Memorandum by Luton Borough Council (SOC
75)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Definitions
The Council has developed its own definition
of community cohesion as follows:
— The "glue" that holds society
together.
— What prevents dissent and disagreement
descending into conflict and violence.
— What makes us work together for the
common good.
1.2 The Council's approach
The Council's overall approach to social cohesion
can be summarised as:
— Listening and learning—gathering
intelligence.
— Targeting resources based on objective
measures of need.
— Optimistic but not complacent.
— Recognising that much still remains
to be done.
— Providing effective leadership.
— Watchful and alert—ready to
respond.
2. LUTON IN
CONTEXT
This is an attempt to provide a summary of key
statistics about Luton relevant to the topic.
2.1 Population
Luton is a compact and densely populated urban
area. The 2001 census registered a resident population of 184,371
people (June 2002 estimate 186,200). Those from ethnic minority
heritages comprise 28.1% of the population; 18.3% of south Asian
heritages and 6.3% of black heritages.
2.2 Schools
Within Luton there are six nursery schools,
58 primary phase schools, 12 secondary schools, three special
schools and two pupil referral units.
2.3 Pupils
Luton as a local education authority is responsible
for the education of 32,325 children up to the age of 16. The
January 2003 schools survey revealed that 43.1% of the pupils
in Luton schools were from ethnic minority heritages. The pupils
in a few primary phase schools are almost entirely from ethnic
minority heritages.
2.4 Deprivation
Two Luton wards are amongst the 10% most deprived
wards in England. These two wards have the highest rates of unemployment
and contain significantly the highest proportions of ethnic minority
residents.
2.5 Unemployment
The census indicated that the rate of unemployment
in June 2001 was 3.8% (3.1% for white groups, 5.7% for Asian groups
and 7% for black groups). In November 2003 the unemployment rate
for Luton was reported as being 2.9% however, because of changes
in definitions these statistics are not on the same basis and
are therefore not strictly comparable.
2.6 The conurbation
Luton is part of a conurbation that includes
the towns of Dunstable and Houghton Regis which, although adjacent
to Luton, have markedly different characteristics. Nevertheless
the towns are interdependent in terms of employment, housing,
health services, shopping and transport.
3. SOME SPECIFIC
INITIATIVES
3.1 BME Housing Needs Survey
In 1998 the Council commissioned Salford University
to undertake a survey of the Housing needs of the BME communities.
The research was commissioned to complement a general Housing
Needs survey that was carried out at the same time.
3.2 Lord Ouseley's report on Bradford and
the decision to utilise "scrutiny" to undertake a study
of community cohesion in Luton
Following the publication in 2001 of the report
of the group chaired by Lord Ouseley a scrutiny panel was set
up at Luton with a remit to examine the report to see whether
the issues identified in Bradford also pertained in Luton and,
if so, whether the interventions proposed in Bradford might be
helpful to Luton. The remit of the panel was extended at a very
early stage to cover all aspects of race and community relations
in the town. The study was completed in 2002 and the report of
the study was published at a launch event in January 2003 at which
Ted Cantle was the keynote speaker.
3.3 Decision to encourage OfSTED to use Luton
to pilot a themed inspection of the LEA focussed on community
cohesion
Guidance developed at national level by a working
party led by Ted Cantle and on which Luton's Chief Executive,
Darra Singh, served raised issues about mono-cultural schools
and how they should be addressed. At that time the inspectorates
were being encouraged to reflect considerations around community
cohesion in their inspections of local authority services. For
these reasons OfSTED was invited to use Luton as a test bed and
to undertake an inspection of the LEA based around the theme of
community cohesion.
4. RESULTS OF
REVIEWS
4.1 BME Housing Needs survey
Respondent and Household Characteristics
— Household sizes varied considerably
by ethnic group eg African Caribbean households tended to be smaller,
with up to four people, and along with Indian households were
least likely to include children. On the other hand, four out
of ten Pakistani households had six or more members, which were
likely to include two or more children.
— Just over half the people surveyed
were in full time employment, and just less than one in 10 were
unemployed.
— Just less than one in 20 households
included someone who had a long-term sickness or was disabled.
— Over one third had no income except
that received from welfare benefits.
Current Tenure and Housing History
— The majority were owner-occupiers,
the largest number of the remaining group were council tenants.
— There were differences in tenure
according to ethnicity e.g while more Pakistani and Indian households
were owner occupiers, African Caribbean and Bangladeshi people
tended to be council tenants.
Future Housing Requirements
— The majority of households would
not want to move home.
— Of those households wanting to move,
the majority would prefer to stay in Luton.
— Over half of the potential movers
would want to buy their own homes, with one third stating a preference
for council rented accommodation.
— Decisions on where to move to were
generally influenced by access to shops, health facilities and
schools.
— Just over one quarter of households
(27.6%) included someone who would require separate accommodation
within the next five years. The largest group of these hidden
households would want to set up home within the same ward as their
host household.
— Nearly half (46.4%) of these hidden
households want to buy their own homes, 28.3% would rent privately,
and over one fifth preferred council accommodation.
— It was anticipated that nearly half
of the hidden households would be unable to afford suitable private
accommodation in Luton (rented or purchased), without some form
of assistance. Very few of these households was registered with
the Council or a housing association in the area.
Awareness of Services and Provision
— None of the respondents would consider
sheltered housing for themselves and only six would look to this
form to cater for the needs of a family member.
— Knowledge of the range of local authority
grants available was generally low.
— Only four out of 10 respondents were
aware of housing association activity within the Borough.
Interestingly on this final point a
more recent BME survey for the other authorities in Bedfordshire
identified a similar issue about a lack of awareness. This issue
of access was also touched on in one of the recommendations that
came from the crosscutting Ofsted inspection:
— The Council should develop improved
ways of assisting minority ethnic households through information
and systems to access housing, enforce their rights as tenants
and improve the condition and energy efficiency of their homes.
The other two "Housing" recommendations
from Ofsted were:
— The Council should develop further
its policy and provision for housing, by adopting an approved
landlord list, a deposit guarantee scheme, support systems for
tenants whose first language is not English and by improving liaison
between all Council officers who may visit local communities and
individual households.
— The Council should examine the
implications of its allocations policy in relation to educational
choice and availability.
4.2 Scrutiny Study
The findings of the scrutiny study were published
in the report of the panel entitled "Sticking Together—embracing
diversity in Luton". The report set out the approach and
methodologies that had been used in the study and the conclusions
reached by the panel of Members based on the evidence and information
collected. The main finding was that, by and large, people in
Luton get on reasonably well together and that the tensions and
fractures that were the cause of violent disorder in some places
in the summer of 2001 were either not present in Luton or not
to the same degree. The panel was keen to focus on a relatively
small number of key issues and they made ten main recommendations
to the Council and its partners. These centred around:
— the way in which decisions are made
about the allocation of resources and the way in which those decisions
are then communicated;
— communications generally and the
need to be more pro-active about correcting mistakes and misrepresentations
in the media;
— the need to promote best practice
in recruitment and employment amongst local employers;
— the need to identify and fill the
gap in provision of opportunities to learn English;
— services for young people;
— broadening cultural experiences for
pupils at school; and
— and the need to examine the case
for an equalities agency to provide advice, guidance and advocacy
support to victims of any unlawful discrimination.
4.3 OfSTED Inspection
The Council was inspected in its role as local
education authority during April 2002. This inspection, at the
Council's invitation, included a thematic inspection of the Council's
overall approach to community cohesion, broadening the educational
focus of the inspection to look in more detail than usual at issues
of social inclusion, particularly those relevant to ethnicity,
and also to consider the contribution made by Housing, Services
to Children and families and by the Council's work on community
regeneration. The inspection team was enhanced to include Her
Majesty's Inspectors (HMI) with particular specialisms in ethnic
and cultural issues, a member of the Social Services inspectorate
and two additional members of the Audit Commission Inspection
Service.This joint inspection report commented on the successes
of the Council in dealing with the challenge of promoting community
cohesion in an ethnically diverse town. It examined how effectively
the LEA's support to schools assisted the Council in carrying
forward its policy to support community cohesion and, reciprocally,
what benefit accrued to the schools and their pupils from the
Council's co-ordination of services to achieve the desired contribution
to the cohesion of the community. The inspection report was published
in November 2002.
The report concluded that "overall,
Luton Council, and the LEA within it, has much to do, but is making
progress, under effective political and professional leadership,
in all of the above respects. Its influence is markedly on the
positive side, and it is rapidly improving both its capacity to
convince all concerned of its good faith, and its effectiveness.
The inspection found clear evidence of a strategy, which consisted
fundamentally of the following strands:
— the desire to act more cohesively
as a Council;
— a strong commitment to social
inclusion;
— a drive for the improvement of
services; and
— a commitment to the implementation
of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.
5. SUBSEQUENT
PLANS AND
ACTIONS
5.1 Action plans
The report on the scrutiny study was submitted
to the Council early in 2003 and accepted without demur. The implementation
of the recommendations was referred to the local strategic partnership
and a themed sub group was set up to steer and monitor progress
by partners. To assist in this an action plan was drawn up based
on the 10 key recommendations and setting our agreed responsibilities,
timescales etc. Significant progress has been made on most of
the recommendations.
The LEA developed an action plan in response
to the themed inspection and progress against the plan has been
good.
Ten recommendations were made in the report.
In response the Council's action plan identified 36 actions which
have been incorporated in to service and team plans and the objectives
set for individual members of staff.
Senior managers in Lifelong Learning Department
and other relevant parts of the Council have regularly monitored
progress against the plan.
The majority of actions have been completed
or are ongoing matters that have been initiated.
6. PRACTICAL
RESULTS
6.1 Examples of good practice
6.1.1 The scrutiny study was a major piece
of work to which significant resources were dedicated. It involved
some risk in that the work was publicised whilst it was going
on in order to promote a debate. The conclusion has been that
the very fact that the Council undertook this study and was prepared
to sponsor and promote a debate in the local media was seen as
positive and has been beneficial in enabling people to talk about
sensitive issues. In a sense it provided a "safety valve".
An important finding was the extent to which people's perceptions
were different from reality as a result of lack of knowledge,
misinformation or prejudice. The Council won a national award
from the Institute of Public Relations for the publicity material
developed and used during and after the study to publicise the
topic and gain public involvement. (The Council also won an award
for the quality of the civic newspaper.) Examples from the action
plan are as follows:
— A communications strategy that sets
out for the Council and its partners a framework for informing
local people about key decisions and the basis on which they have
been taken and provides guidance on addressing issues around misinformation
and bias in media reporting. (Appendix A).
— Use of the curriculum (particularly
sport, music and other arts) to give pupils experience of a wider
range of cultures.
— Employment code of best practice—the
local Chamber business has agreed to take the lead in developing
and promulgating a code of best practice to local employers.
— English as a second language—the
Learning Skills Council is assessing the scale and nature of unmet
need.
— An officer steering group is working
on developing a case for an equalities agency for Luton.
6.1.2 The LEA inspection themed around community
cohesion was a challenging but positive experience and provided
evidence about the way things were and pointers to develop improved
approaches. The latest report on progress is attached as Appendix
B.
6.1.3 Recruitment by the Council—the
Council aspires to have a workforce that is broadly reflective
of the economically active resident population. The Council's
recruitment processes have been developed to eliminate unlawful
and inappropriate discrimination and to help candidates to overcome
disadvantage whilst still applying the principle of appointing
the best candidate for the job. Targets set by the Council have
been exceeded and there is anecdotal evidence that perceptions
of local people have been changed.
6.1.4 Schools use of curriculum to provide
pupils with experience of a range of cultures.
6.1.5 Community safety—strategy development
in partnership with the Police and other partners through the
Safer Luton Partnership involving focus group meetings with "hard-to-reach"
groups, including the ethnic minority and gay and lesbian communities.
6.1.6 LSP—Forum, Assembly, themed
CC groupThe Council has established the Luton Forum as the local
strategic partnership for the area. The Forum consists of representatives
of all of the statutory agencies working in the town plus significant
representation from the local communities. This has been achieved
through the Luton Assembly which is an inclusive group open to
representatives of all bona fide established community groups,
clubs and associations. The assembly elects the community representatives
on the Forum. The Forum has established a number of sub groups
to work on the key themes set out in Luton's community plan. One
of the themed groups is focussed on Community Cohesion and its
initial task was to consider and advise on the guidance issued
by the Home Office, to guide, monitor and report on progress in
implementing the recommendations of the "Sticking Together"
report of the scrutiny panel and to consider and advise on the
community cohesion implications of the other themes in the community
plan.
6.1.7 An officer working group has been
established to support the themed sub group of the Luton Forum.
The group's remit encompasses equalities, diversity and social
inclusion as well as community cohesion. The group is working
on a clear framework to define and connect the four strands. The
group also provides the resources to take forward the work of
the themed group.
6.1.8 The Luton CarnivalThe spring bank
holiday Monday is an important day in Luton because that's when
we host the UK's largest one day carnival. The 2003 event was
the 28th and the parade consisted of over 1,000 people representing
45 groups. The carnival is a celebration in art and music of the
diversity of culture in Luton.
6.1.9 Regeneration Initiatives:
— The Council involved local communities
in preparing submissions for neighbourhood renewal funding the
result of which was the award of £50 million over 10 years
to fund an area based regeneration programme.
— The Council facilitated the formation
of a local community based group to raise funding for a new local
community centre which the group, now established as a trust,
is responsible for managing and running.
— In order to develop project proposals
for incorporation into a bid for Single Regeneration Fund resources
(round 6) the Council helped to facilitate a forum of community
representatives who themselves determined the shape and content
of the bid.
6.1.10 As a response to under representation
of black and ethnic minority tenants on tenants and residents
associations the Council set up a BME TARA.
6.1.11 Service provision:
— The Council provides "women
only" sessions at the swimming pools to meet the needs of
Moslem women.
— A day centre for African/Caribbean
elders has been set up to provide access to day care services
for that group.
— The governing principle underpinning
the Council's provision of leisure facilities is inclusion.
6.1.12 LMARIG—the Council participates
with partners in the Luton Multi Racial Incident Group which has
developed, implemented and publicised a scheme for reporting,
recording and responding to racial incidents in the town.
7. DILEMMAS AND
UNRESOLVED ISSUES
7.1 Culturally specific services
7.1.1 Where the Council has become aware
that a minority group is not accessing a service it has made specific
provision for the excluded group. Examples referred to above are
the BME TARA and the African/Caribbean elders day centre. These
have been successful in that they are accesses by groups who were
not previously accessing the mainstream service; however, in the
absence of a clear exit strategy, such an approach can be a solution
to a short term problem at the expense of long-term segregation.
It is arguable that such an approach is a means of avoiding tackling
the underlying problem.
7.2 Monocultural schools—conflict between
the conclusion from the scrutiny study and the themed Ofsted inspection
The themed Ofsted inspection report threw down
the challenge of addressing the issue of schools where all or
nearly all of the puils are from one cultural heritage and suggested
that the make up of pupils in schools should be more balanced;
however it did not put forward a method to achieve this. The conclusion
of the scrutiny study was that artificial social engineering such
as changing admission criteria, redrawing school catchment area
boundaries and bussing children to schools away from the area
where they live was to be avoided and that what mattered was that
all pupils had the opportunity to learn about and experience the
cultures of others. The Council has followed the latter approach
through imaginative use of the curriculum and school twinning
arrangements. It is hoped that the achievement of specialist status
by more of our secondary schools will also make a contribution
to this objective.
7.3 Regeneration funding
Many of the funding regimes supporting regeneration
initiatives have a competitive element within the bidding process.
This can have the effect of encouraging communities to emphasise
their needs and their deprivation in order to compete to be worst.
The rules of many of the funding regimes and the requirement of
bidding processes can be so complex and technical as to be disempowering
to community groups.
8. CONCLUSION
Luton did not experience the violent conflicts
suffered by some other towns in the summer of 2001 or the level
of tension within and between communities that was seen in some
other places following 11 September 2001 and subsequent events
in Afghanistan and Iraq. The scrutiny study indicated that this
was because, generally speaking, people in Luton get on pretty
well together and because there are effective networks in place
to provide early warning when trouble threatens and respected
community leaders able and prepared to intervene promptly. However
the study did identify some issues that needed to be addressed
and the Council and its partners are working on these. There is
however an awareness that circumstances are constantly changing
and that the price of peace is eternal vigilance. Arrangements
have been made through the community survey to try to establish
a baseline measure of community cohesion but it is recognised
that we are trying to measure something that is largely intangible.
Political and community leaders are probably the best barometer
of the feelings of local people and the informal networks that
have served us well in the past need to be fostered and nurtured.
APPENDIX A
Supplementary Memorandum by Luton Borough
Council (SOC 75(a))
COMMUNITY COHESION "STICKING TOGETHER:
EMBRACING DIVERSITY IN LUTON" COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY
INTRODUCTION
The top 10 Conclusions and Recommendations for
Action of the Scrutiny Panel that prepared this report included
one that was of a specific Communications nature, and others that
in some form have communications implications.
The following seeks to outline how these should
be responded to.
In doing so, it takes account of the "matrix"
that has been developed to link the report with the Community
Plan and National Guidance.
1. Communication
The report calls for the Council to take the
lead in communicating key decisions, and the reasons for them,
to local people.
1.1 The "How"
With the creation of the new Communications
division, the Council is able to respond to this requirement by
means of the co-ordinated communication of information using established
techniques/media.
EXTERNALLY
ie to the local community by means of eg:
— Press releases and, possibly, feature
articles.
— Lutonline newspaper—now a monthly
24 page publication.
— Internet website—being re-launched
in Autumn 2003.
— Special publications—specifically
addressing certain issues/services.
INTERNALLY
ie to the Council's 7,000+ employees (who are
also, largely, local residents) by means of eg:
— Inline—the monthly corporate
employee newsletter.
— Intranet website—being re-launched
in Autumn 2003.
RECOMMENDATION
The Council will seek to utilise the full range
of techniques/media at its disposal to effectively communicate
information about key decisions to relevant audiences.
1.2 The "What"
The actual message to be communicated is a somewhat
more complex issue.
Traditionally, the Council communicates its
decisions only. This is the most important information to convey.
As the space/time available in independent media to report Council
news is limited, it is vital to strip the message back to the
most important facets.
Expanding on this to include further detail
on the reasons for decisions is possible, but does have implications:
— Additional information in press releases
may not be picked-up by the independent media. Indeed, there is
a degree of danger that providing too much information will result
in the stories not being used at all.
Recommendation
The Council will offer information about the
reasons for decisions as footnotes to press releases so it may
be utilised if the media has sufficient space/time to report it.
— As far as the media the Council controls
are concerned, it is certainly possible to incorporate more detailed
stories featuring the reasons for decisions. This would, however,
reduce the number of stories that can appear given limitations
on the space/budget available.
Recommendation
The Council will seek to explain clearly, but
succinctly, the reasons for decisions as part of its communications
activity, and will point to sources of further information eg
from Lutonline coverage to the website database of Council meeting
reports.
2. Proactive Communication
The Council should, and does, adopt a pro-active
stance on challenging bias, prejudice and stereotypes. In large
part this involves Human Resources issues such as the way in which
it recruits its employees. Communications activity plays a role
in encouraging good practise by demonstrating Council initiatives.
Recommendation
The Council will seek to continue challenging
bias, prejudice and stereotypes through its communications where
there is legitimate reason to do so.
3. Misunderstandings and Misinformation
The Report of the Scrutiny Panel also calls
for mistakes and misinformation in media reporting to be followed-up
with a view to correction. This too is appropriate and laudable,
up to a point.
Despite concerted effort to ensure reporting
is accurate, fair, and unbiased it is inevitable that some coverage
that is considered to be counter-productive will appear.
In some instances it is essential or appropriate
to seek correction. In others, this has been found from experience
to become an opportunity for the original counterproductive messages
to be repeated. Equally, there can be no guarantee that the same
people who received the inaccurate message, also receive the correction.
Recommendation
A pragmatic approach to responding to mistakes
and misinformation is required. Where correction is deemed essential,
approaches may involve published corrections in the offending
media and/or use of media that the Council controls to present
the true position.
APPENDIX B
Supplementary memorandum by Luton Borough
Council (SOC 75(b))
| 
