Memorandum from Oxfam (PVE 12)
Oxfam submission to Department for Communities
and Local Government new inquiry and call for evidence issued
in the session 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 UK in three ways. We develop projects with people living
in poverty to improve their lives and show how things can change.
We raise public awareness of poverty to create pressure for change.
And we work with policy makers to tackle the causes of poverty.
Oxfam works with ethnic minority communities, particularly women's
groups in the North of England and has recently been awarded £500 thousand
from Communities and Local Government to support the empowerment
of poor BME communities.
3. The risk of being in poverty is higher
for BME communities than it is for the majority white population
in the UK. It is highest for the Bangladeshi and Pakistani population
(59% of whom are in poverty, and most of whom are Muslim) compared
to 19% of the white population.[23]
This poverty remains persistent, caused by structural barriers
and discrimination experienced by ethnic minorities in the labour
market, with low financial assets, living in areas of deprivation.
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[24]
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 Oldham for many years, working
with service users to overcome the disadvantage and poverty they
faced. The project was very successful in getting black boys into
education, training, and even jobs. Now funding has been cut and
no-one is providing that comprehensive service to young black
boys in Oldham".[25]
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." [26]
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".[27]
8. BME communities in Bradford, for example,
reported in research by Just West Yorkshire, feel that
the Prevent agenda carries with it a limited view failing
to encompass the activities of right—wing white extremists.
The Just West Yorkshire research for Oxfam found that people
from white estates in Bradford have little or no knowledge of
community cohesion or Prevent policy, and do not believe
it applies to them. By focusing primarily on the perceived threat
from Muslims, the Prevent policy has unwittingly created
a strong sense of injustice that is likely to run counter to the
involvement of BME communities within the Prevent agenda which
the government seeks.
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,[28]
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
23 Financial Inclusion and Ethnicity, Runnymede
Trust, 2008 Back
24
Peacemaker, Just West Yorkshire, and Southall Black Sisters Back
25
Oxfam Interview with community leader in Oldham, facilitated by
Peacemaker Back
26
Oxfam Interview with community leader in Oldham, facilitated by
Peacemaker Back
27
Perspectives on community cohesion in Bradford: a comparative
analysis of two neighbourhoods, Ratna Lachman and Alyas Karmani,
Just West Yorkshire, 2009 Back
28
Preventing Violent Extremism: learning and development exercise,
October 2008, HMIC and Audit Commission Back
| 
