Transforming Infrastructure in East Sussex (TIES)

Engagement with Black and Minority Ethnic Communities

Contents

Executive summary 3 Introduction 6 The Local Picture 7 Methodology 8 Results:

 Mapping of local BME organisations 9  Questionnaires targeted at individual members of BME communities 11  Survey targeted at voluntary organisations providing services to communities in East Sussex 14  Questionnaires targeted at a sample of locally-based BME community groups as identified in the mapping exercise 17  Forum events 20  Forum feedback- barriers and strategies 21 Analysis 25 Recommendations 26 Emerging themes 33 Conclusion 34 Appendix 1 Questionnaire targeted at individual members of BME communities 35 Appendix 2 Draft research report which informed the Forums 42

Executive Summary

Three countywide specialist Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) organisations were tasked with working in partnership to research the needs of individuals from BME communities and how those needs could be better met by mainstream voluntary sector service providers. Whilst the 2011 Census data has provided some headline figures concerning ethnicity, the partnership were keen to hear directly from members of BME communities for various reasons including: 1) it is not necessarily the areas with the greatest numbers of BME people where the need for more accessible services is greatest and 2) some BME communities may have been undercounted for various reasons, such as a reluctance to engage with “officialdom” as with many Gypsies and Travellers. Between them, the three partners – Diversity Resource International (DRI), Friends, Families and Travellers (FFT), and SCDA Sompriti - span a wide variety of individuals and groups. Together, they have collated and distilled a robust report, drawing on a range of methodologies – from online and face-to-face questionnaires to facilitated discussions in the three forum events – in Eastbourne, Hastings and Newhaven - that they led. All three organisations have invested a great deal of time and thought into this process and look forward to seeing the recommendations put into practice. Information was gathered in two phases. The first involved sending out three sets of questionnaires to: a) local BME organisations, b) individual members from BME communities, including Gypsies and Travellers and c) to organisations providing services to communities in East Sussex. The replies were then analysed and used as a springboard for phase 2, three forum events targeted at individual members from BME communities, including Gypsies and Travellers and also mainstream voluntary organisations providing services to communities in East Sussex. The themes that came from the questionnaires given to individuals from BME (including Gypsy and Traveller) communities revolved around difficulties that individuals had accessing voluntary and community groups, a lack of awareness of these groups, where to find them, or how to go about finding them were paramount. Of suggested solutions, these included having a Traveller support worker; information in community languages and interpreting and more easy to read leaflets. The need for better access to interpretation and translation services, working with bilingual advocates and producing promotional material with a specialist agency cropped up repeatedly in the questionnaires from organisations working with BME communities. A key underlying theme is the mismatch in perception between voluntary/community groups and the BME individuals who took part in this survey. The feedback from mainstream voluntary organisations suggests that the reason that few BME people access services is that they do not know about them. However, this in fact does not seem to be the overriding evidence from the research findings. The comments from BME individuals and community groups suggest that whereas many of them are aware of the various services provided, their reluctance to access the services would indicate that the services are not adapted to their needs. Thus many BME individuals failed to use the services or have negative experiences of them.

There is a discrepancy in the rate at which BME individuals are accessing various community and voluntary groups. For instance Citizens Advice Bureaux and information points such as libraries appear to be used relatively frequently. It may be that this variation is to some extent needs related, but it should also be recognised that some organisations are demonstrating good practice in making themselves widely accessible. Individuals access to services is affected by a variety of factors, including language issues, lack of knowledge about services and also by unfriendly or inappropriate attitudes towards BME residents. Ethnic monitoring is seen to be taking place. However, there is little evidence of “bending mainstream services” to meet the needs of BME residents as a consequence of such monitoring.

The three forums run in Hastings, Newhaven and Eastbourne, produced a range of constructive suggestions on how statutory, voluntary and BME groups can work together to overcome existing barriers, build on current best practice and develop new strategies.

Here are the key themes from these forums:

From the outset, involving and/or employing members from BME communities when designing or adapting services or training. This would build the confidence of all parties and develop community “champions” or “super users”. To quote one participant: “If BME individuals become regular service users, they can reach out to others based on trust, positive attitude, happy to help…”

Need to be proactive in reaching out to communities in different ways, to suit different audiences. In reaching out it is necessary to recognise that the umbrella term “BME communities” covers a very wide range of experiences and aspirations. Outreach might include organising community events around a specific theme, such as “adult social care”; outreach advocacy; activities that might be hobby based, such as gardening, cooking. Use current best practice as inspiration.

Clear communication, to ensure that English is jargon free, acronyms are explained and that information about interpreters and bilingual advocacy is available across the County in different formats (online, printed) and in different languages. Allied to clear communication is the need to include simple explanations of key concepts such as “social services”, “respite care” or “depression” - concepts which might not have a direct equivalent in other communities.

Underpinning the need for clear communication and reaching out to different communities, was the recognition of the invaluable role of local community interpreters. A number of participants voiced how important it was to have consistent information about the availability of interpreters, making use of interpreters’ existing contacts and how helpful they were in creating better understanding amongst service providers.

Linked to this was the feeling that there needs to be better provision of effective English classes, ensuring that from the start, students have a say in what kind of English they need to learn and that classes should be more practical and flexible. I.e. organise a trip on public transport and learn about the phrases you need as you go.

Intrinsic to all the work behind this report – the mapping, the questionnaires and the forums – is the value that comes from collaboration and the pooling of resources. Sharing expertise was a common theme and participants expressed a desire to develop resources such as central directory/one stop shop for information about relevant voluntary organisations and service providers, with contact details in different languages. Providing this online would be cost-effective, as long as it was backed up with translated printed material in places like libraries.

The three organisations, Friends, Families and Travellers, SCDA Sompriti and Diversity Resource International, feel that the connections made during the course of this project provide an ideal springboard for change. They are keen that others build on the ideas and interest from the forums, to enable voluntary, statutory and BME organisations to make a real difference to the lives of everyone living in East Sussex. In that sense, this report is just a starting block for transforming infrastructure in East Sussex and we hope it is a positive one.

Introduction

In 2011 3VA, East Sussex, as a lead partner, applied for funding from the Transforming Local Infrastructure fund, funded by the Cabinet Office and delivered by the Big Lottery Fund. 3VA is a Council for Voluntary Service (CVS) formed by the merger of two CVS’ in 2009. The organisation provides services and support for civil society organisations, providing the infrastructure for them to flourish. The Transforming Local Infrastructure funding provided short-term funding focussed on supporting civil society organisations during a period of change. The aim of the Transforming Infrastructure in East Sussex (TIES) project was to offer transformation through integrated support to civil society organisations in East Sussex, to provide a single place for representation, development, volunteering and business support. It was recognised that, despite there being over 50 Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) Civil Society organisations within East Sussex, there was significantly lower take up of infrastructure support by these agencies. Therefore it was proposed that three countywide specialist BME organisations would work in partnership to assist with: 1. Linking BME groups into the Transforming Local Infrastructure (TLI) services which are being transformed and delivered, from service design to implementation; 2. Ensuring BME representation at all levels; 3. Improving accessibility of support for BME groups and 4. Linking BME businesses and groups. Each of the three organisations involved in the partnership were able to bring their own unique expertise to the project: Diversity Resource International (DRI) - Diversity Resource International (DRI) was set up to help organisations to design and run the best possible services, by involving people who need those services – and especially people from migrant and culturally diverse communities and to help people from these communities to access the services they need and to develop the skills and confidence to achieve their goal. Friends, Families and Travellers (FFT) - FFT seeks to end racism and discrimination against Gypsies and Travellers, whatever their ethnicity, culture or background, whether settled or mobile, and to protect the right to pursue a nomadic way of life. SCDA Sompriti- Sompriti works to support people from BME communities across East Sussex by giving confidence to the BME communities to use services and ensuring services are responsive to community needs. A 6 stage delivery programme was agreed which would:

 Map which BME organisations/groups exist, their purpose and what they do  Conduct a survey of individuals from BME communities about how they access services (transform infrastructure from the other end)  Survey of mainstream VCO providers about their relationship with BME communities  Survey BME organisation about their relationship with BME communities, CVS and public sector organisations  Run workshops with BME groups covering, for example, common issues, examples of success and working together

 Finally - Take report on evidence gathering stage to Speakup with series of questions and points for discussion about follow up action (post TIES project). This is that report.

The Local Picture

 According to the 2011 Census the population of East Sussex was 526,671 of which 505,422 or 96.0% were all categories of ‘White’. It should be noted however that some groups that are placed in the ‘White’ category are none the less minority ethnic people e.g. Gypsies and Travellers. The remaining 4.0% comprised ‘all mixed’, ‘all Asian or Asian British’, ‘all Black or Black British’ and ‘other ethnic group’.  Hastings has the highest percentage of non-White people at 6.2%, followed by Eastbourne at 5.9%. Lewes has 3.4%, Rother 2.9% and Wealden 2.5%. Again it should be emphasised that there is a difference in definition between ‘non –White’ and ‘BME’ and that the BME percentages for these areas will be greater than the ‘non- White’ due to a small percentage of the ‘White’ population qualifying as ‘BME’.  Hastings, Rother and Wealden have the largest Gypsy and Traveller populations  Hastings has the largest population of ‘Black’ and ‘Mixed’ ethnic identity  The Lewes area shows a substantial population of ‘Other White’ and ‘Asian’ people of diverse backgrounds  Eastbourne has the largest Other White, Chinese, Asian and Arab populations It is important not to reply solely on these figures for a number of reasons:– (1) It is not necessarily the areas with the greatest numbers of BME people where the need for more accessible services is greatest. Areas which have large minority ethnic populations may have done more to identify and meet the needs of their various communities. Conversely, areas with small BME communities may be ones where the communities are dispersed and where the particular needs of individuals from those communities are less apparent. (2) Some BME communities may have been undercounted for various reasons e.g. a reluctance to engage with ‘officialdom’ as with many Gypsies and Travellers, and the inability of the Census to reach all individuals e.g. transient populations, undocumented migrants etc. Only 815 people were identified as ‘Gypsy or Irish Traveller’ but this is believed to be a huge undercount and that the actual number could be around five times this figure. For the purposes of this project we have disregarded the issue of which parts of East Sussex may have larger BME communities and which may have smaller. We have been mainly concerned with the needs of individuals and how those needs can better be met by mainstream service providers.

Methodology

Data collection was facilitated through five main activities: 1. Mapping of local BME organisations. A snowball sampling method was utilised by the three partner agencies, who used their contacts to identify local BME organisations. 70 organisations were identified.

2. Questionnaires targeted at individual members from BME communities including Gypsies and Travellers. A snowball sampling method was utilised by engaging Development Workers from the three organisations to use their existing networks to identify members from BME and Gypsy and Traveller communities to complete the questionnaire. Snowball sampling has traditionally been identified as a sampling method used to overcome the barrier of engaging so called hard to reach communities, concealed or isolated communities.

3. Survey targeted at voluntary organisations providing services to communities in East Sussex. The lead partner, Sompriti, hosted details of, and links to, the organisational survey on their website. The survey was circulated via the 3VA newsletter and SpeakUp forum members. SpeakUp is a countywide forum for voluntary and community sector representatives in East Sussex. The survey was hosted online for ease of completion.

4. Questionnaires targeted at a sample of locally-based BME community groups as identified in the mapping exercise. DRI used its existing networks to contact a range of BME community groups across East Sussex, emailing each of them a short questionnaire.

5. Forum events targeted at individual members from BME communities including Gypsies and Travellers and organisations providing services to communities in East Sussex. Using a snowball sampling technique, individuals from BME communities were invited to participate in forum events. Voluntary and statutory sector providers were also invited to attend these events.

Results

1. Mapping of local BME organisations In order to map BME organisations within East Sussex, Diversity Resource International (DRI), Friends, Families and Travellers (FFT), and SCDA Sompriti used their knowledge and contacts with communities to produce a comprehensive list of BME organisations within East Sussex. The following list of 70 current organisations was compiled.

Sompriti (SCDA) Friends, Families and Travellers Sussex Traveller Action Group Gypsies and Irish Travellers The Romany Traveller Family History Society Sussex Community Land Trust Seema Eastbourne Mosque (Eastbourne Islamic Cultural Centre) Eastbourne District Chinese Community Association Filipino Group Eastbourne Progressive Jewish Congregation Eastbourne Muslim Women's Association The Shunar Bangla Association Seaford Palm Trees Japanese group African group English in the Community Far East Foundation Sussex Indian Punjab Society Eastbourne Cultural Communities Network Sussex Hungarian Cultural Association Sussex Hungarian Society Sussex Russian Society Christian Rainbow Alliance (Indian) Hastings and Rother Bengali Association Eat Global Forum Hasting Kurdish Welfare Association United African Community in Hastings Hastings Russian Community Kids, Adolescents and Muslim Mums Bangla School Chinese Association Kivu Peace Initiative (Communities Peace Initiative) Hindu Association SEADACS Islamic Information Centre

Diversity Resource International Pestalozzi International Respond Academy Hastings and St Leonards Philipino Association Siddhartha Nepali Society Friends of Africa and Caribbean in England (FACE) Hastings Malayalee Community Association (HMCA) Hastings Iranian Community Women’s Voice Bengali Women Group Rother Race Equality Forum Hastings Mosque Hastings Mosque Bexhill Islamic Association Links Project Bambanani Association Hastings and Rother Interfaith Forum Gizmo Universal Peace Federation (Europe) Hastings Polish Association Hastings and Sierra Leona Links AFRIKABA English in the Community Hastings Asylum Accommodation Forum 18 Hours United Actions for Peace ACIS HOPE-G EatAfrica Prime International SEEMA Horizons Community Learning Centre Hastings Ethnic Minority Advisory Services Friends of Palestine

2. Questionnaires targeted at individual members of BME communities 51 questionnaires were completed by individuals from BME communities, including the Gypsy and Traveller community.

About you All the respondents from the Gypsy and Traveller community were English speaking, none of the other respondents had English as their first language. There were a range of first languages including Arabic, Bengali, Bulgarian, Cantonese, Chinese, Czech, Dari, Farsi, Hindi, Slovak, Sorani (Kurdish), Swahili and Urdu.

Respondents area of residence

18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Eastbourne Lewes Hastings Rother Wealden No area given

Respondents area of residence

29 females and 16 males took part in the questionnaire, 6 respondents did not state their gender.

Age of respondent

18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 75+ Did not state

Age of respondent

Views from BME individuals were captured across a range of age ranges with the peak age range being between 26-35 years old.

Voluntary sector Respondents were provided with a list of voluntary sector groups and information access points (libraries) and were asked to tick as many of the services they had used or were aware of.

Awareness and use of local voluntary services

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Used Aware

The Citizen’s Advice Bureau was named by a number of individuals as both being aware of and of using the service. Individuals also named more specialist voluntary organisations as well as other statutory provision (ESCC Libraries) as a point of access to information.

Respondents were asked whether they had had any difficulties accessing voluntary and community groups due to cultural, language and other barriers.

Difficulties accessing voluntary/ community groups

Yes No Had not tried to access Unanswered

Of those respondents who answered ‘yes’ to the above question, 90% said that their difficulties related to a language barrier. 1 person cited racism as making it difficult to access services. Individuals were asked if they did not use voluntary or community services, why this was. The most common reason for lack of use of services was due to the language barrier. Other reasons included:

 I do not know about them  I don’t know where to find information about groups  I didn’t know there were any kind of groups I could use  I didn’t know how to go about it  Not aware of what is available When asked about what would help individuals to access voluntary sector groups, responses included:

 Having a Traveller support worker  Information in community languages  Interpreting support  More information in easy to read leaflets  Someone to help me contact them

3. Survey targeted at voluntary organisations providing services to communities in East Sussex. 24 organisations completed the online survey. Whilst the survey was open to voluntary and community sector organisations, one return was received from a local authority. The survey was distributed to a range of contacts via SpeakUp. In addition the partnership contacted a number of other local voluntary organisations to encourage them to participate in the survey. This resulted in a 38% response rate.

Organisation specialism

15 10 4 5 2 4 12 0 1 1

Organisation specialism

Those organisations with a targeted population included supporting people with mental health issues, learning disabilities, sensory impairment, medical conditions, disability and young people.

Does your organisation monitor the ethnicity of your client group? If so, which categorisation do you use?

Use of ethnicity monitoring

12.5

87.5

Yes No

The majority of services did monitor the ethnicity of their client group. 91.7% of these organisations used the 2011 Census categories. Other categorization tools included the East Sussex County Council standard form, Equalities and Human Rights Commission form, the categories used by the Legal Services Commission and the standard Citizen’s Advice Bureau monitoring form. Organisations were asked to give reasons for not monitoring the ethnicity of their clients if they did not do so. Reasons for this were varied and included: 3 organisations stated that this was not applicable to their organisation. For others, it was not appropriate due to the nature of the service e.g. immediate crisis intervention. There was some discrepancy regarding this set of questions as only 3 organisations reported that they did not monitor the ethnicity of their clients however 8 organisations responded when asked to give reasons why they did not monitor the ethnicity of their clients.

What percentage of your client base is from BME communities? Do you feel any BME communities are underrepresented and why?

% of clients from BME communities

Under 10% 10 to 25% 26 to 50% 51 to 75% 76 to 99% 100%

10 respondents felt that all or most BME communities were under-represented within their client base. The reasons behind this varied but included: different cultures have a different approach to certain aspects of health and social care and therefore may not access services in the traditional way, some people may not know about the service or may find it difficult to access and individuals may not access organisations because of a lack of understanding or trust regarding certain services. Some felt that certain specific BME groups were under-represented within their service, most notably individuals from new and emerging communities’ e.g. Eastern European countries.

Which methods below do you use to engage with BME communities? Types of engagement

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Provision or Outreach to Cultural Cultural Working with commissioning of specific awareness awareness bilingual interpreting/ communities training for staff training for advocates translation clients/ service services users

Types of engagement

Organisations were asked whether one of the following four options would help their organisation engage with underrepresented groups:

 Better access to interpretation/ translation services;  Co-production of promotional material with specialist agency;  Cultural awareness training and  Working with bilingual advocates Responses from organisations were evenly spread between the four categories.

4. Questionnaires targeted at a sample of locally-based BME community groups as identified in the mapping exercise. 9 questionnaires were returned from the following groups:

 Diversity Resource International  Chinese Association  Kivu Peace Initiative  Diversity Lewes  Association of Community Interpreting Standards  Respond Academy  18 Hours Ltd  Hastings Intercultural Organisation  Hastings Polish Community Association What is the aim of your organisation and the support you are providing to members? Some of the organisations have the aim of supporting BME and migrant organisations in a variety of ways. Others have a particular interest in supporting and promoting local diversity. The organisations’ aims or mission statements include the following objectives:

 To foster community, global and local understanding  To develop, promote and safeguard high professional standards in the field of community interpreting  To integrate the Chinese community with the local community and to deepen understanding of Chinese culture and traditions  To improve people’s knowledge about refugees and migrants, supporting newcomers, challenging cultural stereotypes in service delivery and promoting integration through education  To provide the opportunity for young people in the community to gain new skills in music, media and the creative arts  Creating community cohesion and awareness of all things different worth celebrating  Supporting BME and migrant communities to improve their skills through education and learning  To support BME communities to become more integrated in the community through organising community events and also signposting people to different main stream organisations such as HVA, Care for Carers, HARC, CAB,etc  To provide a platform for communication and meetings and a port of call if Polish people have enquiries about the life in the UK and problems they do not know how to solve. We provide advice and communicate with the wider Polish community rather than just members.

Is your organisation working with all BME communities or are you set up to work with a specific community? Most of the groups were set up to work with all BME communities. Two groups, who were not set up to work solely with BME communities recorded working with 60% BME people and 45% people and another group stated it was working to ensure diverse representation. One group worked specifically with BME people from Chinese communities and another with people from Polish communities.

Which communities do your members come from? Some groups were confident that they were able to make contact with a diverse range of communities. Others, although open to working with all BME communities, reported that there were some groups that were under-represented within their client group. Those groups that were reported to be under-represented were as follows:

 ‘Chinese, Muslim and Indian communities’ and

 ‘Chinese, Central American and new European communities’

How do your clients/service users get to know about you? Respondents gave several ways that their clients got to hear about their group. The most common ways referred to were:

 Word of mouth  Social events  Cultural and religious gatherings  Websites and social media

Other ways of alerting people to their services and of making their services accessible were:

 Assertive outreach to specific communities  Cultural awareness training for staff  Working with a trusted intermediary  Referrals

What prevents people from BME communities from accessing services offered by the Council or by the Community and Voluntary sector? The response to this question included reference to a variety of factors, most of which were provided in a tick –box list that asked respondents to prioritize factors that prevented BME people from accessing mainstream services. The factors that were seen as most influential in preventing access to services were as follows:

 Lack of awareness of services/groups  Lack of understanding about services/groups  Lack of confidence to access services/groups  Cultural and language barriers  Training being required  Needing an advocate or interpreter to support them  Capacity (funding) issues  Having access to alternative support

Do you have any further comments regarding BME people’s access to voluntary and community groups and services? Most of the respondents took the opportunity to make additional comments drawing attention to the lack of outreach and appropriate provision for BME individuals and communities. These comments also make recommendations to for improving

18 communication, access and the delivery of services to BME groups. Comments made included the following:

 Community, charity and voluntary organisations have a long way to go to open their doors genuinely to international communities with complex needs  The Council should approach and communicate more with BME people and groups  They are funded by public sector and operate within their culture, and forget that they are supposed to advocate for us and represent us. …there is no such thing as ‘hard to reach people’... To improve ways we use their services, they have to radically engage with us genuinely rather than ticking boxes and claiming all is nice  Change of archaic government policies that do not take into consideration the unique conditions experienced by people from different ethnic groups  History has shown us that people do not trust a lot of the statutory or voluntary agencies because they are predominantly led by paid, white people who have read the book, had the training on how to talk to ethnic people but don’t know how to talk to ethnic people but don’t know how to have a real relationship or conversation  The need for a forum or network that brings all the various charitable organizations together under one umbrella body that will be crucial in looking at the problems especially experienced by BME groups.  It is difficult to get the wider community engaged. From our experience if people really want to access the service or advice and they have access to the Internet (which the majority do), they usually succeed in getting the information. Some, however, are reluctant to ask our organisation in which case they seek help from their acquaintances or go directly to various service providers.

5. Forum events targeted at individual members from BME communities including Gypsies and Travellers and organisations providing services to communities in East Sussex Three forum workshops were held at different locations throughout the county in January and February 2014. Overall, 78 individuals from BME communities and service providers attended these events. During the forums delegates were presented with the findings to date. Delegates, in groups, were then invited to identify barriers that individuals from BME communities might face. Following this, different groups were asked to suggest strategies to overcome the identified barriers. Delegates were provided with the recommendations which have been recognised from the research to date. Groups were asked to consider each recommendation and to add any good practice or difficult experiences that they were aware of in relation to each of the recommendations.

Forum feedback- barriers and strategies

Barriers Strategies Approaching/ accessibility to services  Community champions to represent services in the Lack of trust and confidence and appropriate feedback, feel community embarrassed because of language, didn’t know service existed,  Health bus to go to traveller site stigma- cultural and religious, finding the right person to speak to,  Involve community members in work planning self-esteem, feeling that the service is not for them, self-  Define what expectations are and what can realistically be management e.g. health, how service providers can access delivered different communities, rural and urban areas, not enough ‘face to  Test usage of services through community led mystery face’ time, lack of understanding, fear of what will happen next, shopping different expectations between service users and service providers  More information, more outreach, more cultural awareness- using the community more  Service needs to say what it does  Social learning e.g. tours of services inference maps  Outreach to communities  Over time individuals from BME may join these organisations and become educated to a level where they could support other individuals from BME communities. This may improve confidence and communication based on similar ethnic origin  More forums  Drop ins in rural areas  Excusive organisations for BME individuals to have better understanding of services  Provide more information regarding existing classes to enable easier access  Outreach clubs in rural areas- village/halls, churches  Multi lingual information available at information centres, libraries etc  Face to face engagement – more use of advocacy services

including outreach advocacy  Central directory (in leaflet form) listing names of all organisations/ service providers and contact details in different languages and distributed in places such as GP surgeries and libraries  Taking time to explain new concepts such as ‘social services’ via interpreters who explain the content  Community events around a specific theme e.g. adult social care  ‘Super users’ to explain what partnerships do Commissioning  Using equality data appropriately Knowledge of service user involvement and experience e.g. hard  Joint responsibility to commission specific NCOs data, monitoring and collection of data, commissioning process  Equality impact assessment- effectively used should take into account BME needs e.g. the need for interpreting  Sharing responsibility for action plan (EQIA) across statutory time and costs, power disparity between mainstream services and bodies local initiatives- community as experts and valuing assets in the  Publish EQIAs in one easily accessible way community, funding cuts- cutting the hours of workers and we  Bilingual advocacy does exist but requires authorisation. don’t get the desired support e.g. Sompriti, no one stop shop for all Revisit how it could work better- service specification, voluntary and public sector services to pull together all bilingual funding model support funding cuts- community groups to make first connection to  Take into account BME needs e.g. including interpreting support access, funding and resources, staff time, service level costs agreements , tendering and monitoring, funding communities,  Process of what really needs to be commissioned locally inconsistent funding, target expectations, equal rights of BME  Commissioners to be aware of long term harm from short communities- therefore need budget allowances ‘sharing the cake’ term failing including BME communities, money- staff and premise  Positive advertising re funders of services so that people know where money is coming from  Openness and sharing of information with communities at the centre  Availability of ESOL  Online services and written information – cost effective Cultural competence  Joint training with community members to address cultural Staff awareness, lack of cultural knowledge, cultural differences, awareness- building confidence being too ‘PC’, assumptions made by organisations, work methods,  Two-way open/ informal discussion and open dialogue use of jargon, attitudes and values of the workforce, a BME person  Cultural awareness training: there are cultural barriers on

22 may be able to speak English but may have cultural barriers and both sides. A lot of the time, service providers see culture may not trust service, ongoing learning, individuals from BME and religion as non-intervention. They need to be supported communities are not one homogenous group, knowledge/ignorance, to have the confidence to challenge people appropriately. cultural issues about the role of women, lack of understanding  Employing workers from BME communities in services to about relevant issues e.g. temporary GP registration schools failing ease access to service to meet the needs of individuals, common sense and respect, taking  Cultural awareness and competency among communities/ time voluntary organisations and statutory services- sharing knowledge and learning  Fear around cultural awareness and to do the right thing  To approach BME communities with a friendly and positive attitude  Cultural exposure  Culturally competent communication strategy: (1) Inward looking- commissioning cycle, cultural competence (2) Outward looking- involved in plan (people), collect data (use it), record preference method, engage and communication (3) Community development- regular development and harness and build capacity  Failure to share information between organisation regarding priority information about BME groups Interpreting and Translating  Interpreters to form the links with other agencies. For the Lack of understanding on how to book interpreting, language, person to make contact with the interpreter sometimes services may decide to translate materials (e.g.  Use plain English more, describe services in jargon free, website) into certain languages but members of communities may clear and concise languages have literacy issues, no sign language in all voluntary services, lack  Language classes may be beneficial, funding needed of promotion for interpreting and bilingual advocacy, leaflets  Bid for funding to improve signage mention providing language hotlines but sometimes when you call  Make an online resource for signage- printing posters in for a specific language leaflet, no one answered or did not multiple languages understand what was being asked for, interpreter has not been  Better marketing available as pre-arranged appointment, despite being confirmed,  Single point of access could then be directed to specialist affordable interpreting, lack of information about where and how services to access English language classes, not understanding English  Information on services: accessible communication to impacts on communication, very few interpreters available when empower individuals, market direct to communities (e.g. needed, members of specific communities might worry about out of area interpreters)

23 interpreters confidentiality, training and awareness regarding how  Better training for interpreters vital interpreting is, need more bilingual advocacy for accessing  Service dictionary- information translated into different services, lack of agencies to support employer, no agencies to languages support with domestic violence, rows with language support, lack  Training/ information to service providers on how to use of professional interpreters rather than family and friends, lack of interpreters with clients language specific essential information, need translation services to  Telephone line could be set up with interpreter ringing back serve a whole community, bilingual staff essential, internal barriers to mainstreaming Policies and procedures  Build into policy development and strategy setting- Information not held centrally, knowledge held by one individual feedback requirements e.g. ask community how they wish to staff member not the organisation, inconsistent messages from the be involved and record feedback from the start: ‘you said, Equality Act, a lot of the time consultations and surveys are done we did’ celebrate where influence has changed our view but we are not sure what the services do with this information, do  Equality monitoring they make a difference to service provision and delivery? This puts  Inconsistency of a workforce approach people off from taking part in future consultations, bureaucracy,  The need for minimum standards failure to share information, organisational barriers from larger  For simple transactions consider online services organisations, poor referral information, tick box culture, reluctance to ask ethnicity question, too many procedures to follow before even accessing the primary service

Analysis

The findings indicate that there are differences in perception between voluntary/ community groups and the BME individuals who took part in this survey. The feedback from organisations suggests that the reason that few BME people access services is that they do not know about them. This, in fact does not seem to be the over-riding evidence from the research findings. The comments from BME individuals and community groups suggest that whereas many of them are aware of the various services provided, their reluctance to access them would indicate that the services are not adapting to their needs and that many BME individuals therefore fail to use these services or have negative experiences of them. There is a diversity of ethnic minority groups living in East Sussex, spread across different towns and encompassing a variety of ethnicities and very different levels of need, marginalisation and isolation. Their relatively small numbers should not detract from their right to be able to access services and for these services to address their specific needs. There is a discrepancy in the rate at which BME individuals are accessing the various community and voluntary groups. Several services are used extensively by BME communities. It may be that this variation is to some extent needs related, but it should also recognised that some organisations are demonstrating good practice in making themselves widely accessible. Individuals’ access to services is affected by a variety of factors, including language issues, lack of knowledge about services and also by unfriendly or inappropriate attitudes towards BME residents. Ethnic monitoring is seen to be taking place, however there is little evidence of ‘bending mainstream services’ to meet the needs of BME residents as a consequence of such monitoring. BME community and voluntary groups are keenly aware of the needs and experiences of BME individuals, and their limited and sporadic and often unsuccessful access to mainstream services.

Recommendations

The amalgamation of the research data has resulted in the consortium making nine recommendations to assist service providers in making their services more accessible and culturally appropriate for all the individuals and communities in their locality. During the three forums, participants were encouraged to add to these in terms of further recommendations and outlining good practice and ineffective practice they might be aware of. The results of this consultative exercise are outlined below.

Capacity building for BME organisations Recommendations Good practice Ineffective practice 1 Service providers Have asked learners what kind of English language they This is recognised but often BME groups are not given should involve local want to learn. Use this to plan course any responsibility or resources to do so. Also BME groups in the SP should use the professional resources of BME attempts to engage at very late stage ( if not too development of plans professionals in ESCC late) and policies to improve Outreach in community courses for BME Questionable intrusion access and the Involvement groups are effective in Eastbourne in Policies do not go to BME communities or voluntary experiences of BME influencing service provision already organisations to spread the news individuals needing A good initiative may be of community as community EQUIAS don’t involve BME properly services champions So far not a lot of policies include BME communities BME groups could deliver some services for people in Not enough awareness of how to connect with BME their community groups BME mental health, spirituality and faith forum running in Need to have a bilingual leaflet especially policy Hastings/Eastbourne discussion making Difficult to set up BME mental health, spirituality and faith forum in Wealden 2 Services should Outreach by traveller education and children’s centre Misinformation could be given due to feuds within consider the provision This happens well in some places but not in others- share some BME communities of assertive outreach learning across all areas We never have outreach community service providers to specific Sompriti is following this process come to us. communities, using an Brighton and Hove BME DV project Good idea but it needs to be client led in order to intermediary who is Outreach workers already used in my project build trusting, effective bridges to services. trusted by the Stop smoking service training FFT worker as a stop community in order to smoking advisor facilitate access Interpreting and bilingual advocacy as first contact Community links is building this If BME individuals become regular service users they can

reach out to others based on trust, positive attitude, happy to help Our service is trying to engage with all BME communities ASC employs engagement officers – older people – BME, Also Equality in Mental health Cultural competence training for voluntary organisations Recommendations Good practice Ineffective practice 3 Service providers Identified and supported ‘champions’ within the Lack of information consistency within an should systematically organisation to make sure induction reflects service/ organisation/ workforce review induction community need Bad experiences in services ignored by staff programmes and in- E-training in East Sussex County Council for new staff Access to services, knowing who the one key/ service training Brighton and Hove BME DV peer education project ‘gatekeeper’ person is provision to address Brighton and Hove model can be used in East Sussex Mandatory training is only one solution. Learning can how they can enable be delivered in different ways and training may be better access to mandatory and good quality but doesn’t mean it is services by BME completed/ effective communities I have experienced bad attitudes & Racism in hospital with front line staff

4 Training should be put FFT Training Difficulty in finding a provider that could do this in place to develop Race equality training for foster carers-Children’s training across all cultures greater cultural Services Services are not allocated funding for this, nor is it awareness among staff Training used broadly by police and fire brigade made a priority and more sensitivity in Different cultural awareness training delivered within Online mandatory training for all staff would be service provision some statutory agencies from community people better I more regular and in person- case studies etc Hate crime and ‘Prevent’ training already in place across There is no specialist BME DV service. In B&H council county has trained 10 BME women to raise awareness of DV Joint resources across orgs within E. Sussex as peer educators- same model could be used in East Sussex Some training delivered by people who do not have the ‘lived’ experience of the community geography or area Some staff that I encounter did not have patience to listen to me Training delivered by ‘professionals’ but no training

from people in communities of different cultures 5 Services should be We have made links now to go out and promote the Need to lobby central government who are steering promoted to members service us towards integration not bespoke service delivery of BME communities in Specialist outreach The only way to do this is use the community rather a way that is Employing members of the community than ‘do it on behalf’ of the community understandable, Need more organisations like Sompriti to inform BME I have never experienced the staff promoting the welcoming and community groups services culturally appropriate Our service has a BME working party that is trying to I have never experienced the services in my to them develop access to it for BME comm. after a report was community completed in 2010 that found numbers of BME comm. Lack of planning and/or communication strategies accessing this NHS mental health service was low considering cultural needs We need to give more roles to BME members of staff to be involved in outreach & to educate staff. Too many assumptions that we are good at communicating about services (NHS) Mismatch in service commissioning when asylum seekers are referred to our psychological therapy service they have too many practical life issues to focus on therapy, and they need to build trust gradually we need more funding for: a) practical support. B) For specific projects designated to engage these groups. Main stream services may not be the best e.g. A gardening & MH project, or a BME led project

6 All service providers Qualitative data is captured during analysis and used to Staff need training in ethnic monitoring and how to should carry out ethnic focus changes in service delivery/ facilities fill out forms monitoring of their Provides the evidence base to commission services- We do this but no feedback on how to reach BME client base, using the services won’t be commissioned if there’s no identified groups Census categories, and need Commissioners do not require or fund this regularly analyse this Currently this is examined quarterly in our organisation & Need to explain the benefits of monitoring to data to ensure that trends compared to see if there are any improvements communities to encourage disclosure they identify and happening Staff don’t want to fill in service monitoring it’s address any gaps in the Data keep to analyse the problems in service another form for them & the client, too many forms

take up of their Working with health in mind to improve equalities already! But it is important maybe service snap shots services monitoring & reduce large no. recorded under ‘Not would be a good supplement? i.e. doing a one off stated’ box census of all the clients in the service every 6 Should BME people have to identify exact background? months. E.g. they may not know it, why not just say “Black Education community provider – diff census asks for British?” diff info for monitoring, too much collecting Police do this for stop search but still have Good idea but didn’t see the analysed data practice disproportionately problems in the local service. Our service monitors all clients coming into services and Some professionals find it difficult to ask? About managers do try to address any gaps in case of religion / sexual orientation, requires specific improvement training @ equalities monitoring. Police do this for ASB, Hate crime. 7 Service providers Have asked learners what kind of English language they This is recognised but often BME groups are not given should involve local want to learn. Use this to plan course any responsibility or resources to do so. Also BME groups in the SP should use the professional resources of BME attempts to engage at very late stage ( if not too development of plans professionals in ESCC late) and policies to improve Outreach in community courses for BME Questionable intrusion access and the Involvement groups are effective in Eastbourne in Policies do not go to BME communities or voluntary experiences of BME influencing service provision already organisations to spread the news individuals needing A good initiative may be of community as community EQUIAS don’t involve BME properly services champions So far not a lot of policies include BME communities BME groups could deliver some services for people in Not enough awareness of how to connect with BME their community groups BME mental health, spirituality and faith forum running in Need to have a bilingual leaflet especially policy Hastings/Eastbourne discussion making Difficult to set up BME mental health, spirituality and faith forum in Wealden 8 Jargon used by service Southdown Community Links ‘voice box SG are currently Jargon is used by services because it is easier for re viewing literature to make it user friendly them to understand but we need to change that mindset of making our working life easier and concentrate on providing an inclusive service.

Targeted investment in initiatives identified Recommendations Good practice Ineffective practice 9 There should be Interpreters working together to improve services Not knowing where to go to get an interpreter greater and more Better monitoring of SUSTI framework Disparity of bookings between East Sussex and consistent provision of Staff being aware that they must provide information Brighton and Hove- why? interpreters Consistent information in on place on a website Client wished to access a 6 week course but could Bringing the people who use services into the monitoring only access free interpreting for 1 hour, could not cycle access course At a charity in a previous role working with refugees & In Brighton hospital I found it hard to get an asylum seekers, we had a lot of local interpreters, their interpreter age, sex & languages, so people could choose preferred Develop local pool of interpreters- many travel from gender & knowing their location meant could access as London, Brighton. Bring costs down interpreter further away if confidentiality was an issue In my current service accessing language line & Interpreters used as necessary by homeless health team interpreters can be time consuming & is not seamless (ESHT) PCT managed to uproot my family from the general Good to know where the interpreters are coming from practice due to religious prejudice (where they live) Police strategic IAG found a process to make me resign when they worked out that my work of promoting understanding of Islam was succeeding Difficulties using interpreters – needing training on how to use interpreters i.e. always keep looking at the client not the interpreter (we had this training in the NHS) -Interpreters are not always boundaried , they start advising the client and are not clear about their role, this is unsafe practice Because of lack of interpreters, consultants cannot diagnose my symptoms & I have been bouncing in different departments Have made appointment with interpreters but when I arrive, no interpreters Increase Staff knowledge of what’s already in place

10 Services should Outreach by traveller education and children’s centre Misinformation could be given due to feuds within consider the provision This happens well in some places but not in others- share some BME communities

of assertive outreach learning across all areas We never have outreach community service providers to specific Sompriti is following this process come to us. communities, using an Brighton and Hove BME DV project Good idea but it needs to be client led in order to intermediary who is Outreach workers already used in my project build trusting, effective bridges to services. trusted by the Stop smoking service training FFT worker as a stop community in order to smoking advisor facilitate access Interpreting and bilingual advocacy as first contact Community links is building this If BME individuals become regular service users they can reach out to others based on trust, positive attitude, happy to help Our service is trying to engage with all BME communities ASC employs engagement officers – older people – BME, Also Equality in Mental health 11 Gypsy and Traveller FFT provide this to a degree Not taking account of transient population support and advocacy GRT forum meetings were previously held regularly – 3-4 Current bilingual advocacy service is not self- services should be times a year in East Sussex but no longer occur. referral, needs revising deployed as a conduit Not specific about gypsies and travellers- but a between the barrier with smaller communities is that ‘personal’ community and the or ‘sensitive’ information can become known by the service provider in wider community if the advocate/ conduit is from order to improve the same community access to service provision 12 There is a need for English classes Should be flexible to BME (as time issue) English classes needs to be more flexible, creative, more English classes as Exclusive BME organisation, BME employed workers i.e. not always in classroom but incorporating well as specific BME and immigrant communities need lots of bilingual practical, teaching in community i.e. using public employment linked and cultural training in order to empower themselves transport. training for those BME From a commissioning perspective- make the link to What if BME do not want to attend- some classes are residents who are at better outcomes as a result of providing English classes not fully subscribed despite the need present unable to e.g. more likely to be in employment as a result- better The English classes are too expensive and a lot of access paid work health (physical and mental) BME people could not afford to attend Set up women’s SP in North Wealden ESOL classes held- G4S Back to Work programme only commissioned for worked in partnership with English in the community ‘easy pickings’ and is not tailored to BME More English classes on how to access services e.g. communities/ culturally appropriate

health, social care 13 Sharing information Different groups vie for funding about BME groups Gov /Council should give/show enough information for BME. 14 Inconsistency in service Service users encouraged to join in decision making to Trying to advocate for an Eritrea lady who was due provision - share service to be induced soon at hospital to have a interpreter individual/policy/ present & being told this service would only be available for 20 minutes of the procedure application of policy.

To 3VA what next? What the report will do? How will we know that the report has made a difference? 15 Essential experience which is language specific 16 Good commissioning SUSTI Framework User & potential service use data not sufficient at process takes into the moment account BME including Lazy commissioning -Pooling contract to a single Gypsy and Traveller provider Need to win hearts & minds of decision makers- Equality officers/ investment offices already on board That is essential – but the big issue is actually having good enough needs data that supports good commissioning – services will not be commissioned if there is no evidence of need

Emerging Themes

Based on all research undertaken over the life of the project, three themes have been identified within the recommendations: Capacity building for BME organisations: These organisations have expertise that needs to be enhanced and supported through a joint infrastructure initiative. Cultural competence training for voluntary organisations: Training is needed to support voluntary sector service providers in understanding how they can adapt their services to make them more accessible to members of BME communities. There must be ‘buy in’ from senior representatives and trustees who need to be committed to ensuring their organisation is culturally capable. Targeted investment in initiatives identified: Additional investment through commissioning or fundraising initiatives is needed to ensure positive outcomes for individuals from BME communities.

Conclusion

There are a number of conclusions which can be made from the research:

 Individuals from BME communities commented that they are often consulted with on a range of topics but feel that they rarely receive feedback on the outcomes of this involvement. Consultation with individuals should be meaningful. There is a need for coproduction so that communities play a full role in service development;  BME organisations tend to use engagement methods such as word of mouth and social events. The range of these informal mechanisms should be recognised and developed when aiming to reach communities and increase accessibility.  90% of BME individuals who had difficulties accessing voluntary and community sector groups did so because of language barriers. This was also the most common reason for lack of use of service. Language provision such as bilingual advocacy, interpreting and translating and ESOL classes need to have a sustainable element to them. This will help to ensure that non-English speakers are able to access services across the county and are provided with the opportunity to increase English language skills;  87.5% of organisations within the survey monitor the ethnicity of their clients. However, it is not clear how or whether this information is translated into service development. Organisations need guidance on how to proactively use their monitoring information to make it meaningful. The final stage of the process was to develop a ‘toolkit’ for VCOs engaging with BME communities. These toolkit elements are embodied in the recommendations of this report and are summarised as follows:

 Recognition of effective practice  Minimum standards of practice of all voluntary organisations when engaging with individuals from BME communities  Raising awareness of available services among BME community  Raising cultural awareness of voluntary organisations  Understanding the breadth of BME organisations in East Sussex

These research findings will be reported back to infrastructure organisations in East Sussex who initiated the TIES project. The partnership will then liaise with Speak to ensure the findings of the report are cascaded as widely as possible amongst the voluntary sector. There has been a level of interest from a range of statutory partners. DRI, FFT and SCDA Sompriti will be jointly liaising with statutory colleagues about what the findings mean for their organisations. The partnership of the three specialist infrastructure organisations (DRI, FFT and SCDA Sompriti) has been cemented. They intend to develop an initiative to take the recommendations forward.

Appendix 1

Questionnaire targeted at individual members of BME communities

Transforming Infrastructure East Sussex - Supporting East Sussex BME communities

This questionnaire seeks to gather evidence and information on how East Sussex BME communities are accessing statutory and voluntary support services and their participation and involvement with community organisations. The results will be shared with local service providers to help them to better support BME communities.

The questionnaire has been divided into six sections Voluntary Sector, Health, Social Care, Housing, Benefits, Education and Training. Please tick the answers that refer to you and share your personal experience on the comment part of each section to help us gather as much information as possible. About you

Is English your main language? No  but fluent in English

If No, what is your main language? Arabic, Hindi, Urdu, Swahili…………………

Where do you live in East Sussex? Bexhill Gender: Male  Age: 56-65 years 

What is your ethnic group? (As taken from the ethnic classifications in the 2011 Census) British Algerian White English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish/British  Irish  Gypsy  Irish Traveller  Other white background …………………………………………….... 

Mixed/multiple ethnic groups White and Black Caribbean  White and Black African  White and Asian  Any other mixed/multiple ethnic background……………………….. 

Asian/Asian British Indian  Pakistani  Bangladeshi  Chinese  Any other Asian background………………………………………….. 

Black/African/Caribbean background African  Caribbean  Any other Black/African/Caribbean background 

Other ethnic group Arab  Any other ethnic group…………………………………………………. 

1. VOLUNTARY SECTOR

Below are a list of voluntary sector groups, which offer support, information and advice. Please tick the groups that you have used services (U) or are aware of (A): U A U A Local Libraries   Together Mental Health  Hastings Voluntary Action  Sussex Oakleaf  3VA   Southdown Housing  Citizen’s advice Bureau   Mind (mental health support)  Care for Carers   Age UK 

U A NCDA (Newhaven Community Development Association)   DRI (Diversity Resource International)  Friends, Families and Travellers 

Please list other voluntary groups (including BME groups) that you have used to access support, information or advice: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …… Have you had difficulties accessing voluntary or community groups due to cultural, language or other barriers? No  If Yes, please give details………………………………………………………………………………. If you do not use any voluntary or community groups, please tell us why...... ………………………………………………………………………………………………...... What would help you to access voluntary sector services? ………………………………………... …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ...

2. HEALTH

Accessing healthcare Are you registered with a GP? Yes  If No, what are the barriers to you registering with a GP?...... registered a long time ago. Can’t even remember… If Yes, were all of services at the surgery explained to you when you registered with your GP? Yes  No  Were you asked to give your ethnicity when you registered? Yes  No  Was this done in a sensitive way? Yes  No  Were you able to get a doctor of the same gender, if this was important to you? Yes  No 

Did you feel that your culture and religion were taken into consideration when you registered with your GP? Yes  No  To some extent 

Please give details: …………………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… .

Communication Do you have any difficulties understanding the receptionists, health professionals, or doctors at your surgery? No  How helpful and sensitive are the reception staff in communicating with you? Very helpful  Please describe any situations that you found difficult: ………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……. Do you feel that you need an interpreter when accessing health services? No  If Yes,have you ever been offered an interpreting service by your doctor, health professional or reception staff? Yes  No  If Yes: Was an interpreter arranged for you, to attend your next appointment with you? Yes  No 

Was a telephone interpreter arranged for you? Yes  No  Were you asked to bring a family member or a friend to interpret for you? Yes  No 

Which type of service would you prefer?......

Satisfaction and improvement How satisfied are you with the services available at your surgery? Very satisfied  If you are partly or not satisfied, please provide details …………………………………………..…… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ….. How do you think the surgery could be improved to meet your cultural, religious or language needs?………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………. If you experienced mental health distress would you go to your GP? Yes  No  If No, would you access other services or support? Yes  No  If Yes, where would you access this?……………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Being referred to local hospitals Have you asked your GP to refer you to a hospital specialist? No  Did you get what you expected from your GP? Yes  No  If No, please give details:……………………………………………………………………………………. Have you ever visited the following local hospital departments? Out-patients Yes  Accident and Emergency (A&E) Yes  Maternity No  Paediatric No  Other (please state) ……………………………………………………………………………… Have you experienced any barriers to accessing any hospital department? No  If Yes, please give details …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …….. When attending hospital

Were you able to get a doctor of the same gender, if this was important to you?

Not important  Did you feel that your culture and religion were taken into consideration at the visit? To some extent  Please give details………….…………………………………………………………………………. Which support services have you been referred to, if any? Please give details……………….. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Emergency situations Have you needed an emergency appointment in the last 6 months? No  How satisfied were you with this service? Very  Adequately  Not satisfied  If not satisfied, please give details………………………………………………………………………..... …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……. Satisfaction and improvement How satisfied are you with the services available at your local hospital? Satisfied  If partly/not satisfied, please give details…………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …….. Do you think of that the service could be improved to meet your cultural or language needs?

Yes  No  If Yes, please give details …………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …….. 3. SOCIAL CARE Have you had contact with the following services? Adult social care No  Children’s services No  If No, would you like information regarding social care? Please tick which service you may need to contact.

Adult Social Care Yes  No  Older people’s support services? Yes  No  Older people care assessment team? Yes  No  Children’s services? Yes  No 

4. HOUSING What sort of housing do you live in? Owner/occupier 

Have you been in contact with the council housing department? Yes  No  Were you able to access the Housing team effectively? Yes  No 

Did you require help completing the Housing application form? Yes  No  Do you claim housing benefits? Yes  No  How could access to housing be improved? …………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… … 5. BENEFITS

Do you claim any benefits from the government? No  Are you aware of the changes of the benefits system- that is, the introduction of Universal Benefits (being phased in from April 2013)? I know nothing about benefits  I am aware, but I would like more information  I am very well informed  I don’t claim benefits and don’t need to know 

If you needed to claim benefits where would you go for information?...... …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……. Are you in full time or part time employment or looking for work?

Self employed 

If you are not working, would any of the following help you into employment? English language classes  Communication skills training  Vocational training  Childcare provision  Other, please state………………………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …… 6. EDUCATION AND TRAINING N/A Have you accessed any of the following education or training in the UK? Statutory education to the age of 16  English language course  Further education/University  Adult literacy course  Other, please state……………………………………………………………………………………………

Have you come across barriers to accessing English language or adult literacy courses?

Yes  No  If Yes, please give details……………………………………………………………………………………. What would help you in accessing further education or training?...... …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …….

Please provide us with any other comments regarding access to local education services for BME communities. Please give details of your experience in education (including English language or adult literacy courses). Positive experiences:

Negative experiences:

Do you have any additional comments to make about your access to statutory and voluntary support services or your involvement in community organisations?

Thank you for taking the time to complete the questionnaire.

Appendix 2

Draft research report into the needs of BME groups and individuals, 2013-14 which informed the Forums 1. The Background to the Project 1.1 Towards the end of 2011 a group of four infrastructure organisations – 3VA, Hastings Voluntary Action, Rother Voluntary Action and Action in Rural Sussex – came together to develop a programme aimed at improving and transforming infrastructure support to voluntary sector groups in East Sussex. 1.2 Among their key objectives were – (1) To widen, improve and develop access to quality services for members, the sector and other users. (2) To develop the robustness and resilience of local infrastructure support organisations. (3) To transform and redesign the way they operate so as to be more effective and efficient. (4) To encourage stronger local collaboration, sharing, support and self-reliance in the Voluntary and Community Sector to lead local change. 1.3 The four partner infrastructure organisations next identified a number of front line organisations working with BME communities as potential delivery partners. These organisations – Sompriti, Diversity Resource International (DRI) and FFT (Friends, Families and Travellers) – were asked to investigate how BME groups and individuals could access and benefit from the improved infrastructure services developed through the project. 1.4 The project partners were successful in securing funding for the project from the Big Lottery and worked with the BME service delivery organisations to develop a work programme. 1.5 As the project was developed it became apparent that it would be important to identify the barriers that BME groups and individuals experience when seeking to access mainstream services, and the possible reasons for those barriers. At the same time it was considered equally important to examine the perspective of the mainstream service agencies to check whether their perception of the reasons for non take-up of services by BME communities matched those of the communities themselves. 1.6 Consequently, two surveys were initially undertaken in autumn 2013 - a detailed face to face questionnaire survey of 51 individuals from a wide range of BME communities, including Gypsies and Travellers and an on-line survey of 24 mainstream service delivery organisations. As a supplement to this, and to add a further perspective, a survey was undertaken of BME service delivery groups. We received invaluable support from the Community Cohesion Officer at Hastings Borough Council in enabling us to access many BME individuals and community groups. 1.7 The findings from this work are being presented at 3 workshops held across East Sussex in early 2014.

2. The Demography of East Sussex 2.1 According to the 2011 Census the population of East Sussex was 526,671 of which 505,422 or 96.0% were all categories of ‘White’. It should be noted however that some groups that are placed in the ‘White’ category are none the less minority ethnic people e.g. Gypsies and Travellers. The remaining 4.0% comprised ‘all mixed’, ‘all Asian or Asian British’, ‘all Black or Black British’ and ‘other ethnic group’. 2.2 Hastings has the highest percentage of non-White people at 6.2%, followed by Eastbourne at 5.9%. Lewes has 3.4%, Rother 2.9% and Wealden 2.5%. Again it should be emphasised that there is a difference in definition between ‘non –White’ and ‘BME’ and that the BME percentages for these areas will be greater than the ‘non-White’ due to a small percentage of the ‘White’ population qualifying as ‘BME’. Although of some interest, it would be wrong to read too much into these figures for a number of reasons – (1) It is not necessarily the areas with the greatest numbers of BME people where the need for more accessible services is greatest. Areas which have large minority ethnic populations may have done more to identify and meet the needs of their various communities. On the other hand areas with small BME communities may be ones where the communities are dispersed and where the particular needs of individuals from those communities are less apparent. (2) Some BME communities may have been undercounted for various reasons e.g. a reluctance to engage with ‘officialdom’ as with many Gypsies and Travellers, and the inability of the Census to reach all individuals e.g. transient populations, undocumented migrants etc. 2.2 Only 815 people were identified as ‘Gypsy or Irish Traveller’ but this is believed to be a huge undercount and that the actual number could be around five times this figure. 2.3 For the purposes of this project we have disregarded the issue of which parts of East Sussex may have larger BME communities and which may have smaller. We have been mainly concerned with the needs of individuals and how those needs can better be met by mainstream service providers.

3. Analysis of the individuals surveys 3.1 Community interpreters were used to get the opinions of those people who had little spoken English using questionnaires. Friends, Families and Travellers were able to access individuals in the travellers’ community.

3.2 The questions were designed to find out what knowledge and experiences BME people had of local services and to investigate how issues of access, language provision and cultural awareness impact on the experience of BME residents. 3.3 Questionnaires were obtained from 51 respondents, although a few of the papers were not fully completed. The respondents lived in all of the major towns in East Sussex,

43 with the largest number living in Hastings and St Leonards (17). The respondents spanned 12 ethnic groups with the largest group of respondents identifying their ethnicities as Gypsy or Irish Travellers (14), Chinese (12) and Bangladeshi (8). The remaining respondents identified themselves as coming from a diverse range of ethnicities. Access to voluntary and Community groups 3.4 It was noteworthy that many BME individuals recognised that they were in need of support to access service provision. The type of support that was seen as being most necessary was ‘interpreting support’. Although notably some respondents from the traveller community, who had English as their first or only language, suggested that they would benefit from advocacy support. 3.5 There was intermittent knowledge of and use of community and voluntary groups. The Citizen’s Advice Bureaux, the Link project and the libraries were the most frequently used of all the voluntary services. Although most groups mentioned in a list were known about, most of the organisations had not been used by the respondents. 3.6 When asked about the barriers that caused difficulties in accessing voluntary and community groups, cultural and language barriers were mentioned. As well as these barriers, some respondents revealed that they did not know about the existence of many community and voluntary groups; ‘I don’t know where to find them, didn’t even know there are any kinds of groups I can use’ Health 3.7 The vast majority of the respondents reported being registered with GPs. Over a quarter of the respondents (15) had experienced some difficulties with accessing hospital services. Their comments evidence these difficulties; ‘(there was) no interpreter even when I asked for an interpreter. I was told the hospital will use a telephone interpreter but they didn’t. The nurse telephoned her son to interpret for me’ ‘Not being able to read English signs makes it difficult to find departments. I have to ask’ ‘No one understood me at A and E. I had to leave (the hospital) because of it’. 3.8 Although there was general satisfaction with the helpfulness of GP’s receptionists, a few respondents felt that their lack of English or their cultural background led to them receiving a poorer service. The following comment, made in relation to a GP’s practice receptionists encapsulates the type of feedback that gives cause for concern. ‘They get bored with us struggling to communicate with them’. Ethnic Monitoring 3.9 In line with the analysis of the organisations’ questionnaires, which reports that service providers are fairly consistent in their use of ethnic monitoring, most individual respondents reported being asked to state their ethnicity when registering with a GP. 3.10 However, despite being asked to state their ethnicity, many respondents felt that their ethnicity was not properly taken into consideration in the provision that they

44 received. These comments were amongst those given by the respondents to explain their experiences of medical services; ‘Language barriers – (due to) lack of interpreters’ ‘No culturally sensitive support’ ‘Not understanding medical terms and conditions’ ‘I feel they didn’t understand my culture’ Housing and Benefits 3.11 There were mixed responses to the housing and benefits questions, reflecting a variety of experiences in housing and living situations. Most respondents reported living in privately rented accommodation. 7 respondents reported accessing benefits. 3.12 Providing interpreting/advocacy services to enable the transmission of important information was identified as being the key way that access to housing and benefits could be improved. Education and Training 3.13 The majority of respondents who needed them, had been able to access at least some English language classes. The barriers to accessing such classes were identified as being; the cost of the English courses, lack of affordable childcare and long distances to suitable classes. 3.14 In being asked what would enable them to be able to gain paid employment, those respondents who were currently not employed identified the following provisions as being necessary to enable them to be able to access employment; English language classes Communication skills training Vocational training Childcare provision

4. Analysis of the organisational survey 4.1 The purpose of the organisational survey was to analyse the approach that service providing organisations are taking towards engaging with the various BME communities in East Sussex. We were aware that individuals from BME communities felt that they faced serious barriers in securing equal access to services. We wanted to see if what BME individuals were telling us matched what organisations believed to be the main barriers for minority ethnic communities in need of their services. For the purposes of the organisational survey we did not have the resources to carry out individual interviews with representatives of service providers in East Sussex but instead relied on an on-line questionnaire survey, followed up by selected approaches to individual organisations. Response rate

4.2 We were surprised, and disappointed, by the difficulties that we experienced in getting organisations to engage with the survey. We recognised that people are very busy and generally disinclined to engage in on-line research exercises, but we felt that the importance of the equalities issues raised by the project would be such as to elicit a much more positive response than we found to be the case. We recognise that a lot of organisations in East Sussex are doing amazing work with too few resources, and have good intentions of making their services accessible to all, but wonder whether, in the hurly-burly of frenetic daily activity, some of the bigger picture of what could and should be done to improve service delivery to minority ethnic communities has been lost. Ethnic monitoring 4.3 Nearly all the organisations surveyed carry out ethnic monitoring of their client base. Of the very few that did not, one was about to introduce ethnic monitoring and another had a good reason for only monitoring the ethnicity of staff and volunteers rather than clients. Our conclusion is that ethnic monitoring of clients is now accepted good practice among organisations in East Sussex. Over half the organisations surveyed said that they use the 2011 Census categories for monitoring. Those who gave different answers cited ‘Categories used by Citizens Advice’ (virtually identical to the Census categories), ‘Categories used by the Legal Services Commission’ and ‘Categories used by ESCC’. There is probably very little difference, if any, between these categories and those of the Census but if, as a matter of course, all organisations were to adopt the Census categories it would make cross comparisons between organisations much more straightforward. In a very few instances the ethnic categories adopted seemed quite different from the Census categories. Percentage of BME clients 4.4 Of the organisations that carried out ethnic monitoring about two thirds said that BME clients represented under 10% of their client base whilst just under a third said that BME clients represented 10% - 25% of the client base. Curiously, two organisations, which said that they monitored ethnicity were unable to say what percentage of their clients were from BME communities. Whilst ethnic monitoring is important it becomes meaningless unless organisations analyse the results of that monitoring and consider whether their client base is truly representative of the community that they should be serving. Under represented communities 4.5 We asked organisations which BME communities they believed to be under represented within their client base. Very few picked out specific ethnic groups although some identified Eastern Europeans as being, in their view, an under represented group. However over 45% of the organisations surveyed thought that most or all BME people were under represented. Methods used by organisations to engage with BME clients 4.6 The most common methods used to engage were interpreting/translation, outreach to specific communities and working with bilingual advocates.

We asked organisations ‘Which of the options below would help your organisation to engage with under-represented communities’ and we asked organisations to rank their answers 1 – 5. The options offered were –

 Cultural Awareness Training  Working with Bilingual Advocates  Better access to interpretation/translation services  Co-production of promotional material with a specialist agency

In order to analyse the answers a points scoring system was used to see which was the most favoured approach. In fact there was very little consensus between organisations with no one option being strongly preferred over the others. Marginally, the top scorer was ‘Co-production of promotional material with a specialist agency’. What prevents BME clients from accessing services? 4.7 Organisations were asked ‘What do you think prevents people from BME communities from accessing your services?’ and the following options were offered –

 Not being aware of your group/service  Lack of understanding of what your group/service can provide  Not being confident in accessing the group/service  The group/service not being designed for them  Needing a bilingual advocate or interpreter for support  Having access to alternative support  Not having the need for the group/service

The answers were again scored to see which of the above factors organisations thought to be the most important. There was a close correlation of view among organisations that a major factor preventing access is people not being aware of the service. One option, which was almost totally disregarded as being of any significance was the possibility that the client might believe that the service was not designed for them. This point is picked up in the conclusions section. 5. Analysis of the BME community groups 5.1 Questionnaires were returned from 9 locally-based groups established to support BME communities. The findings from this part of the research add an interesting dimension to the remit of the research project, in that these groups have close contact with the BME communities, providing front-line support and being able to identify patterns of need from first hand experience.

5.2 The mission statements of these groups include the following ideals, which focus on providing support and services to BME communities and also pertain to making links between BME communities and the local infrastructure;

 focussing on integrating the specific community with the local community  challenging cultural stereotypes in service provision  providing opportunities for young people to gain skills in the creative arts

 creating community cohesion and celebrating cultural difference  supporting BME individual to develop their skills through education and learning  providing a platform for communication and a port of call if people have enquiries about life in the UK and problems they do not know how to solve

5.3 The questionnaire given out to these groups set out to gain an insight from an insider perspective of how BME community groups view the services offered by mainstream community and voluntary groups. The groups expressed strongly - worded views,

 The Council should approach and communicate more with BME people and groups

 They are funded by public sector and operate within their culture, and forget that they are supposed to advocate for us and represent us.

 …there is no such thing as ‘hard to reach people’... To improve ways we use their services, they have to radically engage with us genuinely rather than ticking boxes and claiming all is nice

 (there is) the need for a forum or network that brings all the various charitable organizations together under one umbrella body that will be crucial in looking at the problems especially experienced by BME groups

5.4 The consensus from BME community groups was that that all statutory, voluntary and community services need to ensure that they set out to meet the needs of the whole community, regardless of the ethnicity, cultural background or languages spoken. 5.5 The factors that were seen by the BME community and voluntary groups as most influential in preventing access to services were as follows;

5.6 Some of the suggestions from BME community and voluntary groups to improve the access of BME individuals to statutory and mainstream voluntary and community groups have been included in the recommendations.

 Community, charity and voluntary organisations have a long way to go to open their doors genuinely to international communities with complex needs

5.7 The consensus from BME community groups that has emerged from this research being that the statutory, voluntary and community services, need to ensure that they work

48 more effectively to meet the needs of all members of the community, regardless of ethnicity, cultural background or first languages.

6. Conclusions from the surveys 6.1 Despite the relatively low response rate from organisations some interesting material has emerged from the survey. There are differences in perception between on the one hand the mainstream voluntary/ community groups and on the other BME individuals and community groups who took part in this survey. The feedback from the mainstream voluntary/community groups suggest that the reason that few BME people access services is that they do not know about them. This, in fact does not seem to be the over-riding evidence from the research findings. The comments from BME individuals and community groups suggest that whereas many of them are aware of the various services provided, their reluctance to access them would indicate that the services are not adapting to their needs and that many BME individuals therefore fail to use these services or have negative experiences of them. 6.2 There is a diversity of ethnic minority groups living in East Sussex, spread across different towns and encompassing a variety of ethnicities and very different levels of need, marginalisation and isolation. Their relatively small numbers should not detract from their right to be able to access services and for these services to address their specific needs. 6.3 There is a discrepancy in the rate at which BME individuals are accessing the various community and voluntary groups. Several services are used extensively by BME communities. It may be that this variation is to some extent needs related, but it should also recognised that some organisations are demonstrating good practice in making themselves widely accessible. 6.4 Individuals’ access to services is affected by a variety of factors, including language issues, lack of knowledge about services and also by unfriendly or inappropriate attitudes towards BME residents. 6.5 Although the ability of BME individuals to access GP’s services is reasonably good, a significant proportion of them have experienced problems in successfully accessing hospital services. 6.6 Ethnic monitoring is seen to be taking place, however there is little evidence of ‘bending mainstream services’ to meet the needs of BME residents as a consequence of such monitoring. 6.7 BME community and voluntary groups, are keenly aware of the needs and experiences of BME individuals, and their limited and sporadic and often unsuccessful access to mainstream services.

7. Recommendations 7.1 We offer the following recommendations to service providers seeking to make their services more accessible and culturally appropriate for all the various individuals

and communities in their locality. The order of these recommendations is not weighted in any way. We leave it with different groups to decide how to prioritise these suggestions. (1) There should be greater and more consistent provision of interpreters. (2) Service providers should systematically review induction programmes and in- service training provision to address how they can enable better access to services by BME communities. (3) Training should be put in place to develop greater cultural awareness among staff and more sensitivity in service provision. (4) Services should be promoted to members of BME communities in a way that is understandable, welcoming and culturally appropriate to them. (5) Services should consider the provision of assertive outreach to specific communities, using an intermediary who is trusted by the community in order to facilitate access. (6) Gypsy and Traveller support and advocacy services should be deployed as a conduit between the community and the service provider in order to improve access to service provision. (7)There is a need for more English classes as well as specific employment-linked training for those BME residents who are at present unable to access paid work. (8) All service providers should carry out ethnic monitoring of their client base, using the Census categories, and regularly analyse these data to ensure that they identify and address any gaps in the take up of their services. (9) Service providers should involve local BME groups in the development of plans and policies to improve access and the experiences of BME individuals needing services.