|
Memorandum from Oxfam (PVE 12) Oxfam submission to Department for Communities and Local Government new inquiry and call for evidence issued in the sesion 2008-09, dated 21 July 2009 1. Oxfam is responding to the inquiry into Prevent, the Government's programme for preventing violent extremism, its effectiveness to date, and likely effectiveness in the future. Oxfam wants to see greater awareness of the unintended negative impact of Prevent, which we evidence below, and a greater focus in underlying cohesion policy on tackling poverty and deprivation. 2.
As a humanitarian organisation mandated to alleviate poverty and suffering,
Oxfam opposes any violations of civilian human rights, including through
conspicuous atrocity such as terrorism. We speak out strongly against extremism
because it is likely to generate hatred. Oxfam works to overcome poverty in the 3. The risk of being in poverty is higher for BME
communities than it is for the majority white population in the 4. Oxfam is responding to this inquiry because we believe that the unintended poverty consequences of Prevent and wider cohesion policy are significant and widespread, increasing the sense of injustice felt by BME communities, the inequality they experience, and make their poverty worse. Our submission explains the dimensions of these unintended consequences and how they work. Our knowledge is based on our programme experience, and on research conducted together with our partners[2] on the negative impact of community cohesion policy on their beneficiaries. In Oxfam's view competition for funding, and failure to tackle public perceptions can contribute to lack of cohesion and provide the breeding ground for discontent and extremism. 5. The unintended effects of Prevent fall into three areas. The first is the impact of cuts in funding to organisations working in poor ethnic minority communities, as part of a shift away from "single group" funding and towards community cohesion. The second is the discrimination experienced by ethnic minority communities because of the targeting of Muslims by Prevent. The third is the way in which ethnic minority women may become more vulnerable because Prevent and cohesion policy puts more power and authority into the hands of religious leaders and interfaith networks. 6. In the first area, Oxfam is concerned about the impact of cutting funding to race equality organizations, such as those supporting Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, as part of the move to community cohesion and Prevent policy. In a series of interviews in Oldham Peacemaker revealed that funding was diverted to mainstream organizations who did not pick up the support needs of those communities when the race equality organizations closed, leaving people from deprived communities worse off, heightening their poverty and exclusion.
"The Afro-Caribbean project worked to meet the needs of the community
in
The Bangleshi community is one of the poorest in the borough and the association offered a range of advice and support services to the community with appropriate language support and cultural understanding which enabled the association to meet their needs. "What has happened to all those needs? They are just not being met by other services."[4] 7. In the second area, Oxfam believes government should be alert to the way in which cohesion policy has multiple detrimental impacts on the BME community. Muslim communities feel that both the problem of extremism and its solutions are laid at their door. The way the public perceive Muslims as a result adds to the racism and discrimination they experience, deepening their sense of alienation when combined with the experience of living in poor areas and receiving poor services, which fail to target "unemployment, segregation and poor achievement in schools, and access to housing in mixed developments".[5] 8. BME communities in 9. In the third area, Oxfam is concerned about the negative effects of the Prevent agenda on BME women. Our partner Southall Black Sisters researched the impact of community cohesion policy on their beneficiaries experiencing domestic violence. The way in which the Prevent and community cohesion agenda funds religious organizations, accompanied by cuts in funding to specialist women's organizations, increase the vulnerability of BME women. Interviews conducted by Southall Black Sisters report how women feel caught between the demands of religion and family. They need advice from professionals to secure their own safety and rights to protection as women under British law, and the role of specialist women's organizations in getting them out of danger, is critical. In Oxfam's view the risks for vulnerable women in cutting funding is an unacceptable result of cohesion and Prevent policy, and warrants further research and examination. 10. Oxfam believes that the government should ensure that Prevent is adequately monitored and evaluated to achieve a better picture of its impact on communities. Government Departments acknowledge this[6], stating that defining and measuring success in Prevent is an "under-developed" area. Oxfam has been unable to identify published information on what indicators of success are being used for Prevent, or any evidence of significant evaluation. We urge national and local government to commission solid work on evidence baselines for anti-extremism initiatives that focus on poverty and deprivation as well as perceptions of who works well together. We would like to see a thorough evaluation of the impact on communities, both intended and unintended, of Prevent. 11. The police acknowledge that information from communities accessible to public bodies is patchy. The most recent guidance from Communities and Local Government on mainstreaming cohesion across public services indicates that there is still insufficient connection between mainstream services (housing, funding for leisure facilities, jobs etc), and cohesion initiatives. This failure to gather the right information, or to join up services, leaves a question mark over the effectiveness of the £100 million investment in the Prevent programme, both in its own terms, and in relation to the unintended effects outlined here. 12. Oxfam suggests that if this money was invested in mainstream services for deprived areas and groups with better and more housing, improvement to public spaces, and employment services, this would make a measurable difference in addressing the causes of extremism which often lie in poverty and legitimate dissatisfaction. 13. Oxfam is concerned that as part of the Prevent agenda, local decision-makers are not talking to the right people and therefore may not be getting the information or advice they need to support anti-poverty work. Our connection with BME organizations leads us to believe that better connections need to be made with organizations working directly with communities in poor areas, and that government should be more aware of the damage to its own reputation in these communities caused by Prevent. As a result some organisations with relevant and timely information could be unwilling to share this with the relevant authorities. 14. In conclusion, Oxfam wants to see greater awareness of the unintended negative impact of Prevent, and a greater focus in underlying cohesion policy on tackling poverty and deprivation. We have provided evidence here that this is the case, and will be happy to give further evidence. Community cohesion policy has the potential, to reduce conflict and increase of the well-being of BME communities. However the Prevent agenda, with its primary focus on rooting out extremism, is increasing mistrust and a sense of grievance in BME communities.
September 2009
[1] Financial Inclusion
and Ethnicity, [2] Peacemaker,
Just [3] Oxfam
Interview with community leader in [4] Oxfam Interview with
community leader in [5] Perspectives on community cohesion in Bradford: a comparative analysis of two neighbourhoods, Ratna Lachman and Alyas Karmani, Just West Yorkshire, 2009 [6] Preventing
Violent Extremism: learning and development exercise, October 2008, HMIC and |