Order a free copy of the 'Cohesion Guidance For Funders'
A. FIS believes that the document, on balance and despite the qualifications it contains, is informed by an over-simplified and stereotypical impression of BAME communities and 'Single Group' organisations.
- It does not take into consideration the internal diversity of BAME groups and the way in which the work of BAME groups works to increase understanding and cohesion between these segments.
- To draw on FIS's own experience:
- Our affiliates work with Irish Travellers, Irish people born in Ireland, second-generation Irish people (including those of mixed heritage), vulnerable Irish people of all ages - women and children fleeing domestic violence, homeless people, people suffering mental illness, pensioners groups, and a growing number of groups for young Irish professionals.
- Although FIS's affiliates offer their services primarily to Irish people, at the last count (2000) the data collection system then in use indicated that 21% of the clients of our service-delivering agencies were non-Irish.
As a community which has itself been repeatedly subjected to negative stereotyping, we share the concerns expressed in Cohesion Guidance for Funders: A Question of Single Group Funding - The National Equality Partnership Policy Briefing (p. 4) regarding the way in which this document may be guilty of stereotyping and stigmatising communities even while it is seeking to assure, as in the following statement:
"this guidance does not aim to cancel projects working specifically with young black men to tackle gun crime...Nor does it preclude work with Muslim communities to prevent violent extremism..."
We believe from our own observations that a disservice is done to many other BAME groups through over-simplifications and elisions like those referred to above; and, more generally, in the way in which the case against Single Group funding has been presented.
B. FIS shares the concern of the LVSC that the guidance prefers a lower value finding of the 2005 Citizenship Report to a significant higher value finding which, perhaps, does not as well suit the thrust of the 'Single Group' strategy proposed: that is that "a stronger predicator of community cohesion was levels of disadvantage" (LVSC Briefing 24 March 2008, p. 3).
In a sense, we feel that the apparently favoured strategy is one which "puts the cart before the horse". It is generally accepted that the origin of many 'Single Group' organisations originated in the reality, or the perception, that mainstream providers/policies were not meeting the needs of particular groups.
It is clear from the 2001 Census baseline data that inequalities continue to exist and we can see from the ethnic tables in the suite of Census reports which FIS commissioned that inequalities and needs differ to varying degrees between communities, as the general introduction to those reports stated, "They show that the statistical profile of the identified white Irish places them closer to white British and Indian in many respects than...more marginalised groups like Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, refugees and asylum seekers". http://www.irishsocieties.org/policy/theirishdimensionanexplorationof2001censusdata
A number of reports, among them, Regeneration and the Race Equality Duty (CRE 2007), have pointed to the failure of major social investments to deliver what was expected of them in terms of the reduction of the 'ethnic penalty', partly because of the failure to have in place effective procedures to measure the impact on communities. We are therefore concerned at a document which signals an apparent switch in emphasis away from the duty to promote equal opportunities and race equality (which have been widely regarded till recently as key builders of cohesion).
S Morgan, Irish Community Services: Standardised Information Services 5 Year Review (FIS AGIY 2003), confirmed the findings of previous reports arising from this project, that the clients of the participating agencies contained a high proportion of vulnerable people with multiple needs, with an unemployment rate much higher than the average for the Irish community. An average of 19% of Irish clients per annum reported racial harassment.[1]
Equally, our own examination of our consultant's report on the 2001 Census statistics and other sources[2] led us to identify Irish need in the following areas:
(a) the poor statistical health-profile of Irish people (see M Gaffney et al. (eds.) The Irish in Britain: An Annotated Bibliography on Health and Related Issues (FIS 2000);
(b) a relatively low level of economic activity in the Irish population, which is partly explained by the older age profile of the population and the number of younger people in full-time education; however, it is also due to the number of Irish people (particularly men) of working age who are permanently sick or disabled;
(c) the high proportion of Irish males employed in the construction industry ('white Irish' males make up 20%) which has implications for injury levels and the need to retrain in later life;
(d) the proportion of the Irish population with no qualifications (the 'white Irish' proportion is higher from 35 years upwards than for 'white British' and the whole population), which has implications for training and retraining;
(e) the older age profile of the Irish population (within the cohorts from 50 years old upwards and with 25% of the 'white Irish' population aged 64 and over), which has implications in terms of economic development, in that many older people will now - encouraged by the government - be faced with the necessity of working past what had been the traditional pension age;
(f) the older age profile of the Irish population plus the very high proportion of Irish sole pensioner households and households comprising more than one related pensioner will have implications for housing and health support aspects;
(g) the high proportion of Irish people identified in the Census as having a limiting long term illness (including Irish men of working age) will have implications for retraining, not least in terms of the ambitious plans of the government to reintegrate such people in the labour market. .
FIS believes that these needs should be met in various ways including mainstream provision and culturally sensitive services. We feel that for vulnerable clients who are not well networked, who may be lacking in confidence, or who may lack the ability or the knowledge to advocate effectively on their own behalf have a special need to need for culturally sensitive services. Equally, there are some specific barriers which face Irish people in integrating into British society:
· Current differences between the welfare systems in the Republic of Ireland and the UK are not always understood outside the Irish community;
· The later development of the Welfare State in Ireland, with the result of the longer continuation of the stigma of 'pauperism' attached to receipt of state benefits;
· The existence of segments of the Irish population in Britain, like men who worked in the building industry and elderly Irish people, whose circumstances change with age (need for retraining in the first case, increasing dependence on services in the latter) and who may, in many cases need signposting;
· The position of Irish men who have worked 'on the Lump' and Irish Travellers, who, from their histories, may be wary of approaching 'authorities';
· Anti-Irish racism.
C. FIS believe that some 'lack of cohesion' is due to a lack of capacity. Networking, development of partnerships, collaboration require investment of time, human resources and enhancement of skills and knowledge, which many small community and BAME organizations do not possess, and some do not have the capacity to attain it. Throughout the consultations on the ongoing project to develop a "world class" voluntary sector we have repeatedly stressed that for many such organization more one-to-one development support is necessary rather than just more information.
D. For Irish communities and for the Irish voluntary sector there is an extra barrier in the Black/White binary which governs so much research, policy formation, monitoring of service delivery and statistical analysis in Britain. We were very concerned, for example, that the Irish community were not considered in A Review of Community Cohesion in Sandwell (Final report), (November 2006), published in November 2006 by the Institute of Social Cohesion and entitled, ironically, All of Us. This was constructed on a Black/White binary in which the Census Irish data would have been submerged in White data, and in which White was the comparator for the BAME groups taken into consideration.
FIS believes that research of this kind on social cohesion should be based on comprehensive examination of data for all significant BAMEs in the area under consideration. In the long-term perspective there needs to be early detection, and addressing, of the material/structural factors which threaten social cohesion.
E. In October 2007 we joined with the following organizations Afiya Trust, Black Training and Enterprise Group (BTEG), Confederation of Indian Organisations (CIO), Cultural Co-operation, Ethnic Minority Partnership Agency, Evelyn Oldfield Unit, Interlink Foundation, London Chinese Community Network, Organisation for Blind African Caribbean (OBAC), Race on the Agenda (ROTA), West Indian Standing Conference (WISC), in submitting a letter to the Secretary of State concerning earlier advice on this issue.
We do not believe that the present document is an adequate response to our concerns.
Seán Hutton
Policy Officer
Federation of Irish Societies
95 White Lion Street
London N1 9PF
0207 520 3133
[1] For an evidence based examination discrimination and barriers to integration see M J Hickman and B Walter, Discrimination and the Irish Community in Britain (CRE 1997).
[2] Including G Limbrick England: The Irish Dimension: An exploration of 2001 Census Data (FIS, 2007); M Gaffney, Employment and Training Needs Analysis: A report on the vocational guidance, training and employment needs of the Irish population of London (IETC revised ed. 1999); L Simpson etc., Ethnic minority populations and the labour market; an analysis of the 1991 and 2001 censuses (DWP, 2006)
Order a free copy of the 'Cohesion Guidance For Funders'