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.

Mental Health Injection - will it reach the most disadvantaged?

There has been an injection of £400m to tackle mental health as part of the “No Health without Mental Health” project, inspired by the more holistic approach to health care that has been popular in recent years. On twitter the hashtag #whatstigma encouraged those who have had mental health issues to tweet about it in a show of solidarity and to reduce the stigma attached to mental health.

Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister has stated:
"We need to end the stigma attached to mental illness, to set an example by talking about the issue openly and candidly and ensure everyone can access the support and information they need."

The BAME population is disproportionately affected by mental health issues. Will the government ring-fence any of this money to ensure that BAME people are affected by the improvements to mental health services? There are a number of reasons for the disproportionate number of BAME people who suffer from mental health issues (according to Rethink):

1. Mental illness is more likely in socially-disadvantaged groups
2. Mental illness is more likely in groups who have recently migrated to the UK
3. Communities living in inner cities are more likely to experience mental illness
4. BME groups are more likely to be picked up in a survey than white groups

African Caribbean people are more likely to be diagnosed with psychosis than any other group. According to Rethink, this is because there are fears among people from African Caribbean communities suffering from mental health issues that they will encounter institutional racism and as such there issues go untreated and get worse.

For Asian people the main issue is a cultural difference. Psychiatric care does not take into consideration cultural and religious backgrounds.

There are a number of general barriers to receiving the proper support for dealing with mental health problems once diagnosed, or even before the diagnosis stage:
1. Different approaches to mental illness
2. Cultural differences in seeking help
3. Communication problems
4. Poor access to non-drug treatments
5. Poor risk assessment
6. Lack of BAME mental health staff

These mental health issues will only be exacerbated by the recent cuts to the Refugee Council, the Refugee Integration and Employment Services (RIES), the cuts to legal aid for immigration issues, and the introduction of fees if a person wants to appeal against a refusal to have leave to enter the country. These will be discussed in greater detail below.

BNRRN will be looking for consultation opportunities with the relevant departments to air these issues. This additional budget should present itself as a chance to tackle the problem of mental health among BAME people, who disproportionatley suffer, and also to end the stigma associated with mental health for all groups in society.

This is an excellent booklet from Rethink (click to access download page, it is free!): Moving Forward, Living Life with Mental Health Problems: a guide for black and minority ethnic communities
This is also a great resource site for BME mental health issues: 
http://www.bmementalhealth.org.uk/

Cameron, harsh on multiculturalism

The press have reported extensively on David Cameron’s speech at the Munich security conference on 5th February. This speech followed on from the comments the PM made on the tougher rules for immigrants to learn English. Cameron’s speech addressed the apparent failure of multiculturalism and how as a nation we are to deal with the issue of terrorism. Cameron is pushing for a strong national identity based on ‘muscular liberalism’ as a tool for combating terrorism.

Many Labour members and other BAME voice organisations have called the timing of Cameron’s speech irresponsible as he made it on the same day that the fascistic English Defence League (EDL) planned to march in Luton. But Cameron’s speech defended Muslim’s and condemned the rising Islamaophobia in the country: 

“They think whether someone is an extremist is dependent on how much they observe their religion. So they talk about ‘moderate’ Muslims as if all devout Muslims must be extremist. This is wrong.”

However, groups that do not adhere to the ideological values underpinning Cameron’s ideal national identity will not receive funding. Cameron believes Muslim groups that receive funding should be subject to testing and regulation:

"So let's properly judge these organisations:

Do they believe in universal human rights – including for women and people of other faiths?

Do they believe in equality of all before the law?

Do they believe in democracy and the right of people to elect their own government?

Do they encourage integration or separatism?"

This is a dangerous precedent and could lead to the exclusion of groups on the basis of protected characteristics, such as ethnicity and faith. Cameron is undermining the principles of these BAME organisations, creating a hierarchy of values, with British at the top and Muslim at the bottom. He is implicitly casting aspersions about Muslims' values.

This will be made worse with the loss of funding to the equality watchdog, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).

Cameron claims that multiculturalism has failed and has produced distinct ethnic communities, which he links to the development of terrorism. Terrorism is not a result of state multiculturalism. The answer to tackling terrorism is not monoculturalism, as we have seen in France, where monoculturalism has not solved any integration issues they have had. The answer is much more complex than this.

Evidence from 2008 actually suggests that 43 % of Muslims say that they belong ‘very strongly’ to Britain and 42% say that they belong to Britain ‘fairly strongly’. Trevor Philips, who is most associated with the idea that multiculturalism has failed, with his comments in 2005 about Britain 'sleepwalking to segregation', has performed a volte face. He now claims his evidence was wrong. It seems Cameron is still using this evidence. If the evidence is wrong, then why the fear-mongering about Muslims in society?

The BNRRN questions this perspective. Is the attack on multiculturalism part of the current government’s insistence that BAME people should be able to access generic services; that BAME people are not a specific interest group? As Baroness Warsi has claimed: “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 strategy will leave BAME people more excluded and isolated as generic services are not yet equipped to meet BAME peoples’ cultural needs, as we have seen in discussions about BAME people and mental health.

Apart from English language lessons and teaching British history what are Cameron’s proposals to increase integration? There is no guarantee that integration will be achieved through these vague proposals, nor terrorism tackled. There is nothing new in teaching history from a British perspective or English language lessons in the curriculum. Might not this kind of teaching isolate and undermine the worth of migrant pupils whose families are from the nations that Britain dominated under colonialism, rather than forge a sense of British identity and loyalty? Historically the onus for integration has been on the migrant. But as the ‘host’ nation it seems reasonable to expect some more considered and robust proposals for the integration of people who have come to the country in search of a better life for themselves and their families.