refugee Council. It has been enjoyable to work cooperatively with them and I thank them for their openness. We are grateful to the Refugee Integration Unit of the Home Office for their considerable support and encouragement and to the Co-Chairs of the Community Development Sub-group, Dick Williams and Wondamu Yohannes and the group as a whole. We have been well serviced by an Advisory Group consisting of Alan Weston- NPS, Beth Longstaff- CDX, Colin Miller- CDF, Dr Debebe Legesse- WRC, Dick.Williams- RC, Jean Didier Mualaba, Mark Warren- RIS HO, Prof Marjorie Mayo of Goldsmiths University, Wilf Sullivan- TUC, Temba Moyo and Tricia Zipfel- OPDM. An academic and experienced eye has been cast over the work by Professor Marjorie Mayo of Goldsmiths University and we are very Dr Berhanu Kassayie Praxis 02/02/2006 3

4 grateful indeed to her. We are also very grateful to Colin Millar whose insight and enthusiasm have been of immense help. The two rounds of regional consultations would not have happened without a considerable support by our partners in the regions and I thank them all for their collaboration. I must thank the Praxis team who worked on this project, Neil Amas, Hadi Enayat and all the sessional staff and volunteers for their considered and thoughtful work. Above all I want to thank my colleague Dr Berhanu Kassayie who gave so much time, energy and insight in leading the research process, developing the model and bringing it to a conclusion. With him I thank all those who gave time within the consultation process to enable us write a document which is rooted in practice as well as theory. I trust that this document will be of assistance to us all in building positive and cohesive communities open to receiving the contribution of newcomers. Vaughan Jones Director: Praxis February 2006 Dr Berhanu Kassayie Praxis 02/02/2006 4

5 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 6 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AIM OBJECTIVES RESEARCH QUESTIONS METHODOLOGY DESK RESEARCH MAPPING MAPPING PUBLIC POLICY LEAVERS MAPPING PUBLIC POLICY AND STRUCTURES AT REGIONAL LEVEL CONSULTATION CHAPTER 2: REFUGEE COMMUNITIES, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, AND PUBLIC POLICY: SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW : COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: ROOTS AND DEFINITIONS : COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC POLICY : REFUGEE AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT : CITIZENSHIP AND MULTICULTURALISM : MULTICULTURALISM : COMMUNITY COHESION : REFUGEE COMMUNITIES, REFUGEE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SOCIAL CAPITAL : COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PARTICIPATION SUMMARY CHAPTER 3: WHAT IS REFUGEE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (RCD)? : DIMENSIONS OF RCD INDIVIDUAL REFUGEE REFUGEE COMMUNITY REFUGEE AND RECEIVING COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND VOICE IN PUBLIC LIFE SUMMARY CHAPTER 4: AN OVERVIEW OF THE PRACTICE AND BARRIERS TO RCD : RCD PRACTICE : REFUGEE COMMUNITY GROUPS : VOLUNTARY SECTOR : REGIONAL CONSORTIA : LOCAL AUTHORITIES Dr Berhanu Kassayie Praxis 02/02/2006 5

6 4.1.5: ACADEMIA : BARRIERS TO REFUGEE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT : INDIVIDUAL REFUGEE ACTIVISM : COMMUNITY GROUP : PARTICIPATION : SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE : RESOURCES : RECEIVING CONTEXT : POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK SUMMARY CHAPTER 5: IDEAS FOR A NATIONAL STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK : FEEDBACK ON DRAFT STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK SUMMARY CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION Appendix 1: Consultation Schedules List of Invitees List of First Round consultation participants List of Feedback consultation participants Appendix 2: Literature review Regional mapping reports Appendix 2: Policy Leavers Dr Berhanu Kassayie Praxis 02/02/2006 6

7 Executive summary This report presents the findings of an action research on refugee community development (RCD) and public policy. The project was commissioned by the National Refugee Integration Forum (NRIF), Community Development, now Communities and Media, Sub Committee. It aimed to provide the knowledge base and theoretical under-girding for the development of a national strategic framework which reflects the aspirations of refugee communities and draws upon good practice. The methodology included literature review, mapping public policy and regional RCD and participative consultation. This ensured the active participation of refugees, host communities, refugee agencies, community development organisations and networks, voluntary sector and civil society representatives, the academia, and governmental agencies in devising a national strategic framework for refugee community development. The research explored a range of issues on refugee community development and public policy. A review of literature situated the problem of refugee community development within broader issues of discourse relating to UK community development and public policy, including immigration, citizenship and diversity. Findings indicated that that there is very little in depth study on refugee community development and participation and this has meant that there is no common understanding regarding its essence and direction. Dr Berhanu Kassayie Praxis 02/02/2006 7

8 Findings of the literature review informed the design and administering of ten regional consultations across the UK. The consultations captured the widest possible range of experiences and views by involving representatives of a divers mix of stakeholders in exploring the essence and driver of RCD, how it relate to broader community development in the UK, current practice and barriers. Analysis of outcomes of the regional consultations and the mapping exercise indicated the following. RCD depicted as a specific community development process geared towards facilitating collective initiative to overcome differential disadvantages of being a refugee, and hence, refugee settlement and integration is perceived as the overarching driver and broader objective of RCD. RCD also has an embedded characteristic since it happens within a framework of UK community development. The broader objective of RCD can not be realised without a parallel initiative by the receiving community, its systems and institutional setups and RCD is an important but note the sole driver for successful settlement and integration. Parallel with different levels of the community development process, RCD has four interrelated dimensions: personal empowerment, positive action, community relation and participation and voice in public life. These dimensions are dynamic and can not be approached in unidirectional linear progression. Dr Berhanu Kassayie Praxis 02/02/2006 8

9 Initiatives of refugee activists supported by a range of stakeholders have led to the development of a large RCO sector. However, progress in RCD varied across regions and localities, manly due to variations in the tradition and experience of refugee settlement and the development of support structures. A large number of RCO are organised based on ethnic or country of origin, they are small and at an early stages of their development with little or no funding support. Notwithstanding these characteristics, RCOs are the first contact to refugees and asylum seekers and play an indispensable auxiliary role offering a range of support services. Several refugee-specific and other non-statutory agencies operate as support structures for RCD. Work in RCD focuses on supporting the establishment of RCOs and capacity building and the level and depth of services varied across regions and localities and coordinating initiatives of the various agencies is outstanding. Bridging refugee community links with members of the receiving community is yet to be developed. Mainstream community development, other voluntary and civil society bodies do not seem to be fully engaged and local authorities role seems to be impacted by lack of clarity with regarding to their statutory responsibility. The barriers identified in the regional consultations demonstrated the complexity of issues around RCD. Those relating to policy and regulatory framework and tradition of working practice, are cross cutting and broader by their nature and require a cross cutting government response. A national strategic framework for RCD could contribute by facilitating a consolidated voice of all its stakeholders. Dr Berhanu Kassayie Praxis 02/02/2006 9

10 There is a need for a strategic steer which will mainstream RCD and coordinate initiatives of the various stakeholders at all levels. Such a steer can be established through a national framework, which build on existing practices and provides a strategic and long-term perspective to RCD. Dr Berhanu Kassayie Praxis 02/02/

11 Chapter 1: Introduction This report outlines outcomes of an action research on refugee community development and public policy, commissioned by the National Refugee Integration Forum (NRIF), Community Development Sub Group. The research aimed to provide the knowledge base and theoretical under-girding for the development of a national strategic framework. The research project was commissioned following a discussion paper presented to the NRIF Community Development Sub-Group. The paper identified a need for the sub-group to: understand the inter-relationship between refugee community development and the wider community; have more participation by refugees in the planning and development of a national strategic framework; have mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating progress in refugee community development; identify the key policy levers which are most important in the facilitation of refugee community development. The ensuing discussion led to the commissioning of this action research, undertaken by Praxis in cooperation with the Community Development Foundation and Goldsmith s College, University of London. Dr Berhanu Kassayie Praxis 02/02/

12 1.1. Aim To produce an evidence-based assessment of refugee community development dynamics and a theoretical underpinning for a refugee community development framework and action plan within a National Refugee Integration Strategy Objectives The research looked to: 1. Review existing studies and theoretical frameworks on community development in general and on refugee community development in particular. 2. Map existing practices and processes to draw lessons and build on good practice by linking with work undertaken by Community Development Foundation. 3. Undertake a consultative process engaging refugee communities, their organisations, refugee agencies, mainstream community development organisations, community development networks, voluntary sector and civil society representatives, the academia, government bodies and all other stakeholders. 4. Develop proposals and recommendations to the NRIF Community Development Sub-Group for its development of a Dr Berhanu Kassayie Praxis 02/02/

13 national strategy framework for refugee community development strategy. The research project is led by a research group consisting of Goldsmith s College, University of London (Dr Marjorie Mayo), Community Development Foundation (Collin Miller) and Praxis (Vaughan Jones, Dr Berhanu Kassayie). As the principal stakeholder, the NRIF Community Development Sub Group is actively consulted throughout the research. Representatives of member agencies also directly participated in the Stakeholder Group established to oversee the research process and included representation from refugee communities, the refugee sector, Community Development Foundations, Community Development Exchange, the TUC, OPDM, Home Office, and the criminal justice system. The Stakeholder Group met at the outset of the project, midway and finally to draw up recommendations and conclusions Research questions The principal question for the research is: how can the sub-group develop the national strategic framework so that it reflects the aspirations of refugee communities, draws upon good practice, ensures coherence in relevant public policy, and can be effectively evaluated. Contingent upon this, the research process investigated: Dr Berhanu Kassayie Praxis 02/02/

14 i. What is the theoretical framework informing community development in general and refugee community development practice in particular? ii. What are the characteristics of existing refugee community development practice? iii. What is the interface between refugee community development practice and mainstream community development processes? iv. What are the characteristics of the community development dynamics between host and new resident communities? v. How are community development initiatives being resourced and with what effect and efficiency? vi. What is the impact of public policies with direct bearing on community development in general and refugee community development in particular? 1.4. Methodology The methodology is devised to ensure the active participation of refugees, host communities, refugee agencies, community development organisations and networks, voluntary sector and civil society representatives, the academia, and governmental agencies in devising a national strategic framework for refugee community development. As such it is composed of literature review, mapping public policy and participative consultation. Dr Berhanu Kassayie Praxis 02/02/

15 Desk Research The desk research reviewed existing literature on community development and public policy, focusing both on broader and refugee specific community development as well as on wider issues including the debate on multiculturalism, citizenship and participation. The aim is to provide a theoretical underpinning for refugee community development and develop an outline of issues for consultation with stakeholders. A full report of the review is attached in Appendix 2 and an abstract is provided in Chapter Mapping The mapping exercise has two dimensions Mapping public policy leavers The first mapping exercise looked to produce a descriptive assessment of Central Government public policy leavers that directly or indirectly address refugees capacity to settle and realise themselves. The aim is to provide an informative outline of public policy leavers and enhance the knowledge base of activists in refugee community development. The work involved identifying policy levers with direct or indirect implication to refugee communities in areas including housing and regeneration, health, social care, education, employment, community plan, race relations and equalities. In each of these areas an identification of the respective policy framework/s is followed by an analysis of how they incorporate issues of interest of refugee Dr Berhanu Kassayie Praxis 02/02/

16 communities. The focus is on identifying how each of the policy levers identified contributes to: individual refugees settlement and realisation of their potentials; refugee community activism in cultivating benefit to their members; bridging community relation with the receiving community and in between the refugee communities and thereby enhance community cohesion; voice and participation for refugee communities in public policy process. Corresponding to the above, a mapping of existing public policy levers is undertaken around six main policy areas and outcomes of this mapping exercise are provided in Appendix Mapping public policy and structures at regional level This second mapping focused on selected three England regions- London, Yorkshire & the Humber and East Midlands, and Scotland. Focusing on refugee integration, housing, health, education, employment and community plan, this exercise aimed to: identify regional specific policy framework/s, structures and networks relevant to interest of refugee communities; map good practice on refugee engagement in public policy making processes as well as the form and level of refugee engagement and / or representation in policy making processes. Dr Berhanu Kassayie Praxis 02/02/

17 Findings of this exercise are used in the analysis of existing practice in Section (). The individual reports are also attached in Appendix () Consultation Two rounds of participative consultation processes were held across the UK, one in each of the seven England regions (East Midlands and East England together), London, Scotland and Wales. In the first round, a semi structured consultation schedule, developed based on findings of the literature review, was used to capture the wide range of experiences and views across the UK (see Appendix- 1). The schedule was designed to generate information regarding views on the essence of refugee community development, characteristics of current practice and its barriers and ideas for a national strategic framework. To capture the widest possible range of experiences and views across all UK regions, a list was developed including representatives from the following stakeholders in consultation with Refugee agencies and regional Consortia: Refugee community and RCO representatives Refugee agencies Academic institutions Government bodies Trade Unions Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) groups Mainstream community development agencies Charitable Funds Voluntary and civil society groups Dr Berhanu Kassayie Praxis 02/02/

18 The list comprised a total of 492 individuals representing the above agencies (See Appendix- 1). Overall a total of 123 representatives participated in this round accounting for over 25 percent of the number invited. To capture views and ideas of those who did not make to the consultation, a questionnaire format of the consultation schedule was distributed, both directly and through regional agencies who compiled the list. Actual response was low and only seven individuals replied. The second round involved a series of feedback consultations which discussed the draft strategic framework and refugee community development model. The list developed for the first round was updated and used and a total of 62 representatives attended the feedback consultations (see Appendix- 1). Overall, 185 people participated in the regional consultations making around 38 percent of all invited. Analysis of outcomes of the first round regional consultations provided much of information throughout this report and in the development of the refugee community development model and strategic framework. These were then updated using ideas and comments from the feedback consultations, the Stakeholder group steering this action research and discussions with representatives of UK community development sector. In what follows, outcomes of the research are reported in five chapters. Chapter 2 gives an abstract summarising findings of the literature review. In Chapter 3 the report focuses on defining refugee community development, its dimensions and scope to provide a Dr Berhanu Kassayie Praxis 02/02/

19 foundation for a common understanding. Analysis of current practice and barriers to refugee community development is reported in Chapter 4. The proposed national strategic framework, including a model and an action plan for refugee community development, provided in Chapter 1. Dr Berhanu Kassayie Praxis 02/02/

20 Chapter 2: Refugee Communities, Community Development, and Public Policy: Summary of Literature Review 2.1: Community Development: Roots and Definitions The contested nature of the concept community seems to have led to a mass of inconsistent and sometimes contradictory usages of terms like community development, community organisation and community action. Having emerged in the colonial times, the concept and tradition of community development has evolved in post-war Britain shifting in between association with and disassociation from the state, thus reflecting its radical/democratic and statist/controlling potential. A useful distinction pertinent to this review is that between community development as an instrument of state policy and community development as community action concerned with community interests, issues and concerns relating to policy. Although, not necessarily exclusively, community development focuses on areas experiencing multiple deprivation or where there is a perceived need for local infrastructures and capabilities to be improved (This, for example is the dominant perspective among professional CD membership bodies). This broader characteristic seems to justify a whole range of interventions by both state and non-state actors based, by and large, on the premise that communities need developing and for the purpose need empowering in order to respond collectively to events and issues that affect them. Since the areas which experience multiple deprivation are also the ones in which refugees tend live Dr Berhanu Kassayie Praxis 02/02/

21 and/or are dispersed the issue of refugees and refugee community organisation are central to community development. Table 1: Evolution in Perspectives and Models of Community Development Model Ideology Focus Community Development Consensus model Neo-Marxist Model Social democracy Socialist left Radical Social pathology and institutional deficiency Barriers of Capitalist social and economic setup Corrective mechanism aiming to integrate people into mainstream through voluntary service and mutual self-help A means of direct action for economic and social equality Pragmatist Inadequacy of state Community action in sponsored community and against the state work to combat poverty and social exclusion Managerial Model Neo-liberal Welfare dependency, Community work individualism, freeing without the state, a community initiative from state infringement welfare service for/by independent community based players including selfhelp initiatives Communitarian Model Third way Redefining stateprivate relationship and civic reactivation Community work with, against and for the state and a means of harnessing social capital for social cohesion Dr Berhanu Kassayie Praxis 02/02/

22 Definitions and models of community development are influenced by the ideological/theoretical perspectives, changing political landscape of post-war Britain and the role of the welfare state (Shaw and Martin 2000; Craig, 1989; Hanmer, 1979; Stevens, 1978). Recently the concept of community development is increasingly seen as a means of harnessing and or releasing social capital for collective welfare and social cohesion. The focus seems to be informed by a multiculturalist perspective and as a foundation for diverse identities and initiatives that are independent of both the public and corporate sectors. The issue of being independent from public and corporate sectors is however becoming increasingly hazy as the latter are, in one form or another, increasingly incorporating community development in their agenda. 2.2: Community Development and Public Policy The discourse of civil renewal, social capital and participation has been greeted with some scepticism in the literature as it creates dilemmas that communities face in moving from the outside of the policy process to the inside. The dilemma of participation, i.e. the balance between autonomy and identity and working with the state Who participate and how are they held accountable to their own communities Perceptions of public agencies, level and stages of participation in public policy making (informative, formative, implementation, etc.) Dr Berhanu Kassayie Praxis 02/02/

23 In this regard, the discourse on the strategy of working in and against the state is relevant to the debate as community development has once again become a centre-piece of government policy and many community workers are, in one firm or another, government agencies. employed by Another important dimension of this problem is how to understand state-civil society relations and formulate strategies which will enable community groups to influence public policy. This brings forward the following issues: Understanding about participation and its agency/ies The policy making process and the framework of multi-layered civil society-state interactions at the ideological, cultural and cognitive level. Historicity and institutional cultures at work in the relevant government agencies and civil society groups is paramount. The interface between the various state and non-state actors involved in the policy process and how their strategies are shaped by broader social processes The nature of relationships between pressure groups and the state and how this determines policy outcomes Dr Berhanu Kassayie Praxis 02/02/

24 2.3: Refugee and Community Development There is a great deal of literature on Refugee Community Organisations in the UK but very little which has attempted to discuss conceptual or theoretical issues. Refugee community organisations (RCO) seem to be understood as refugee community development and much of the literature focuses on who the RCO are, where they are and what do, etc. There is little conceptual analysis on the essence and direction of refugee community development in the literature. Three distinctive approaches regarding refugee communities: Essentialist ethno-cultural perspective informed by a multiculturalists discourse largely adopted by UK government Universalist citizenship approach emphasising assimilation and popular in mainland Europe Transnational diasporic, a fusion of the multiculturalists approach with diasporic analysis These approaches ultimately influence public policy and practice on refugee community development. From sociological studies on the development of RCOs it seems that refugee community activism seems to depend on: Presence or absence of a political project in the refugee group s relation to home society Dr Berhanu Kassayie Praxis 02/02/

25 Traditions of social and political organisation brought from home country Existence of a community of co-ethnics or co-nationals and ethnic economy in the local settlement context Ethnic civic community and its social capital The local settlement context, including the competition for resources Refugee s actual political participation and ability to influence public policy relates to: Level, density and interconnectedness of community associations and the level of trust and cohesion Institutional completeness with regard to range of services to the respective community Host community s incorporation regimes: integration, citizenship regimes, race relation, etc. 2.4: Citizenship and Multiculturalism Notions of citizenship shape the framework of community development and as a process of empowerment and community action, community development is also a medium of realising citizenship. Kymlicka and Norman (2000, pp ) identify four dimensions of citizenship: 1. status as a legal citizen, defined largely by a set of civil, political and social rights as well as a usually smaller list of duties (military service, paying taxes etc.) Dr Berhanu Kassayie Praxis 02/02/

26 2. identity as a member of one or more political communities, usually contrasted with more particularist identities based on class, race, ethnicity, gender etc. 3. activity or civic virtue, certain dispositions which constitute the good citizen. 4. social cohesion, citizenship should ultimately foster loyalty to the nation-state over other loci of identity. These four dimensions are interlinked. For example the issue of rights and obligations impact on status and identity. Recently this has been recast as participatory citizenship. - Citizenship as practiced rather than as given or bestowed by state. This is an active notion of citizenship one which recognises the agency of citizens as makers and shapers rather than as users and choosers of interventions or services designed by others. (Cornwall and Gaventa 2000 in Gaventa, 2004, p. 29) This perspective emphasises the significance of the interface between community development and public policy. 2.5: Multiculturalism Multiculturalism is a highly contested concept with different meanings in different contexts. It was originally directed against essentialist and exclusivist notions of nationality and identity. It emphasises internal differentiation and fluidity, with definitions of national belonging based on historical constructs that change over time. (Modood, 2000, p. 175) Dr Berhanu Kassayie Praxis 02/02/

27 Multiculturalism is being attacked recently using the same terms its advocates ones employed against racist and essentialist arguments. It is seen to posit minority or immigrant cultures which need to be respected, defended, and publicly supported. It is said to appeal to the view that cultures are discrete, frozen in time, impervious to external influences, homogeneous, and without internal dissent and that people of certain ethnic or geographical origins are always to be defined by them. (ibid, 2004, p.176) Society is thus regarded as a mosaic of several homogeneous and unmeltable, minority uni-cultures pinned on to the backdrop of a similarly characterised majority uni-culture. (Vertovec in Modood, p. 176) Recent debate is also focuses on effects of minority rights and multiculturalism on virtues and practice of democratic citizenship. Increasingly the success of multiculturalism and the promotion of social cohesion require the nurturing of civic virtues. Civic virtues are identified as a willingness to engage in public discourse. Stephen Macedo (1990) calls this virtue public reasonableness. They constitute: giving reasons for positions not just making threats or invoking tradition or scripture giving reasons that are public and can persuade people from different ethnic or religious backgrounds distinguishing matters of private faith from those of public defence. Dr Berhanu Kassayie Praxis 02/02/

28 Hence citizenship is bound up with deliberative democracy for a common will. However this public reasonableness should not simply reflect the majority s cultural traditions, language, and religion, but is, rather, accessible to and inclusive of the various ethnic and religious groups within a society. With regard to refugees and refugee community development, this interfaces with the debate on assimilation or multicultural integration. A related concern is the impact of minority rights on citizenship where the former is perceived through a range of categories from self government to symbolic recognition. Another common concern is the relationship between minority rights and equality. Citizenship is a more differentiated and far less homogeneous concept. Hence, viewed from a perspective of equality of citizenship, differential status based on minority rights is seen to automatically lead to unequal status. It is also argued that, cultural recognition threatens equal citizenship status when costs and benefits of minority protection are unfairly distributed. This is the case when one sub-group within the minority (e.g. women) bear most or all of the costs of cultural reproduction, while others enjoy the benefits. However, there is increasing recognition that these are not necessarily intrinsic and the norm to minority rights. The accommodation of difference is the essence of equality in citizenship. Other concerns regarding minority right effects to citizenship refer top fragmentation or weakening of citizenship identities and erosion of civic virtue and participation. In the first case, the effect of minority right creating sectional interest depends on institutions and self- Dr Berhanu Kassayie Praxis 02/02/

29 consciousness and the nature of civic identity. In reality it is the refusal to recognise difference which is more damaging to citizenship. In the second case, the debate refers to special attention as part of the argument for minority rights. Hence, minorities can be seen to be turning inward- some cite religious schools as an example. This is seen to have a weakening effect on the bonds of social cohesion and political unity. Here there is a mixed assessment. On the one hand providing minority rights is perceived to enhance a feeling of belonging to equal citizenship. On the other hand, there is consensus with regard to issues around rights of territorially concentrated minorities and their potential for exclusivist tendencies and secessionist influence. In light of these arguments, community development is seen as a means of reconciling citizenship with diversity by developing community cohesion. (Gilchrist 2004) 2.6: Community cohesion In the UK community cohesion is defined as the presence of a shared sense of belonging, based on common goals and core social values, respect for differences, and acceptance of reciprocal rights and obligations (Denham, 2001, in Gilchrist, 2004, p.9) A distinction should be made between community and social cohesion. Social cohesion is about a community of communities. The prime focus is the national geographical dimension, the society of a nation state, however that society is defined. Community cohesion is about relationships within distinctive social groups. Dr Berhanu Kassayie Praxis 02/02/

30 Social cohesion can also be defined in material terms: greater access to employment, housing policies and more income equality as conditions for guarding against the segregation and ghettoisation of ethnic groups. Recent interest arose as a result of disturbances in three northern cities, and the Cantel report. Hence, the favoured mainstream conception of social cohesion in terms of social bonds. The discourse around the cohesion social agenda is relevant to refugee community development as it relates to relationships with the host community. In this case Cohesion is also about the collective ability to manage a shifting array of tensions and differential positions and disagreements between diverse communities. Thus cross-community understanding and cooperation and tackling inequality become two important dimensions. 2.7: Refugee communities, refugee community development and social capital Social capital is another concept with no consensus definition, but currently on the agenda at all levels. Putnam (1993) defines it as collective value, social network, and mutuality, embedded in trust and reciprocity, shared information and cooperation which are associated with social networks. The mainstream view in the UK is: networks with shared norms, values and understand understandings that facilitate co-operation within or Dr Berhanu Kassayie Praxis 02/02/

31 among groups. (Berkley, June 2004, p.7) Its main aspects are citizenship, neighbourliness, trust and shared values, community involvement, volunteering, social networks and civil political participation with an interest in Social Cohesion. There is a profound scepticism among academic circles as the concept is based on a consensual view of society and neglects questions of power and political economy. The mainstream perception is that social capital is a way of building social cohesion in terms of social bonds. Zetter (2004) argues that there are several reasons for the appeal of social capital as a way of achieving social cohesion in culturally diverse societies. Increased immigration and the consequent concern of increased cultural and ethnic diversity threatens norms and values of a nation state and citizenship. The benign character of the concept suggests that the contradictory dynamics of social cohesion and social differentiation can co-exist. The terminology norms, values, trust, bonding, bridging and linking capital - endorse notions of social cohesion, whilst diminishing perceived threats of social exclusion and diversity. From the mainstream perspective the focus is on bridging and linking social capital for building stronger communities of communities, i.e. social cohesion. Dr Berhanu Kassayie Praxis 02/02/

32 When it comes to bonding social capital, of specific communities, there is scepticism about its contribution to the building of civil society as there is negative social capital too. With regard to refugee communities, Zetter (2004) recognises the value of social capital at the community level, itself generating associational activity. However, in relation to social cohesion, he argues that it leads to differentiation, fragmentation and exclusion. He blames this on environmental factors such as the local incorporation context, to employ Zetter s term. There is an element missing from this argument. Social capital of refugee communities is regarded as a defensive mechanism in the context of an adverse environment inhibiting the achievement of certain common or shared interests. However, if among refugee communities, social capital is perceived as a defensive, reclusive reaction, it is seen as such due to the differential position and visibility of the community. In reality, no other community level social capital and the respective bonding is totally inclusive at the societal level in terms of social capital. A golfers club is a golfers club. 2.8: Community development and participation The core of the debate is - how do you ensure that what affects all is decided by all? In politics it derives from Rousseau s arguments for direct democracy and for a developmental impact on human capacities. Dr Berhanu Kassayie Praxis 02/02/

33 The various models of participation, their ideological underpinnings and political objectives have been summarised in Table-1 in Appendix- 2. Broadly, participation has been used as both an emancipatory project of social justice (alternative development) and as an instrument of social control (community development in the colonies). A problem in both theory and practice is how to combine participation and representation and how to determine the level and form of participation in tune with the specific sphere of public processes. Much of the innovation in this sphere is recent and takes place in developing countries. A cautionary point to note is the potential to undermine representative democracy because: consultations, which are the typical forum of participation, are more malleable than the fora of electoral democracy participation may marginalise legitimate approaches to securing the agency of local people. Participation for transformative objectives, social equity and for overcoming gaps in institutional practices and capacity which impact on social exclusion must establish certain pre-conditions: The empowerment of civil society is not possible without a corresponding institutional reform in public authorities. Promoting participation where there is little pre-existing popular agency of the excluded, or where the wider political space is unsupportive of such initiatives is of little value Dr Berhanu Kassayie Praxis 02/02/

34 An analysis of power relations and how they affect spaces of participation is crucial for an assessment of their transformative potential. An understanding of the dynamic between the global and the local is essential in connection with participation- from local reform upward and from global reform downward. Developing participatory initiatives alongside creative solutions to the problem of combining participation with representation and conceptualising the ways in which power can legitimately be conferred upwards Summary This review has situated the problem of refugee community development within broader issues of discourse relating to UK community development and public policy. The indication is that there is a rich and diverse literature on community development in general but very little in connection with refugees and participation in particular. In summary, for the purposes of this action research, it is important that a common understanding is developed on the essence and direction of refugee community development. It is also clear that any strategic approach to refugee community development should encompass it with the broader discursive and public policy framework regarding issues of immigration, citizenship and diversity. Such an understanding also needs to situate it within the broader UK community development. Hence, the main questions and issues which need addressing further are: Dr Berhanu Kassayie Praxis 02/02/

35 What is refugee community development and how does it relate to broader community development in UK? What is the main driver of refugee community development and how does it relate with the broader policy and discursive framework on citizenship, diversity, social and community cohesion? What is the broader policy and discursive framework within which refugee communities and their organisations operate? What factors determine the levels of participation in public life and ability to influence public policy amongst refugee groups? These questions formed the foundation for designing and conducting the two rounds of semi-structured regional consultation on refugee community development and public policy. Analysis of outcomes of these consultations is reported in the following three chapters. Dr Berhanu Kassayie Praxis 02/02/

36 Chapter 3: What is Refugee Community Development (RCD)? There is a plethora of initiatives, including surveys, mapping exercises and reports looking into issues of RCOs. Most of these have focussed on London and recently extended nationally and very few get published or popularised. They have been commissioned by a variety of agencies and at times, simultaneously by departments of one and the same agency. However, the focus is predominantly on who the RCO are, where they are and what they are engaged in, etc. Yet, despite the large number of work little has changed in practice. There is fatigue from being interviewed for research studies without either receiving any feedback or seeing any outcomes from the investigations. This was particularly emphasised by representatives of RCOs. Action following these researches always seems to stop short of implementation due to various factors. These include lack of a clear policy, structure and resources at local, regional and national level, and little coordination in between the multiplicity of agencies with a stake in RCD. Fundamental to both these problems is the apparent lack of clarity on what RCD constitutes and its sensitivity to politicisation. Refugee community organisations are understood as refugee community development and there is little conceptual distinction in the literature. Several different understandings of RCD were aired in the nine regional consultations. Some representatives, largely from statutory agency and community development practitioners, identified RCD as a Dr Berhanu Kassayie Praxis 02/02/

37 way of working with RCOs. Here, the latter are seen as a strategic link with the respective refugee community that puts them in touch with other organisations and with the mainstream. RCOs representatives looked at RCD as a process providing direct support to develop them as service providers to their respective communities, increase their capacity to access service providers and engage with the wider community. Another view, predominantly from voluntary sector origin (including those from the refugee sector), saw RCD at the individual and group level and emphasised community development as capacity building of individuals and their community/ies for self sustenance and development including training and skill sharing among community organisations, working with service providers, etc. In light of the difficulties in defining RCD, it is important to synthesize some of the key elements and intentions highlighted during our regional consultations. These can be categorised broadly into conceptual and practical aspects. As a concept, RCD is about finding ways to allow people to contribute and participate in local, regional and national communities based on their own wishes and definitions of themselves and recognising and accounting to differences in between themselves. This means it is a process of fostering opportunities for refugee collective action to realise their potentials and become active members of the wider community. In this sense, integration is the broader shared interest Dr Berhanu Kassayie Praxis 02/02/

38 and driver for refugee collective action and hence, refugee community development. However, the specific process of integration, and therefore the shared needs and interests necessitating refugee collective action vary depending upon variations in the life experience, cultural, educational, professional, sexual, religious, etc. backgrounds of refuges and the specific context in which they are settling. On the one hand, these variations shape the nature and format of refugee groups and their initiatives. Variations in between refugees also shape patterns of their integration. On the other hand, the integrational dimension of refugee collective action relates RCD to a broad range of issues within their settlement context, its institutional setups and policy frameworks. Hence, RCD is more than increasing the number of refugee community organisations and is intertwined with issues wider than those narrowly specific to individual refugees and or individual refugee communities. RCD is interrelated with issues of immigration policy, community cohesion, roles and interests of various stakeholders, including statutory and voluntary, and a recognition and understanding of both Western and non-western perspectives of community development. In practical terms RCD begins with the individual and it is about facilitating individuals to understand their settlement environment, their rights and entitlements and realise their potentials and aspirations. At the collective level, this would mean coming together in sharing experiences, supporting each other, having shared voice for positive encouragement from the receiving community, its system and structures. However, the collective should start from the individual self Dr Berhanu Kassayie Praxis 02/02/

39 with its new found interests, needs and identity, their commonality leading to the development of a community. For RCD purposes these processes of developing a sense of community identity and belonging at the individual refugee level are paramount. These may be about informal self help initiatives in time of need, cultural practice, organised provision of specific services and or serving as a platform to voice and advocate for community specific interests. However, it may also extend into creating opportunities to meet and socialise with others and thereby facilitate increased interaction with members of the receiving community to develop understanding for mutual adjustment. In both these two aspects, integration is clearly the central objective and or driver of RCD. In the first case, community development is about challenging barriers to integration and realising the right of refugees to be recognised and actively participate as equal UK citizens. In the second case, it is about fostering mutual understanding and building relationships of belonging with all members of the receiving community and thereby overcome a feeling of and or being regarded as the other. In this regard, participation- both at the community and public policy level becomes paramount. Hence, RCD should also include a process of supporting refugees to play an active role in the wider democratic process and includes issues of capacity building for political inclusion as well as giving refugees a voice for the inclusion of their needs in the planning and provision of services. Some community development professionals question whether there is a refugee specific development and or whether there is a need for refugee specific community development. Dr Berhanu Kassayie Praxis 02/02/