APPENDIX 1
RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING
TO NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT POLICIES
AND APPROACHES
The following recommendations relate to the
role, responsibilities and actions of central government on
community cohesion and migration.
1. To ensure that all activities to deliver
PSA 21 to "build more cohesive, empowered and active communities"
takes account of the needs of new communities and migrant communities,
and supports activities to engage and empower them and to ensure
that all activities to deliver PSA 15 "to address the disadvantage
that individuals experience because of their gender, race, disability,
age, sexual orientation, religion or belief" include members
of new and migrant communities and take account of their particular
experiences of disadvantage and the barriers to expressing their
needs.
2. To prioritise the provision of reliable
and standardised data on population churn, enabling local structures
of governance to ensure that they have holistic understandings
of change, in order to facilitate effective service planning and
equitable resource allocation.
3. Building on the Green Paper Governance
in Britain, the Local Government White Paper and the Department
for Communities and Local Government's Action Plan for Community
Empowerment, to ensure that the impacts of demographic change
as a result of migration, population churn and increasing local
diversity are taken account of in the design of policy, guidance
and central government initiatives related to citizenship, community
empowerment and community engagement.
4. To ensure that the Department for Communities
and Local Government Action Plan for Community Empowerment
considers the findings of this report and:
— ensures that one of the promised
roundtables (Summary of Actions 15) is dedicated to exploring
the issues of engaging and empowering migrant and mobile communities;
— extends the National Empowerment
Partnership and other key strategic bodies to include representatives
of new communities, refugees and other mobile communities not
represented by mainstream community groups; and
— explores ways of giving voice and
choice, and improved service accountability to new communities,
specifically in relation to their main service contacts (including
rented housing services, environmental health, police, gangmaster
licensing authority and schools).
RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING
TO LOCAL
GOVERNMENT AND
LOCAL STRATEGIC
PARTNERSHIPS
Local authorities and LSPs have
a key role in facilitating cohesion and integration. The following
recommendations are aimed at them, and we believe these should
be included in central government guidance to local authorities
and LSPs, but also that they might require a commitment of resources
to local government to be realised.
1. To ensure that community engagement strategies
should take into account diversity within existing populations,
but also plan for the dynamics of population change and churn,
taking account of the social, political and cultural diversity
within and between communities.
2. To ensure that local place-shaping policies
take account of the impact from and the impact on changing demographics.
3. To provide clear and comprehensive guides,
drawing on the template being developed by IDeA explaining where,
at what level and how different community and service user concerns
can be addressed, including the provision of Welcome Packs, for
new arrivals, regularly updated, with training to use these packs
effectively.
4. To maintain maximum stability and coherence
in the structures for community engagement, with the aim of strengthening
mutual confidence and trust within and between local communities
and service providers.
5. To develop proactive communication strategies,
including, but not limited to, carefully targeted myth-busting
exercises, proactively identifying and responding to local concerns,
responding proactively to symptoms of tension.
6. To prioritise the PSA 15: addressing
equalities issues comprehensively via Local Area Agreements.
7. To ensure that the criteria for the allocation
of resources (including funding for particular groups) are clearly
set out, coherent and transparent and to ensure that information
about the basis for resource allocation decisions are effectively
publicised and disseminated, demonstrating "visible fairness"—and
providing accessible feedback on why decisions to fund, or not
to fund have been taken.
8. To recognise the economic and other barriers,
and to provide practical support (including support with caring
responsibilities, transport, access to training and support in
addressing linguistic barriers), to enable community representatives
to participate effectively in structures of local governance.
This will require holistic local strategies, geared to the particular
strengths and needs of diverse communities.
9. To provide community development support,
both directly and via Third Sector anchor organisations, including
faith-based organisations, to engage with new arrivals as well
as with more established communities, promoting networking within
and between communities—and adequately resource this.
10. To work proactively with new communities,
both directly and via Third Sector anchor organisations, including
working through their informal networks, whilst taking account
of equalities issues, ensuring that all voices are effectively
heard, including the voices of relatively marginalised groups
such young women.
11. To provide outreach support, on a sustainable
basis, to support negotiation and conflict resolution.
12. To value and support the role of local
anchor organisations in facilitating harmonious use of shared
amenities, where relevant, and to promote understanding and solidarity
within and between communities, enabling communities to self-organise,
to access resources and to make their own voices effectively heard.
13. To support the organisation of shared
community events, including festivals, sports events, community
outings and welcome events, as part of wider strategies to promote
community cohesion and community engagement.
14. To provide support to councillors facilitating
the development of strategies to engage new communities inclusively
whilst promoting community cohesion, encouraging new communities
to engage with formal structures of governance, including individuals
to stand as councillors themselves.
15. To recognise that neighbourhood participation
structures cannot address all issues and so to support the development
of effective city/borough wide structures too.
APPENDIX 2
ABOUT THE
GOVERNANCE AND
DIVERSITY RESEARCH
PROJECT
Our research team included Professor Marjorie
Mayo, Dr Ben Gidley and Dr Kalbir Shukra of Goldsmiths, Geraldine
Blake of Links UK, Kate Foley (in the first half of the project)
and Martin Yarnit (in the second half), based at Renaisi, Jane
Foot, an independent consultant, and Dr John Diamond of the Centre
for Local Policy Studies at Edge Hill. The project had an Advisory
Group, including academics, practitioners and policy-makers.
Our methodology
Three case study areas were identified, for
further investigation, in Coventry, Oldham and Newham. These case
study areas were selected to illustrate differing patterns of
population diversity and churn—a Northern town with relatively
long-established minority communities and relatively little experience
of extreme diversity (at least until recently), a city with established
minority communities and considerable population fluidity through
to a London borough with one of the most rapidly changing populations
in Britain. Given the research focus, the emphasis was upon the
areas with most population churn, comparing and contrasting their
experiences with those of the area with rather less population
churn. The case study areas were also chosen to illustrate varying
approaches to the development of community engagement in local
structures of governance. Finally, the case study areas were selected
for their potential to offer the opportunity of identifying examples
of good practice. It should be emphasised that these case study
areas are all in England and refer specifically to the English
policy context. Given the variation in structures, elsewhere in
Britain, the research findings cannot be taken to apply more widely,
although many will do so.
Once Coventry, Newham and Oldham had been selected
for further study, the researchers interviewed a range of stakeholders
from local structures of governance and from the voluntary and
community sectors, including faith-based organisations and groupings.
More detailed interviews were conducted with a number of individuals
whose experiences illustrated differing patterns of engagement
in structures of local governance. And preliminary findings were
checked back with individuals and via focus groups. In addition,
the researchers observed a number of meetings and events, over
the eighteen months of the project's life. The aim was to build
as rounded picture as possible.
For further information
We are happy to provide further information
or discuss our findings and conclusions more. We can be contacted
at the Centre for Urban and Community Research, Goldsmiths University
of London, London SE14 6NW http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/cucr/ 0207
919 7390 cucr@gold.ac.uk
26 Further details of the research are included at
the end of this document. The publication date is 23 June 2008. Back
