By Isabel Hudson, WRC Policy Officer
NAVCA Circulation magazine (need to be a member to view) - February/March 2006
A response to Ted Cantle’s article on community cohesion by Isabel Hudson (Women’s Resource Centre), Dinah Cox (Race On The Agenda) and Trish Pashley (Greater London Action on Disability).
In the last edition of Circulation (388.2), Ted Cantle argued that funding for services for particular ethnic or cultural groups was counter-productive because it reinforces division and separation and helps to institutionalise inadequate mainstream provision of services. Cantle’s argument applies as much to the whole voluntary sector as it does to equalities organisations, and reveals a misunderstanding about the nature of equalities organisations and why they are set up.
Arguably, the whole voluntary and community sector – not just the equalities part – helps institutionalise gaps in statutory service provision because it shores up the statutory sector and applies sticking plasters that allow inadequate state provision to continue. For example, children’s charities supporting abused children fill gaps in social services that could otherwise result in higher rates of mental health problems and suicide. This allows the state to continue failing to provide adequate protection. However, while children’s charities should (and do) work in partnership with statutory services and campaign to institutionalise the work that they do, this will take decades and in the meantime their services and expertise are vital.
Equalities organisations have a similar relationship to the state but there are key differences between them and most generic voluntary organisations such as children’s charities that debates around funding and community cohesion often fail to appreciate.
Distinct features of equalities organisations
Equalities organisations, such as women’s organisations, black and minority ethnic (BME) organisations, lesbian and gay organisations, and disabled people’s organisations, have two key functions. Firstly, as Cantle pointed out they identify and fill gaps in mainstream service provision. Secondly and equally importantly, they provide a safe environment in which people who face discrimination can organise and strengthen themselves and their communities.
This second function sets them apart from both statutory bodies and mainstream voluntary organisations and is the reason why they are worthy of dedicated investment. Equalities organisations are set up by people facing particular kinds of oppression and discrimination to protect themselves and others and to address and reduce that discrimination. For example, rape crisis centres were set up by women who have faced gender-based violence to provide a
safe space to heal and grow, and to provide support to other survivors and work to end sexual violence. Similarly the disabled people’s movement has stressed the importance of organisations being run by and for disabled people (‘nothing about us without us’), because traditionally disabled people have been ‘done to’ and pitied by non-disabled people as victims in need of charity.
Existing minorities need support too
Self-organisation is necessary not just for new migrant communities as Cantle acknowledged, but also for women and all minority groups that continue to face discrimination. For example, minority ethnic people born in Britain face systematic racism and social exclusion. Even a qualified graduate from a BME community is twice as likely to be unemployed as a white graduate (Office of National Statistics, 2005). British-born minorities and women need ‘capacity building’ as well as new refugee and other migrant communities. Sexual and physical violence against women are still at extremely high levels, with two women killed every week by a current or former partner (Women and Equality Unit, 1999). Racism, sexism, homophobia and other forms of oppression are deep societal problems that will not disappear overnight.
Cantle argues that ‘single group funding’ should be abandoned in favour of funding that incentivises cross-cultural work, and he supports the ODPM select committee’s call to fund only those community centres that "cater for a range of cultural groups rather than centres for separate groups". This proposal was rightly rejected by the government on the grounds that it would be over-bureaucratic as there were already guidelines in place. Any further restriction on funding for groups led by particular communities would perpetuate segregation by excluding from funding the very groups that are the most marginalised.
Community cohesion risks turning the clocks back
These efforts to improve community cohesion risk turning the clocks back on some of the empowerment and progress that minority communities have achieved over the last few years. The government defines a cohesive community as one where "there is a common vision and a sense of belonging for all communities; the diversity of people’s different backgrounds and circumstances are appreciated and positively valued; those from different backgrounds have similar life opportunities; and strong and positive relations are being developed between people from different backgrounds in the workplace, in schools and within neighbourhoods".
We are a long, long way from this vision. Far from diversity being valued, women and people from minority groups are expected to fit into community structures and systems that have evolved around the needs of the white male population. This leads for example to the persistent gender and ethnicity pay gap, where minority ethnic women earn on average just £118 per week, or 59% of minority ethnic men’s earnings and just 32% of average white men’s earnings (Equal Opportunities Commission, 2004). Disabled people also face systematic discrimination: 33% of disabled women and 37% of disabled men aged under 50 are in employment, compared with 67% for all women and 78% for all men (Office of National Statistics, 2005).
The first ever law to protect lesbian and gay people from discrimination, rather than criminalise them, was introduced just two years ago. Homophobia is a powerful and widespread form of discrimination and abuse in schools, families and workplaces, with serious consequences including an increased risk of homelessness, mental health problems and suicide in the LGBT community.
Although some efforts have been made to invest in equalities organisations that work to address this kind of persistent systematic inequality and disadvantage, funding systems still institutionally discriminate against minority groups that work outside the mainstream and on unpopular or controversial issues. For example, a Home Office study found that women’s organisations received just 1.2% of central government funding, in spite of them making up approximately 7% of registered charities. A Joseph Rowntree Foundation study in 2004 found that black and minority ethnic organisations perceive that they are treated unfairly by funders, through over-scrutiny, stereotyping and inaccurate perceptions of the way in which they work. While 7% of the population is lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, an estimated less than 1% of funding addresses LGBT needs specifically (Kairos in Soho, 2005).
More effective ways to foster partnerships
While Cantle’s article raised important issues about the need to work in partnership and the importance of cross-cultural interaction, particularly for white-led organisations, translating these concerns into funding policy is highly problematic. There are far more effective ways to foster partnerships between people of different backgrounds and across the voluntary sector than cutting funding to groups led by particular communities. For example, networks – such as the London ChangeUp Black, Minority Ethnic and Refugee, Faith, and Equalities Sub-Group – which develops partnerships between umbrella bodies from different equalities sectors, encourage and facilitate successful cross-cultural interaction.
There are many examples of equalities organisations set up by, and for, a particular community that work across cultural and other boundaries. For example, Leap is a BME organisation in Harlesden that works with young men on gun crime. Although most of its members are young black men, it also works with young white men from the local community who have the same issues and needs. Similarly, the Rape And Sexual Assault Support Centre (RASASC) in Croydon has started offering a service to men because it recognised that this need is not being met elsewhere. Counselling is offered to men on one day a week when women are not using the centre, in order to maintain the women only service that female clients need. Because the organisation is led by women, it still meets the needs of women rape survivors in a way that a mixed organisation cannot.
Needs not met by generic organisations
Experience has shown that marginalised groups’ needs are often not met in generic organisations. For example women and girls often ask for single sex services in order to feel and be safe and be able to develop and reach their potential in an environment that meets their needs rather than, by default, the needs of men.
User-led equalities organisations are important because without them issues essential for equality would never be raised – for example, without decades of persistent campaigning by women’s organisations, rape in marriage would not have been made illegal in 1991. Currently women’s groups are raising unpopular and complex issues that other organisations are reluctant to touch, such as female genital mutilation and the sexualisation of women in the media.
Targeted funding is needed
Without targeted funding for women’s and other equalities organisations, these politically unpopular issues get sidelined in favour of those that receive mainstream support, and women’s organisations struggle to survive and continue their often life-saving services. For example, in the last year Maternity Alliance was forced to close after 25 years of campaigning and service provision to vulnerable women, at a time when maternity services are still subject to postcode lottery and funding cutbacks. An African women’s organisation, ABANTU for Development, has closed its UK office, which had provided essential community development for African women’s organisations working with some of the most deprived communities in the UK.
Mainstream voluntary organisations and CVS need to work in partnership with equalities groups to call for serious, targeted investment in user-led organisations for women and minority groups. Without strong independent equalities organisations, marginalised groups’ voices will not be heard and needs will not be met. There is still so much further to go to reach the government’s vision of cohesive communities where those from different backgrounds have similar life opportunities, and equality will not be achieved without well supported user-led equalities organisations.
About the authors
Isabel Hudson is Policy Officer at Women’s Resource Centre, the umbrella agency for the women’s voluntary and community sector in London. Contact WRC on 020 7324 3030
Dinah Cox is Chief Executive of Race On The Agenda (ROTA), a social policy think tank devoted to issues that affect black and minority ethnic communities in London. It runs MiNet (Minority Network), the regional network of networks of the BME voluntary and community sector. Contact ROTA on 020 7729 1310 or see www.rota.org.uk.
Trish Pashley is Chief Executive of Greater London Action on Disability (GLAD), a London-wide disability organisation run by and for disabled people, working to improve the lives of disabled Londoners. GLAD provides advice and information to disabled Londoners, helps organisations work more effectively and organises joint campaigning, meetings and conferences. Contact 020 7022 1890.
Notes
Government Response to the ODPM Select Committee Report on Social Cohesion, July 2004
Ibid.
Central government funding of voluntary and community organisations, 1982/83 to 2001/02, 2004, Home Office
Black voluntary and community sector funding, civic engagement and capacity-building, Chouhan and Lusane, 2004, Joseph Rowntree Foundation.