What Will the Big Society mean for Black Asian Ethnic Minority and Refugee Organisations?

Will the Big Society be inclusive for disadvantaged groups?

The ‘Big Society agenda is not a government programme; it is a call to action.’[1] The worry for grass-roots BAMER community groups is whether they are hearing this ‘call to action’ and whether they have the capacity, time, or civic skills to answer this call, especially in the current economic climate.

The government must be held to account on its pledge that “we are all in this together”. If the Big Society agenda is not a programme but a call to action, then the BNRRN and other BAMER third sector organisations must seize the opportunity to mould the agenda and help build the capacity of BAMER communities to engage with the Big Society. The Big Society should present an opportunity for the reduction, if not the end of, social exclusion for BAMER groups in London and beyond.

Rob Berkeley from Runnymede Trust says:

“If the Big Society is also to be a fairer society, it is crucial that the BME VCS is enabled to play its full role in supporting BME citizens and others to engage with opportunities to play a larger role in shaping public services. Without their involvement the Big Society project is likely to fail, putting at risk the major contribution that BME people already make to civil society.”

The main broad issues of the localism bill and the Big Society agenda for the BAMER community are:

1.   Accountability
2.   Equality
3.   Access
4.   Exclusion

Examples of Big Society scepticism

1.1 How is a community defined? Ethnicity? Gender? Neighbourhood?

The government has not yet defined what it means by a ‘community’ in Big Society funding applications. Community Cohesion, which initially set out to allow distinct faith-based and ethnic communities to “peacefully co-exist”, has not led to the eradication of tension and segregation in geographical areas or positive relations between BAMER groups and the generic population. BAMER communities do not have an issue with cohesion but they are still excluded from local and national decision making. For the government, neighbourhoods are the ‘building blocks of localism’. However, there needs to be a wider definition of community as communities go beyond geographical neighbourhoods. Neighbourhood groups are not always inclusive and can marginalise BAMER communities.

The government has been insistent that the Big Society will not fund single-issue groups; Nick Hurd, Minister for the Office of Civil Society, said:

“We will not use taxpayers’ money to fund single issue groups”

Baroness Warsi has also followed this tone for the government’s agenda on BAMER groups’ funding opportunities in the Big Society:

“We need to move towards a mainstreaming of minority ethnic and religious groups. We need to move towards a place where we don’t treat them as specific interest groups.”

This assumes that the problems and barriers that the BAMER community face have been eradicated. BAMER groups find it hard to engage within the current structure, where they receive funding from local government. So, under the Big Society agenda, which will decrease the regulatory role of the local authorities, the issues of BAMER groups, with little capacity and civic skills, will be exacerbated. There is a danger that the generic population will dominate the local political sphere and exclude BAMER groups further. BAMER groups are specific interest groups, because of the perennial disadvantage and exclusion that they face.

It is troubling that the government is ignoring the issues that face the BAMER community. The government’s rhetoric has shown a lack of understanding of the issues that face BAMER communities. This is further compounded by the new insistence on the ill-defined notion of ‘fairness’, rather than equality. Fairness is not a concept that can be institutionalised; it is too abstract and based on chance. Equality on the other hand is much more tangible and well-defined. It has been, to a large extent, successfully integrated into the practice of the statutory, private and voluntary sector.

1.2       How are Community Organisers different to current organisers in the BAMER third sector?

The funding and organisation of community groups will be lead by Community Organisers (of which there will initially be 5000). Community Organisers should be members of the local community who will step forward to agitate the community (however defined) to help deliver better services or to campaign for specific issues. It is not yet clear how Community Organisers will be selected and trained.

It is also not yet clear how the role of the Community Organiser is different to those that already run BAMER voluntary services and organise their communities. There is a danger that there could be an overlap or a duplication of services and roles. Also funding maybe detracted from people who are already doing the job on the ground.

As with the concerns with accountability in localism, how will Community Organisers be held accountable and to whom will they be held accountable to?

1.3       Will Community Organisers be representative of the community in terms of equality and democracy?

There is a concern that Community Organisers may not be representative of the community that they are supposed to be working for. The government has not yet outlined exactly what it means by a ‘community’. It is important that the generic population do not come to be seen as representing neighbourhoods as a whole. As we have mentioned before, it is important that there is a broad definition of community to make sure that BAMER groups are identified and are not left out of the Big Society agenda.

BNRRN believes that the best community organisers are those from the communities they seek to serve, as they have the best understanding. It would be unrepresentative to ‘parachute in’ organisers to serve a community as they would not have the understanding of the grass-roots issues they should be equipped to solve.

1.4       How will equalities be measured and how can race equality be embedded in to the Big Society?

Public Sector Duty will not be applied to voluntary sector organisation providing services as part of Big Society. As with the issues raised with the localism bill there are gaps concerning the implementation of equality duty with Big Society service delivery. It is difficult to see how every group delivering services in an area is regulated so that BAMER groups are not excluded.

1.5       Is getting involved in Big Society projects incentivised so that disadvantaged people (of which BAMER groups make up a significant percentage) get involved?

Disadvantaged people tend to be low-skilled workers working shifts and long hours to provide for their families. How is it that someone from a disadvantaged group has the time (let alone the civic skills required) to run their own Big Society project?

The worry is that the BAMER community will be excluded from the opportunities to deliver better services and to improve their local areas, as the usual participators from the generic population dominate local politics. At the same time the loss of ring-fencing for specific issues could lead to the watering down of equalities regulation. Who will be held accountable for the services?

1.6       Will the cuts to funding of community groups be subject to an Equality Impact Assessment?

London Councils’ (who fund many charities and community organisations) have had to re-assess their cuts to groups because they did not fulfil their statutory duty of carrying out Equality Impact Assessments. They did not ensure that the cuts to groups were fair or representative, according to the court hearing. This sets a good precedent for community organisations that so often work with a certain sector of the community, for example the BAMER community. As of March 2010 43% of BAMER voluntary organisations had lost their funding, from a sample collected by Third Sector. The judge’s ruling shows that the cuts cannot be made in haste, but must be assessed to whom they hit; the cuts must be proportionate.

1.7       Will Common Standards for Equalities in Procurement be ensured?

There has been little discussion as to how standards of equality can be ensured with regards to procurement and commissioning of services in the Big Society. The worry is that as equality ring-fencing and regulations are removed under the new agenda the BAMER community may be marginalised further. There needs to be recognition from the private and public sector that BAMER voluntary sector organisations often lack the capacity for the procurement and commissioning of services. This could affect what sectors of the community can take advantage of the new powers that the government has devolved to a local level such as the right to buy amenities and the commissioning of local services.

Equality needs to be at the heart of the Big Society. There should be an increased role of BAMER voluntary organisations in delivering services and there needs to be a greater level of BAMER representation on commissioning panels.

1.8       Will BAMER Social Enterprises be supported?

Social Enterprises received funding and support from previous government, but there were concerns that BAMER social enterprises were being isolated and excluded. BAMER social enterprises are well placed to help solve the inequalities in their communities. It is imperative that in the current economic climate where the BAMER community is being hit hardest by the cuts that BAMER Social Enterprises are given increased support and access to Big Society funding. This is especially prevalent as the coalition government seems to be directing a lot of the funding to social enterprises through their Social Investment Strategy.