Cantle Report
Community Cohesion: A Report of the Independent Review Team
Independent review into the disturbances in Burnley, Oldham and Bradford in 2001. Coined the concept of parallel lives and made 67 recommendations for improving community cohesion.
67recommendations
67Not Yet Responded
Government Response
Government published Building Cohesive Communities response in 2002 accepting most recommendations.
1 December 2002
Recommendations
Recommendation 6.1
The rights – and in particular – the responsibilities of citizenship need to be more clearly established and we would expect to see some, or all, of the issues identified in Chapter 5, strongly featured. This should then be formalised into a form of statement of allegiance.
Recommendation 6.10
Extensive diversity education and training in all key agencies will also be required, to recognisable standards. It should be undertaken by local communities themselves as part of a programme of cross cultural contact.
Recommendation 6.11
Each mainstream political party must re-visit its code of conduct and the measures it takes to enforce it at a local level, in respect of community relations. It is suggested that a cross-party statement be prepared to set standards of behaviour and that this be established as an expectation for all local councillors, candidates and party activists. This should not attempt to silence debate, but ensure that the debate is conducted in a responsible manner. This should be in place prior to the local elections in May 2002.
Recommendation 6.12
Training and development for councillors and community leaders should be mandatory and greatly extended in this area. Political parties should also provide diversity education and training.
Recommendation 6.13
The conduct and probity of all those involved in local politics needs to be re-examined and a specific initiative should be undertaken by the Local Government Standards Board and other representatives from the local government community to pro-actively and positively concerns such as ‘sweetheart deals’ and ‘back home’ politics.
Recommendation 6.14
The concept of probity will require redefinition or clarification to specifically tackle the problem of the provision of mono-cultural community facilities in exchange for political allegiance from specific communities.
Recommendation 6.15
Each LSP should draw up a communications strategy which ensures a much fuller understanding of its programmes and priorities. This should include a training package for LSP members and formal links to a network of community organisations across the area. Resources will be required to facilitate this, but for the most part these can be provided through the capacity building elements of regeneration programmes.
Recommendation 6.16
However, LSPS should avoid linking each member to particular groups or areas which may lead to the development a silo mentality which mitigates against a partnership approach. The emphasis should also be firmly on inclusive communications, not simply on those areas that are the focus of the latest initiative.
Recommendation 6.17
The accreditation process should be amended to ensure that it will depend not only upon the representative nature of its members, but a more strategic approach to diversity issues, expressed through its community cohesion plan.
Recommendation 6.18
April 2003 should be established as a target for the production of the Community Cohesion component of the Community Strategy.
Recommendation 6.19
All LSPs should ensure that their Regeneration Strategy and other plans clearly locate all initiatives within an overall framework with so that it is easier for particular communities to test the equity of future plans.
Recommendation 6.2
However, this should follow an honest and open national debate, led by Government and heavily influenced by younger people. We believe that this should be initiated very quickly and lead directly to a programme of action.
Recommendation 6.20
Central Government and its agencies should relate funding to mainstream resources by developing ‘Regeneration PSAs’ negotiated through one regional body, (presumably Government Offices or a stronger RCU) which can develop longer term approaches with less reliance on initiatives, embracing all partner bodies.
Recommendation 6.21
This regional body should broker funding on behalf of others utilising a common system of application and monitoring, as part of longer term regeneration agreements.
Recommendation 6.22
All such agreements (and the strategies upon which they depend) should be scrutinised for the impact that they will have upon community cohesion.
Recommendation 6.23
Local partnerships should be asked to consider plans and funding applications specifically to address community cohesion in their area. We believe that imaginative approaches to this, for example, through sports and arts programmes, should be developed. LSPs should also automatically consider the impact of all proposals in respect of community cohesion.
Recommendation 6.24
Local partnerships should also be asked to develop a wide range of thematic bids as a more flexible and more equitable approach to regeneration, which whilst still allowing for area treatment, can focus on specific needs in all local communities. We would suggest that these are targeted at the needs of younger people, in particular and that they attempt to redress some of the acute problems of segregation of, and lack of contact between, particular communities. They must, of course, also recognise that poverty and deprivation have to be the primary focus of regeneration plans.
Recommendation 6.25
The impact of changes to ethnicity indicators should be re-considered, with a view to ensuring that needs are addressed and that funding changes are managed. This applies, in particular, to support for improving educational achievement.
Recommendation 6.26
A very frank and honest analysis of the nature of the separation of each community should be undertaken at a local level to underpin the production of a Community Cohesion Strategy (see Chapter 5.1 above).
Recommendation 6.27
Programmes must be devised, as part of the Community Cohesion Strategy, with support at a national level, to promote contact and understanding between and within, the black and ethnic minorities, and the white community and faiths.
Recommendation 6.28
Other recommendations on this issue are contained under each of the relevant section headings. Many involve educational measures and should take the opportunity to do some powerful ‘myth busting’.
Recommendation 6.29
A well resourced programme of engaging young people in the decision making process affecting their communities should be established, possibly by developing the Youth Parliament scheme. The form of engagement should respect the needs and style of young people, not replicate existing institutions. The aim should be to develop a permanent and robust infrastructure, with direct access to policy makers at a national and local level.
Recommendation 6.3
The debate should ensure that in particular, it can relate to the most disadvantaged and disaffected groups.
Recommendation 6.30
Resources should be made available to young persons groups themselves, on an executive basis, providing that they cross cultural and other boundaries (in line with our recommendations for all community groups).
Recommendation 6.31
However, a major review of youth services is now urgently required, with new provision developed on a more joined up basis. A stronger linkage between school based programmes (and outreach work), the voluntary sector and the various statutory services is essential.
Recommendation 6.32
We believe that some aspects of youth provision should be considered for a clear statutory role, to a given national standard. This must take account of resource requirements and but may gain efficiency and clarity from the rationalisation of existing services.
Recommendation 6.33
However, new methods of service delivery seem to offer a greater prospect of success and there must be a clear aim of reaching out to disaffected youth in more engaging ways, perhaps by using peers, positive role models and individual capacity building programmes.
Recommendation 6.34
The production of a Community Cohesion Strategy (see Chapter 5.2 above) should embrace the school citizenship curriculum ( a compulsory subject from September 2002), but not limited to it. It should also ensure the active support of parents and embrace the cross-community programmes recommended in relation to schools.
Recommendation 6.35
Summer provision should be developed into an all year round service as part of mainstream provision.
Recommendation 6.36
All schools should be under a statutory duty to promote a respect for, and an understanding of, the cultures in the school and neighbouring areas, through a programme of cross-cultural contact. This could be an expansion of the introduction of citizenship education from September 2002. Schools should not be afraid to discuss difficult areas and the young people we met wanted to this opportunity and should be given a safe environment in which to do so.
Recommendation 6.37
This duty would also entail twinning between schools to compensate for lack of contact with other cultures in the school environment. This should embrace both curriculum and non-curriculum areas and should be recognised as a demanding but, potentially very worthwhile, requirement.
Recommendation 6.38
All schools should consider ways in which they might ensure that their intake is representative of the range of cultures and ethnicity in their local communities. Ideally admissions policies should avoid more than 75% of pupils from one culture or ethnic background in multi-cultural areas. They will need in any case to adopt a positive approach to the new duty under the race relations legislation.
Recommendation 6.39
Church and faith leaders should take advantage of their special arrangements and voluntarily limit the faith intake in both new and existing independent and state sector schools. This should again be by offering, at least 25% of, places to other faiths or denominations and would immediately be more inclusive and create a better representation of all cultures or ethnicities. This would be consistent with Lord Dearing’s recent report in respect of CoE schools. It would also be consistent with the desire of church leaders to promote religious tolerance and understanding and help to embed the new discrimination legislation. In some cases, this may similarly require support.
Recommendation 6.4
We believe that this is a huge task in itself but, and as our list of recommendations demonstrates, there is much to be done to ensure that many further practical steps are now taken. We therefore propose that a powerful Task Force be established to oversee the development and implementation stages.
Recommendation 6.40
All schools should ensure that, in teaching programmes and their daily activities, they respect the needs of different faith and cultures that make up the school and be inspected to this effect.
Recommendation 6.41
Supplementary schools should be funded principally for basic education, such as literacy and incentivised to provide cross cultural programmes. Pre-school programmes can also provide an opportunity for cross-cultural development.
Recommendation 6.42
A review of FE and HE on an area by area basis should be undertaken to ensure that opportunities are equally available to all sections of the community and that barriers are addressed.
Recommendation 6.43
The recruitment of ethnic minority teachers and governors also requires review, as does diversity training for all staff and governors. The problem of the lack of male teachers also needs to be addressed and could help significantly with later problems of disaffected youth
Recommendation 6.44
Each community should review the present arrangements for cross cultural joint working, with a view to maximising contact, awareness and inter-community activities.
Recommendation 6.45
Funding bodies should presume against separate funding for distinct communities, and require collaborative working, save for those circumstances where the need for funding is genuinely only evident in one section of the community and can only be provided separately. Funding should allow for this change to take place over a period of time.
Recommendation 6.46
Funding should therefore, be generally be provided on a thematic basis, for example in respect of immigration advice, literacy, capacity building etc., and based on needs across communities.
Recommendation 6.47
Funding and support should not follow an assumption that all black and ethnic minority needs are greater than other sections of the community, nor should a similar assumption be made where the bid is predominantly featuring the white community. Bids should be based on evidenced need, on a thematic basis, rather than particular communities and should not generally relate to areas that reinforce cultural boundaries (see also regeneration funding above).
Recommendation 6.48
Representation should be drawn from both white and non-white communities and the white community should be encouraged to develop a leadership capacity in the same way as the black and ethnic minority communities.
Recommendation 6.49
Further study (and action programmes) will be required to tackle those high risk areas, for example, in white areas where racism and intolerance is likely to develop and for youths of Pakistani origin where disaffection is clearly a problem at present. Islamaphobia also needs to be addressed as part of this work.
Recommendation 6.5
Strong local leadership is an essential part of community cohesion and the Local Government Association should prepare guidance notes based on best practice. An inter-agency support group should also be established with a wide range of local representatives to assist the Task Force proposed in section 5.1.
Recommendation 6.50
Local authorities and police authorities should establish a protocol of support and ensure that there are clear agreements in place to enable serious problems of both criminalty and tensions between communities to be tackled with the strong backing of both sides.
Recommendation 6.51
A good practice guide on communications systems with all sections of the community should be developed, particularly with young people.
Recommendation 6.52
This should embrace some of the arrangements presented to us which has required the re- organisation of police duties and of the designation of clear ‘patch responsibilities’. This was seen to facilitate a network of formal and informal contacts between the police and community.
Recommendation 6.53
It is important that the lack of financial rewards and career progression within, the field of community policing, especially in difficult inner city areas, is addressed.
Recommendation 6.54
A more pro-active approach with regard to the banning of potentially inflammatory marches, demonstrations and assemblies could apparently be taken by some forces and clear guidance should be issued nationally in this respect.
Recommendation 6.55
Models of diversity training should be examined to ensure an appropriate level of quality.
Recommendation 6.56
New and more radical measures need to be taken in respect of ethnic minority recruitment and several suggestions were put forward to us which should be evaluated.
Recommendation 6.57
Housing agencies must urgently assess their allocation systems and development programmes with a view to ensuring more contact between different communities and to reducing tension. They must also consider the impact on other services, such as youth provision and health. It is also essential that more ambitious and creative strategies are developed to provide more mixed housing areas, with supportive mechanisms for minorities facing intimidation and harassment.
Recommendation 6.58
The impact of housing policies and programmes on school catchment areas in particular, should be subject to review and a significant part of each local Community Cohesion Strategy.
Recommendation 6.59
The problem of low demand housing in the North West should be separately considered and pilot programmes developed to attempt to re-establish viable housing markets and stem decline. The impact of economic strategies on housing markets will also need to be carefully considered.
Recommendation 6.6
As part of the Community Strategy, each local area should prepare a plan to improve community cohesion, following a local debate, based on the themes identified in this report and other local factors. This should be run in parallel with the national debate and each should inform the other.
Recommendation 6.60
Housing expenditure is capital intensive and represents a long term investment in the social infrastructure. As such it possibly distorts regeneration programmes and may lead to an over- concentration on area based programmes. We believe some separate identification of funding is desirable with a clearer focus on regeneration from thematic people-led schemes whilst not detracting from the target to tackle poor housing in the social sector.
Recommendation 6.61
Regeneration and other programmes should consider employment and training initiatives (including basic skills) as priority programmes. These represent an ideal opportunity for thematic cross-cultural approaches, based on the needs of all communities.
Recommendation 6.62
The emphasis should switch over time to school based schemes (and outreach from schools) to prevent disaffection and under achievement at the earliest possible stage.
Recommendation 6.63
Local authorities, LSCs, the Employment Service and other agencies should pioneer compacts with local employers (including those representing SMEs and the self employed) to ensure fair choice of all occupations.
Recommendation 6.64
A revision of existing employment initiatives is also required.
Recommendation 6.65
A similar initiative should be taken with representatives of different communities to attempt to provide a more positive approach to the promotion of non-typical careers (including the Police and statutory agencies), on a voluntary basis.
Recommendation 6.66
We recommend that discussions be held with a range of regional newspaper editors (and media representatives ) to establish a voluntary code of guidance, facilitated by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the their representative bodies, on all aspects of community cohesion.
Recommendation 6.67
We also recommend that this be developed into an opportunity to facilitate the debate referred to in Chapter 5.1. The Community Cohesion Review Team made visits to the following places and met with representatives of the organisations listed below. SOUTHALL Southall Regeneration Partnership Board Southall Council Central Jamia Masjid Mosque Park Avenue Gurdwara Southall Police Consultative Group Ealing Council Holy Trinity Church Ealing Police Visions Social Club for Young People Ealing Race Equality Council Featherstone High School Islamic Educational and Recreational Institute Southall Chamber of Commerce Gifto’s Group BRADFORD Leader and councillors of Bradford Council Chief Executive and officers of Bradford Council Bradford Vision Executive CRE and BME representatives Belle Vue Girls School
Recommendation 6.7
Local political and community leaders should also prepare a communication strategy which enables community cohesion plans to be articulated, constantly updated and translated into an action plan with measurable outcomes. This should require the establishment of various cross community fora, involving representatives of sections of the community and charged with developing new approaches to fostering understanding and collaboration.
Recommendation 6.8
These approaches should be developed on a more localised area basis, wherever practicable.
Recommendation 6.9
The community cohesion strategy for each area should include a new and vigorous approach to recruitment, and career progression, in all key agencies, such as the police, local authorities, health authorities and regeneration agencies. Challenging and measurable targets should be set. This work should be co-ordinated at a local level and linked to initiatives by private sector employers (see Chapter 5.13) This should also attempt to tackle some of the ‘post code discrimination’ faced by potential employees on some (predominantly white) estates.