WWW.IPPR.ORG
OneLondon?
Changeandcohesioninthree
Londonboroughs
AnipprreportfortheGovernmentOfficeforLondon
byRickMuir
March 2008
©ippr2008
InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch
Challengingideas– Changingpolicy
2
ippr|OneLondon?ChangeandcohesioninthreeLondonboroughs
Contents
Aboutippr ........................................................................................................................................... 3
Abouttheauthor ................................................................................................................................. 3
Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................. 3
Executivesummary .............................................................................................................................. 4
1.Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 6
2.Thecommunitycohesionchallenge................................................................................................ 7
3.CommunitycohesioninthreeLondonboroughs ......................................................................... 16
BarkingandDagenham ............................................................................................................... 16
Hounslow ...................................................................................................................................... 21
Southwark..................................................................................................................................... 24
4.RecommendationsforfosteringcohesioninLondon................................................................... 30
Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 35
References......................................................................................................................................... 35
Appendix1.Listofinterviewees....................................................................................................... 38
3
ippr|OneLondon?ChangeandcohesioninthreeLondonboroughs
Aboutippr
TheInstituteforPublicPolicyResearch(ippr)istheUK’sleadingprogressivethinktank,producing
cutting-edgeresearchandinnovativepolicyideasforajust,democraticandsustainableworld.
Since1988,wehavebeenattheforefrontofprogressivedebateandpolicymakingintheUK.Through
ourindependentresearchandanalysiswedefinenewagendasforchangeandprovidepractical
solutionstochallengesacrossthefullrangeofpublicpolicyissues.
WithofficesinbothLondonandNewcastle,weensureouroutlookisasbroad-basedaspossible,
whileourinternationalandmigrationteamsandclimatechangeprogrammeextendourpartnerships
andinfluencebeyondtheUK,givingusatrulyworld-classreputationforhighqualityresearch.
ippr,30-32SouthamptonStreet,LondonWC2E7RA.Tel:+44(0)2074706100E:[email protected]
www.ippr.org.RegisteredCharityNo.800065
ThispaperwasfirstpublishedinMarch2008.©ippr2008
Abouttheauthor
RickMuir isaResearchFellowintheDemocracyandPowerteamatippr.Hisresearchfocuseson
democracy,powerandcommunitycohesion.HehasadoctorateinpoliticsfromOxfordUniversity,
wherehetaughtandlecturedonLatinAmericanpolitics.Hispreviouspublicationsforipprinclude
ThePowerofBelonging:Identity,citizenshipandcommunitycohesion(withBRogers),thechapter
‘PowerPolitics:WhoRunsBritain?’(withEThornberryandIKearns)inPoliticsforaNewGeneration:
Theprogressivemoment (JMargoandNPearceeds),TheNewIdentityPolitics,WhoAreWe?
IdentitiesinBritain,2007(withLStone)andStickingTogether:Socialcapitalandlocalgovernment
(edwithHalimaKhan).
Acknowledgements
ThisreportwascommissionedbytheGovernmentOfficeforLondonaspartofippr’sprogrammeof
researchintoidentity,citizenshipandcommunitycohesion.Theauthorwouldliketothankallthose
whocontributedcommentsduringthecourseoftheresearch.InparticularthanksgotoPhilip
Colligan,MadelineGreen,IanKearns,SabinMalik,CareyOppenheim,HyacinthParsons,BenRogers,
HowardSimmons,RobinTuddenham,HeatherWillsandMunirZamir.
4
ippr|OneLondon?ChangeandcohesioninthreeLondonboroughs
Executivesummary
Londonisoneofthemostdiverseanddynamiccitiesintheworld.Itisaplaceofextraordinary
culturaldiversityandeconomicopportunity,attractinginvestment,tourismandmigrationfromacross
theglobe.WhilemostLondonerswelcometheopportunitiesthisbrings,changecanalsoleadto
insecurityandanxiety.Whencombinedwithinequalitiesinaccesstolimitedresources,thesechanges
canbreathenewlifeintoall-too-familiartensionsandprejudices.
Thisshortpaper,commissionedbytheGovernmentOfficeforLondon,exploresthenatureofthe
contemporarychallengestocommunitycohesioninLondonandsetsouthowlocalactorshave
respondedtothem.Localauthoritiesinparticularhaveavitalroletoplayinsupportingcommunities,
equippingcitizenssothattheycanbenefitfromtheopportunitiesglobalisationbringsandensuring
thatchangeanddiversityareunderpinnedbystrongsocialnetworksandpositiverelationships
betweenpeoplefromdifferentwalksoflife.
ThepaperisbasedonresearchundertakeninthreeLondonboroughsthatdifferfromoneanotherin
importantrespects:BarkingandDagenham,Hounslow andSouthwark.
Thecommunitycohesionchallenge
Inresponsetoanumberofrecenteventssuchastheurbandisturbancesof2001andthe7/7
bombings,aswellasmorelong-standingsocialtrends,anewnationalagendahasemergedto
promotecommunitycohesion.Londonfacesitsownveryparticularcommunitycohesionchallenges:
highratesofpopulationchange,ascarcityofmaterialresourcessuchashousing,lowerlevelsofsocial
capitalthanotherpartsofBritain,highlevelsofchildpovertyandinter-generationaltensions,in
particulartriggeredbyconcernaboutyouthcrimeandanti-socialbehaviour.Justasthechallenges
vary,sotoodothesolutions.Thesesolutions,proposedbylocalandnationalgovernment,canbroadly
bedistinguishedbetweeneconomicapproachesthatseektoremedymaterialinjusticesandmore
culturalapproachesthatoperateatthelevelofrelationships,valuesandidentity.
CommunitycohesioninthreeLondonboroughs
Thereport,whichisbasedoninterviewswithpublicsectorstaff,findsthattherearesomecommon
challengesacrossthecasestudyboroughs:
•
Rapidpopulationchangewhichhasmajorimplicationsforpublicservicesandthedevelopment
ofresilientsocialnetworks;
•
Inter-generationaltensions,particularlythoseconnectedtoconcernsaroundcrimeandantisocialbehaviour
•
Growinglevelsofincomepolarisation.
Therearealsodifferencesacrosstheboroughsintermsof:
•
Thekindofresourcepressurestheyexperience(whichvarybetweenjobsandhousingfor
example)
•
Theformsofpoliticalextremismtheyhavetoface(whetherthesebefromthefarrightorfrom
extremejihadistgroups)
•
Thedegreeofresidentialmixingorsegregationintheirneighbourhoods.
Localauthoritiesandtheirpartnersarerespondingtothesechallengesinavarietyofdifferentways
andthisreportseekstodescribethesedifferentapproachesandhighlightinterventionsthatareseen
locallyasmosteffective.
Theseapproachesinclude:
•
InBarkingandDagenham:aninnovativepublicengagementexercisetofindoutwhichissues
areconcerninglocalpeople,alongsideeffortstodevolvegreatercontroloflocalservicestothe
neighbourhoodlevel.
5
ippr|OneLondon?ChangeandcohesioninthreeLondonboroughs
•
InHounslow:pioneeringworkwiththelocalpresstoensurethatthewayimmigrationis
reporteddoesnotinflamecommunitytensions,andoutreachworkwhichhassignificantly
reducedanti-socialbehaviour.
•
InSouthwark:anapproachtocommunitycohesionthatgoeswellbeyondissuesofraceand
faith,andafocusedefforttopromoteactivecitizenship.
Recommendations
Onthebasisofthiscomparativeanalysis,thereportsetsoutaCommunityCohesionPolicy
FrameworkforLocalAuthorities.Thisframeworkincludesthefollowingelements:
•
Leadership: Localauthoritiesshouldprovideclearlocalleadershipnotnecessarilythrougha
dedicatedcohesionstrategy,butbymainstreamingcohesionthroughouttheirwork.
•
Tacklingrelativedeprivation: Localagenciesneedtodealwiththematerialinjustices
(perceivedandreal)thataretherootcauseofmanycommunitytensions.
•
Tensionmonitoringandreadiness: Localauthoritiesandthepoliceshouldputinplace
consultativemechanismsandcommunicationssystemssuchthattheyarereadytorespond
wheneventstriggeranoutbreakoftension.
•
Communicatingsharedvalues: Localcouncilshavearesponsibilitytogiveleadershiparound
thekindsofbehavioursthatareacceptableorunacceptableintheircommunities.
•
Establishingaframeworkforsocialcapital:Interactionbetweenresidentsfromdifferent
backgroundsmustbeencouraged.Thiscanbedonebypromotingactivecitizenship,devolving
powertolocalneighbourhoodsandthroughculturalandsportinginitiativesthatbringpeople
togetheraroundsharedinterests.
•
Promotingasharedsenseofbelonging:Thelocalauthority’s‘publicvoice’andits
neighbourhoodstructuresshouldbeusedtofostersharedlocalidentitiesthatareinclusiveand
buildasharedsenseofcivicpride.
•
Supportingyoungpeople: Youngpeopleareparticularlyvulnerableandareoftenonthe
frontlinewhencohesionbreaksdown.Agenciesneedtomakesuretheyhavesupportive
structuresinplacetohelpLondon’syouthnavigateachangingcity.
6
ippr|OneLondon?ChangeandcohesioninthreeLondonboroughs
1.Introduction
Londonisoneofthemostdiverseanddynamiccitiesintheworld.Itisaplaceofextraordinary
culturaldiversityandeconomicopportunity,attractinginvestment,tourismandmigrationfromacross
theglobe.WhilemostLondonerswelcometheopportunitiesthisbrings,changecanalsoleadto
insecurityandanxiety.Whencombinedwithinequalitiesinaccesstolimitedresources,thesechanges
canbreathenewlifeintoall-too-familiartensionsandprejudices.
Thisshortpaper,commissionedbytheGovernmentOfficeforLondon(GOL),exploresthenatureof
thecontemporarychallengestocommunitycohesioninLondonandsetsouthowlocalactorshave
respondedtothem.Localauthoritiesinparticularhaveavitalroletoplayinsupportingcommunities,
equippingcitizenssothattheycanbenefitfromtheopportunitiesglobalisationbringsandensuring
thatchangeanddiversityareunderpinnedbystrongsocialnetworksandpositiverelationships
betweenpeoplefromdifferentwalksoflife.
Researchmethodology
ThepaperisbasedonresearchundertakeninthreeLondonboroughs:BarkingandDagenham,
HounslowandSouthwark.Ineachcasetheauthorundertookinterviewswithpublicservice
professionalsworkingincohesion-relatedservices.Onthebasisoftheseinterviewsandanalysisof
secondarydataandliterature,theprojectsoughttoestablishthenatureofthemaincohesion
challengesineachboroughandidentifyhowlocalagencieshaverespondedtothem.
Differentboroughs,commonchallenges
Thethreeboroughsareverydifferentfromoneanother.
Southwark,isaninner-Londonboroughwhichhaslongbeenhighlyethnicallyandculturallydiverse,
butwhichlikemanyinner-Londonboroughsishometoverystarkinequalitiesofwealthandincome.
BarkingandDagenhamisanouter-Londonborough,aformerindustrialareathatfordecadeswas
relativelyhomogenousinethnicterms,butwhichinrecentyearshasexperiencedunprecedented
levelsofpopulationchange.Whencombinedwithhighlevelsofhousingneedandlimitedaccessto
socialhousing,thesechangeshavefedintocommunitytensions.
HounslowisaWestLondonboroughwhichishometoaverydiverserangeofcommunities,butin
whichdifferentethnicgroupshavetendedtobeconcentratedindifferentareas.This,weshallsee,
posesitsownchallenges.
Inspiteoftheirdifferences,theseboroughsareallpartofLondon’scontemporaryexperience–andas
suchfacecommonchallenges.Inparticulartheyareallexperiencingrelativelyhighratesofeconomic,
culturalanddemographicchange.However,theyhaveeachtakentheirowndistinctiveapproachto
guidingtheircommunitiesthroughthatchange,andthisresearchsoughttoteaseoutthelessons
fromthisvariedlocalresponse.
Structureofthepaper
Section2offersabriefreviewofthecontestednationaldiscourseandpolicyframeworkaround
‘communitycohesion’.Section3turnstoourthreecasestudies,describingthenatureofthecohesion
challengestheyfaceandhowineachcasetheyhavesoughttomeetthem.Finally,section4
concludesbydrawingoutthelessonsthatpolicymakersatlocalandnationallevelcanlearnfrom
thesedifferentexperiences.
7
ippr|OneLondon?ChangeandcohesioninthreeLondonboroughs
2.Thecommunitycohesionchallenge
‘Communitycohesion’isnowamajorpriorityacrossgovernmentdepartmentsandforlocalauthorities
allaroundthecountry.Butwhyisitsoimportant?Whatdoesitmeanandhowwouldweknowifwe
hadsucceededinbuildingit?Andifitissodesirable,howcanitbestberealised?
Thissection:
SetsoutwhythisagendaisnowsocentraltoBritishpublicpolicyandwhatpoliticiansand
policymakersmeanwhentheytalkabout‘communitycohesion’
• ExploresthenatureoftheparticularcommunitycohesionchallengesfacingLondon,whichisin
manywaysaverydistinctivecase.
• Setsoutsomeoftheemergingpolicythinkinginthisarea,exploringthevariouswaysacademics
andpolicymakersbelievecommunitycohesioncanbestbefosteredandsustained.
Thenationalpicture
Whilegovernmenthadpreviouslybeenconcernedabout‘socialcohesion’,withreferenceinparticular
tourbanregenerationandneighbourhoodrenewal,‘communitycohesion’emergedasaconceptin
BritishpublicpolicydiscoursefollowingthedisturbancesinBradford,BurnleyandOldhaminthe
summerof2001.Fromthestartthecommunitycohesionagendawasstampedbyaconcernwith
relationsbetweendifferentethnicandracialgroups.Oftheinvestigationscommissionedbythe
GovernmentintothoseeventsintheNorthWest,itwastheCantlereportthatplacedtheconceptof
communitycohesioncentrestage.Thereportarguedthatinsomepartsofthecountryeducational
andresidentialsegregationmeantthatdifferentcommunitieswereineffectliving‘parallellives’
(Cantleetal 2001:9).
EventssincethenhaveonlyreinforcedtheGovernment’scommitmenttomakingcommunitycohesion
amajorpublicpolicyobjective.Surveysofpublicopinionhaverepeatedlyshownthatasissueslike
unemployment,healthandeducationhavedecreasedinpoliticalsalienceoverthelast10years,
immigrationhasrisenupthepoliticalagenda.Whereasinthe1990simmigrationwasnamedbyless
than5percentofpeopleasoneofthemostsignificantissuesfacingthecountry,thishadincreased
toover40percentby2006(MORI2006).
Inaddition,theterroristattacksof11September2001andtheLondonbombingsof7July2005,
haveplacedBritain’sMuslimcommunitiesunderintensemediaandpoliticalscrutiny.TheGovernment
hasbeenwalkingadifficultlineinseekingtorespondeffectivelytothethreatofterrorism,whilenot
makingcommunityrelationsworsethroughintrusivesecuritymeasures.Followingthoseeventsthere
hasbeenworryingevidenceofrisinglevelsofIslamophobiaandaroundathirdofBritishMuslimssay
thattheyhavefeltundersuspicionortreatedwithhostilitybecauseoftheirreligion(Mirzaetal
2007).
Britainhasalsoseenagrowingvoteforpoliticalpartiesofthefarrightinrecentyears,especiallythe
BritishNationalParty(BNP).TheBNP’svotereached4.9percentinthe2004Europeanelections,up
4percentagepointsonthesameelectionsin1999.Inthe2005generalelectionitwon4.3percent
ofthevoteacross166constituenciesandinthreeconstituenciesitgainedmorethan10percentof
thevote,reachingalmost17percentintheLondonconstituencyofBarking.Itnowhas,at53,its
highestevernumberofelectedlocalcouncillors(Johnetal 2006).
Whiletherehasbeenadeclineinthenumberofpeoplewhoadmittobeingraciallyprejudiced,in
200428percentofpeoplestilladmittedtobeing‘very’or‘alittle’raciallyprejudiced.Giventhe
socialstigmaattachedtoracism,levelsofactualprejudicearelikelytobehigher(StoneandMuir
2007).
Takentogetherthesetrendshavetriggeredwidespreadsoulsearchingaboutthestateofcommunity
relationsinmodernBritain.Politicianshavebecomeincreasinglycriticalof‘multi-culturalism’,orof
someperceivedversionsofit,whichtheformerChairoftheCommissionforRacialEqualityTrevor
Phillipsarguedhasleftus‘sleepwalkingintosegregation’(Phillips2005).
8
ippr|OneLondon?ChangeandcohesioninthreeLondonboroughs
Thesediscussionsabout‘multi-culturalism’havesparkedoffarelateddebateabout‘Britishness’
(RogersandMuir2007).Anumberofpoliticians,mostprominentlythePrimeMinisterGordonBrown,
havearguedthatademocraticstatemustprovideitscitizenswithsomecommoncivicreference
points,aroundwhichasharedsenseofidentityandbelongingcandevelop.Whileconservative
commentatorshavetypicallyarguedthatasharedsenseofnationalidentityneedstobeunderpinned
bycommoncustomsandtraditions,BrownandothersocialdemocratshavearguedthatBritish
nationalidentityshouldbecivicinnature,basedonasetofsharedvalues,whichareatonelevel
universalbutwhichalsohaveadistinctiveresonancethroughBritain’shistory(Brown2006).
Alongsidethisdebate,theGovernmenthassoughttomake‘communitycohesion’amajorobjective
ofpublicpolicy,bothnationallyandforlocalauthorities.
Whatiscommunitycohesion?
AsweshallseewhenlookingatvaryinglocalinterpretationsacrossLondon,theconceptof
communitycohesionisacontestedone,raisinganumberofsignificantquestions:
• Whatcountsasacommunity?
• Aretheremoreorlessdesirableformsordegreesofcohesion?
• Whilestrongcommunitiescanbegoodthings,mighttheyalsoundersomecircumstancesbe
exclusiveoroppressive?
(Wetherelletal 2007).
Themostwidelydisseminated‘official’definitionofcommunitycohesionisofacommunitywhere:
• Thereisacommonvisionandasenseofbelongingforallcommunities;
• Thediversityofpeople’sdifferentbackgroundsandcircumstancesisappreciatedandpositively
valued;
• Thosefromdifferentbackgroundshavesimilarlifeopportunities;and
• Strongandpositiverelationshipsarebeingdevelopedbetweenpeoplefromdifferent
backgroundsandcircumstancesintheworkplace,inschoolsandwithinneighbourhoods.
(LGA2004:7)
Itisimportanttonotethatonthisdefinitioncommunitycohesionisaholisticconcept.Despitethis,
muchofthenationaldebateonthesequestionshasfocusednarrowlyonissuesofraceandfaith:the
riseofextremeformsofidentitypolitics,suchastheBNPandradicalversionsofpoliticalIslamism,
questionsaroundimmigration,thedisturbancesintheNorthWest,andsoforth.Inlightofthese
developmentsnationalstrategiesandfundingstreamshavetendedtofocusonethnicandreligious
socialdivisions.
Andyetimplicitinthis‘official’definitionofcommunitycohesionistheideathatweshouldnot
neglectothersocialtensions:forinstance,alonglinesofclass,age,genderandlifestylechoice.Aswe
shallsee,insomepartsofLondonthemaincohesionchallengesarenotonly(ornoteven)along
ethnicorreligiouslines,butresultfromotherformsofsocialdivisionsuchasthosebetweenpeopleof
differentagesandclasses.
TheGovernment’sresponse
Alongsidethisnationaldebateandbasedonthisformalunderstandingoftheconcept,the
Governmenthassoughttomainstreamcommunitycohesionintotheworkofpublicagencies.In2005
itlauncheditsnationalstrategyforcommunitycohesion,ImprovingOpportunity,Strengthening
Society (HomeOffice2005).Localauthoritiesarenowassessedontheireffortstopromotemore
cohesivecommunitiesaspartoftheComprehensivePerformanceAssessment(CPA)process.Cohesion
isalsobeingincorporatedintotheLocalAreaAgreements(LAAs)whichsetoutagreedpolicy
objectivesandfundingstreamsbetweenthecentreandlocalauthorities.
Nationalpolicymakershavesoughttofindnewandpracticalwaysoffosteringcommunitycohesion
ontheground.Thishasbeenanexperimentalprocess,withnewapproachesbeingtriedoutaround
9
ippr|OneLondon?ChangeandcohesioninthreeLondonboroughs
thecountry,butalsowithmuchbestpracticeouttherealready,fromwhichpolicymakersand
practitionershavesoughttolearn.
Thefirstwaveoffundingdeliberatelyaimedatinnovatinginthisareawasthe2003to2005
CommunityCohesionPathfinderProgramme.ThroughthisprogrammetheGovernmentprovided£6
millionfor14areas(includingtwoofthecasesdiscussedhere,HounslowandSouthwark)topioneer
newlocalapproachestocommunitycohesionandestablishbestpracticethatcouldbeshared
throughoutthecountry(seeHomeOffice2005fortheresults).
In2006theGovernmentestablishedtheCommissiononIntegrationandCohesion,headedbythe
LondonBoroughofEaling’sChiefExecutiveDarraSingh.Thisexploredlocalpracticefromaroundthe
countryandmadeanumberofrecommendationsfornationalandlocalstrategy,towhichthe
governmenthasrecentlyresponded(COIC2007).Finally,theGovernmentisnowprovidingnew
fundingforarangeoflocalprojectsaimedat‘preventingviolentpoliticalextremism’.
London’schallenge
Londoniswidelyregardedasoneofthemostsociallydynamicandculturallydiversecitiesinthe
world(ParkerandGoodhart2007).ThelastdecadehasseenLondon’seconomyboom:itisnow
perhapsthelargestfinancialservicescentreintheworld,hasaquicklyexpandingcreativesector,
contributesupto£20billionayeartotheUKeconomyandactsastheinternationalgatewaytothe
restoftheUK(CabinetOffice2004).
Partlyasaconsequenceofthatstrongeconomy,London’spopulation(whileactuallysmallertoday
thanitwasinthemiddleofthe20thcentury)grewsteadilyduringthe1990sduetoinwardmigration
fromboththerestoftheworldandotherpartsoftheUK(Traversetal 2007).Verymanypeople
wanttoliveandworkinLondonbecauseofitseconomicopportunities,itsextraordinarycultural
diversity,its‘bridging’locationbetweenEuropeandNorthAmerica,itsrichhistoricalandcultural
assetsandtheuniversalityoftheEnglishlanguage.
OneconsequenceofthisgrowthisthatLondonhasbecomeoneofthemostculturallydiverseplaces
onearth.InLondononly59.7percentofthepopulationinthe2001censussaidtheywere‘white
British’,comparedwith86.9percentoftheUKpopulationasawhole.Insomeboroughs,suchas
Newham,theblackandminorityethnic(BME)populationmakeupthemajorityoftheresidential
population,sointheseplacesthereisnolongeran‘ethnicmajority’withallgroups,includingwhite
British,insteadbeingethnicminorities.Thereare34communitiesofforeignnationalslivinginLondon
withpopulationsofover10,000andover300languagesarespokeninthecapital’sschools.
Thisgrowingculturaldiversityhasbeenaccompaniedbyastrongtraditionofpluralismand
cosmopolitanism.Forexample,only5percentofLondonersdisagreewiththeideathatitisagood
thingthatBritainisamulti-racialsociety.Moreover,Londonscoresthehighestofanyregioninterms
ofthosebelievingthatpeopleofallculturesandbackgroundsgetonwelltogetherinthelocalarea
(CabinetOffice2004).
Londondoes,however,faceanumberofspecificchallengesthataresignificantforcommunity
cohesion.First,levelsofwhatRobertPutnamhasdescribedas‘socialcapital’(thesocialnetworks,
sharednormsandcooperativerelationshipsthathelpusgetalongtogetherasasociety)areonthe
standardmeasuresweakerinLondonthanelsewhereinBritain.Forexample,only37percentof
Londonersfeelthat‘generallyspeaking,mostpeoplecanbetrusted’,comparedwithanational
averageof44percent.Moreover,LondonhasthelowestpercentageofpeopleofanyBritishregion
agreeingthat‘thisisaplacewhereneighbourslookoutforeachother’(ibid).
Therearelikelytobeanumberoffactorsaccountingforthoseperceivedlowerlevelsof
neighbourlinessandtrust.Oneistherelativelyhighnumberofsingle-personhouseholdsinthe
capital.AnotheristhehigherratesofviolentcrimecomparedwithotherUKcities(ibid).Londonalso
hasrelativelyhighratesofresidentialmobility(thatis,peoplemoveaddressesalot).Inadditionto
higherlevelsofinternationalmigration,Londonhasthehighestrateofinter-regionalresidential
mobilityintheUK:in2004155,000peoplemovedintoLondonfromtherestofBritain,while
10
ippr|OneLondon?ChangeandcohesioninthreeLondonboroughs
260,000movedouttootherpartsoftheUK.15percentofLondon’spopulationhavelivedintheir
presentlocationforlessthanayear,whichcomparestoanationalaverageof11percent.In2004/05
thisamountedtoatotalof474,000peoplemovinghouseholdsinthecapital(Traversetal 2007).
Afurthercohesion-relatedchallengecomesfromLondon’srelativelyhighpovertyrates.London
continuestohavethehighestrateofchildpovertyintheUK.FouroutoftenchildreninLondonare
livinginincomepoverty,risingtomorethanhalfofchildreninInnerLondon(LondonChildPoverty
Commission2007).
Thesehighpovertylevelsarelinkedtorelativelyhighnumbersofchildreninworklesshouseholdsin
thecapital.OutsideofLondon,thepercentageofchildreninworklesshouseholdsdecreasedfrom18
to15percentbetween1996/97and2005/06.InLondon,bycontrast,thepercentageofchildrenin
worklesshouseholdshasremainedhigh,onlyshowingamarginaldeclineovertheperiodfrom27to
26percent.LondonhasoneofthelowestemploymentratesintheUK,at74percentexcludingfulltimestudents,andresidentemploymentinLondonhasremainedpersistentlybelowthenational
averagesincetheearly1990sdespiterelativelyhighgrowthinthenumberofjobsinthecapital.
InequalitieswithinLondonarestark–forinstancetheproportionofworklesshouseholdswithchildren
variesfrom47percentinEastIndiaandLansburywardinTowerHamletstojust4percentin
NonsuchwardinSutton(ibid).
Povertyputsastrainonsocialcohesionbecausematerialscarcitycanleadtotensionsbetween
differentsocialgroups.Thishasbeenmostforcefullydemonstratedonquestionsofhousingsupplyin
thecapital,althoughasweshallseebelowotherresourceissuessuchascompetitionforjobsalso
havethepotentialtodividecommunities.ForLondon’spoorestresidentsdemandforsocialhousing
faroutstripssupply,withpeoplewaitingmuchlongerforacouncilhomethaninotherpartsofthe
country.Over50,000homelesshouseholdsinLondonarehousedintemporaryaccommodationasa
result(CabinetOffice2004).Asweshallseebelow,thisshortageofaffordablehousinghasfed
directlyintocommunitytensions,withthefarrightinparticularspreadingmythsaboutwhoiseligible
forsocialhousingandblamingtheshortageonasylumseekersandothernewarrivals.
Londondoesnotjustexperiencerelativelyhighratesofpoverty,butalsosuffersfromhighlevelsof
incomepolarisation.Londonhasahigherpercentageofbothlowerandhigherincomegroupsthan
therestofthecountry,afactthatisstronglylinkedtothehighcostofhousing(ibid).Middleincome
groupsareunabletoaffordhomeownershipinthecity,whilealsobeingunabletoaccesssocial
housing.MORIfoundin2001thathousingwasthemostgivenreasonpeoplegaveforwantingto
leaveLondon,followedbythequalityoftheenvironmentandfearofcrime(ibid).
Inequalityhasanumberofconsequencesforsocialcohesion.Wealthierandpoorerfamilies,even
whentheyliveincloseproximity,mayinteractinfrequentlywithoneanother,sendingtheirchildrento
differentschools,workingandsocialisingindifferentplaces.Inequalityhasbeenshowninternationally
tobelinkedtolowerlevelsofsocialtrust,higherratesofviolentcrime,higherlevelsofhomicideand
lowerlevelsofparticipationincommunityaffairs(Wilkinson2005).Giventhisinternationalevidence,
thedegreeofinequalitythatcurrentlyexistsinourcapitalcitycannotbethoughttobodewellfor
goodcommunityrelations.
Finally,London’sgrowthandoverallprosperitybringswithitanumberofchallengesforthequalityof
people’slives,whichcanleadtofrustrationandfeedintocommunitytensions.Thequalityofthe
urbanenvironmentispoorinmanypartsofthecapital,asaresultofevermoreintensive
developmentofspace,pollutionandanti-socialbehaviour.Whilethecongestionchargehas
successfullyreducedroadcongestionincentralLondon,thereremainsagreatdealofpressureonthe
city’stransportsystem.Inadditionresidentialmobilitycanaffectthequalityofpublicservices,
throughadditionalcostsforlocalauthoritiesinregistering,processingandmeetingtheneedsoftheir
populations,forexample.Mobilityalsomeansthattherearehighratesofstaffturnoverinpublic
services,thatmanypeoplearenotregisteredwithalocalGPandthatchildrenchangeschoolmore
oftenthaninotherpartsofthecountry,whichhasbeenshowntohaveacorrespondingimpacton
attainmentlevels(ibid).
11
ippr|OneLondon?ChangeandcohesioninthreeLondonboroughs
DespitethesechallengesitshouldbereiteratedthatLondonenjoysthehighestlevelsofsupportfor
culturaldiversityinBritainandthatmanypeoplecometoliveinLondonpreciselybecausea
cosmopolitanandmulticulturalwayoflifearecentraltothecity’sidentity.Moreover,Londoners
welcometheemploymentandfinancialopportunitiesthatcomewithagrowingeconomy.Changewill
alwaysbringchallengeswithit,butinthesecrucialrespectsLondonremainswellplacedtomeetthem.
Buildingcommunitycohesion
Wehavesetoutinverygeneraltermswhatcommunitycohesionisandtheparticularchallengesto
cohesioninLondon–butwhatcanlocalandnationalgovernmentdointhiscomplicatedarea?We
candistinguishbetweentwogeneralapproachestofosteringcommunitycohesion:
•First,therearebroadly‘economic’approaches,aimedatcombatingmaterialdeprivation
•Second,therearebroadlyculturalapproaches,aimedmoredirectlyatshapingattitudesand
inter-personalrelationships.
Weelaborateontheseapproachesbelow.
Economicapproaches
Oneschoolofthoughtarguesthatthebestwayofbuildingsocialsolidarityandgeneratingrelations
ofrespectandreciprocityacrosssocietyistoensurethatallgroupsaretreatedfairlyinthe
distributionofmaterialresources.Ethnicandracialtensions,politicalextremism,andpolitical
disengagementorcynicismalltend,theargumentgoes,tobetraceabletoeconomicinjusticeofone
sortofanother.Itfollowsifthatifweconcentrateoncombatingdiscriminationandsocialexclusion,
solidarityandcitizenshipcanbelefttolookafterthemselves.
Thereisnoquestionthatdistributionalfairnessisanecessaryconditionforsocialcohesion.Injustice,
perceivedorreal,isboundtofosterfeelingsofresentmentandanimosity.Itishugelyimplausibleto
expectanygrouptodevelopasenseofbelongingwheretheyarebadlytreated.Bycontrast,where
peoplearefairlytreatedtheytendnaturallytodevelopsenseofreciprocityandcitizenship.Thisiswhy
itisthosecountrieswiththehighestlevelsofdistributiveequalityandthefairestinstitutionsthatalso
havethehighestlevelsofinter-personaltrust(You2005,Pearce2007).
Hencetheimportanceoflegislationoutlawingdiscriminationintheworkplace,housingandother
areasoflife;andtheimportanceofeconomicandsocialpoliciesaimedathelpingdisadvantaged
groupsandreducinginequality.Aswillbecomeclearinthecasestudiesbelow,communitycohesionis
underminedinanenvironmentinwhichlowincomehouseholdsareforcedtocompeteforscarce
resources,suchasjobs,childcareandaffordablehousing.Researchhasshownthatissuesofmaterial
scarcity,andperceptionsofunfairnessinhowsuchscarcegoodsaredistributed,playanimportant
roleingeneratinghostilitytowardsasylumseekersandmigrantsmoregenerally(Lewis2005).Tackling
materialdeprivationisthereforeafundamentaldriverofcommunitycohesion.
However,whilefairnessinthedistributionofmaterialresourcesisanecessaryconditionforcohesion,
itisnotonitsownsufficient.Thereareanumberofreasonsforthis.First,justiceisnotjustamatter
ofthefairdistributionofjobsorhousing–butalsoofsourcesofidentity.Resentmentandangerare
generatednotonlybyeconomicdisadvantagebutalsofromasensethatone’sidentityisnotgetting
therecognitiontowhichitisentitled(Taylor1994).Itfollows,however,thatthehopethatproblems
ofcitizenshipandcommunitycohesioncanbeaddressedthrougheconomicpolicyaloneismisplaced.
Issuesofcultureandrecognitionquicklyintrude.
Second,thepoliticsofcorrectingmaterialinjusticerequiresculturalchange.Peopleneedtobewon
overtoapoliticsofsocialjusticeandredistributionifanygovernmentistobeabletodeliverit.
Despitehighlevelsofwealthandincomeinequality,theBritishpublicgenerallytendsto
underestimatethedegreeofincomeinequalitybetweenlowerandhigherearners.Althoughjustunder
halfofpeoplebelievethattheGovernmentshouldacttoreduceinequalities,onlyathirdofpeople
believethatthestateshoulddirectlyredistributeincomefromrichtopoorthroughthetaxsystem.
Moreover,peoplegenerallytendnottoseepovertyreductionasamajorpoliticalpriority,when
comparedwithotherissuessuchasthequalityofthehealthservice,theirchild’seducation,orcrime
(GreenbergandLewis2007).
12
ippr|OneLondon?ChangeandcohesioninthreeLondonboroughs
Manyauthorshavearguedthatifwearetochangetheseattitudesandcreateaclimateofopinionin
whichwealthiercitizensarewillingtoforgomoreoftheirincome(orprospectiveincome)toimprove
thelivesofthedisadvantaged,weneedtodevelopacultureofcommoncitizenshipandmutual
obligation(RogersandMuir2007).That,inturn,requirespoliciesthatworkmoredirectlytoshape
peopleattitudesandencouragenormsofsociabilityandcitizenship.
Eveninasocietyfairerthanours,however,itwouldbenaivetoassumethatsocialrelationsandcivic
virtuescanbelefttolookafterthemselves.TotakeNorthernIrelandasanexample,itdoesnotseem
plausibletoarguethateconomicgrowthalone,eveniffairlyspread,wouldbeenoughtobreakdown
animositybetweenProtestantsandCatholics.Prejudicesthatsetthesegroupsapartneedtobe
tackledheadon.Indeedmanyoftheforcesthatsocialanalystshavearguedthreatencommunity
cohesionandasenseofsharedcitizenship–fromsuburbanisationandhigh-riselivingtoTVwatching
andhyper-mobility–arefoundinmoreegalitariansocieties,aswellasinunequalones.Weneedto
tacklematerialinjustice–butweneedtodomuchmorebesides.
Culturalapproaches
Inadditiontotacklingmaterialdeprivation,therefore,thereisaneedtoworkmoredirectlytochange
attitudesandaffectinter-personalrelationships.Belowarethreeexamplesofhowthismightbedone.
Fosteringsocialcapital
RobertPutnamdefinessocialcapitalas:
‘…featuresofsociallife–networks,normsandtrust–thatenable
participantstoacttogethermoreeffectivelytopursueshared
objectives…Socialcapital,inshort,referstosocialconnectionsandthe
attendantnormsandtrust.’(Putnam2000:664-5)
Socialcapitalisessentiallythegluethathelpsholdindividualstogetherasacommunity:ournetworks
offriends,familyandacquaintances,thenormsofbehaviourthatfacilitatecooperationbetweenus,
andthedegreeoftrustwehaveinothers.
However,therearebroadlytwodifferentformsofsocialcapitalwhichhavedifferentimplicationsfor
communitycohesion.First,thereiswhatPutnamdescribesas‘bonding’capital,whichtendstobe
inward-lookingandpromotesstrongbutpotentiallyexclusivegroupidentities.Thiscanprovidegroup
memberswitharangeofbenefits,suchasaccesstomaterialgoods(jobs,housing)andsupportive
networksthatcanhelpwithday-to-dayproblemslikechildcareorfinancialpressures.Astrongly
bondedcommunitymayalsobecomeempoweredbybeingabletoorganiseeffectivelyinrelationto
authority.Howeverthisformofbondingcanalsoinsulateagroupfrom‘outsiders’andhelpgenerate
communitytensionsbetweendifferentgroups.Inotherwordswhilesomebondingcapitalmayhelp
bindagrouptogether,toomuchmayactuallyinhibitcommunitycohesionbyisolatinggroupsfrom
oneanother.
Second,thereis‘bridgingsocialcapital’,whichreferstomoreimpersonalrelationshipsthatare
outward-lookingandencompasspeoplefromabroaderrangeofbackgrounds.Thisformofcapital
canbringpeopletogetheracrossethnicorreligiouslines,inlightoftheirsharedfateascitizensofthe
sameterritorialcommunity.Thisformofsocialcapitalisakeybuildingblockofcommunitycohesion.
Bridgingcapitalcanbepromotedbyfosteringgreatercontactandinteractionbetweencitizensfrom
differentbackgrounds.BasedonthepioneeringworkofGordonAllport,‘contacttheory’positsthat
undercertainfacilitatingconditionsinter-groupcontactisthebestmeansofreducingprejudice(see
Box2.1).Contactisthoughttopromotepositiveattitudestomembersofothersocialgroupsby
reducinginter-personalanxietyandintroducingpeopletothevariabilitywithinothersocialgroups,
madeupastheyareofverydifferentindividuals(Allport1954).
Contact,however,doesnotalwaysreduceprejudice;forexample,itcanbetooshort-livedtochange
attitudes.Socialpsychologistshavealsofoundthatinsituationsofanxietyorthreat,contactmaybe
likelytoreinforcestereotypes.Moreover,contactmayfailtoaffectsomeone’sattitudetoawhole
group,suchaswheredisconfirmingcontactwithjustoneindividualisseenasexceptional.Forcontact
towork,therefore,thereareanumberoffacilitatingconditions,whicharesetoutinBox2.1.
13
ippr|OneLondon?ChangeandcohesioninthreeLondonboroughs
Box2.1.Contacttheory:mainfindings
• Intergroupcontactisthebestwayofreducingprejudiceundercertainfacilitatingconditions.
•Thiswillbethecaseinasituationwherethereis:
Equalstress
Ascenariolikelytodisconfirmstereotypes
Inter-groupcooperation
Thechanceforparticipantstogettoknoweachotherproperly
Broadersocialnormsstressingequality
•Contactcountersprejudicebyreducinganxiety,promotingpositive‘out-group’attitudes,increasingtheperceived
variabilityorinternaldiversityofthe‘out-group’,increasinginter-grouptrust,allowingparticipantstogeneralisefrom
inter-personalrelationstointer-groupattitudesandgeneratingaffectiveties.(Source:Hewstone2003.)
Interactionandbridgingsocialcapitalcanbefosteredthroughavarietyofdifferentmeans.Urban
planning,forinstance,playsasignificantrole,withtheevidenceshowingthatavibrantstreetlifecan
helpbringpeopleregularlyintocontactwithoneanother,asopposedtowideopenspaces,which
tendtomakecontactmorecostlyandlessfrequent(Jacobs2000).Inaddition,mixedschoolscan
encouragechildrenfromdifferentculturalbackgroundstointeractandformfriendships.TheCantle
reportrecommendedthatfaithschools,forexample,shouldtakeupto25percentoftheirchildren
fromadifferentfaithgroup(Cantleetal 2001).Thereshouldattheveryleastbetwinning
arrangementsbetweenschoolstoencouragechildrentomixacrossethnicandreligiousboundariesin
atleastsomeclasses.
Promotingmoreactivecitizenshipisanotherwayoffosteringstrongercitizen-to-citizenrelationships.
Bygettingorganisedintheircommunitiestosolvesharedproblems,peoplecanveryoftenencounter
andmixwithpeoplefromdifferentbackgroundstotheirown.Moreover,activityinthepublicrealm,
atapublicmeetingorthroughalocalneighbourhood-basedorganisation,focusesattentiononwhat
wehaveincommonbasedonoursharedfateasresidentsofthesameplace.
Thereisalsospaceforsmallerscaletargetedinterventions,intheformofinteraction-basedprojects,
focusedonparticularlyvulnerablegroupsandespeciallyyoungpeople,whosesocialisationiscrucial.
Contacttheoryhasprovidedintellectualsupportforavastrangeofinteraction-orientatedinitiatives
thathavebeenlaunchedaroundBritainwiththeexplicitaimoffosteringgreatercommunitycohesion.
Manyoftheseinitiativesencouragemixingthroughparticipationinsportandculturalactivitiesin
whichpeoplehaveasharedinterest,whatevertheirdifferentbackground.
Forinstance,the‘BeyondtheBoundary’projecthasbroughttogetherlargelyAsiancricketteamsfrom
inner-cityBradfordtoplaylargelywhiteteamsfromtheYorkshireDales.Anotherexamplewouldbe
thenumerousmixedfootballtournamentsdevelopedbylocalauthoritiesacrossthecountry,suchas
theCommunityCupinSouthwarkortheUnityCupinCamden.InOldham,theUnitySports
Programmeisanafter-schoolinitiativethatfor15weeksayeartransportsprimaryschoolchildrento
sportsvenueswheretheycanplaysportswithchildrenfromdifferentbackgrounds(LBSouthwark
2005,OldhamMetropolitanBorough2004).
Othershaveputonculturalactivitieswiththeexplicitaimofenablinginteractionsacrossdifferent
communitiestotakeplace.The‘MovingMinds’projecthasbroughtcommunitygroupsintomuseums
andgalleriesinManchester,LeedsandBradford,usingthecollectionstostimulatediscussionabout
people’slivestodayandinthepast.InOldham,theCouncilsponsoredaPartyintheParktocelebrate
there-openingofAlexandraPark,thesiteofdisturbancesin2001,bringingtogether30,000people
fromallbackgroundswithadiverserangeofmusic.Projectsexploringthediversityoflocalheritage
havealsoplayedaroleinencouraginginteraction.InOldham,childrenfromapredominantly
Bangladeshischoolhavebeenpairedwithchildrenfromapredominantlywhiteschoolinresearching
thehistoryoftheirdiversecommunity(DCMS2004,OldhamMetropolitanBorough2004).
14
ippr|OneLondon?ChangeandcohesioninthreeLondonboroughs
Promotingsharedvalues
Inadditiontopromotingcontactbetweenpeoplefromdifferentwalksoflife,manythinkershave
arguedthatpromotingasetofsharedvaluescanprovideabasiccommongroundthatcanhelp
communitieslivetogether(seeRogersandMuir2007).Thebasicsetofliberalanddemocraticvalues
thatunderpinoursocietyareoftenpointedtoassettingoutthe‘ruleofthegame’,whichwecanall
signupto,andwithinwhichwecanthrashoutourvariousdifferencespeaceably.
Indeed,itissometimessaidthatifpeopleareattractedtoilliberalideologies,itisbecausetheybelieve
thatliberalsstandfornothing.Muchoppositiontoimmigrationismotivatedbyabelievethatthat
‘anythinggoes’–thattherearenorules.Thesameisarguablytrueofilliberal,punitiveattitudeswith
regardtocriminaljusticepolicy.Pollsrepeatedlyshowthatoneofthemaindriversbehindconcern
aboutcrimeandanti-socialbehaviourisaworrythatyoungpeopleareallowedtodowhateverthey
like,thattherearenorulestheyhavetofollow(MargoandDixon2006).Peopleworrythatthereare
norulesandthatliberalismissimplyalicencefordisorder.
Yetliberaldemocracieslikeoursdohaverules.Attheircentreisacharterofrightsthatleaveusfree
toliveourownlives,freefromarbitraryinterventionbypublicauthorities.However,inorderforsuch
asystemofrightstofunctionproperlyandbesustainedinthelongterm,therearesomeruleswe
mustfollowandcertainbasicsocialnormsandcivicvirtuesthatitisdesirablethatcitizensuphold:we
shouldseektosettledisputespeacefully,toleratedisagreement,obeythelaw,treatfellowcitizens
withrespect,participateinpublicaffairsinsomeminimalway,andsoforth.
Ifpeoplethinkthatthesebasicrulesandvirtuesarebeingflouted,thestateandothersocialactors
needtodomoretocommunicateandpromotethem.Communicatingthesecoreliberalvaluesmore
effectivelyisalsoimportantsothatpeoplesubjecttoprejudiceshouldknowthatthisisunacceptable
andthatthestatewillstanduptothoseresponsible.
Beingclearabouttheprinciplesonwhichmostofuscanagreeisalsoimportantinguidingthepublic
responsetothethornyissueofpoliticalextremism.Itisimportantthatwhenpoliticalleaderstalkof
extremismtheyareclearaboutthebasisonwhichtheyaremakingtheirjudgments:thatthereare
certainactivitiesthatinanopenandliberalsocietyareintolerable–forexample,thestirringupof
racialhatredortheuseofviolenceandintimidationforpoliticalends.Oncetheessentialsharedvalues
havebeensetout,thisprovidesaclearbasisfortakingonsuchextremism.
So,beingmoreexplicitaboutthevaluesthatmostofusshareclearlyhasitsplace.Inpracticalterms,
thereisaroleforcitizenshipeducationinfamiliarisingchildrenwithkeyliberalvalues–andofcourse
encouragingthemtodebatethedegreetowhichtheyunderpinourpoliticalsysteminpractice.The
Governmenthasfloatedtheideaofproducingawrittenstatementofvaluesthatwouldsetoutina
moreexplicitwaythebasisonwhichwearegoverned.Localauthoritiesalsohaveanimportantroleto
playas‘communityleaders’,inusingtheirpublicvoicetocommunicateasharedvisionforthefuture
oftheirarea.
Neverthelessthereareclearlylimitstowhatthissortofapproachcandeliverontheground.Abstract
valuesanduniversalprinciplesareusefulforguidingandjustifyingpublicpolicies,butbecausethey
aresoabstracttheyarealikelytobeweakasamotivatingfactorforchanginginterpersonal
relationships.
Asharedidentityandsenseofbelonging
Afurtherapproachtofosteringpositiveinter-grouprelationsaimstopromoteasharedsenseof
identityandbelonging.Essentially,sharedidentitybringstwoimportantattributestothetable:
affectiveattachmentsandimaginedsolidaritiesthatarepossibletogeneralisebetweenlargenumbers
ofpeople.
First,identityoffersaparticularlypowerfulsourceofsolidarity.Identificationisinmanywaysan
emotionalmatter:inidentifyingwithsomeoneonefeelsasenseofsolidaritywiththem.Oneofthe
greatcriticismsofthevalues-basedapproachtocohesionisthatvaluesaresimplytoothinand
abstracttofostertheallegianceofcitizens.Sharingattitudesoffairness,civilityandtolerancehave
nothistoricallybeenasufficientbasisfornationalunity.Forexample,despitesharingthesamesetof
15
ippr|OneLondon?ChangeandcohesioninthreeLondonboroughs
liberalvaluesastherestofCanada,theQuebecoiscontinuetodesiretheirownsystemofselfgovernment.MostcitizensoftheEuropeanUnionsharethesameliberaldemocraticprinciples,but
continuetoprefertoliveundersovereignnationstates.Inadditiontocommonvalues,therefore,
citizensmustalsoshareasenseofbelongingtothecommunityinwhichtheylive.
Thesecondcontributionthatidentitymightmakeisthatitinvolvestheimaginativeleapofbringing
largenumbersofpeopletogetherunderonesymbolicroofandbecauseofthisallowsustogeneralise
fromindividualencounterstoasenseofsolidaritywiththebroadercommunity.Processesof
identificationdothisthroughtheexerciseoftheimaginationandsymbolicconstruction.Take,for
example,one’sidentificationwithone’sclassorcountry.Onecanneveractuallyseeone’sclassorthe
populationofone’scountry–rather,onehastoimaginegroupssuchasclassandnationthrough
symbolicallycreatinganimageofthosegroupsinone’smind(Jenkins1996).
Contactisonealternativetoidentityasameansoffosteringgoodrelations–yetitisinevitably
limitedinitsreach.Ofcourse,directcontactnotonlychangestheattitudesofthosedirectlyengaged.
Itcanalsochangetheattitudesofthoseatoneortworemovesfromit.Wherewehavefriendsor
relativeswhoarefriendlywith‘outgroup’members,wearemorelikelytotakeapositiveattitudeto
themourselves.Nevertheless,thereareclearlylimitstocontact’scapacitytocombatprejudiceand
engendersolidarity.Puttinginiteconomicterms,sharedidentitiesofferaresource-efficientapproach
tosolidaritygeneration.
Promotingasharedidentityshouldnotbeattheexpenseofotherapproachestocommunity
cohesion,butis,rather,complimentarytothem.Soforexampleanysharedidentityinaliberalsociety
willhaveabasisinasetofvaluessuchasdemocracyorfairness,withwhichpeoplecancollectively
identify.Moreover,interactivityandmeaningfulencountersattheindividuallevelarelikelytoprovide
thebasisforthedevelopmentofsharedcivicidentities.Butitisclearthatfosteringacivicidentityhas
adistinctivecontributiontomaketocommunitycohesion.
Summary
Thissectionhas,first,scopedoutwhatpolicymakersgenerallyunderstandbycommunitycohesion
andwhyithasbecomesuchamajorissuefornationalandlocalgovernmentinrecenttimes.
Importantly,anddespitemuchofthemediaandpoliticalfocus,communitycohesionisnotuniquely
aboutrelationsbetweenpeopleofdifferentfaithsorethnicbackgrounds,butisalsoaboutintergenerational,genderandsocio-economicrelationships.
Second,thesectionsetoutLondon’sparticularcohesion-relatedchallenges.Londonisverydifferent
frommostpartsofBritain,havinglongbeenhometowavesofinwardandoutwardmigrationgoing
backovercenturies.Itisoneofthemostculturallydiverseplacesonearthanditspopulation
overwhelminglyvaluesthatdiversity,whichhasbecomeacentralpartofthecity’sveryidentity.
However,Londondoesfaceanumberofspecificcommunitycohesionchallenges,whichwillbe
elaboratedinthecasestudiesthatfollow:lowerlevelsofsocialcapitalthantherestofBritain,high
levelsofpovertyandincomepolarisation,arapidpaceofpopulationchangeandpressureson
resourcesandthequalityofpublicservices.
Finally,thissectionhasdescribedsomeimportantaspectsofanystrategytofostergreatercommunity
cohesion:therightingofbasiceconomicinjustices,alongsideapproachestofostergreatercontact
betweenpeoplefromdifferentbackgrounds,andtopromoteaciviccultureunderpinnedbyashared
understandingofcommonvaluesandasharedsenseofbelonging.
16
ippr|OneLondon?ChangeandcohesioninthreeLondonboroughs
3.CommunitycohesioninthreeLondonboroughs
Thissectionexploresthekindsofcohesion-relatedchallengesandresponsestothembylocal
agenciesinthreeverydifferentLondonboroughs:BarkingandDagenham,HounslowandSouthwark.
Thesethreeboroughswereselectedbecausetheywereexpectedtodemonstrateabroadrangeof
differentcohesionchallenges,whilesharingincommonexperienceofsignificantrecentpopulation
change.
Southwark isahighlyculturallydiverseinner-Londonborough,butonewhichfacesparticular
challengesaroundinter-generationalconflictandstarkeconomicinequalities.
Hounslow isalsoahighlydiverseboroughinethnicandculturalterms,butoneinwhichdifferent
ethnicgroupstendtobeconcentratedinparticularareas.Therehasalsobeenevidenceofextreme
politicalgroupsofvaryingkindsoperatingintheborough.
BarkingandDagenham hashistoricallybeenlessculturallydiversethantheothertwoboroughs,
buthasbecomemuchmoresoovertime,havingexperiencedrelativelyrapidratesofpopulation
changeinthelasttwodecades.Thereisevidenceofariseinpoliticalextremismintheborough,as
seenintheelectionof12BNPcouncillorsinMay2006.
Theresearchineachcaseinvolvedareviewoftherelevantlocalliteratureoncommunitycohesion(for
example,localauthoritypolicypapers,strategydocumentsanddemographicdata),followedupby
interviewswithpublicsectorprofessionalsworkingincohesion-relatedpolicyareas.
Theseinterviewsweresemi-structuredinthattheywereintendedtocoverasimilarsetofgeneral
themes,butneededtobeopenenoughtoillicitfromtheintervieweestheissuestheythoughtmost
significant.ThenamesandrolesoftheintervieweesarelistedinAppendix1tothisreport.
Ofcourse,therearelimitationstotheextenttowhichwecanmakeconclusionsfromthisresearch.
Thisisfirstofallbecauselocalauthoritieshaveonlyrecentlystartedtomeasurecommunitycohesion,
accordingtoarelativelysmallbasketofindicators.Thismeansthatthereareonlyverylimited
benchmarksbywhichwecanjudgewhetherornotcommunitiesarebecomingmorecohesiveover
time.Second,intheabsenceofindependentevaluationsofmostoftheprojectsdescribedbelow,this
researchreliedontheperceptionsoflocalpractitionersthemselves.Therefore,‘bestpractice’inthe
contextofthisreportisunderstoodtobewhatlocalpractitionersperceivedtoworkbestintheir
areas.Furtherresearchisofcourserequired,exploringwhichlocalinterventionsworkbestovertimein
differentcontexts,whichwouldrequiremorein-depthresearchinparticularcommunities.
Whatisprovidedhere,however,isaninitialsurveyofprofessionalopinion,inordertodiscernthe
contoursofaholisticapproachtofosteringcohesionatthelocallevel.
BarkingandDagenham
Geographyandeconomy
BarkingandDagenhamisaboroughinouterEastLondononthenorthbankoftheRiverThames.It
isbasedaroundtwoprincipaltowncentres(BarkingandDagenham),broughttogetherformunicipal
purposesinthelocalgovernmentreorganisationof1965.
Formostofthe20thcenturythearea’seconomywasbasedaroundheavyindustrywhichlocated
thereintheinter-warperiodtomakeuseofthelocaldocks.Thisincludedmajorchemicalandmotor
industries,mostsignificantlytheFordplantatDagenhamwhichbythe1950swasemployingover
40,000people.Theindustrialandworkingclasshistoryoftheboroughmeansthat,inthewordsof
BillyBragg,oneofitsmostfamoussons,itsexperience‘mirroredthatfoundinthemining,shipbuildingandsteeltownsoftheNorth’withlevelsofmanufacturingemploymentthat‘putsthe
boroughonaparwithcitieslikeSheffield,NewcastleandMiddlesbrough’(Bragg2006:40).
AlongsideindustrialisationtheareasawmajorresidentialsettlementastheEastEndslumswere
clearedandtheLondonCountyCouncilbuiltsubstantialamountsofcouncilhousing,includingthe
Becontreeestate,whichwith27,000homeswasthelargestpublichousingdevelopmentintheworld.
17
ippr|OneLondon?ChangeandcohesioninthreeLondonboroughs
Today,followingtheintroductionofRighttoBuy,56percentoftheborough’spopulationowntheir
ownhomes,while34percentaresocialhousingtenants.
Heavyindustryhasnowdeclined,withnewemploymentcominglargelyfromtheservicessector.
BarkingandDagenhamhasarelativelyhigheconomicinactivityrateof28.8percent,comparedwith
aGreaterLondonaverageof25.4percentandanationalaverageof21percent(AnnualPopulation
Survey2004,ONS2007).Almostaquarteroftheborough’sworking-agepopulationlackformal
educationalqualifications(24percent),comparedto14percentforLondonasawhole.Asaresultof
theseandotherfactorsBarkingandDagenhamisarelativelydeprivedborough,beingtheninthmost
deprivedinLondonandthe21stmostdeprivedinthecountry(BarkingandDagenham2007a).
Ethnicprofile
InethnictermstheboroughcontainsaproportionallylargerwhiteBritishpopulationthanLondonasa
whole,with75percentofBarkingandDagenham’spopulationbelongingtothatgroupin2004
comparedwitharound60percentforLondonasawholeinthe2001census(seeTable3.1).
However,thesefiguresarechangingquicklyandthelocalauthoritybelievesthattheboroughis
currentlymuchmorediversethanitwasevenfouryearsago.
Table3.1.EthnicprofileofBarkingandDagenham,2004
Percentageofpeopleinethnicgroups,mid-2004
White:
79.7%
British
74.7%
Irish
1.5%
Other
3.5%
Mixed:
2.3%
WhiteandBlackCaribbean
0.9%
WhiteandBlackAfrican
0.5%
WhiteandAsian
0.4%
Othermixed
0.5%
AsianorAsianBritish:
6.6%
Indian
2.7%
Pakistani
2.1%
Bangladeshi
1.0%
OtherAsian
0.9%
BlackorBlackBritish:
9.8%
Caribbean
2.3%
African
6.9%
Otherblack
0.9%
Chineseor‘other’ethnicgroup
1.6%
Chinese
0.8%
Other
0.7%
Source:ONSExperimentalEthnicEstimatesreleased2006
ThemainchallengesforcommunitycohesioninBarkingandDagenham
CommunitycohesionhascomeunderpressureinBarkingandDagenhaminrecentyearsduetoa
combinationofpopulationchanges,resourcepressuresandthegrowingpoliticalpresenceofthefar
right.Thesepressuresculminatedintheelectionof12BNPcouncillorsintheMay2006local
elections,aresultthatsentshockwavesaroundthecountry.
Theboroughscoresthelowestamongourthreecasestudiesonthemainsocialcohesionindicator
18
ippr|OneLondon?ChangeandcohesioninthreeLondonboroughs
usedbylocalgovernment:only48percentoflocalresidentssaidin2005/06that‘thislocalareaisa
placewherepeoplefromdifferentbackgroundsgetonwelltogether’(BarkingandDagenham
Partnership2006).Thiscontrastsmarkedlywiththenationalaverageof80percentandhigherthan
averagefiguresof84percentforHounslowin2004and86percentforSouthwarkin2006.Onthe
basisofthestandardnationalindicator,therefore,communitycohesionappearstobeverylowin
BarkingandDagenham.
Thisreflectsanumberofchallengesfacingtheborough.
First,therehasbeensignificantpopulationchangeintheboroughoverthecourseofthelastdecade.
Theborough’spopulationgrewby10percentbetween1991and2001andissettogrowbya
further14percentbetween2001and2021.ThisispartlybecauseBarkingandDagenhamhasthe
lowestaveragehousepricesinthewholeofLondon(£174,000in2006comparedtoaLondon
averageof£318,000),whichhasledmanyfirst-timebuyerstomoveintothearea(Barkingand
Dagenham2007a).
TheCommissionforRacialEquality(nowpartoftheEqualityandHumanRightsCommission)noted
thatthesouthernpartofBarkingsawthelargestriseinthepercentageofforeign-bornresidentsin
thewholeofEngland,risingfrom3.5percentin1991to13.4percentin2001(CRE2007).The
ethnicminoritypercentageofthepopulationissettogrowfrom16percenttoaround25percent
overthenext20years.
Second,thispopulationchangehasbeenaccompaniedbygrowinghousingneedinthearea.In2002
therewasanestimatedbacklogof1,258peopleneedinghousing,withanadditional1,790peoplein
housingneedbeingaddedeveryyear.Thecouncilestimatedin2002that14.6percentofresidents
werelivinginhousingunsuitedtotheirneeds.Atthesametimethecouncilhaslostsignificant
amountsofitssocialhousingstockasaresultoftheintroductionofRightToBuyinthe1980s
(BarkingandDagenham2003).
Thecombinationofincreasedethnicdiversityandashortageofsocialhousinghasledmanypeopleto
believethatnewmigrantsarebeinggivenpreferentialtreatmentforsocialhousing.Theseviews
emergedtimeandagaininfocusgroupsconductedbyipprinsummer2006.Thefollowingarea
typicalsetofstatementsbywhiteresidentsinmanualworkingclassoccupations(C2DE):
‘Theythinkit’sgreat,theyloveit,theygetoffalorryandaregiven
everything…money,ahouse,payouts.’WhitemaleC2DE,Barkingand
Dagenham
‘Whenitcomesdowntothemoney,youseethemandyou’renotgoingto
getmoneyorahouse.Itputsmebackonemorestep.I’mprejudicedbeforeI
evenknowtheirstory.’WhitefemaleC2DE,BarkingandDagenham.
(ipprfocusgroup,BarkingandDagenham,July2006)
Infact,ascouncilofficersexplainedtotheauthor,manyofthenewresidentswhoareperceivedtobe
inreceiptofsocialhousingarehomebuyers,buyingprivatehousesthatwerepreviouslycouncil
housesbutsoldunderRightToBuy.
Third,concernsaboutthequalityofthephysicalenvironmentandsharedspaces,alongwithcrime
andanti-socialbehaviour,havealsofuelledcommunitytensions.Newcomershavebeenblamedfor
problemsthatrelatetothequalityofpublicservicesintermsofcleaning,housingrepairs,rubbish
collectionandsoforth.Inourfocusgroupsresidentsconnectedaperceivedriseincrimeandantisocialbehaviourwithimmigrationintothearea.Basicissuesofserviceprovisionthereforeneedtobe
addressedaspartofthecommunitycohesionagenda.
Fourth,thereareconcernsaroundaperceiveddeclineinsocialcapitalandthelossofolder
communitynetworksinthearea.Concernswereraisedbyresidentsaboutalossofneighbourliness
duringipprfocusgroupsheldinBarkingandDagenhaminJuly2006:
19
ippr|OneLondon?ChangeandcohesioninthreeLondonboroughs
‘Peopledon’ttalktoeachotheranymore’
‘Youdon’treallyknowyourneighboursanymore’
‘Whenweweregrowingupitwasdifferent’
LikemuchofLondongreaterresidentialmobilitymaywellhaveacostintermsofweakeningsocial
networksandinanarealikeBarkingandDagenham,withrelativelystablesettlementpatternsinthe
pastandwithalargelocalemployerprovidingacommonlocalfocustowork,suchchangescanbe
unsettling.Someofthisbasiclossofsocialcapitalindependentofrecentmigrationpatternscanthen
getmixedupwithanxietyoverimmigration.
AsthecouncilnotesinitssubmissiontotheCommissiononIntegrationandCohesion:‘AsBarking
andDagenhamhadbeenaverystablecommunityincomparisonwiththerestofLondon,thisrecent
changehasbeenaconcerntosomemembersofthewellestablishedpopulation’(Barkingand
Dagenham2007b:17).Oneintervieweedescribedthecommunityas‘beinginastateofbereavement’
foranolderpatternofcommunitylifethathasnowgone.
Alloftheseissueshavebeenexploitedforpoliticalendsbythefarright,leadingtotheelectionof12
BNPcouncillorsinthe2006councilelections.Thisisthelargestfar-rightcouncilgroupinBritainand
althoughLabourstillholdsamajorityonthecouncil,theBNPwonallbutoneseatitcontestedin
directcompetitionwithLabour,previouslytheonlyrealpoliticalforceinthearea.Inthe2005election,
aswehaveseen,theBNPhaditsbestresultinthecountryintheBarkingconstituency,securing17
percentofthevote.
CouncilresponsesinBarkingandDagenham
Initsfirstcommunitycohesionstrategy,whichranfrom2004to2007theLocalStrategicPartnership
(LSP)inBarkingandDagenhamformallyadoptedthenationaldefinitionofcohesionassetoutabove
(BarkingandDagenham2004).However,thecouncilhassincethendecidedthatthenational
conceptofcohesionneedstobereviewedtomatchlocalpeople’saspirationsforthearea.
Between2005and2006thecouncilembarkedonamajorpublicengagementexercisetoseekto
identifythecommonvaluesandprioritiesthatmightgenerateasharedvisionforthefuture.Aspart
ofthisexercisethecouncilemployedaseriesofinnovativeengagementtechniquesreachingpeoplein
publicplaces,suchasshoppingcentres,marketsandworkingmen’sclubs.Forexample,theysetupa
‘BigBrother’stylevideocubeanda‘graffiti’wallthroughwhichpeoplecouldrecordtheirviews.They
alsodidagreatdealof‘doorknocking’inanattempttoreachpeoplewhodonotnormallyattend
publicmeetingsorhavenotbeenreachedbypreviousconsultationexercises.
Aspartofthisprocess,thecouncilhastestedanewlocaldefinitionofcohesion,whichaspires
towardscreatinga:
•‘Strongcommunitywhichcanexpectequalandfairaccesstocustomerfocusedservices;and
• Aplacewherepeople,whothroughmutualrespect cantogether enjoysafe andpeaceful
livesandlookforwardtothefuture.’(BarkingandDagenham2007b,emphasisinoriginal)
Councilofficersfeltthatthisdefinitionwasonethatwouldhavemoretractionwithresidentsbecause
itwasbasedonasetofprinciples(inbold)thatlocalpeopleemphasisedduringtheconsultation:
fairness,respect,togethernessandsafety.
IntermsofprioritisationtheLSPhasmadecommunitycohesionakeycomponentofitsoverallvision
fortheborough.Thisismanifestedinitscommunitycohesionstrategybutperhapsmoreimportantly
theCouncilhasgivenresponsibilityforimplementationandoversighttotheLeaderoftheCouncil.
Aswehaveseen,tacklingtheunderlyingcausesofcommunitytensioniscritical.InBarkingand
Dagenhamtheseincludehousingshortages,forwhichthereareplansinplacetobuildanextra
20,000newhomesaspartoftheLondonRiversidedevelopmentwithintheThamesGateway.Officers
alsohighlightedtheneedtotackleconcernsaroundthequalityofpublicservicesespeciallywithinthe
‘cleaner,safer,greener’agenda,whichitwasfeltwasaleadingofcauseofresidentdissatisfaction
withthecouncil.
20
ippr|OneLondon?ChangeandcohesioninthreeLondonboroughs
Intermsofcommunicatingsharedvalues,thecouncilhassoughttochallengemythsaroundasylum.
Forexample,itpublishedanarticleintheMarch2005editionoftheCitizen(thecouncil’smagazine,
distributedtoeveryhousehold)entitled‘Thefactsabouttheasylummyths’.InSeptember2006a
similararticlewasproducedentitled‘Whogetshousedfirst’.InwardswheretheBNPhadbeen
campaigningontheseissues,thecouncildistributeditsownleafletstoindividualhomestotakeon
mythsabouthousingallocations.Theauthorityandthelocalnewspapercooperatedtoproducean
articleonthesamesubjectonpollingday2006.
Ofcourse,giventheelectionresulttheseeffortscannotbesaidtohavebeensuccessful.Thisisnot
necessarilyacriticismofthelocalauthorityasthesekindof‘myth-busting’exercisesarefollowingthe
grainofnationalbestpractice,butitdoesraisegeneralquestionsabouthowcommunicationsinthis
areaarebestdelivered.ipprresearchhasfoundthatingeneraltermspeoplefind‘mythbusting’
patronisingbecauseitimpliesthat‘weknowbestandyoudon’t’.Also,bymakingstatements(that
theythenclarifybyrefuting)alongthelinesof‘manypeoplebelievethatasylumseekersaregiven
priorityforsocialhousing’,authoritiesmayunintentionallylegitimisethatviewintheeyesofresidents
ratherthanchallengeit(LewisandNewman2007).
Neighbourhooddevolution isseenbythecouncilasawayofhelpingtofostergreatercommunity
cohesionwithinparticularareasoftheborough.Thebasicintuitionbehindthismodelisthreefold:
•First,devolvingpowertolocalpeopletomakedecisionsintheirareasoratleastholdservice
providerstoaccountlocallyshouldgivepeoplegreatercontrolandreducefrustrationwith
decisions‘takenelsewhere’.
•Second,itshouldimproveservicedelivery,byfocusinglocalservicesmoreeffectivelyaroundlocal
needs.
•Finally,itmightalsobeabletofosteraninclusivesenseoflocalbelongingandhigherlocalcivic
pridebybringingresidentstogetherinneighbourhood-basedactivitiestosolvelocalproblems.
InBarkingandDagenhamtheauthorityiscurrentlyrollingoutacomparativelyambitiousnew
NeighbourhoodManagementModel,followingtwosuccessfulpilotsintheAbbey,Gascoigneand
Thames,andMarksGateareas.Thecouncilisrollingoutneighbourhoodmanagementacrossthe
wholeborough,althoughwithmostresourcestargetedattheareasofgreatestneed.Theplans
includeneighbourhoodmanagementteamsoperatingtoconsultlocalresidentsandcoordinate
servicesinparticularwards,drawingupanactionplanfortheareathatwillbeagreedandmonitored
byalocalneighbourhoodpartnership.Inthoseareasofgreatestneedbudgetsof£20,000willbe
madeavailabletohelpdeliver‘quickwins’andsetupnewprojects.Thesewillsitalongsidethe
council’sCommunityHousingPartnerships,whichhavesignificantdelegatedpowersoverhousing
policyanddevolvedbudgetstospendonareaimprovements.
Thisisarelativelyambitiousneighbourhoodmanagementschemecomparedwithmodelstried
elsewhereandassuchitrepresentsasignificantpolicydepartureforBarkingandDagenham.We
shouldnoteofcoursethatitisonlycurrentlybeingimplementedintheborough,butreportsfromthe
pilotareaswerepositive.AnindependentevaluationoftheMarksGatepilotfoundthatit‘seemsto
haveplayedapivotalroleinthetransformingofMarksGateandimprovingthereputationofthearea,
amongresidents,serviceprovidersand“outsiders”’(B&D2007c:3-4).
Finally,thecouncilhassoughttouseculturaleventstofosterinteractionbetweenpeoplefrom
differentbackgrounds.Forexample,everyOctoberthehousingdepartmentofthecouncilputson
Resident’sUnityWeek,whichinvolvesworkshops,sport,culturalactivitiesandacarnival.Thiswasfelt
byhousingofficerstobesuccessfulasaparticularlymixedevent,bringingresidentstogetherwho
wouldotherwisenotmeet.
ThecouncilalsohoststheMoltenDiversityArtsFestival,whichdrawstogetherandshowcasesartistic
activities,suchasdance,drama,photographyandmusicfromacrosstheborough.Thecouncilfaced
somecriticismthattheeventwasnotadequatelycateringforthewhiteBritishcommunityandso
followingareviewin2006putonaVEJiveConcertandCockneySing-a-longevent,attractingnearly
21
ippr|OneLondon?ChangeandcohesioninthreeLondonboroughs
100people.Thecouncilhasrecognisedthatitneedstopushitscohesionmessagethroughexisting
popularevents,suchasattheDagenhamTownShowwhichattracts80,000peopleovertwodays.
Hounslow
Geographyandeconomy
HounslowisanouterWestLondonborough,madeupofanumberofdiscretepopulationcentres,
eachwithitsowndistinctcharacter.Itseconomyhaschangedsignificantlyovertime,withadeclinein
thelocalmanufacturingindustrythatgrewuparoundtheBrentforddocks.Employmenthas
correspondinglygrownintheservicessectorandthelocaleconomyhasbecomeincreasingly
dominatedbytheexpansionofHeathrowAirport.Heathrowisnowthesourceof69,000jobsinthe
sub-regionofWestLondon,with10,000ofHounslow’sresidentsemployeddirectlyontheairportsite
in2001.Howeverthelocalauthorityestimatesthat,accountingforsupplyindustries,betweenafifth
andaquarteroftheborough’spopulationdependsontheairportforemployment(Hounslow2006).
Ethnicprofile
TheboroughisoneofthemostculturallydiverseinLondon,withanethnicminoritypopulationof
around35percentin2001,whichisexpectedtogrowto50percentby2010.Thebiggestethnic
minoritypopulationinHounslowisIndianorBritishIndian(17percent),withotherAsiangroups
makingup7percent.HounslowhasthethirdlargestSikhcommunityandthetenthlargestHindu
communityinBritain,aswellasasignificantMuslimcommunity.Otherimportantlocalminorityethnic
populationsincludemanyrefugeeandasylum-seekingcommunities(around3-4percentofthe
populationin2001),includingasignificantSomalicommunity.Altogether,thereare140languages
spokeninHounslow’sschools(ibid).
Table3.2.EthnicprofileofHounslow,2001
Percentageofpeopleinethnicgroups,2001
White:
64.8%
British
55.7%
Irish
2.91%
Other
6.18%
Mixed:
3.03%
WhiteandBlackCaribbean
0.65%
WhiteandBlackAfrican
0.39%
WhiteandAsian
1.13%
Othermixed
0.85%
AsianorAsianBritish:
24.7%
Indian
17.3%
Pakistani
4.29%
Bangladeshi
0.53%
OtherAsian
2.56%
BlackorBlackBritish:
4.35%
Caribbean
1.33%
African
2.69%
Otherblack
0.32%
Chineseorotherethnicgroup
3%
Chinese
0.86%
Other
2.14%
Source:CREEthnicityProfileHounslowfromONSCensus2001.
Previouslyatwww.cre.gov.uk(websitenolongerexists)
22
ippr|OneLondon?ChangeandcohesioninthreeLondonboroughs
ChallengestocohesioninHounslow
Asoneintervieweetoldthisreport’sauthor:‘Changeisthekeytounderstandingwhatishappeningin
Hounslow.’Hounslowliesatthecentreofamajornationaltransporthub,hometoHeathrowairport
andactingasamajorthroughputareaforcars,trainsandplanesenteringandleavingthecountryor
travellingonelsewhereintheUK.
Assuch,Hounslowhasbeenhometowavesofmigrantsthroughoutthelasthundredyears.Chiswick,
intheEast,hasalong-standingEasternEuropeanpopulation,particularlyfromPoland,aswellasa
smallJewishcommunity.ThecentralpartofHounslowhasbecomehometolargeSouthAsianSikh
andMuslimcommunities.MorerecentlytheboroughhasseenthearrivalofagrowingSomali
community,currentlyofaround7,000residents.AndtheexpansionofHeathrowAirporthasbrought
manynewEasternEuropeanmigrantsintotheareatowork.
Changehasacceleratedinrecentyears,makingtheboroughevermorediverse.Theborough’s
populationroseby4percent(8400people)betweenthe1991and2001censuses(althoughthe
boroughbelievesthatdatafromtheOfficeforNationalStatisticsunderestimatesthescaleofits
populationgrowthandisindisputeoverfigures).Thenon-whitepopulationmakesup35percentof
theborough’sresidents,whichishigherthantheLondonaverageof29percent,andupfroman
estimated25percentin1991.Thecouncilcalculatesthatbetween2001and2006theBME
populationrosebyafurther7,000andissettobecomeover50percentofthepopulationofthe
boroughby2010.
LikemostofLondon,Hounslowbenefitsfromstronglocalsupportforculturaldiversity:84percent
ofresidentsaskedin2004agreedthatitwasanareainwhichpeoplefromdifferentbackgroundsget
alongwellwithoneanother(comparedtojust48percentinBarkingandDagenham)(BMG2004).
Theboroughdoes,however,faceanumberofcohesion-relatedchallenges.First,economicchange
inevitablyhasitswinnersandlosers.Hounslowhasverylowunemployment(2.4percentclaimant
countcomparedwith3.4percentforLondonasawhole)andaneconomicinactivityratethatis
belowtheLondonaverage(23.2percentcomparedwith25.4percent).However,italsohasrelatively
lowpaidemploymentforlocalpeople,havingthethirdlargestproportionoflowpaidworkersin
London.ThisispartlybecausewhileHeathrow’sexpansionhasbroughtnewjobsandeconomic
growth,verymanyofthejobsithasgeneratedforlocalpeoplearelowskilledandlowpaid.
Additionally,thereisarealproblemforsomelocalpeoplenothavingtheskillstotakeadvantageof
theopportunitiesexpansionhasbrought.AsworkersfromtheA8countrieshavefilledthehigher
skilledjobsonsite,thishasgeneratedfrustrationamonglocalyouth,especiallyinthewesternpartof
theborough,wheretheairportaccountsforoneineverythreeavailablejobs(Hounslow2005b).
Afurthercohesionchallengefacingtheboroughisresidentialsegregation,notaseriousproblemin
eitheroftheothertwocasesanalysedhere.Hounslowcanbedividedroughlyintothreemainareas.
Theeastern-mostpart(Chiswickandsurroundings)andthewesternarea(FelthamandBedfont)are
largelyethnicallywhiteareas.Thesehavenon-whitepopulationsofjust13percentand17percent
respectively,wellbelowtheLondonaverage.CentralHounslow,bycontrast,hasasignificantBME
population,withsomewardshavingaBMEpopulationofover60percent(Hounslow2006).
Theclusteringofethnicpopulationsindifferentresidentialareasisknownundercertainconditionsto
posechallengestocommunitycohesion.InthecaseofHounslow,thesefearsreceivesomesupport
fromevidencethatintheoverwhelminglywhitewesternarea,wherethereisasmallbutgrowing
ethnicminoritypopulation,racistcrimeisdisproportionatelyhigh.BetweenAprilandSeptember2006
90incidentsofracialharassmentwerereportedtotheWestAreaAnti-SocialBehaviourteam,
comparedwithjustfourinthecentralareaand16intheeasternarea(Hounslow2006).
Hounslowfacesafurtherchallengeoftacklingtheriseofpoliticalextremism,ofvaryingkinds.Inthe
westernareathefarrightBritishNationalPartyhasbeenopenlyrecruitingamongdisenfranchised
whiteyouths.TheNationalFrontgainedaround1000votesinthe2006localelectionsandonereport
notedthepresenceofBNPpostersandleafletsinFelthaminthesameyear(HounslowHomes2006).
Thepolicehavealsoprovidedthecouncilwithintelligencethatextremepoliticalorganisationshave
23
ippr|OneLondon?ChangeandcohesioninthreeLondonboroughs
beenrecruitingamongyoungMuslimsinHounslow.IndeedtheyoungmanwhobecameBritain’sfirst
suicidebomberinanattackinIsraelin2003wasfromHounslow.Twootheryoungmenwere
questionedaspartoftheinvestigationintoafoiled‘terrorplot’in2006.
Finally,Hounslowisexperiencingarelatedchallengearoundyouthexclusionanddisaffection.Youth
nuisancewasthecommonestcomplaintmadetothecouncil’sNeighbourhoodWardensbetween2005
and2007.Inmanyareasthecouncilperceivestheretobeaproblemwithdisenfranchisedyoungsters
gettinginvolvedinanti-socialbehaviourandcrime.
CouncilresponsesinHounslow
CohesionhastakenaveryprominentroleinHounslow’slocalstrategicframework.Thecouncilhas
madecommunitycohesionakeyplankofitscommunitystrategy,withitsnewCommunityPlanin
2007carryingthestrapline‘BuildingaStronger,VibrantandUnitedCommunity’.Thecouncilhasa
CommunityCohesionStrategyGroupwhichiscurrentlydevelopingabasketofperformanceindicators
tomonitorprogress,whichincludesactualandperceivedlevelsoftension,relevantBestValue
performanceindicators,residentviewsandindicatorsmonitoringextremism.
HounslowhasalsoplayedaleadingroleintheWestLondonCommunityCohesionPartnership,which
includestheboroughsofHounslow,Ealing,Harrow,Hillingdon,HammersmithandFulhamandBrent,
plusrepresentativesfromthecorporateandvoluntarysectors,WestLondonHousing,thepoliceand
localmediarepresentatives.Thepartnershipallowsdifferentauthoritiestotryoutnewinitiativesand
sharelearning,aswellasenablingsub-regionalcoordinationofpolicyinterventions.
Forexample,thepartnershiphasledonsub-regionalapproachestocommunications.Ithasworked
closelywiththeTrinityMirrorGrouptoensurethateditorsandjournalistsareawareoftheimpact
storiescanhaveoncommunityrelations.Hounslowclaimsthattherehasbeenachangeintheway
thepapersreportissuesaffectingtheborough’sdiversecommunitiesasaresult,andTrinityMirrorhas
setupabursaryschemeinanefforttorecruitjournalistsfromamorediverserangeofbackgrounds.
HounslowhasfocusedonengagingparticularlyvulnerableyoungpeoplethroughitsDetached
OutreachTeams.Thesefivefull-timeteams(eachincludingoneyouthworkerandtwopart-time
workers)havebeenworkingsince2004inthefiveAreaCommitteesintheborough.Theyworkwith
particularlyvulnerableyouthswhoarereferredtothembythelocalYouthInclusionandSupport
Panels(YISPs).Theyalsoengageinharm-reductionactivitytargetedatparticularbehaviours,
includingknifecrime.Thereisacommunitydevelopmentaspecttotheirwork,whichhasinvolved
puttingoneventstotrytoencourageolderandyoungerpeopletointeract.Remarkably,intheareas
wheretheyhaveworked,therehavebeenverysignificantreductionsinyouthcrimeandanti-social
behaviour.Insomeareasthesehavefallenbyalmosthalf.
Followingpoliceintelligencethatshowsextremistpoliticalgroupshavebeenrecruitinginthearea
(amongbothwhiteandMuslimyouths),thecouncilcommissionedtheInstituteofCommunity
Cohesiontoreviewtheborough’sapproachtoyouthdisengagementandpoliticalextremism.The
resultingreportAWindowonExtremism setsoutanumberofrecommendationsforlocal
policymakers,intheareasofcommunications,youthengagementandleadership,tohelptacklethis
problem.Hounslowisnowalsomanaginga£600,000sub-regional‘PathfinderProgrammetoPrevent
ViolentExtremism’,throughwhichitshouldbeabletoimplementmanyofthoserecommendations.
Aswassetoutabove,thereareparticularchallengesinthewesternareaoftheborough,whereracial
incidentsaremuchhigherthanelsewhere.ThecouncilcommissionedaWestAreaStudywhich
reportedinJune2005,focusingonthesocialproblemstheareafacedandpossiblesolutions
(Hounslow2005b).Thisisarelativelystablecommunitywithahigherproportionoflong-standing
residentsthanelsewhereintheborough,onewhichhasalowerBMEpopulationthantheLondon
average,butaBMEpopulationthatisgrowinginsize.Theareaalsohadthelowestproportionof
residentsagreeingthatthearea‘isaplacewherepeoplefromdifferentbackgroundsgetonwell
together’.Thereisanecdotalevidenceofparentsfromethnicminoritybackgroundsworryingabout
sendingtheirchildrentolocalschoolsforfearofracistbullying.TheBNPandtheNationalFronthave
bothbeenactiveinthispartofHounslow.
24
ippr|OneLondon?ChangeandcohesioninthreeLondonboroughs
Thisstudyhasprovidedavaluablebaseofdataandmakesanumberofrecommendations.These
includetryingtoattractamorediverserangeofemployers(inparticularinoffice-basedsectors)and
smallbusinessstart-upstothearea,whichsuffersfromapredominanceoflow-skilledandlow-paid
work.Theareaalsoneedssignificantinvestmentinraisingskillslevels,andthecouncilisseeking
employersupporttoincreasetrainingopportunitiesforlocalyoungpeople.Arecognisedlackof
investmentinyouthfacilitiesalsoneedstobelookedat,giventhearea’shighratesofyouthcrime.As
inBarkingandDagenhamthecouncilidentifiedproblemswiththequalityofopenspacesandthe
physicalenvironment,whichfedintoresidents’generalsenseofdissatisfactionwiththearea.Ithas
putinplaceaDecentEstatesPlan,butrecognisesthereis‘somewaytogo’(Hounslow2005b).
OnefinalareaworthhighlightingistheprotocolsthatHounslow’sdifferentagencieshaveputinplace
todealwithoutbreaksoftensionasandwhentheyoccur.Thelocalpolicebelievethesehelpedensure
thatfollowingthe7July2005bombings,whereastherewasanincreaseinIslamophobicincidents
acrossLondonasawhole,inHounslowtherewerenotanysignificantadditionalproblems.
MeasuresinplaceinHounslowincludeanadvisorygroupofrepresentativesfromthedifferentplaces
ofworship,amobileCCTVservicetoprotectplacesofworshipattimesoftension,a‘ringmaster’
systemwhichmeanspeoplecansignupfortextmessagestokeepkeypeopleinformed,andanactive
mediastrategywhichafter7Julymeantaletterwassentimmediatelytothelocalpaper,emphasising
unity.TheCommunityCohesionStrategyGroupalsoactsasapartnershipbodyofpublicauthorities,
faithleadersandcommunitygroups,meetingtoshareintelligenceoncommunitytensionsanddiscus
sensitiveissues
Southwark
Geographyandeconomy
Southwarkisaninner-Londonborough,southoftheRiverThames.Oneoftheoldestpartsof
London,historicSouthwarkhasbeenasettlementsinceRomantimesandbythe17thcenturywas
oneofthelargesturbansettlementsinthecountry.Itseconomygrewbecauseofitsriverside
location,withmanufacturingindustrydevelopingaroundthedocksduringtheindustrialrevolution.
Todayitisaboroughofcontrastingcommunities.TothenorthalongtheriverliestheBorough,
BermondseyandRotherhitheareas,dominatedbythedocksandrelatedindustryuntiltheirclosurein
the1980s.Thispartoftheboroughhassinceseeneconomicregeneration,withthedevelopmentofa
significantbusinessdistrictaroundLondonBridge,hometofinancialinstitutions,servicecompanies
andagrowingcreativeindustry.TheBanksideareahasseenagrowthinculturalamenities,including
thehugelysuccessfulTateModern,restaurantsandbars.
FurthersoutharePeckhamandCamberwell,highlydiverseresidentialareashometocommunitiesthat
havetheiroriginsinBangladesh,theCaribbean,China,Cyprus,India,Ireland,Nigeria,Pakistan,Turkey
andVietnam.FurthersouthstillthereisDulwich,oneofSouthwark’smoreaffluentresidentialareas.
Overall,Southwarkranksasthe17thmostdeprivedboroughinBritainandthesixthmostdeprivedin
London.ItseconomicinactivityrateishigherthantheLondonaverageat27.1percent(compared
with25.4percent)(AnnualPopulationSurvey2004).
Ethnicprofile
LikemostofinnerLondon,Southwarkishighlyculturallydiverse.ThewhiteBritishpopulationmakes
up52percentoftheborough’spopulation,whileblackorblackBritishmakeup25.9percent.(See
table3.3,nextpage.)
ChallengestocohesioninSouthwark
Takingthestandardnationalindicators,Southwarkappearstobearelativelycohesiveboroughand,
furthermore,cohesionhasincreasedinrecentyears:in200686percentofSouthwarkresidentsfelt
that‘thislocalareaisaplacewherepeoplefromdifferentbackgroundsgetonwelltogether’.Thisis
abovethenationalaveragein2005of80percent.Itisalsoasignificantincreaseonthe2004result
of74percent.Southwarkisinlinewiththenationalaverageintermsofthepercentageofpeople
25
ippr|OneLondon?ChangeandcohesioninthreeLondonboroughs
Table3.3.EthnicprofileofSouthwark,2001
Percentageofpeopleinethnicgroups,2001
White:
63%
British
52.2%
Irish
3.1%
Other
7.7%
Mixed:
3.7%
WhiteandBlackCaribbean 1.4%
WhiteandBlackAfrican
0.8%
WhiteandAsian
0.6%
Othermixed
1.0%
AsianorAsianBritish:
4.1%
Indian
1.5%
Pakistani
0.5%
Bangladeshi
1.5%
OtherAsian
0.6%
BlackorBlackBritish:
25.9%
Caribbean
8.0%
African
16.1%
Otherblack
1.8%
Chineseor‘other’ethnicgroup
3.3%
Chinese
1.8%
Other
1.5%
Source:SouthwarkVitalStatistics2006from2001Census.
www.southwarkalliance.org.uk
sayingthat‘thislocalareaisaplacewhereresidentsrespectethnicdifferencesbetweenpeople’(83
percent),upfrom71percentin2004.
Onthefaceofit,therefore,Southwarkappearstobedoingwell,particularlyintheareasofrace,faith
andculturaldifference.However,therewereanumberofcohesion-relatedchallengeshighlightedin
thecourseofthisresearch.Thefirst,aswithbothHounslowandBarkingandDagenham,isthe
challengeofpopulationchangefromimmigrationandLondon’srelativelyhighratesofresidential
mobility.Thisposesachallengetolocalauthoritieswhosefundingissetaccordingtorelativelyold
dataandmeansthattherearenotnecessarilytheresourcestomeetchangingneeds.Thisisa
challengecommontolocalauthoritiesacrossLondon.
OneofthebiggestproblemshighlightedtotheauthorinSouthwarkwastodowithinter-generational
conflict.Inparticularthismanifestsitselfinfearsamongoldergenerationsaboutcrimeand
communitysafety,andamongyoungergenerationsasensethattheyarebeingheldundersuspicion,
oftenfordoinglittlemorethan‘hangingaround’.ipprresearchshowsthatfearofyoungpeople
gatheringinpublicspacesisoneofthekeyfactorsaroundthecountryleadingpeopletoperceive
thereismuchmorecrimethanthereactuallyis(DixonandMargo2006).AccordingtoSouthwark
Council’sresidents’surveys,streetcrimeandyouthcrimearethetwohighestareasofcommunity
concern.Thereisalsoevidenceofyouthgangactivityintheborough,whichcanleadtoviolent
conflictbetweenyoungpeoplefromdifferentneighbourhoods.
Southwarkisalsoaboroughinwhichwealthandpovertylivecheekbyjowl,astheydoinmuchof
innerLondon.Aswehaveseen,inequalityhasbeenfoundinternationallytobeamajorcauseofhigh
levelsofcrimeandlowlevelsofsocialtrust(Wilkinson2005).CouncilofficersinSouthwarkpointed
26
ippr|OneLondon?ChangeandcohesioninthreeLondonboroughs
outthattherearenotjustinequalitiesbetweenrelativelypoorandrelativelywealthyareas,butalso
withinquitesmallgeographicalareas,‘leadingtotheexistenceofparallellivesinthesamestreetand
neighbourhood’.Gateddevelopmentsandseparateeducationalarrangementscanmeanthat
neighbourhoodsdevelopinwhichthereisalackofneighbourlinessorsharedexperiences.
Finally,Southwarkhasamuchhigherproportionofresidentsexperiencingmentalhealthproblems
thaninEnglandasawhole:thePrimaryCareTrustestimatedin2004thattheboroughwas17.5per
centabovethenationalaverageaccordingtotheMentalIllnessNeedsIndex(SouthwarkHealthand
SocialCare2004).ThisislikelytobebecauseSouthwarkishometotheMaudsleyHospitalbasefor
theSouthLondonandMaudsleyNHSFoundationTrust(SLaM),whichisthelargestandoldest
mentalhealthtrustinEuropeandprovidesarangeofhighlyspecialisedservicesforpeoplewithmetal
healthproblems.Relationsbetweenthosesufferingfrommentalhealthproblemsandthewider
communityarethereforealsoseenasamajorcohesionchallengeintheborough.
CouncilresponsesinSouthwark
Southwarkwasoneofthe2003CommunityCohesionPathfindersandassuchhaslongtakenissues
ofcohesionseriouslyandexperimentedinpracticalwaysofpromotingitontheground.Asone
officercommentedtoippr,‘practiceguidesourthinkingoncohesion’.
AccordingtoSouthwarkCouncil’ssubmissiontotheCommissiononIntegrationandCohesion,
cohesionisinterpretedlocallyas:
‘Workingtowardsasetofsocialrelationshipswhere:
• Thereisanabsenceoftensionsandharassmentbetweenpeopleofdifferentcultures,races,ages,
faithsandlifestyles
• Thereismutualunderstandingandrespectbetweenpeopleofdifferentcultures,races,ages,
faithsandlifestyles
• Thereispositiveinter-personalcontactandengagementwithindailylifebetweendifferentgroups
• Whilerespectingdiversity,therearesomesharedvaluesbetweendifferentgroupsabout
acceptable/unacceptablebehavioursandattitudes’.
(Southwark2007:2)
Whereasthenationaldefinitionofcohesionisholistic,butprioritisationandfundinghavetendedto
focusonissuesofraceandfaith,itisnotablehowSouthwarktakestheholisticnatureofcohesion
throughintoitsstrategicpriorities,movingwellbeyondthetraditionalcommunitycohesionparadigm.
Asonecouncilofficercommentedtoippr,‘Focusingonraceandfaithmayinitselfbedivisive.’
Indeed,thefourkeycohesionchallengeshighlightedbySouthwarkinitssubmissiontothe
Commissionarealonginter-generational;inter-ethnic,faithandcultural;inter-ability;andinterincomedivides.
PolicyofficersstressedtotheauthorthatSouthwark’sthemesemerged‘frombelow’,through
processesoflong-standingcommunityengagement,inparticulartheborough’scommunity
developmentworkcoordinatedthroughitsCommunityInvolvementandDevelopmentUnit(CIDU).
UnlikeBarkingandDagenhamandHounslow,theCouncildoesnothaveacommunitycohesion
strategyassuch,butitdoesemployaCommunityCohesionCoordinatorataseniorleveland
mainstreamsworkinthisarealargelythroughitsexistingCommunityDevelopmentandInvolvement
Unit.Throughinterviewswithcouncilofficersandpartneragencies,itbecameclearthatawareness
washighofhowdifferentaspectsofpolicyrelatetocohesion.Thisshowsthataseparatestrategyis
notnecessarilyneededinordertoworktowardsastrategicobjective.Oneofficercommentedthat
distinctivestrategiescanrunthedangerofcompartmentalisingastreamofwork,ratherthan
mainstreamingit.
OneofthemostnotableaspectsofSouthwark’sapproachtocohesionisthatitflowsthroughthe
LocalStrategicPartnership’sexistingworkoncommunitydevelopment,ledbytheCIDU.First,
Southwarkseespromotingactivecitizenshipasbeingakeydriverofcohesion.Theboroughishostto
27
ippr|OneLondon?ChangeandcohesioninthreeLondonboroughs
anActiveCitizensHub,basedattheVolunteerCentreSouthwark,whichaimstopromotecommunity
activism.Itdoesthisbyprovidingtrainingandsupport:runningtrainingcoursesonhowtobecomea
magistrateoraschoolgovernor,onmythsaroundissueslikeasylumandimmigrationandonthe
volunteeringopportunitiesavailableintheborough.
TheHubputsona‘Beup,Speakout’daywhichprovidestrainingonpublicspeaking,helpingtoraise
people’sconfidence.Thereistailoredtrainingforparticularcommunitiesofinterest,suchasfaith
groupsandtheLGBTcommunity.TheHubalsoactsasaplacethatsignpostslocalpeopletodifferent
eventsandactivities,andplaysaroleinfluencingstrategyattheLocalStrategicPartnershiplevel,to
makesureactivecitizenshipistakenintoaccountinmainstreamdecision-making.
AnotheraspecttothecommunitydevelopmentapproachinSouthwarkisitsneighbourhoodsagenda,
whichisbasedarounditseightCommunityCouncils.Thesearemadeupoflocalresidents,
stakeholdersandcouncillors,althoughonlycouncillorshavethepowertovote.Theyhaveexecutive
powersover£3millionoffundingforliveabilityissuessuchascommunitysafety,trafficmanagement
andenvironmentalimprovements.Councilofficersestimatethatsomeattractaround80to100
residentsandtheyhavedrawnupactionplansonliveabilityissuesintheirareas.Theseforumsare
backedupbyareamanagerswhocoordinateservicesineacharea,supportedbycommunity
developmentworkers.
ThereisamoreintensiveneighbourhoodpartnershipinSouthBermondsey,whichismadeupofa
boardofresidentsandothers,alongwiththemedsub-groupstofocusonspecificquestions.Thishas
asoneofitsobjectivestomakeSouthBermondsey‘aplacewherepeopleofallagesandculturescan
liveandgetonwellwitheachother’andithasputonarangeofculturalinitiativestotrytofoster
cross-generationalandcross-culturalcontact.ThesehaveincludedaStGeorge’sDayfestival,local
historytours(includingablackhistorytour)andhistoryclubsinlocalschools.
Interestingly,Southwarkhasaddressedhead-onthedifficultsubjectofnationalidentityandhowthis
relatestothechallengeoffosteringasharedsenseofbelonging.Itsapproachtothesequestionsis
setoutinitssubmissiontotheCommissiononIntegrationandCohesion,inwhichitsays:
‘Integrationisaboutpeoplehavingasenseofbelonging.Thisdoesnotmean
buyingintoanunchanginghistoricalidentity.RatherthepeopleofSouthwark
havedescribed‘Englishness’asbeingabouttoleranceandasenseofhumour,
aboutrespectingdifference,aboutabsorbingandcelebratingthebestofall
cultures,abouttheabilitytoembraceandadapttochange.Thisisacomplex
positionandonewhichstraddlesthesingle/multiculturedebate.’(Southwark
2007:2)
Thecouncil’sfocusonthesequestionscameafteritreceivedcomplaintsthatitwasnotdoing
anythingtocelebrateStGeorge’sDay,whichonecouncillorclaimedhadbeencapturedbythefar
right.Inresponsethecouncilranaconsultationprocess,engagingresidentsinadiscussionabout
whatEnglishnessmeanttothemandwhetherandhowitcouldbecelebrated.Thecouncilproduceda
booklet‘ASenseofBelonging’whichsetoutresidents’differentviews.Thiswasintendedtobe
thought-provokingandthroughdisseminationitwashopeditwouldstartamaturediscussionaround
issuesofidentity.Reflectingontheprocess,theauthorssay:
‘Whenwestartedwedidnotknowwheretheconversationwouldtakeus.
Everyonewhotookparthasofferedseriousreflectionsabouttheworldwe
liveinandtheirhopesforthefuture.Attimesithasbeenscary,touchingon
sensitivitiesthatmostlyremainunsaid.Atothersithasbeenexhilaratingand
liberating,offeringvisionsforafuturethatthrivesondiversityandchange.’
(SouthwarkAlliance2005:28)
Aswehaveseen,youthcrimeanddisengagementisviewedinSouthwarkasamajorchallenge.Some
oftheworkbeingdoneonthisispreventativeanddiversionary:forinstance,theNunheadand
Peckhamanti-gangschemehassupportedyoungpeopletoresearchgangcultureandotherlocal
communityissues.Theprojectaimedtobringyoungerpeopleintocontactwitholderpeopleinthe
28
ippr|OneLondon?ChangeandcohesioninthreeLondonboroughs
communityandprovideadiversionaryactivity.
Thereareotherprojectsthataimtoprovideintensivesupportandinterventionwithindividualyoung
people.‘FromBoyhoodtoManhood’isayouthprojectofnationalprominence,basedinSouthwark,
whichseekstotacklelowself-esteemamongyoungboysandprovidethemwithstablepositiverole
models.Ittakesboysexcludedfromschool,referredbylocalauthorities,youthoffendingteamsand
socialservicesandprovidesacomprehensiveregimeofday-timeeducation.
ByhighlightingissuesofmentalhealthSouthwarkhastakenitsholisticunderstandingofcommunity
cohesionintoterritorythatdoesnottypicallygetdiscussedunderthebannerof‘cohesion’.SLaM
NHSFoundationTrusthasastrategicaimto‘gobeyondthelimitsofhealthservicestopromote
mentalwell-beingincommunities’(SLaM2007).
Therearetwostrandstothiswork,bothofwhichrelatetolocalworkoncohesion:first,itinvolves
helpingpeoplewithmentalhealthproblems,combatingthestigmaattachedtothemandpromoting
inclusion.Thisincludesworkingwithidentifiedpupils,trainingteachersandfrontlinestaffinmental
healthawarenessandprovidingparentingskillssupport.Secondthereisabroaderagendaabout
promotingmentalwell-being,whichisinitselfpartoftheproductoflivinginsafeandcohesive
communities.AsoneintervieweewhoworksfortheTrusttoldtheauthor:‘Itisimportantto
understandthatmentalwell-beingisnotsomethingyouhaveoryoudon’t,we’realltodegreeswell
andunwellatdifferenttimes’.Strongsocialnetworksandasenseofbelongingareseenasbeingone
ofthekeydriversofmentalwell-being.
Summary
Londonisacityofgreatcontrastsandwehaveseenthateachboroughfacesdifferentcohesionrelatedchallenges.Working-class,post-industrialBarkingandDagenhamisdifferentfrommixed
inner-citySouthwark,whichinturnfacesdifferentchallengestoanouter-Londonboroughlike
Hounslow.However,itispossiblewithinthatdiversitytoidentifysomecommoncross-London
challengestocommunitycohesionandhighlightthekindofpolicyinterventionsthatlocalagencies
havefoundtobeparticularlyeffectiveontheground.
Allthreeboroughsaredealingwiththeconsequencesofthemajorsocialchangesthathaveresulted
fromLondon’sprosperouseconomyandevermorediversepopulation.Economicgrowthhasbrought
jobs,risingincomesandregenerationtoLondon,whileincreasedculturaldiversityisoneofthethings
thatresidentsrepeatedlysaytheylikemostaboutlivinginthecapital(CabinetOffice2004).However,
rapidchangealsoposeschallenges,whichlocalagencieshavetorespondto.
Intheleastdiversedeprivedcommunities,suchastheextentofBarkingandDagenhamandinthe
westernareaofHounslow,demographicchangehasfedintorisingcommunitytensions.Thisis
becausechangehasalsobeenaccompaniedbypressuresonresources,includingashortageofsocial
housingandalackofaccesstoskilledwork.Thesetensionshavecreatedamarketforextremist
politics,seenintheelectionof12BNPcouncillorsinBarkingandDagenhamandagrowingvotefor
theNationalFrontinHounslow.InthewesternareaofHounslowthishasledtoashockingnumberof
racistincidents,largelybywhitepeopleonmembersofthearea’sgrowingBMEcommunity.
Highlevelsofresidentialmobility,concernaboutcrimeandanti-socialbehaviourandthegrowthof
Box3.1ThecohesionchallengesfacingLondon
• Highratesofpopulationchange,duetoadynamicandsuccessfuleconomy
• Scarcityofmaterialresourcessuchashousing,skillsandwell-paidemployment,whichcanresultinrapidpopulation
changefuellingcommunitytensions,especiallyinpreviouslylessdiverseareas
• Lowerlevelsofsocialcapital(networks,normsandtrust)thanotherpartsofBritain
• Highlevelsofchildpovertyandincomeinequality
• Inter-generationaltensions,inparticulartriggeredbyconcernaboutyouthcrimeandanti-socialbehaviour.
29
ippr|OneLondon?ChangeandcohesioninthreeLondonboroughs
singlelivinghavealsomeantthatLondonboroughshavehadtoworkextrahardtofosterthekindof
socialnetworksandstrongcommunityrelationshipsthatdevelopmoreeasilyinmorestable
communities.InBarkingandDagenhamfocusgrouprespondentswereconcernedaboutaperceived
declineinpeopleknowingtheirneighboursandariseincrime.
Therateofchangeposesfurtherchallengestolocalauthoritiesintermsofmeetingfastevolving
needs:mostofthepopulationdataonwhichgovernmentgrantsaredeterminediswoefullyoutof
date,staffandpupilturnoverinschoolsarehigherthanelsewhereinthecountry,fewerpeopleare
enrolledwiththeirlocalGPthanintherestofBritain.
EconomicgrowthhasbeenanunequalprocessinLondon:wehaveseenagradualprocessofincome
polarisation,wherebyevermoreaffluentareaspullawayfromtherest.Weknowthathighlevelsof
inequalitytendtoleadtomorecrime,lesscivicparticipationandlowerlevelsofsocialcapital.
Moreover,materialdeprivationcanintensifyconflictsoversharedgoods,suchassocialhousing,
childcareandemployment.
Inter-generationaltensionsarealsoasignificantproblemforcohesionacrossthecapital.Olderpeople
areconcernedaboutyoungerpeoplehangingaroundingroupsonstreetcorners.Youthcrimeand
anti-socialbehaviourrepeatedlycameacrossasamajorissueamongresidentsinallthreeboroughs.
Disenfranchisedyoungpeoplearealsovulnerableinsomecommunitiestobeingrecruitedbypolitical
extremists,inparticularfromthefarrightandfromradicalreligiousgroups.SupportingLondon’s
youngpeopletonegotiatethecapital’schangingeconomyandsocietyisakeycommunitycohesion
challengeforpolicymakers.
Thissectionhasalsosetouthowtheseboroughshavesoughttotacklethesevariouschallenges,such
asbymainstreamingcommunitycohesionthroughtheirwork,bydevelopingaclearvisionfortheir
areasbasedaroundsharedvalues,byimprovingbasicservicequalityandseekingtoimproveaccessto
scarceresources,bydevolvingmorepowerstolocalneighbourhoods,byfacilitatingcross-community
contactorbydeliveringfocusedsupportforvulnerableyoungpeople.Thenextsectiondrawson
theselessonsfromeachofourcasestudiestodevelopaholisticframeworkforfosteringcommunity
cohesionatthelocallevel.
30
ippr|OneLondon?ChangeandcohesioninthreeLondonboroughs
4.RecommendationsforfosteringcohesioninLondon
Thereisnosinglemagicbulletforgoodcommunityrelations.Socialcohesionrequiresasustained
efforttoresolvepooraccesstoandintensecompetitionforscarceresources,suchasgoodjobs
andsocialhousing.Resolvingorlesseningmaterialinjustices,however,willnotonitsownbe
sufficient.Thereisalsoaneedtoworkmoredirectlyatthelevelofattitudesandrelationships.
Lessonsfromourcasestudies
1.Leadership
Localauthoritieshavealways,acrosstherangeoftheirpolicies,affectedcommunitycohesion.
Sometimesthishasbeeninanegativeway,oftenthroughignoranceratherthanintent.For
example,theslumclearancesofthepost-warperiodwereheldtohaveweakenedoldersocial
networks.Thehigh-risedevelopmentsthatreplacedthemarewidelybelievedtohaveisolated
familiesandaffectedtrustandneighbourliness.However,beyondtheseincidentaleffects,local
authoritieshavealsoattemptedtodeliberatelyfostercohesivecommunities:publicspaceshave
beendesignedtoencouragepeopletointeract,andanti-racismstrategieshaveprovided
leadershiptochallengeprejudiceinthecommunityanddriveoutdiscriminatorypractices.Before
thephrase‘communitycohesion’cameintonationalpublicpolicyparlance,therefore,local
agencieshadlongbeenworkinginthisspace.
However,giventhenatureofthechallengesthatbothLondonandtheUKasawholenowface,
thetimehascomeforauthoritiestothinkmorecarefully,strategicallyandsystematicallyabout
howtopromotegoodrelationsbetweenpeoplefromdifferentwalksoflife.
Prioritisationcanbeputintopracticeinarangeofdifferentways.AsthecaseofSouthwark
shows,itisnotalwaysnecessarytohaveaseparateanddistinct‘communitycohesionstrategy’.
Whatismoreimportantisthatthereisclearpoliticalandmanagerialleadershipontheissuesuch
thatcohesionissuesaremainstreamedintotheworkofalldepartmentsandlocalbodies.Oneway
ofprovidingthisleadershipisbymakingcohesionaprominentcomponentofthelocalCommunity
Strategy,whichisadoptedbyallmembersoftheLocalStrategicPartnership.Indoingthis,
however,itisimportanttofocusonhowsuccesswillbemeasuredandtohaveclearexpectations
ofalltheagenciesinvolved.
Prioritisationcanalsobeachievedbyemployingseniorofficerswhoseroleitistocoordinateand
monitorworkoncohesionandthinkstrategicallyabouthowlocalagenciesareaffectingit.
Finally,asinBarkingandDagenham,puttingcohesionundertheremitoftheLeaderofthe
Councilsendsanimportantsignalabouthowseriouslythelocalpoliticalleadershiptakesthe
issue,amessagethatshouldfilterdownthroughthestaffstructure.
2.Tacklingmaterialdeprivationandimprovingbasicservices
Communitytensionsemergeveryoftenbecauseofrealorperceivedinequalitiesinthedistribution
ofscarceresources,andbecauseoffrustrationwiththequalityoflocalservices.Aswesawin
BarkingandDagenham,thelackofaffordablehousinginLondonisonecrucialdriverofthisand
resolvingthecapital’shousingshortagewillbeessentialinreducingthesetensionsovertime.
Councilleadershipandcommunicationsstrategiescanonlydosomuch:iffamiliesareona
housingwaitinglistoratransferlist,livinginovercrowdedconditionsorintemporary
accommodation,theywillbeunderstandablyfrustratedandarelikelytobecomeresentfulof
otherswhotheyperceivetobedoingbetterthantheyare.Explaininghowtheallocationsystem
works,whateveritsmeritsinprinciple,isunlikelytoreallyaddressthesefrustrationsandthesense
ofdisempowermentthatcomeswiththem.
Frustrationswithso-called‘crimeandgrime’issuescanalsoheightencommunitytensions,aswe
foundinBarkingandDagenham.Thepoorqualityofthephysicalenvironmentandaperceived
riseinanti-socialbehaviourinsomeareaswerebelievedtobeamajorfactorinvotersturningto
theBNP.Ifthecouncilistopreventextremismofthatkind,itwillneedtogetthoseimportant
31
ippr|OneLondon?ChangeandcohesioninthreeLondonboroughs
‘cleaner,safer,greener’issuesright.
Localauthoritiestypicallydonotseetheireconomicdevelopmentroleaslinkedtotheir
communitycohesionobjectives,buttheyshould.Thisisbecauseensuringthatlocalresidentscan
benefitfromeconomicgrowth,intermsofgoodjobsandincomes,islikelytoreducecommunity
tensionsthatmightotherwiseexistwhenpeopleareforcedtocompeteforscarceopportunities
andresources.ButitisalsobecausetacklingLondon’shighlevelsofeconomicinactivitywillbring
morepeopleintotheworkplace,whichisanimportantsiteofsharedcontactbetweenpeople
fromdifferentbackgrounds.
3.Tension-monitoringandabilitytoreact
Localagenciesneedtobereadyfor‘trigger’issuesthatmightleadtounderlyingtensionscoming
outintotheopen.Theyneedtogettheirintelligenceright:ifpeopleareconcernedaboutissues
likeimmigrationorhousing,agenciesneedtoknowaboutitinadvance;iflocalyouthsarebeing
recruitedtoextremepoliticalorganisations,theyneedtobeawareofit.Thismeansensuringthat
thecouncil’scommunityengagementinfrastructureisrobustandthatitisconnectedtotheright
people,infaithgroups,acrossthegenerationsandineveryneighbourhood.Toooftenagencies
havebeen‘takenbysurprise’byevents,suchasalocalelectionfoughtonimmigrationlinesor
thearrestoflocalyouthsonterrorismcharges.Asoneofficersaid,councilsneedtobecarefulofa
‘veneerofcohesion’andmustnotbecomecomplacent;insteadtheymustgetbelowthesurface
tounderstandwhatisconcerningpeople.
Readinessalsomeanshavingarobustsysteminplacetocommunicatewithkeypeopleasand
whenthingshappen.Thelocalpolicehaveanimportantrolehere,especiallywiththeongoing
counter-terrorismoperationsinthecapitalmakingitlikelythatfurtherarrestswillhappen,which
bytheirverynaturewilltakelocalcommunitiesbysurprise.Thereareinnovativewaysofkeeping
peopleinformedandexplainingwhatishappening,suchashavingatextmessagingnetworkin
place,asinHounslow.Widercommunicationduringsucheventsisalsoveryimportantandin
particularlocalfiguresrepresentingthediversityoftheareashouldbereadytoprovidealeadand
expresstheneedforunityandtolerance.
4.Promotingsharedvalues
Beingclearaboutthesharedvaluesmostofussharecangivecommunitiessomereferencepoints
aroundwhichtheycanfindvitalcommonground.Processesofengagingcommunitiesin
discussionsaroundthevaluesthatshouldunderpinlocaldecision-makingisunlikelytoyieldmany
surprises.Mostofusbelieveindemocracy,freespeech,theruleoflaw,religiousfreedomandso
forth.However,theprocessitselfmightaidcommunitycohesionbydemonstratinghowmuch,for
allourdifferences,mostpeopleagreeonthebasicsofhowweshouldalllivetogether.Moreover,
asinBarkingandDagenham,suchaprocesscanhelplocalauthoritiesunderstandwhichvalues
peopleprioritiseandthekindoflanguagetheyexpressthemin.
Beingexplicitaboutthebasicprinciplesunderpinningthewaywelivecanhelptosetparameters
aroundtheactivitiesandattitudesthataredesirableandthosethatareintolerable.Thisis
particularlyimportantindealingwiththecontroversialissueofpoliticalextremism.Inorderto
understandwhatisextreme,weneedtoknowwhatisnotextremeandwhatitisthatmostofus
fromallbackgroundsvalueaboutourcommunity.
Oncethesevaluesaresetout,theycanhelptoorientatethelocalauthority’sresponseto
differentevents.Forexample,therewerecallsinSouthwarktocelebrateStGeorge’sDay.The
councilaccededtothis,butwantedtoavoidtheseeventsbeingcapturedbythefarrightand
usedforpoliticalends.Ithelpedfacilitatetheeventbutalsoprovidedguidanceandresponsible
leadershipinseekingtoguidedebateintheboroughaboutwhat‘Englishness’meant.Itdidthis,
oftentouchingonsensitiveissues,throughculturalactivitiesandabroaderconsultationand
disseminationexercise.
32
ippr|OneLondon?ChangeandcohesioninthreeLondonboroughs
Thereisalsoaroleforlocalauthoritiesincommunicatingthesesharedvalues,inparticularin
combatingextremismandprejudice.Theroleofthelocalmediaisparticularlyimportanthere.
Researchhasshownthatadversemediaheadlinesaroundissuesliketerrorism,asylumand
immigrationcanveryquicklyspreadmythsandinflamecommunitytensions(Lewis2005).
EstablishinganongoingconversationwithlocalnewseditorswasshowninHounslowtohave
significantlychangedthenatureofreportsappearinginthelocalpress.Therewillalwaysbea
healthytensionbetweenafreepressandlocalpoliticians,butitisimportantthateveryone
understandstheeffectoftheiractionsonwidercommunitytensionsandthattheydonot
inadvertentlystirupproblemsthroughsensationalistheadlines.
5.Establishingaframeworkforsocialcapital
Fosteringinteractionand‘bridging’socialcapitalbetweendifferentgroupsisoneofthekey
driversofcommunitycohesion.Thereareanumberofwaysinwhichthecasestudyboroughs
approachedthis,butonethatshowedparticularlygreatpromisewasthepromotionofactive
citizenship.Byprovidinginformation,trainingandmaterialresourceslikeroomsandstationery,
theActiveCitizensHubinSouthwarkisprovidingabasicinfrastructurethatshouldincreasethe
numberofresidentsbecomingactivelyinvolvedintheircommunities,asschoolgovernors,as
magistrates,asformalorinformalvolunteers.Thisshouldmeanthatmorepeopleareableto
interactandhavecontactwithpeoplefromdifferentbackgroundstotheirown.
Anotherkeymethodofpromotingsocialcapitalisthroughareadevolutionandneighbourhood
management.Everyboroughwasexperimentingindifferentwaysofdoingthis,butthereare
someclearkeystosuccess:
• Areasshouldreflectlocalcommunitiesandexistinglocalterritorialidentities.Peoplehaveto
recogniseandidentifywiththeareaifanarea-basedstructureistogetmorepeopleengaged
inlocalaffairs.
• Mostoftheboroughsfoundthatafocusonthe‘cleaner,safer,greener’agenda,suchasby
providingfundstodealwithproblemsofcrime,trafficandrubbish,wasthebestwaytoget
‘quickwins’andengagelocalresidents.
• Alllocalpartnersshouldbebroughttogether,throughaformofneighbourhood-level
strategicpartnership.Peoplewanttobeabletoturnupanddiscusswhateverissueconcerns
themmostanddonotwanttobetoldtheyneedtogothroughadifferentlocalstructureto
getanswersoraction.
Onefinalwayoffosteringinteractionisthroughculturalandsportingeventsthatgenuinelybring
peopletogether.Itiscrucialthatcouncilscontinuetosupporteventsthatcelebratedifferent
groupidentities,butitisalsovitalthattheseareopentoandcommunicatedtoeveryone.
Moreoverlocalauthoritiesshouldlooktoexistingpopularevents,suchastheDagenhamTown
Show,asopportunitiestopromotesharedexperiences.
6.Promotingasharedsenseofbelonging
Aswehaveseen,creatingaframeworkthroughwhichpeoplecanidentifywithoneanotheras
residentsofacommonplaceandinwhicheachcanfeeltheybelong,isanimportantwayof
promotingsocialcohesion.
Inpracticaltermsthisinvolvestwostrandsofwork.
First,aswithsharedvalues,alocalauthorityshoulduseitspublicvoicetoarticulateaninclusive
understandingofitsarea’sidentity.Inotherwords,thisisanareathatishometomanydifferent
people,buttheycanallfeelthatitishome.Thiscanbedonethroughcampaignstoraise
participationinlocalactivitiesbyappealingtoasenseoflocalpride.Importantanddistinctive
locallandmarksoriconicbuildingsthatarevaluedbypeoplefromalldifferentbackgroundscanbe
usedtosymbolisethatinclusivelocalidentity.
Ofcourse,inLondonthisismadeespeciallycomplexbythefactthatboroughsarepoliticalunits
33
ippr|OneLondon?ChangeandcohesioninthreeLondonboroughs
withinalargecity,andmaytheirexistinggeographicalidentitiesmaynotresonatewithresidents.
Forthisreason,theMayorofLondon’srecentcampaign‘7MillionLondoners,1London’wasa
welcomeattempttoemphasiseandpromoteacosmopolitan,city-wideidentity.However,
boroughscanalsoappealtomorelocalised,neighbourhood-basedidentitiesasawayof
promotingasharedsenseofbelonging.
Second,sharedidentityformationrequiresabasicstructuralframeworkinplace,whichreturnsto
theearlierpointaboutsocialcapitalformation.Sharedidentitieswillnotdevelopifpeopledonot
mixintheirlocalschools,neighbourhoods,publicspacesandworkplaces.Sharedactionand
sharedidentityfeedoffoneanotherinamutuallysupportiveway.
7.Supportingyoungpeople
OverthecourseofthisresearchwhatcameacrossrepeatedlywastheimportanceofLondon’s
youngpeopletothecohesionofitscommunities.Disenfranchisedyouth,livinginneighbourhoods
withpooryouthfacilitiesandnothingtodo,tendtohangaroundthestreets,causinganxietyfor
otherseveniftheyarenotactuallydoinganythingharmful.Moreover,youngpeoplewhoare
deniedopportunitiesforhousingorbetterpaidworkinacitythatisbyandlargedoingverywell
arelikelytobecomevulnerabletoinvolvementincrimeoranti-socialbehaviourand,inasmall
minorityofcases,receptivetothemessagesofextremepoliticalgroups.
Inresponse,localauthoritiesneedtodothefollowing:
•
First,theyneedtoturntorootcausesanddowhattheycantohelp7youngpeoplehave
accesstodecentjobs,skillsandtraining.
•
Second,theyneedtomakesurethatthereisagoodframeworkofyouthfacilitiesand
educationalopportunitiesinplacetogiveyoungpeoplepositivethingstodoandalsoto
providethemwithpositiverolemodelsandpathwaysthroughwhichtogainstatusandselfesteem.Byhavinginsufficientyouthfacilities,weriskstoringupdifficultyforthefuture.
•
Finally,theyneedtohavesystemsinplacetointervenewhenthingsgowrong.Thereare
someyoungpeoplewhowillneedintensivesupportiftheyaretoavoidalifeofcrimeor
trouble.Theseyoungstersaregenerallyknowntoauthoritiesincludingyouthoffending
teams,socialservices,andthepolice.Theyneedtobereferredtosupportiveprogrammes
thatcanhelpgetthembackontrackandequipthemformovingaheadinlife.Themodelof
detachedoutreachasusedinHounslowhasbeenshowntobeveryeffectiveinworkingwith
particularindividualsandinreducingyouthcrimeratesintargetedneighbourhoods.
Bearingalloftheabovelessonsinmind,intheboxonthefollowingpagewesuggestapolicy
frameworkforlocalauthorities.
34
ippr|OneLondon?ChangeandcohesioninthreeLondonboroughs
ACommunitycohesionpolicyframeworkforlocalauthorities
• Leadership.CommunitycohesionshouldbemainstreamedthroughouttheworkofLocalStrategicPartnershipsby
ensuringhigh-levelresponsibilityfordeliveryandawarenessthroughoutpartnerorganisationsofhowtheirwork
affectscommunitycohesion.
• Tacklingmaterialdeprivationandimprovingbasicservices.Cohesiondependsonimprovingthefairnessofthe
distributionofmaterialresources,includingjobsandhouses.Localagenciesshouldalsofocusondeliveringgood
qualitypublicservices:issuessuchascrimeandthequalityofthelocalenvironmentreallymatterandfeedinto
communitytensions.Whileresolvingthesequestionsisfarbeyondthecapacityoflocalagenciesalone,theyshould
playtheirpart.
• Tensionmonitoringandabilitytoreact.Localagenciesneedtobereadyfor‘trigger’issuesthatmightleadto
underlyingtensionscomingoutintotheopen.Theyneedtogettheirintelligenceright:ifpeopleareconcernedabout
issueslikeimmigrationandhousing,agenciesneedtoknowaboutitinadvance.Thismeansensuringthatthecouncil’s
communityengagementinfrastructureisrobustandthattheyareconnectedtotherightpeople,infaithgroups,across
thegenerationsandineveryneighbourhood.Theyalsoneedtobereadytocommunicatewithkeycommunity
stakeholdersquicklyshouldaneventposeachallengetocommunityrelations.
• Promotingsharedvalues.Beingclearaboutsharedvaluescangivecommunitiesreferencepointsaroundwhichthey
canfindvitalcommonground.Localauthoritiesshouldconsultresidentsaboutthevaluestheybelieveareimportant.
Oncethosevaluesareclear,theyneedtoorientatelocalactionandbecommunicatedinlanguagethatresonateswith
localpeople.Localauthoritiesshoulddeveloppartnershipswithlocalmediainstitutionssothattheyareawareofthe
impacttheyhaveoncommunityrelations.
• Establishingaframeworkforsocialcapital. Fosteringinteractionbetweendifferentgroupsandindividualsisoneofthe
keydriversofcommunitycohesion.Localauthoritiescandothisinthreemainways:
i.Activecitizenship: increasingthenumberofresidentsbecomingactivelyinvolvedintheircommunities,asschool
governors,asmagistrates,asformalorinformalvolunteers.Thisshouldmeanthatmorepeopleareabletointeract
andhavecontactwithpeoplefromdifferentbackgroundstotheirown.
ii.Neighbourhooddevolution:devolvingmorepowerstothelocalneighbourhoodleveltomakedecision-making
moretransparentandtoensurethatservicesaredesignedaroundcommunities’needs.Theyshouldbringtogether
alllocalagenciesinlocalneighbourhoodpartnerships.
iii. Cultureandsport:fosteringinteractionthroughculturalandsportingeventsthatgenuinelybringpeople
together.
• Promotingasharedsenseofbelonging.Creatingaframeworkthroughwhichpeoplecanidentifywithoneanotheras
residentsofacommonplace,inwhicheachcanfeeltheybelong,isanimportantwayofpromotingsocialcohesion.A
localauthorityshouldalsouseitspublicvoicetoarticulateaninclusiveunderstandingofthearea’slocalidentity,such
asthroughcampaignstoraisecivicparticipation.
• Supportingyoungpeople. Localagenciesneedtocontinuetoengagewithandsupportyoungpeople,andbereadyto
interveneproactivelywhenthingsgowrong.Theyneedtoensurethatyoungpeoplehaveaccesstodecentjobsand
opportunities.Agoodframeworkofyouthfacilitiesmustbeinplacetoprovideyoungpeoplewithpositiveleisure
activities.Andfinally,supportiveprogrammesareneededtowhichyoungpeoplecanbereferredwhenthingsgo
wrongforthem.
35
ippr|OneLondon?ChangeandcohesioninthreeLondonboroughs
Conclusion
LondonisverydifferentfromtherestofBritaininanumberofrespects:itismuchmoreculturally
diverse,itspopulationisfarmoredynamicandmobile,anditismuchmorepolarisedbywealth.As
such,thecapitalfacesitsownveryparticularchallengestocommunitycohesion,includinglower
levelsofneighbourlinessandinter-personaltrust,familiesinthesamestreetlivingonverydifferent
incomesandlackingsharedexperiences,andaveryrapidlychangingdemographicmake-upina
contextofgrowingpressuresonbasicresources,especiallyhousing.
Thisreporthassoughttomapoutthesechallenges,aswellaspointingoutthediversityof
experiencesindifferentboroughs.WehaveseenhowinsomepartsofLondontheprincipalresource
challengeisaroundjobsandskills,whileinothersitisaccesstosocialhousing.Wehaveseenthat
whilesomepartsofthecapitalarehighlydiverseandmixed,others(untilrecently)havebeen
relativelyhomogenous.WhileinsomepartsofLondonpoliticalextremismismanifestingitselfinthe
formofthefarright,inotherpartsitcomesintheformofextremepoliticalIslamism.Insomeareas
themostpressingcohesionchallengesarearoundmigrationandethnicdifference,inotherstheyare
aroundinter-generationalmistrust.
ThereporthashighlightedanumberofelementsofbestpracticefrominnerandouterLondon.Ithas
foundthatstrongleadershipisimportantinbothmainstreamingcohesionthroughoutthelocalpublic
sectorandinarticulatingaclearsetofsharedvaluesthatdefinethekindofcommunitieslocalleaders
andresidentswanttobuild.Inaddition,promotingactivecitizenshipandinteractioninthepublic
realmcanhelpbreakdownbarriersbetweenpeoplefromdifferentbackgroundsandhelpthem
identifywithoneanotherassharingthesamefateaslocalresidents.
Wehavealsoseentheimportanceofcontinuingtoworkawayattherootcausesofcommunity
tension:prejudicialattitudes,inequalitiesandintensecompetitionforscarceresources.Andthereport
hasemphasisedtheimportanceofgivingLondon’syoungpeopleabetterstartinlifeandsupporting
themastheynavigateachangingandevermorecomplexcity.
36
ippr|OneLondon?ChangeandcohesioninthreeLondonboroughs
References
NotethatallwebreferenceswerecorrectasofJanuary2008.
BarkingandDagenham(2003)BarkingandDagenhamHousingStrategy2003-2006 London:LB
BarkingandDagenham
BarkingandDagenham(2004)OneCommunity.CommunityCohesionStrategy2004-2007London:
BarkingandDagenhamPartnership
BarkingandDagenham(2007a)‘BarkingandDagenhamBoroughFacts’,atwww.barkingdagenham.gov.uk/3-info/demographic-main.html
BarkingandDagenham(2007b)BarkingandDagenhamSubmissiontotheCommissiononIntegration
andCohesion London:LBBarkingandDagenham
BarkingandDagenham(2007c)NeighbourhoodManagementStrategyMarch2007 London:LB
BarkingandDagenham
BarkingandDagenhamPartnership(2006)PerformanceAssessment2005-2006 London:Barkingand
DagenhamPartnership
BMG(2004) BMGDraftReport.PanelRecruitmentandSurvey.LBHounslow London:BMGResearch
BraggB(2006)TheProgressivePatriot.ASearchforBelonging London:BantamPress
BrownG(2006)‘ThefutureofBritishness’speechtotheFabianSocietyNewYearConference,14
January
CabinetOffice(2004)TheLondonProjectReport London:CabinetOffice
CantleTetal (2001)CommunityCohesion.AReportoftheIndependentReviewTeamLondon:Home
Office
CommissiononIntegrationandCohesion(2007)OurInterimStatement London:DCLG
CRE(2007) CREethnicityprofiles,previouslyavailableatwww.cre.gov.uk
DepartmentforCommunitiesandLocalGovernment(DCLG)(2006)ImprovingOpportunity,
StrengtheningSociety.OneyearOn–AprogressreportontheGovernment’sstrategyforrace
equalityandcommunitycohesionLondon:DCLG
DepartmentforCulture,MediaandSport(DCMS)(2004)BringingCommunitiesTogetherthrough
SportandCultureLondon:DCMS
EqualitiesReview(2006)TheEqualitiesReview.InterimReportforConsultation. London:Cabinet
Office
HomeOffice(2005)CommunityCohesion:SevenSteps.APractitioner’sToolkit London:HomeOffice
andODPM
HewstoneM(2003)‘Inter-groupcontact:Panaceaforprejudice?’ThePsychologist16.7
HomeOffice(2005)ImprovingOpportunity,StrengtheningSociety London:HomeOffice
HomeOffice(2005)PreventingExtremismTogetherLondon:HomeOffice
HomeOffice(2007)‘HateCrime’,availableatwww.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducingcrime/hate-crime
Hounslow(2004)HounslowCommunityPlan.Celebratingdiversity–buildingcohesion2004-2007
London:HounslowLocalStrategicPartnership
Hounslow(2005a)‘CorporateEqualityandCommunityCohesionPlan2005-2008’London:LB
Hounslow
37
ippr|OneLondon?ChangeandcohesioninthreeLondonboroughs
Hounslow(2005b)WestAreaStudyLondon:LBHounslow
Hounslow(2006)ChangingHounslow London:LBHounslow
Hounslow(2007)TheChallengesforIntegrationandCohesion.Council’sresponsetotheCommission
onIntegrationandCohesion London:LBHounslow
HounslowHomes(2006)‘SomaliCommunityDevelopmentProject’,reporttoBestValueandScrutiny
Committee,27February
InstituteofCommunityCohesion(2007)AWindowonExtremism.YoungpeopleinHounslow–a
studyofidentity,socialpressures,extremismandsocialexclusion London:LondonBoroughof
Hounslow
ippr/CREfocusgroupsinBarkingandDagenhamundertakenforthereportbyPillaiR,KyambiS,
NowackaSandSriskandarajahD(2007)TheReceptionandIntegrationofnewMigrant
CommunitiesLondon:ipprtrading/CRE.Previouslyunpublishedquotationstakendirectfromthe
tapes
JacobsJ(2000)TheDeathandLifeofGreatAmericanCities London:Pimlico
JenkinsR(1996)SocialIdentity London:Routledge
JohnP,MargettsH,RowlandDandWeirS(2006)TheBNP.Therootsofitsappeal London:
DemocraticAudit,UniversityofEssex,availableatwww.democraticaudit.com/download/breakingnews/BNP-Full-Report.pdf
KearnsIandMuirR(2006)‘Citizenshipinamulticulturaldemocracy’,availableat
www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page10557.asp
KymlickaW(2001)PoliticsintheVernacular:nationalism,multiculturalismandcitizenship Oxford:
OxfordUniversityPress
LewisM(2005)Asylum:UnderstandingPublicAttitudesLondon:InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch,
availableatwww.ippr.org.uk/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=294
LondonChildPovertyCommission(2007)InterimReportLondon:GreaterLondonAuthority
LondonGovernmentAssociation(LGA)(2004)CommunityCohesion.AnActionGuide London:LGA
MirzaM,SenthilkumaranAandJa’farZ(2007) BritishMuslimsandtheParadoxofMulticulturalism
London:PolicyExchange
MORI(2006)PoliticalMonitor:LongTermTrends,TheMostImportantIssuesFacingBritainToday,
availableatwww.mori.com/polls/trends/issues.shtml
MuirR(2007)TheNewIdentityPoliticsLondon:InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch,availableat
www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=524
OldhamMetropolitanBorough(2004) ForwardTogether.BuildingCommunityCohesioninOldham
Oldham:OldhamMetropolitanBorough
ParkerSandDGoodhart(2007)‘ACityofCapital’,ProspectApril2007
PearceN(2007)‘FairRules:ProceduralFairnessandtheReformofPublicServices’inPearceNandJ
Margo(eds)PoliticsforanewGeneration.Theprogressivemoment.Basingstoke:Palgrave
Macmillan
PhillipsT(2005)‘After7/7:Sleepwalkingintosegregation’,speechgiventotheManchesterCouncil
forCommunityRelations,22September
PutnamR(2000)BowlingAlone.ThecollapseandrevivalofAmericancommunity NewYork:Simon&
Schuster
RogersBandRMuir(2007)ThePowerofBelonging:Identity,citizenshipandcommunitycohesion.
38
ippr|OneLondon?ChangeandcohesioninthreeLondonboroughs
London:InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch,availableat
www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=568
SouthLondonandMaudsleyNHSFoundationTrust(SLaM)(2007)www.slam.nhs.uk/
SouthwarkAlliance(2005)HowtobuildcommunitycohesioninSouthwark.London:Southwark
Alliance
Southwark(2006)‘SouthwarkVitalStatistics’availableatwww.southwarkalliance.org.uk
Southwark(2007)‘SouthwarkCouncilsubmissiontotheCommissiononIntegrationandCohesion’
London:LBSouthwark
SouthwarkHealthandSocialCare(2004)SouthwarkMentalHealthPromotionStrategy London:
SouthwarkHealthandSocialCare
StoneLandRMuir(2007)WhoAreWe?IdentitiesinBritain2007 InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch,
availableatwww.ippr.org.uk/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=525
TraversT,TunstallRandWhiteheadCwithPruvotS(2007)‘Populationmobilityandserviceprovision.
AreportforLondoncouncils’London:LSE,availableatwww.londoncouncils.gov.uk/upload/
public/attachments/997/LSE%20Population%20Mobility%20report%20-%20Feb%202007.pdf
WestLondonPartnershipsonCommunityCohesion(2005)WestLondonPeople London:West
LondonPartnershipsonCommunityCohesion
WetherellM,LaflecheMandBerkeleyR(eds.)(2007)Identity,EthnicDiversityandCommunity
Cohesion London:Sage
WilkinsonR(2005)TheImpactofInequality.Howtomakesicksocietieshealthier NewYork:TheNew
Press
YouJ-S(2005)‘CorruptionandInequalityasCorrelatesofSocialTrust:FairnessMattersMoreThan
Similarity’Workingpaper29,HauserCenterforNonprofitOrganizationsandJFKSchoolof
Government,HarvardUniversity
39
ippr|OneLondon?ChangeandcohesioninthreeLondonboroughs
Appendix1.Listofinterviewees
Southwark
MadelineGreen,CommunityCohesionCoordinator,LBSouthwark
EamonLally,CorporatePolicyExecutive,LBSouthwark
TonyCoggins,SouthLondonandMaudsleyNHSFoundationTrust
JasonNuttall,DeputyManager,ActiveCitizens’Hub
NualaConlon,ServiceManager,CommunityImprovementandDevelopmentUnit,LBSouthwark
LauraZauli,YouthCohesionWorker,LBSouthwark
BarkingandDagenham
HeatherWills,HeadofCommunityServices,LibrariesandHeritage,LBBarkingandDagenham
WendyAhmun,GroupManager,Performance,PolicyandProgrammes,LBBarkingandDagenham
LauraJones,ParticipationManager,HousingCustomerServices,LBBarkingandDagenham
MarkTyson,CommunitySafetyGroupManager,LBBarkingandDagenham
Hounslow
SabinMalik,CommunityCohesionCoordinator,LBHounslow
HowardSimmons,AssistantChiefExecutive,LBHounslow
MickBrent,ManagerofDetachedOutreachTeams,YouthService,LBHounslow
InspectorAdrianBaxter,MetropolitanPolice