Community Council of

Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire

Final Report

Centre for Voluntary Action Research

www.cvar.org.uk 24 August 2005

Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

Contents

Foreword 1

Introduction to the Final Report 4

Part One: Our Approach to this Study 5

Part Two: Overview of the Literature 8

Part Three: Baseline information about BME people in Shropshire 13

Part Four: Study Findings 18

Part Five: Implications for the Development of VCO Led Service Provision 28

References 34

Appendix One: Organisations who received a questionnaire 36

Appendix Two: BME Census data and indices of deprivation 37

Appendix Three: Ethnicity Maps 47

Appendix Four: Public agencies contacted to obtain information on BME networks, projects or initiatives 53

Appendix Five: Glossary of abbreviations 54

Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire

Authorship

This report has been written by Hans Schlappa and Ben Cairns with contributions from a research team at the Centre for Voluntary Action Research comprising Pradip Gajjar and Jan Stahlberg.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all of the organisations and individuals who participated in the fieldwork for this study and who gave up their time to share their experience with us, as well as the staff of the Community Council of Shropshire for their input into this study.

Contact Details

Community Council of Shropshire 5 Claremont Building Claremont Bank SY1 1RJ 01743 360 641 www.shropshire-rcc.org.uk

Centre for Voluntary Action Research 0121 204 3243 www.cvar.org.uk

Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

Foreword

In February 2005 Shropshire Learning and Skills Council awarded a grant to the Community Council of Shropshire to undertake a project containing three linked elements:

a) Researching and producing recommendations on the needs of black and minority ethnic (BME) people living and working in Shropshire. b) Creation of a Shropshire Directory of voluntary sector specialist equalities information and support services provided to people who may face discrimination or disadvantage. c) Designing and delivering capacity-building sessions for BME people and others facing discrimination or disadvantage, and for wider Shropshire communities and voluntary groups.

This report is the result of research carried out by the Centre for Voluntary Action Research at Aston Business School into information about the black and minority ethnic (BME) population living and working in Shropshire, the level of engagement of BME people with existing voluntary and community organisations in Shropshire and its adjacent administrative areas, and the scope for developing BME-led voluntary and community organisations in Shropshire.

There is a history of anecdotes about BME people’s negative experiences of living and working in Shropshire. This new report confirms that they can face disadvantage and inappropriate service provision. It highlights their isolation and the scarcity of county networks and organisations from which they can seek information. Many find religious and social support outside Shropshire. This re-confirms the inappropriateness of referring to “communities” of BME people. Rather there is confirmation of people living and working in relative isolation, with occasional geographical or occupational groups being the exception rather than the rule.

Summary of Research Findings

Some baseline information

• There is a small but growing BME population in Shropshire – it has risen from 0.7% in 1991 to 1.2% in 2001 (3,431 people). This figure is likely to under- represent the actual number. • Chinese and Mixed Ethnic Groups are the highest proportion. • The BME population tends to be younger than the general population, with a higher proportion of under 16 year olds. • Shropshire’s BME population does not live in deprived areas. There is no correlation between wards with high indices of deprivation and a higher BME population, as found in many urban areas. • The BME population tends to be dispersed across the county in very low numbers. • There appears to be no statistical data about the main BME languages spoken in Shropshire.

1 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

The Voluntary Sector

• The research found only three existing voluntary and community sector projects that cater specifically for BME people within Shropshire. • Research participants did not distinguish between public and voluntary sector services. They generally reported not having enough information about what services are available, and said that such information needed to go ‘beyond mere signposting’. • Research participants named six Voluntary and Community Sector projects based in . Two Telford based organisations had assisted the development of BME-specific services in Shropshire.

Barriers to accessing services

1. Geography and demography BME people in Shropshire face a dual challenge. First, the low concentration of BME people is itself a barrier to the development of BME specific services. Second, the distance between a service and a potential user is a barrier to access.

2. Lack of language support One of the most frequently cited barriers to accessing services was the lack of language support for BME people. This includes the ability to understand the processes of public sector providers – schools and health care in particular.

3. Reluctance to seek support Study participants identified that victims of racial harassment and racially aggravated crime were reluctant to seek help and draw attention to themselves. In response to this issue, Victim Support Shropshire have established a specific BME project.

Improving Voluntary and Community services for BME people

Study participants identified five areas:

1. Development of self-help groups for BME people. Voluntary and Community organisations’ role was seen as crucial because of their community development experience.

2. Give BME people a voice to bring about changes in public service delivery.

3. Establish long-term and sustainable access points where BME people can find out about voluntary and community sector services. Making connections with organisations outside and across administrative boundaries.

4. Improve the cultural sensitivity of public services. Public agencies have statutory duty to tailor their services to the needs of minority groups and to combat racism. They have substantially more

2 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

resources than voluntary and community organisations to address the challenges faced by BME people in Shropshire. Research participants feel that Hospitals, Job Centres, Education and Youth Services need to do more.

5. Closer collaboration between public and voluntary sectors. There is a need for more effective liaison on BME issues. Service Level Agreements could require joint diversity or awareness-raising training. Public sector agencies need to take a lead in supporting BME people in Shropshire.

The role of the Community Council of Shropshire

This research has met its objectives of testing anecdotal evidence about the views of Shropshire’s dispersed BME population. It has also given insightful information into BME people’s relationship with the community and voluntary sector. CCS now sees its role to:

• Ensure that local, regional and national agencies are well informed about baseline information for BME people in Shropshire. In particular, assumptions and approaches that work to engage BME “communities” in urban areas do not often translate to a rural county such as Shropshire with a wide dispersal of BME people • Encourage and support the establishment of BME self-help groups • Work with the voluntary sector on the significant challenge of providing information and services to a widely dispersed population • Support arrangements for joint projects and promote examples of good practice • Encourage public sector service providers to address the issues raised in the research • Work to improve communication with BME initiatives in Telford & Wrekin, and other areas outside Shropshire.

3 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

Introduction to the Final Report

This is the Final Report of a study carried out by the Centre for Voluntary Action Research on behalf of the Community Council of Shropshire.

The aims of the study are:

i. To provide baseline information about the black and minority ethnic (BME)population living and working in Shropshire ii. To establish the level of engagement of BME people with existing voluntary and community organisations (VCOs) in Shropshire as well as adjacent administrative areas and iii. To assess the scope for the development of BME led VCOs in Shropshire.

In Part One we set out our approach to this study. In Part Two we outline the broader context in which the Study took place. In Part Three we address Aim One of the study and establish a baseline of data about BME people in Shropshire. In Part Four we address Aim Two of the study and set out the key study findings from our qualitative fieldwork. In Part Five we address Aim Three of the study by considering the implications of the study findings for the development of BME led VCOs in Shropshire.

4 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

Part One: Our Approach to this Study

1. Aims and Methodology

This study has three aims:

• To provide baseline information about the black and minority ethnic (BME) population living and working in Shropshire • To establish the level of engagement of BME people with existing voluntary and community organisations (VCOs) in Shropshire as well as adjacent administrative areas and • To assess the scope for the development of BME led VCOs in Shropshire.

1.1 Selection of fieldwork participants

For this study we gathered views from individual members of BME people who live and/or work in Shropshire as well as organisations in the public and voluntary and community sector (VCS) who work with BME people in Shropshire.

We started the data collection by issuing an e-mail to 34 key contacts in VCOs and public agencies provided by the Community Council of Shropshire (CCS). We informed them about the study and requested their participation in a brief, structured telephone interview, the purpose of which was:

• To gain an overview of the work currently done by VCOs and public agencies who provide services for BME people • To identify what services are provided by VCOs for members of BME people • To develop a short list of study participants who would be invited to take part in semi-structured interviews.

We received 21 responses of whom only three had a detailed understanding of issues concerning BME people in Shropshire and were willing to participate in semi-structured interviews. In collaboration with CCS we used a snowballing technique, using referrals from study participants to other contacts that might hold relevant information, through which we were able to identify a further 20 potential study participants. These individuals either belonged to BME people who lived and/or worked in Shropshire or provided services for these groups.

In addition, we used the contacts of individuals who work with Gypsies and Travellers in Shropshire County and Telford to set up qualitative interviews with members of the Traveller communities. This resulted in interviews at three sites in Shropshire and two sites in Telford.

5 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

We also issued a questionnaire to 48 VCOs in Shropshire and 6 VCOs operating outside the administrative boundaries of Shropshire County Council in order to ascertain what BME specific services were provided by them. A list of organisations contacted with the request to complete the questionnaire is in Appendix One.

1.2 Data collection

To provide baseline information on BME people we used data from the following sources:

• 2001 census • Mapping Health Information, Shropshire County PCT • Index of Multiple Deprivation, 2004 • Shropshire Learning and Skills Council Strategic Plan • 5 completed questionnaires returned from VCOs • 19 structured telephone interviews with staff from VCOs and public sector organisations

We collected our qualitative data by means of:

• 11 semi-structured telephone interviews with members of BME people who are residents in Shropshire or staff who work in organisations that provide services for BME people • 7 semi-structured face to face interviews with 13 members of the Traveller communities • Two workshops with members of voluntary and statutory networks involved in community development or diversity and equality work in Shropshire.

In order to meet the aims of this study we asked interviewees a range of carefully drafted questions about key issues including:

• their actual experience of using BME specific services, • the role of VCOs in the provision of these services, • potential gaps in service provision • the scope for improving services for BME people in Shropshire.

The workshops allowed participants to explore the emerging findings of this study and contribute towards the development of suggestions about the scope for the possible future development of BME led VCO services in Shropshire.

1.3 Analysis of data and presentation of findings

We have attempted to reflect the range of views and perspectives presented under each of the themes discussed. Given that this is a qualitative rather than a quantitative study, we do not attempt to state the proportion or percentage of Study participants holding a particular point of view. We are presenting the

6 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

findings anonymously; we simply refer to findings as emanating from ‘study participants’ or ‘workshop participants’. Unattributed quotations are presented in italics.

7 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

Part Two: Overview of the Literature

2. Introduction to Part Two

In this Part Two of the Final Report we draw on government policy, published research and unpublished literature, such as research or evaluations commissioned by public agencies or VCOs, to set out the context for this study.

2.1 The Policy Context

Rural communities have received substantial attention from government policy initiatives in recent years. The Rural White Paper ‘Our countryside: The Future - A Fair Deal for ’ (MAFF, 2000) and the government’s current Rural Strategy (DEFRA, 2004) identify a wide range of issues that the inhabitants of rural areas face, such as limited access to services and facilities, and poverty. Because of such rural contexts these reports suggest that because of the rural context deprivation is affecting minority groups disproportionately more severely than the average rural population.

In their report ‘Not seen, not heard?’ the Countryside Agency (2000) emphasises that more traditional attitudes concerning self-reliance and managing with what is available can contribute to social exclusion and allow it to remain unnoticed. Isolation and poor access to jobs, services and other opportunities can compound the problems for rural people.. The report also states that outsiders often see rural communities as being mutually supportive, with fewer requirements for external support.

In a more recent policy statement the Countryside Agency (2003) set out how the government’s policy priorities of economic and social regeneration as well as social justice should be achieved in a rural context. One of the key elements in the current strategy is the engagement with communities and the encouragement of selfhelp:

“Many rural communities do not have organisations on their doorsteps who understand their needs and provide appropriate solutions, including everyday services. Self-help is often the quickest and most effective way forward. We are developing tools, techniques and networks, in partnership, across the country to help local communities devise solutions to local priorities at the same time as building their local capacity. Applying these solutions will help government deliver its public service targets for rural areas.” (Countryside Agency, 2003, p.14)

Voluntary and community organisations (VCOs) are identified in government policy as being critical to community development and self-help. DEFRA’s policy on rural community capacity building has the key objective to “Enable everyone to play an active and full part in society by providing effective, affordable support for local volunteering, social capital, community action and

8 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

voluntary sector provision of services in rural areas throughout England.” (Barton, 2003, p.1)

How rural VCOs are to rise to the challenges of providing services and encouraging self-help is left largely unexplored in government policy.

2.2 Perceptions of community and ethnicity in rural Britain

Research on rural minorities suggests that many social groups are perceived to be ‘others’ against an archetypal view of the English countryside and the people who reside in rural areas. Alleyne (2002) argues that members of BME people tend to be described as ‘BME communities’ which is seen as an attempt to create the notion that there are ‘traditional’ communities of white residents in rural areas and ‘other’ communities of non-white residents. Gaine (2004) suggests that, because of the demographic distribution of people from BME people, in most cases it is inappropriate to speak of minority ethnic ‘communities’ in rural areas. BME people are often so small and dispersed that: “They are better thought of as individuals with different ethnicities rather than groups as such, and certainly not communities” (ibid., p. 12).

Agyeman and Spooner (1997) argue that the countryside is popularly perceived as a ‘white landscape’, predominantly inhabited by white people, who fail to acknowledge the growing number of residents and the increasing recreational participation of people from BME origins. Ethnicity is therefore seldom regarded as a concern in rural areas by local people, statutory agencies or policy makers.

The low density of people from BME origins and the notion that rural Britain is predominantly ‘white’ is seen by some researchers as one explanation for the lack of attention paid to BME issues in rural areas: “In comparison to those living in urban areas, the views of minority ethnic communities in rural areas and isolated parts of England have been underresearched and under-reported.” (Chakrabori and Garland, 2003, p563).

Clocke et al (2000) suggest that popular perceptions of rural areas as a problem-free living environment screen out problems such as poverty and homelessness. Ray and Reed (2002) support Dhalech’s (1999) argument that ethnic minority communities living in urban settings have taken 20 years to establish support mechanisms to serve their cultural identity and needs. In rural areas this process is seen as having just begun and the implications of a lack of structures and process for the establishment of support mechanisms that respond to the needs of BME people in rural areas are yet to be explored: “... if a key factor in the formation of community solidarities is residential concentration, then what are the effects of low concentration?” (ibid. p. 215).

9 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

2.3 Racism in Rural Britain

There is a growing body of literature concerned with racism in rural areas. Dhalech (1999) observed increasing racial discrimination at work, in housing and education provision, and the criminal justice system as well as during daily domestic and social activities. Chakraborti and Garland (2003) found that BME people have substantial reasons to be fearful, due to the supplementary racial element that accompanies and prompts many crimes. A study by the Telford and Shropshire Race Equality Council found that the problem of racism and assault on people from BME people is just as relevant in Shropshire as in the deprived inner-city suburbs with which racism is more closely associated (Neal, 2002).

Some authors argue that racial intolerance has been masked by the privileged landscape and social status of rural residents. Hubbard (2005) analyses the hostilities in rural areas against the location of asylum seekers’ ‘self-contained’ accommodation centres. Concerns for environmental stability, contextual compatibility of social groups and consideration of ‘appropriate land use’ exposed local residents’ perceptions that asylum seekers are hazardous threats to the rural community.

In relation to Gypsies and Travellers Ray and Reed (2005) suggest a “novel process of racialisation” in their research on Travellers and Gypsies in East Kent. Whilst Gypsies are classified as white, they are often racialised as non- white and portrayed as presenting a dangerous threat to rural life. Research carried out for the West Mercia Criminal Justice Board (2004) found that blatant bigotry and harassment of Gypsies and Travellers was a frequent occurrence which was viewed as acceptable: “There is little research available on the experiences of Gypsies and Traveller in the Criminal Justice System, though stereotyping of Gypsies as criminals is commonplace.” (West Mercia Criminal Justice Board , p.8).

2.4 VCOs and BME issues in rural areas

Whilst there is a growing literature on the issues that BME people face in rural areas, there is very little published research on the work of VCOs with BME people in rural areas. The existing literature suggests that there is a substantial interest from VCOs in contributing to the improvement of the quality of life and service provision in rural areas (ACRE, 1999; Yates, 2002; Yates and Jochum, 2003). However, compared to the body of VCS literature about government policy, VCS structures, organisational challenges and good practice in urban contexts, comparatively little has been written about rural VCOs.

Marsden (1999) argues that rural social exclusion takes on different forms compared to urban settings and that more effort is needed to identify good practice that would lead to sustainable forms of community development. Phillip and Shucksmith (1999) also argue that more research is necessary to

10 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

investigate how approaches to community development might need to be adapted to empower excluded groups in rural areas.

Osborne et al (2002) identify three challenges rural VCOs have to tackle:

• Scale (e.g. the distances that have to be covered to bring together initiatives or co-ordinate activity) • Demography (e.g. the low concentration of populations with similar needs or interests) • Strength of identification (e.g. strong bonds between small communities that do not extend beyond a village or group of people).

The authors suggest that infrastructure bodies, such as Rural Community Councils, can be seen as a mechanism to overcome these challenges. For example by helping to target government funding at local initiatives, managing the burden of bureaucracy associated with government funding and representing the views of disparate groups and communities of interest at a strategic level.

In practice, however, rural infrastructure organisations encounter a range of problems. Research on the actual experience of delivering regeneration or community development work by Ellis et al (2004) suggests that rural VCOs in general, and infrastructure organisations in particular, encounter problems of:

• Representing a diverse and dispersed group of stakeholders • Bringing fiercely competitive groups or villages to work together on a common initiative • Lacking legitimacy in the eyes of diverse stakeholders because governing bodies might be seen as being part of the traditional rural power structures, rather than a force for change • Being ‘sandwiched’ between the expectations and needs of local communities, and the time scales and output requirements of institutional funders.

The implications of these issues for rural VCOs which engage with BME issues remain largely unexplored. However, it can be assumed that engaging with very small numbers of individuals from BME groups increases the challenges referred to above. A conference report called 'Connecting Black Minority Ethnic People in Rural Areas - Are We Doing Enough?' states that:

“Life in rural communities for BME people is about isolation, vulnerability and maintaining self identity. Strategies to overcome isolation have included setting up local groups and associations, but more importantly, access to networks outside local areas.” (Community Development Xchange, 2003, introduction)

The report highlights the need to build trust between individual VCOs as well as between VCOs and BME groups, building bridges across cultures and developing local, regional and national networks to provide infrastructure

11 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

support. These are substantial challenges for VCOs in their own right; the rural context adds further complications as recent research on community development work by rural VCOs shows:

“Community involvement and community development are both inherently ambiguous. They engage with complex, unequal social worlds – shifting currents of local social, organisational and political systems reinforce episodic instabilities rather than the smooth patterns suggested by policies.” (Ellis et al., 2004, p.5)

12 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

Part Three: Baseline information about the BME population in Shropshire

3. Introduction to Part Three

In this Part Three of the Final Report we address the first aim of this study:

To provide baseline information about the BME population living and working in Shropshire

3.1 Statistical data on BME people in Shropshire

The majority of data available on BME population in Shropshire County is based on the 2001 census. Officers from public agencies and VCOs who supplied data for this study suggested that the 2001 census was rather out of date and quoted a number of instances to demonstrate that the current situation in Shropshire is markedly different to what it was when the census data was collected. An example given by the Learning and Skills Councils was about learners in the 16-19 year group: the numbers of individuals from BME groups recorded by the LSC as participating in learning by far exceeds the number of people in this age group that were recorded in the 2001 census in a number of locations.

Reservations about the validity of census data regarding BME groups include assumptions about possible under-reporting by minority groups who might feel vulnerable and therefore may have avoided responding to the census. A number of study participants suggested that the actual number of BME residents in Shropshire County has increased substantially since the 2001 census. However, despite their possible shortcomings, the census data (and associated statistical data) do provide a general context for this study.

The 2001 census data suggests that the proportion of the population identifying themselves as being from black, mixed and other minority ethnic groups has risen from 0.7% in 1991 to 1.2% in 2001. Out of a total population of 283,173 for Shropshire County 3,431 people are from BME groups. Chinese and Mixed Ethnic Groups make up the highest proportion with 0.4% of the total population (or 1,079 and 1,170 individuals respectively), followed by the Asian/Asian British population with 0.3% (839) and Black/Black British with 0.1% (343) of the total population.

BME groups have the highest proportion of under 16 year olds and a higher proportion of people in all age groups below the age of 40 than the white population. Relative to BME groups the proportion of people over the age of 65 is highest amongst the white population.

13 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

The prominent religions, after Christianity with 80% of the population are Muslim with 0.21% and Buddhist with 0.16% of the population. There appears to be no statistical data about the main BME languages spoken in Shropshire and our own research is based on such a small sample that we cannot draw conclusions about the predominant BME languages spoken in Shropshire.

Statistical data about Travellers are likely to give only an indication of the actual number of people belonging to this minority group. Shropshire County Council owns four Traveller sites which accommodate 46 families; informal estimates of the County Council’s Gypsy Liaison Officers suggest that the actual number of Travellers may be much higher than official records suggest if one takes into account families who may not be settled on designated sites. In addition, official figures tend to underestimate numbers of Travellers on approved sites because counts are based on the number of caravans.

3.2 Indices of Deprivation and BME Groups in Shropshire

The Index of Multiple Deprivation shows that 38 wards make up the top 20% of the most deprived wards in Shropshire. Evidence from urban social inclusion programmes suggests that neighbourhoods which suffer from the most profound deprivation tend to have a high concentration of BME groups. The data for Shropshire does not support this notion, because the wards with the highest Index of Multiple Deprivation Scores (IMDS) for Shropshire do not show a correlation with the wards that have the highest concentration of BME populations. (Appendix Two contains a table of BME census data and a table of the indices of deprivation for the top 20% of Shropshire Wards)

Shrewsbury and Borough has the highest proportion of BME groups in the county (1.6% or 1,542 residents). The Borough also contains the four wards in Shropshire County with the highest number of residents from BME groups. Taking into account that some of these wards contain a high proportion of students from the Concord Residential College, they are not amongst the top 20% of the most deprived wards according to IMDS data. Instead the wards that are listed amongst the top 20% of the most deprived wards in Shropshire County show significantly lower concentrations of BME groups.

Wards not in IMDS top 20% with highest proportion of BME groups Shrewsbury and Number of people Total ward population Atcham Wards from BME groups Bowbrook 142 5,181 Copthorne 118 4,372 Lawley 258 2,586 Porthill 136 5,246

14 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

Wards in IMDS top 20% with highest proportion of BME groups Shrewsbury and Number of people Total ward population Atcham Wards from BME groups Battlefield and 79 4,753 Heathgates Castlefields and Quarry 85 4,486 Monkmoor 70 5,498 Underdale 61 4,901

15 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

By comparison, other districts in Shropshire County have significantly lower numbers of residents from BME communities than Shrewsbury and Atcham. The data also show that the wards with the highest concentration of BME populations are not ranked amongst the top 20% most deprived wards in the county. Below we compare the highest recorded numbers of BME residents from wards that are in the 20% of the most deprived wards with those that are not.

Wards with the highest proportion of BME groups Amongst top 20% IMDS Not amongst to 20% IMDS Highley (38) Donnington and Albrighton North (61) North Shropshire South Sutton (77) (39) Maserfield (75) Carreg Llwyd (47) South Shropshire Bucknell (37) Henley (36)

3.3 Mapping of BME data

The Shropshire County Primary Care Trust has published a comprehensive set of maps on ethnicity in Shropshire County. The maps show that members of BME groups tend to be dispersed across the county in very low numbers. The wards with a BME population in excess of 92 are concentrated around Shrewsbury, Ellesmere, Market Drayton and . However, the low absolute numbers for the recorded BME population raises questions over the utility of statistical data.

With permission of the PCT we have included the maps that are most relevant to this study in Appendix Three. In addition we have included a table on the location and concentration of BME groups by ward in Appendix Two.

3.4 Public Sector BME Initiatives

In addition to the services provided by the Gypsy Liaison Officers, our research found one BME specific public sector led project, an Asian Parents Group which is supported by Sure Start. There are two public sector led networks concerned with BME issues: A Race Equality Group, convened by the Shropshire Primary Care Trust and an Equality and Diversity Forum, convened by the Shropshire Strategic Partnership.

In our search for baseline data we came across a range of public service providers who collect data on BME groups to inform performance management processes, some of which may feed into the Community Strategy that is being drafted by the Shropshire Strategic Partnership. At the time of conducting this study the community plan was not available and therefore we cannot include its analysis of current and planned diversity and equality initiatives of public agencies. The public agencies that were approached for information about BME groups, services, networks and projects are listed in Appendix Four.

16 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

3.5 Voluntary and Community Sector Networks and Initiatives

Our research found only three existing VCS led projects that cater specifically for BME people:

• The Craven Arms Minority Group is a regeneration forum that gives the local Pakistani and Traveller people a voice and a surgery providing advice on access to public services. In addition to the Pakistani and Traveller groups, there are Sikh and Moroccan families in Craven Arms. An increasing number of asylum seekers or immigrant workers are being noticed who are not connected to existing BME networks and do not appear to use the support offered by the Craven Arms Minority Project.

• The Shropshire Victim Support Visible Minorities Project was launched in April 2005 with support from the Telford based Visible Minorities Council. The project aims to identify and support victims of crime, offering an interpretation services through recently appointed project workers fluent inGhanaian, Urdu, Hindu and Punjabi.

• The Shropshire Bangladeshi Welfare Society is currently based in Telford and has developed a membership of 800 Bangladeshi people and 300 members from other BME origins in Shropshire. The organisation is in the process of developing a community centre inShrewsbury with the support of Shropshire County Council.

An initiative that covers BME issues in Shropshire, although not exclusively, is the Equalities and Diversity Forum, which is convened by the CCS. In addition, a number of VCOs take extra steps to make their services accessible to BME groups, and show sensitivity towards cultural differences when providing advice or support. Although the majority of study participants did not know of specific services for BME people they acknowledged the importance and showed a willingness to respond to the specific needs of people from BME backgrounds.

17 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

Part Four: Study Findings

4. Introduction to Part Four

In Part Four of this Final Report we address the second aim of this study:

To establish the level of engagement of BME people with existing VCOs in Shropshire as well as adjacent administrative areas.”

We present the findings from our qualitative fieldwork which comprised:

• Nine semi-structured telephone interviews with BME people who live and/or work in Shropshire • Seven semi-structured face to face interviews with 13 Travellers who are based on sites in Shropshire and Telford • Two semi-structured telephone interviews with staff of Shropshire based VCOs who are not from BME origins • Two workshops with members of the Shropshire Community Development Forum and the Shropshire Equalities and Diversity Forum.

In our fieldwork we used a carefully constructed set of questions aimed at drawing out different perspectives and contrasting views on issues relating to the aims of this study. In particular we asked interviewees to share their perspectives on and experience of:

• Whether they had used services provided by VCOs in Shropshire • How far these services had responded to their needs • How they had found out about the services they used • What the gaps in service provision for BME groups might be • How existing services could be improved.

The findings are presented in two distinct sections:

1. Findings from telephone interviews 2. Findings from face to face interviews with Travellers

4.1 Findings from telephone interviews

4.1.1 VCS services in Shropshire

People’s views about VCS services in Shropshire fell into four main categories, concerned with:

• Understanding the term ‘service’ • Awareness of VCO services

18 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

• Information on services • The profile of faith groups.

We present our findings under these heading below.

Understanding the term ‘services’ A number of study participants had difficulty in conceptualising what a ‘service’ might be and whether they had used ‘services’ recently. When prompted they responded by referring to public services such as health care, education, leisure, social services or the job centre. Only study participants who had work experience in VCOs or public agencies were able to distinguish between VCS services and those provided by public agencies.

Awareness of VCO services Study participants who were not themselves involved in service provision for BME groups had no knowledge of any BME specific services in Shropshire. Where study participants were involved in service provision through working or volunteering for a VCO, their knowledge of other VCOs providing BME support services was very limited. Most study participants assumed that there were more BME specific services which they were not aware of. Three VCS services were identified by study participants are:

• The Craven Arms Minority Project • The Victim Support Visible Minorities Project • The Shropshire Bangladeshi Welfare Society.

Information on services A number of people felt that there was too little information specifically targeted at BME groups on the availability of services. It was felt to be important to help VCOs and public agencies signpost individuals to sources of support.

Some study participants suggested that more leaflets in different languages should be produced. On the other hand, those who had produced leaflets in different languages felt that this was not an effective mechanism to reach highly dispersed BME people in Shropshire and said that most of the multi- lingual literature produced in the past had gone unused. Using the printed as well as radio media more effectively to showcase BME projects was suggested as a way of helping to overcome the information deficit. However, a number of study participants saw the media as being unsupportive and not interested in running positive BME stories:

“We should celebrate some of the things that come out of the work with young people. One thing would be to show the work in school, take pictures of the young people and celebrate their achievements. In the past the media has not turned up, despite promises.”

19 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

The profile of faith groups The lack of facilities for faith groups as potential support mechanisms for BME people was mentioned several times. The low concentration of BME people “There is nothing in my faith around here”

Where there are higher densities of people sharing a faith, individuals came together to create prayer facilities in private homes or used church facilities to practice their faith:

“At the moment we meet with 70-90 people in a prayer room at a church hall once a week on a Friday. In the Islamic faith we need to pray five times a day – we can’t do this together at the moment.”

4.1.2 VCS services outside Shropshire

When asked whether they were aware of any specific services provided for BME groups many study participants referred to services provided by VCOs based in Telford. The specific projects or organisations based in that were mentioned are:

• Telford West Indian Association • Visible Minorities Development Council • African Caribbean Society • West Indian Association • Neighbourhood Contact Scheme • Shropshire Bangladeshi Welfare Society.

We found two examples of a VCO based in Telford and Wrekin supporting the development of BME services in Shropshire: The Visible Minorities Development Council based in Telford had supported the establishment of the Victim Support Visible Minorities Project in Shropshire; The Shropshire Bangladeshi Welfare Society was in the process of establishing a community centre in Shrewsbury and had a substantial membership from individuals who lived in Shropshire.

There was little evidence of networks which address BME issues between VCOs based in Shropshire County and VCOs working outside the County. One example was the work done by the Race, Equality and Diversity Executive Group in Telford. Study participants from Telford involved in this initiative identified the importance of connecting BME people and VCO led BME work in Shropshire with initiatives taking place in Telford, but there was little evidence of structured liaison and dialogue between VCOs in Telford and those located in Shropshire.

Some VCOs are part of sub-regional or regional networks and use the opportunities this offers for networking and information sharing about BME services. However, most study participants who work for Shropshire VCOs

20 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

used their personal contacts to liaise with other VCOs outside the county, as and when required.

4.1.3 Barriers to access

People’s views about barriers to access of VCS or public sector services were grouped under three headings:

• Geography and demography • Lack of support with translation and interpretation • Reluctance to seek support.

We present our findings under these headings below.

Geography and demography BME people in Shropshire were described as facing a dual challenge. First, the low concentration of BME people is itself seen as a barrier to the development of BME specific services; second, the distance between a service and a potential user is a barrier to access:

“The dispersed nature of BME people in Shropshire means that connectivity between groups is very difficult. There is not enough of a big community for leaders to come out and make a difference.”

“The only problem is that living in Craven Arms means that most of the services are located in Shrewsbury. This is quite a distance to go, so access can sometimes be a problem.”

Lack of support with translation and interpretation One of the most frequently cited barriers to access of existing services was the lack of sufficient language skills amongst members of BME people. An example was that lack of comprehension amongst parents from BME people which was witnessed at parents evenings. This was seen to lead to lack of adequate parental support at home which may, in turn, result in children from BME people falling behind.

“Some parents are not sure of what to do in the home and how to link with the school. This means that children are often lagging behind at school and start to cause trouble.”

Another example given was that some BME people struggle to understand the processes and diagnoses associated with hospital or primary care. In these cases, participants suggested that it was the lack of interpreters speaking Hindi and Urdu which was creating barriers rather than a lack of leaflets in BME languages.

21 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

Reluctance to seek support A number of study participants suggested that victims of racial harassment and racial crime are reluctant to seek help because they do not want to attract further attention.

Victim Support Shropshire has established a service specifically designed to overcome barriers of access to legal and counselling support for BME people. Two project workers who between them speak Ghanaian, Urdu, Hindi and Punjabi have been recruited recently to identify and support victims of crime in the visible minority communities in Shropshire. A barrier to access suggested in this context is that victims of crime amongst BME people do not tend to come forward asking for help:

“I don’t believe enough is done to identify and help these communities. Historically they do not come forward to use the services offered – consequently the services have to go to them!”

4.1.4 Gaps in Service Provision

Study participants distinguished between gaps in services provided by public agencies and services provided by VCOs. A further gap is the lack of information about the services that are available.

Public service providers There was a clear sense amongst all study participants that public agencies need to do more to support BME people. It was suggested that most services needed to take more account of the particular needs of BME people. Examples quoted were better mental health provision, substance misuse services, housing services (specifically in relation young people from BME communities) and education services.

“Health and legal issues are very important priorities to look at in Shropshire. A lot of black young people are looked after in care and need much better services than they are getting access to at the moment.”

VCS service providers The gaps in service provision which could be seen as specific to the VCS concentrated around advocacy roles. VCOs were seen to have critically important roles in providing advice on immigration issues, helping individuals who feel they are being harassed or subject to institutional racism, or supporting people who encounter problems with the criminal justice system:

“BME communities need their own spaces to start developing specific services. We need to be independent. We still [want to have contact with] CAB, PCT and other service providers [because] we don’t want to be exclusive.”

Giving BME people a voice was seen as being of equal importance. In the absence of robust and visible networks or structures for BME people an annual

22 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

conference or meeting specifically about BME issues in Shropshire was suggested as having the potential to send out a signal that there is a network of people who are sharing similar concerns:

“A lot of people suffer in silence. They need a voice to share and air their experiences.”

More and better information Most study participants agreed that the most significant gap at present was a lack of good and comprehensive information about the services that are available to BME people from both public and VCS providers. The provision of information, although an important first step, needed to go beyond mere signposting. Acknowledgement of the work that is being done by VCOs for BME people and a platform from which to develop contacts and networks was identified as crucially important to the maintenance and survival of small and often isolated projects:

“Rural Groups can get demoralised quite easily. There is no sounding board, nothing comes back from public or voluntary organisations. The take up of the service might be very low due to the dispersed nature of BME groups in rural areas, but the support provided might still be absolutely critical and the only one of this type available for miles around.”

4.1.5 Improving VCO led services for BME people

Study participants in the workshops and the telephone interviews made a number of suggestions about how services for BME people could be improved.

People’s suggestions in general fell under five headings:

• Development of self-help groups • Give BME people a voice • Establish access points • Improve the cultural sensitivity of public services • Closer collaboration between public agencies and VCOs.

Support the development of self-help groups Most study participants felt that priority should be given to support the development of self-help groups because the dispersed nature and low numbers of the BME population makes centralised provision of specialised support services problematic. Encouraging individuals with similar support needs to come together was seen as an initial and important step towards overcoming isolation and developing support networks.

Workshop participants suggested that VCOs had a critical role to play in developing BME people because of their experience in community development. Some study participants also perceived VCOs as being closer to members of BME people than public agencies. There was a belief that VCOs

23 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

are more likely to have BME people amongst their staff or volunteers who would have first hand experience of the difficulties encountered by individuals:

“It is important for BME communities to hear the information from someone they can relate to.”

Give BME people a voice VCOs were seen as having an important role in giving BME people a voice to bring about changes in the way services are being provided by public agencies, such as providing legal support and advocacy in cases where individuals did not feel supported by public agencies.

“We need to give rural BME people and projects a voice. Even just one meeting a year can send people a message that they are not alone and that they can find others who share similar interests or concerns.”

Establish access points Workshop participants suggested that permanent ‘portals’ could be established through which BME people might find out about and access VCS services. These ‘portals’ needed to be long term and sustainable.

Making connections with VCOs who operate outside Shropshire was also seen as important because of the expertise and resources that reside in urban networks. Better networking across administrative boundaries would be a key task for the suggested ‘portals’ to BME services.

Improve the cultural sensitivity of public services Providing services that better reflect the needs of BME people was considered to be a priority for public agencies. Many study participants argued that public agencies have a duty to tailor their services to the needs of minority groups and to combat racism; they are also seen as having substantially more resources than VCOs to address the challenges faced by BME people in Shropshire. The translation of hospital information and the provision of interpretation services were advocated by a number of study participants. Making staff in the Job Centres more aware of the needs and cultural differences of BME people, in particular young people, was also suggested.

The education service was singled out repeatedly for not doing enough to encourage a better awareness of diversity and equality: in particular, schools could be more pro-active in developing a culture of diversity amongst young people and their parents:

“Being the only black pupil in the school did have an effect on my child in terms of identity and feeling part of the school community.”

“Pupils should see how communities of other cultures celebrate events and also encourage pupils to interact with these communities.”

24 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

More could be also done to engage with young people from BME people through cultural events and music. Officials in public agencies would benefit from developing their cultural awareness of BME people in order to become more effective at engaging with them: “The problem is that public sector led cultural development schemes in Shrewsbury and Shropshire have not got a clue about the BME scene.”

Some study participants were aware that many instances of racial harassment went unreported. Feedback from the police on progress in relation to reported incidents of racial harassment was identified as a problem because it made those coming forward feel more insecure:

“If we don’t have any feedback what’s the point of reporting it?”

Closer collaboration between public agencies and VCOs There was a widespread sense that public and voluntary agencies did not liaise on BME matters effectively. To keep both sectors up to date with BME issues it was suggested that, as part of service level agreements between public agencies and VCOs, there should be a requirement to undertake joint diversity training or awareness raising sessions. Statutory service providers needed to take the lead and set an example of good practice in supporting BME people in Shropshire:

“Local authority staff should be required to attend equality and diversity sessions and liaise with their VCS counterparts to recount issues and share good practice. In areas of isolation people need to hear where good practice has taken place and what has happened elsewhere and how people have gained strength so that people can be empowered to take things forward in Shropshire”

25 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

4.2 Study findings from face to face interviews with Traveller

4.2.1 Services used by Travellers on official sites

Our data were collected from interviews with Travellers living on official sites only. The findings reported here may therefore not apply to those Travellers in transit or living on private, unauthorised or unofficial sites.

Study participants did not distinguish between VCS and public service provision. The services that were most frequently mentioned were health, education, refuse collection and police services. The Gypsy Liaison Officers employed by Shropshire County Council were also seen as a service and are highly valued. Access to services was not considered to be a problem, with almost all study participants saying that they had the support they needed:

“We’ve got the services we asked for. It’s the best it’s ever been. We’re really blessed.”

The CAB was the only VCS specific service mentioned by study participants, all other services identified were provided by public agencies:

“We have no difficulty getting advice – we use ourselves for advice. We have used CAB – never had any problems using them.”

4.2.2 Meeting the needs of Travellers on official sites

Most study participants reported that they had all the services they needed. There were some suggestions that Travellers look after themselves and cultivate traditions that make them less dependent on public services:

“We’re not used to having anything done for us – we try and do things for ourselves. Don’t get me wrong, we use doctors and hospitals, but outside of that we try and manage ourselves.”

“Outside of doctors, hospitals and schools, we fill our own gaps.”

“There are no gaps. We are happy with what we have.”

“We also use self-cure, a Gypsy tradition.”

One study participant suggested that additional provision was required for children. While out of school support, such as additional tutoring or support in cases of bullying, was seen as sufficient, there could be more leisure type provision for children:

“We could do with more help for the kids. Other areas have free trips, day trips to Alton Towers or the cinema. We don’t have that here.”

26 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

The comments by study participants suggest that the Gypsy Liaison Officers employed by Shropshire County Council play a critically important role. Over the past 20 years there has been continuity in the relationships between public agencies and Travellers because of these officers. This has allowed settled Travellers to develop their community and maintain their cultural identity. The liaison officers are trusted and more than a simple channel that links Travellers to public services:

“(The Gypsy Liaison Officer) keeps us up to date. He tells us what’s going on. He gets things repaired. He comes round and reads our letters and helps us fill in forms.”

4.2.3 Improving services for Travellers on official sites

Study participants voiced dissatisfaction about the lack of space on existing sites but the main issue raised was the provision of more sites and planning permission for Gypsy landowners to set up their camps. Established sites and families felt accepted by the local community and no cases of harassment or discrimination were reported:

“We’ve been here long. The local people know us and stop and talk at the shops when we’re out.”

However, establishing new sites was fraught with difficulty. Stories about people losing all their savings and possessions in desperate attempts to establish new camps were recounted. Study participants felt that established sites were accepted but when it comes to new sites local people are suspicious and local authorities were described as being reluctant to give planning permission:

“We all get tarred with the same brush. All we want is more sites to help our families. If they (the local authority) don’t have more sites, then we want planning permission to set up our own land.”

“We are ok doing things within our own community, our families. Just give us land, let us live together. We can’t live isolated lives in houses.”

“We just want a place to stop and settle. I’m always worried they’ll try and move another family next to us – and there’s no room here. It’s a tight space.”

Study participants in Telford were much more outspoken about the shortcomings of public agencies in providing more sites for Travellers to set up camp. We found that if study participants in Telford were in conflict with public agencies or local people, they would turn to an independent person who has been a source of support and an effective advocate for their issues for many years despite having no formal role or responsibility for the Travellers.

27 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

Part Five: Implications for the Development of VCO Led Service Provision

5. Introduction

In this Part Five of the Final Report we address the third aim of this study:

To assess the scope for the development of BME led VCOs in Shropshire.

The interview data we have gathered and the feedback on the emerging findings received at the two workshops provides a consistent picture. The data suggest that there are a number of key issues that need to be taken into account when considering the possible future development of BME services in Shropshire The key issues identified in Part Three and Part Four of this report can be summarised as follows:

• Existing services and networks for BME people need to be advertised and communicated more effectively so that BME people can engage with existing VCS services more easily • Public agencies need to do more to provide services that are sensitive to the needs of BME people in Shropshire • The needs of Travellers living on official sites are well catered for by public agencies • VCS networks in Shropshire that include BME issues in their work are at an early stage of development • The input of BME led VCOs from outside Shropshire is a key feature in the emergence of two BME specific projects identified in this study • BME people in rural parts of Shropshire are highly dispersed and absolute numbers are very low.

From careful analysis of our study findings it is possible to draw some tentative conclusions about the development of BME led VCOs in Shropshire and identify two models which might improve the provision of services for BME people in Shropshire. Before we present these models we discuss the scope for BME led VCOs in Shropshire.

5.1 Scope for the development of BME led VCOs

Our study has highlighted evidence that there is scope for the future development of BME led services in Shropshire. We found two cases where services for BME people were developed with the support of existing BME people: the Victim Support Visible Minorities Project and the Shropshire Bangladeshi Welfare Society community centre in Shrewsbury. In both cases the BME led organisation involved in the establishment of the service was based in Telford, using its organisational capacity to extend its work into Shropshire County.

28 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

The interview data do not suggest, however, that there are BME people based in Shropshire who would, with additional support, want to establish organisations specifically in order to provide services for BME people. On the contrary, most study participants were sceptical about the feasibility of establishing specialised services catering for a small and highly dispersed number of BME people. Resources to maintain existing services were already very scarce and, whilst developing new specialised services might attract start- up funding, it was generally felt that in the long term such services were unlikely to be viable.

With regards to Travellers on offical sites our findings suggest that there is little need for the provision of additional services through VCOs. However, this may not be the case for Travellers in transit or living on private, unauthorised or unofficial sites because these groups were not included in our sample.

5.2 Models for VCS led service provision

Issues and appropriate responses need to be self-defined by BME people in the first instance before VCS infrastructure or services are developed that would support them. Earlier research1 suggests that the development of networks and infrastructures for BME people can facilitate the bottom-up identification of shared needs and concerns, as well as possible responses. However, the current paucity of BME networks and structures in Shropshire might act as barrier to such a bottom up process. Therefore, in the first instance, consideration would need to be given to supporting emerging infrastructures and community groups.

Building on the study findings, we can identify two models which revolve around a notion of the VCS as having a crucial role in developing communities and being an advocate for marginalised groups of society.

5.2.1 The Advocacy Model

In the Advocacy Model the function of existing VCOs in Shropshire would be to advance the case of BME people by trying to influence public sector service provision and shape county as well as local policy. This would involve some VCOs acting as the interface between BME people and public agencies. These VCOs could also have an advocacy role for VCOs engaged with BME issues in Shropshire.

This model may have the advantage that shortcomings in the provision of services for BME people can be addressed through existing VCOs without burdening them with the responsibility of providing these services themselves.

1 See for example: CVAR, (2003), Good practice in the recruitment and retention of volunteers from diverse communities’ for The Befrienders, Birmingham; CVAR, (2005) The role and contribution of local parishes in local communities in the Diocese of Birmingham’ for The Diocese of Birmingham, Birmingham

29 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

The two areas highlighted in our study were improving diversity awareness in education, and providing support with translation and interpreting a number of public service settings.

This Advocacy Model is based on mechanisms for networking, between VCOs and public agencies in the same geographical area and between those with a common focus whose networks might extend beyond the administrative boundaries of the County of Shropshire. This model can evolve around the VCS resources that are currently available in areas within and adjacent to Shropshire County. Utilising resources and expertise of specialist VCOs – including regional and Telford based organisations, could provide valuable practical expertise and capacity to support the work of Shropshire VCOs. This might also open up access to a regional infrastructure and opportunities to link regional policy and good practice on diversity and equality with BME people in Shropshire.

The strengthening of formal and informal social, familial and organisational networks may be a way to overcome some of the practical barriers to the development of BME led services in Shropshire. Our research suggests that such networks are at an early stage of development within Shropshire and we found little evidence of networks able to facilitate a structured flow of information about BME issues across the administrative borders of Shropshire County. Again, using existing VCS infrastructure organisations - such as Regional Action - might provide frameworks to access and share information with other VCOs on BME issues, resources, expertise and policy.

5.2.2 The Community Development Model

Most study participants suggested that the development of self help groups amongst members of BME people was one of the most appropriate and important ways to begin addressing the specific needs of individuals. This suggests a grass roots approach which would be highly localised and issue specific.

In the Community Development Model, existing VCOs from within and outside Shropshire would build the capacity of existing BME people. This model offers opportunities to BME people to lead ‘from within’ in order to develop support that serves the specific needs of its community or group. Community development would be complementary to the development of an Advocacy Model.

Informal groups consisting of friends, family and neighbours can be seen as an essential part of the VCS and wider civil society. Consequently, care needs to be taken to safeguard informal groups from attempts to turn them into more formal structures unless this is actively desired by participants. Although it can be beneficial to create formal structures based on membership, roles and defined purposes, it needs to be borne in mind that these structures can only

30 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

be sustained with the active and generally voluntary input of the participants who created the initiative in the first place.

In this model the function of existing VCOs would be to provide community development support to informal BME people who share similar challenges or interests. The particular focus on BME issues would require skills and expertise that reflects the specific needs of the BME people in Shropshire. Consequently it is likely that resources which reside within VCOs that specialise in BME issues, and who operate outside Shropshire, would need to be called upon. Our research suggests that VCOs from outside Shropshire are willing to offer their skills and expertise to support BME people in Shropshire. Equally, VCOs with community development expertise from within Shropshire see the support of BME people and their development into more formal structures as a priority.

5.3 Issues to be considered

We have not constructed the models beyond their core function. However, it is possible to identify a number of issues that need to be considered prior to a detailed model development, including:

• Legitimacy • Securing resources • Developing collaborative relationships.

5.3.1 Legitimacy

Earlier research2 on networks and advocacy coalitions has highlighted the importance of legitimacy for those VCOs who act as the interface between the VCS and public agencies. Our data suggest that the development of a representative voice for BME people is likely to be fraught with difficulty. Not only are the numbers of people from BME backgrounds very low and also highly dispersed, there are currently no identifiable VCS led BME networks in Shropshire. Our study reflects the research findings by Gaine (2004) who argued that people from BME backgrounds are “better thought of as individuals with different ethnicities rather than groups as such, and certainly not communities.” (ibid.,p.12)

The data gathered in our study suggest that some of the foundations are in place to work on the development of a legitimate VCS led BME interest network. However, at this stage the establishment of an effective channel of communication would appear to be a first practical step towards increasing contact with individual BME people as well as formal and informal groups in Shropshire. A greater focus on connecting with the resources and expertise of

2 See for example Harris, M., Cairns, B., Hutchinson, R. (2004),” So Many Tiers, So Many Agendas, So Many Pots of Money”: The Challenge of English Regionalization for Voluntary and Community Organizations, Social Policy and Administration, Vol.38, No.5, pp.525-540; Dart, R. (2004), The Legitimacy of Social Enterprise, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, Vol.14, No 4, pp.411-424

31 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

VCOs who operate outside the administrative boundaries of Shropshire is likely to be of substantial benefit in this respect.

5.3.2 Securing Resources

Developing VCS networks and an effective interface with public agencies would need to be properly resourced. Although existing structures and organisational resources are currently used to support BME people and develop networks, it is unrealistic to assume that effective advocacy and community development work for BME people can be developed from within existing VCS resources.

While the actual resource requirements will need to be established on the basis of a detailed plan, we can say at this stage that the two models described above would both require additional

• Time • Money • Information • Skills.

In the context of this study it might be that government policies set out in the Compact guidance and in ChangeUp could provide a useful frame of reference for initial discussions with potential funders3

5.3.3 Developing collaborative relationships

The establishment of collaborative working relationships can move through different stages. Choosing an approach that reflects the current state of relationships between VCOs and between the VCS and the public sector is important. There are different levels of working together and the VCS in Shropshire might benefit from selecting the approach that is most useful and appropriate to their needs. For example:

• Information exchange (e.g. identifying where working across sectors or administrative boundaries might be most effective to respond to BME issues) • Action planning (e.g. jointly agreeing what needs to be done) • Implementing projects jointly (e.g. as consortia or loosely co-ordinated networks) • Collaboration (joint problem solving and action based on shared values and agendas).

3 A useful reference is Rochester (1999) who provides a wide range of examples of the practical challenges encountered by VCOs who develop new services.

32 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

Earlier research4 has shown that trusting relationships between the CEOs or senior staff of different organisations are key to the development of collaborative relationships. Equally important is board level commitment to collaborative projects, particularly where these are of a strategic nature. Furthermore, successful collaboration in the VCS needs to be built around the following principles:

• An exchange of knowledge, skills, information and resources • A concern with both individual and collective (therefore mutual) benefits • A focus on problems and challenges which can be better resolved together, not singly • A high degree of mutual trust and respect

5.4 Summary

In this final part of the Final Report we have addressed the question about the scope for the possible development of BME led VCOs in Shropshire. We have also outlined two complementary models for tackling improvements to the provision of services for BME people living and working in Shropshire and outlined the core issues that would need to be considered should these models be developed further.

4 See for example Huxham, C., ed. (1996), Creating Collaborative Advantage, London, Sage; CVAR (2005), Strategic Alliance Study, Birmingham

33 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

References

ACRE (1999) Community is Key. ACRE, Cirencester

Agyeman J, Spooner R (1997) Ethnicity and the rural environment. In P Cloke, J Little, eds, Contested Countryside Cultures: Otherness, marginalisation and rurality. Routledge, London

Alleyne B (2002) An idea of community and its discontents: Towards a more reflexive sense of belonging in multicultural Britain. Ethnic and Racial Studies 25: 607-627

Chakraborti N, Garland J (2003) Under-researched and Overlooked: An exploration of the attitudes of rural minority ethnic communities towards crime, community safety and the criminal justice system. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 29: 563 – 572

Cloke P, Milbourne P, Widdowfield R (2000) Partnership and Policy Networks in Rural Local Governance: Homelesness in Taunton. In Public Administration, Vol 78, pp 111-133

Community Development Xchange (2003) Connecting Black and Minority Ethnic People in Rural Areas - Are We doing Enough? Community Development Xchange, Sheffield

Countryside Agency (2000) Not seen, not heard? Social exclusion in rural areas. Countryside Agency, Cheltenham

Countryside Agency (2003) Quality of Life in Tomorrow's Countryside: Implementing the Countryside Agency's strategy. The Countryside Agency, Cheltenham

Dart, R. (2004)The Legitimacy of Social Enterprise. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, Vol.14, No 4, pp.411-424

DEFRA (2004) The Rural Strategy. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London

Dhalech M (1999) Challenging Racism in the Rural Idyll. National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, London

Ellis A, Hindley A, Macmillan R, Scott D, Servante D (2004) Experiencing Community Development in Rural Britain: No overall control. Centre for Applied Social Research, University of Manchester, Manchester

Gaine C (2004) Minority Ethnic People's Experience in Herefordshire. University College Chichester, Chichester

34 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

Harris, M., Cairns, B., Hutchinson, R. (2004) ”So Many Tiers, So Many Agendas, So Many Pots of Money”: The Challenge of English Regionalization for Voluntary and Community Organizations. Social Policy and Administration, 38, No.5, pp.525-540

Hubbard P (2005) Inappropriate and Incongruous: Opposition to asylum centres in the English countryside. Journal of Rural Studies 21: 3-17

Huxham C ed. (1996) Creating Collaborative Advantage. London, Sage

MAFF (2000) Our Countryside: The Future - A fair deal for England. Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, London

Neal, S. (2002) Rural landscapes, representations and racism: examining multicultural citizenship and policy making in the English countryside. Ethnic and Racial Studies 25: 442-461

Osborne SP, Williamson A, Beattie R (2002) Community Involvement in Rural Regeneration Partnerships in the UK: Key issues from a three nation study. Regional Studies 36: 1083-1092

Phillip, L. and Shucksmith, M. (1999) Conceptualising Social Exclusion. Paper given at the European Society for Rural Sociology XVIII Congress, Lund, Sweden, August 1999.

Ray L, Reed K (2005) Community, Mobility and Racism in a Semi Rural Area: Comparing minority experience in Kent. Ethnic and Racial Studies 28: 212-234

Rochester C (1999) Juggling on a Unicycle: A Handbook for Small Voluntary Agencies. Centre for Voluntary Organisation, London School of Economics, London

West Mercia Criminal Justice Board (2004) Gypsy and Traveller Communities in West Mercia, Unpublished

Yates H (2002) Supporting Rural Voluntary Action. NCVO, London

Yates H, Jochum V (2003) It's Who You Know that Counts: The role of the voluntary sector in the development of social capital in rural areas. NCVO, London

35 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

Appendix One: Organisations who received a questionnaire

Shropshire County Out of County

Citizens’ Advice Bureau, South Telford & Wrekin Council Shropshire Race Equality West Midlands Severnside Housing Association Telford & Wrekin Council for Voluntary Shropshire MIND Service Headway Shropshire Wolverhampton Voluntary Service Axis Counselling Council Disability West Midlands Herefordshire Racial Equality Forum Shrewsbury Civic Society Stoke-on-Trent Voluntary Action Princes Trust Stafford District Voluntering Service Confide Counselling Service Voluntary Action Shrewsbury Impact Alcohol Advisory Service Community Council of Shropshire – Social Care Teams Homestart; North Shropshire,

Oswestry, Shrewsbury, Bridgnorth, South Shropshire Just Credit Union Shropshire Furniture Scheme Shropshire Buddies & Body Positive Shropshire Village Halls Steering Group Citizens Advice Bureau North Shropshire Visible Minorities Development Council Shropshire Wildlife Trust

South Shropshire Furniture Scheme Headway Shropshire Relate Shropshire & Herefordshire Citizens Advice Shropshire North Shropshire Volunteer Bureau West Midlands Show DIAL Shropshire Victim Support Shropshire Presdales School Qube, Oswestry Trans-Shropsjire County Access Group

Rural Stress Support Network Shropshire Reminiscence Group Shropshire Youth Association South Shropshire Voluntary Action Shropshire Disability Consortium

36 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

Appendix Two: BME Census data and indices of deprivation

Table KS06 Ethnic group All People White Groups Mixed Groups Asian Groups Black Groups Chinese and Other Groups

White Irish Irish White White British British White Main Settlement Main Settlement White Other White Mixed Other Mixed Mixed White andAsian White Mixed Asian or Asian British Indian British or Asian Asian Mixed White and African Black Mixed White Asian or AsianBritish Pakistani Asian Black or Black British Other British Black or Black Black Asian or Asian British Other Asian Other British or Asian Asian Mixed White and Black Caribbean Caribbean andBlack White Mixed Asian or Asian British Bangladeshi Bangladeshi British or Asian Asian Black or Black British Black African Black British Black or Black Black or Black British Black Caribbean British Black Caribbean Black or Black Chinese or other ethnic group Chinese group Chinese ethnic other or Chinese Chinese or other ethnic group Other Ethnic Group Ethnic group Other ethnic other or Chinese

39 Shropshire County 283,173 275,545 1,432 2,765 404 76 363 327 429 143 144 123 134 151 58 737 342 39UB Bridgnorth 52,497 51,317 244 468 73 9 57 42 76 12 23 17 24 18 12 74 31 39UBFX Albrighton South Albrighton 3,052 2,975 16 19 4 - 8 4 18 5 - - - - 3 - - 39UBFY Alveley Bridgnorth 2,921 2,859 13 40 - - 3 - - - - - 3 3 - - - Rural 39UBFZ Bridgnorth Castle Bridgnorth 2,880 2,777 9 40 10 3 - 3 3 - 4 - 3 3 3 19 3

37 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

Table KS06 Ethnic group All People White Groups Mixed Groups Asian Groups Black Groups Chinese and Other Groups 39UBGA Bridgnorth East Bridgnorth 2,885 2,787 17 48 4 - - 8 - 3 3 - 3 3 - 9 - 39UBGB Bridgnorth Morfe Bridgnorth 3,009 2,947 13 17 3 - 5 3 3 - 15 - - - - - 3 39UBGC Bridgnorth West Bridgnorth 2,976 2,935 11 14 5 - 5 3 ------3 - 39UBGD East Broseley 2,804 2,746 13 21 - - 3 - 6 - - 3 3 - - 9 - 39UBGE Broseley West Broseley 2,745 2,696 19 16 5 - 3 3 ------3 - 39UBGF Claverley Bridgnorth 1,480 1,445 7 13 4 - 3 - 5 - - - 3 - - - - Rural 39UBGG Ditton Priors Bridgnorth 1,563 1,520 5 22 3 - - 3 - - - 4 - - 3 - 3 Rural 39UBGH Donington and Albrighton 5,137 5,004 28 44 9 - 8 3 11 3 - 6 3 6 3 6 3 Albrighton North 39UBGJ Glazeley Bridgnorth 1,512 1,492 4 13 3 ------Rural 39UBGK Harrington Bridgnorth 1,401 1,390 - 5 - - - - 3 ------3 - Rural 39UBGL Highley Bridgnorth 3,299 3,237 14 10 6 - 5 3 10 - - 3 - 3 - 5 3 Rural 39UBGM Morville Bridgnorth 1,499 1,476 6 8 - - 3 3 ------3 - Rural 39UBGN Much Wenlock 3,042 2,982 13 31 ------3 - 3 - - 5 5 39UBGP Idsall Shifnal 2,830 2,768 15 26 4 3 3 4 4 - - - 3 - - - - 39UBGQ Shifnal Manor Shifnal 2,552 2,478 23 15 8 - 3 3 5 - - - 3 - 3 3 8 39UBGR Shifnal Rural Bridgnorth 1,708 1,678 7 20 ------3 - Rural 39UBGS Stottesdon Bridgnorth 1,688 1,636 3 31 - - - - - 3 - - - - 3 3 9 Rural

38 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

Table KS06 Ethnic group All People White Groups Mixed Groups Asian Groups Black Groups Chinese and Other Groups 39UBGT Worfield Bridgnorth 1,527 1,489 7 15 - 3 - 3 4 3 - - - - - 3 - Rural 39UC North Shropshire 57,108 55,679 283 506 123 14 64 49 63 43 15 22 38 31 16 101 61 39UCGD Baschurch North 1,475 1,428 12 18 5 - 3 3 6 ------Shropshire Rural 39UCGE Clive and Myddle North 2,553 2,488 13 27 3 - 6 - 3 - - - 3 4 3 3 - Shropshire Rural 39UCGF Cockshutt North 1,297 1,251 6 25 - - - 3 - 3 - 3 3 3 - - - Shropshire Rural 39UCGG Dudleston Heath North 1,413 1,387 3 6 - - 3 - 8 - 3 3 - - - - - Shropshire Rural 39UCGH Ellesmere and Ellesmere 3,895 3,806 28 31 6 - 3 5 - 3 - - - 4 - 6 3 Welshampton 39UCGJ Hinstock North 2,572 2,520 7 19 5 3 5 - 5 - - - - 3 - - 5 Shropshire Rural 39UCGK Hodnet North 2,611 2,562 13 13 5 - 5 3 3 ------3 4 Shropshire Rural 39UCGL Hordley North 1,521 1,442 4 24 - - - - - 3 - - 3 3 - 36 6 Shropshire Rural 39UCGM Market Drayton East Market Drayton 2,919 2,853 10 18 10 3 7 4 5 - - - 3 - - 3 3

39 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

Table KS06 Ethnic group All People White Groups Mixed Groups Asian Groups Black Groups Chinese and Other Groups 39UCGN Market Drayton North Market Drayton 4,508 4,422 16 41 4 - 3 3 3 3 - 4 - - - 6 3 39UCGP Market Drayton Market Drayton 2,986 2,908 16 23 7 - 6 - - 7 3 3 5 - - 8 - South 39UCGQ North 2,686 2,645 6 16 3 - - 7 - 3 - - - 3 - - 3 Shropshire Rural 39UCGR Shavington North 1,420 1,382 6 16 - - - 3 - 9 - - - - - 4 - Shropshire Rural 39UCGS Shawbury North 3,046 2,950 25 28 10 - 5 3 6 - - 4 - 3 - 5 7 Shropshire Rural 39UCGT Sutton North 2,548 2,416 27 28 33 - 3 4 3 3 - - 10 4 4 8 5 Shropshire Rural 39UCGU East Wem 2,463 2,375 9 32 5 3 7 3 9 3 - - 3 3 5 6 - 39UCGW Wem Rural North 1,421 1,393 6 15 - - - - - 4 3 ------Shropshire Rural 39UCGX Wem West Wem 2,681 2,602 13 44 5 - - 3 - 3 3 - - - - 8 - 39UCGY Whitchurch North Whitchurch 2,713 2,666 10 15 - - 3 4 4 - - 4 - - - 3 4 39UCGZ Whitchurch Rural North 1,432 1,388 10 16 3 - 4 ------3 - 8 Shropshire Rural 39UCHA Whitchurch South Whitchurch 2,961 2,902 17 14 4 3 - 3 4 - 3 - 3 - - 4 4 39UCHB Whitchurch West Whitchurch 3,144 3,106 10 12 - - 3 3 - 3 - - - 3 - - 4

40 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

Table KS06 Ethnic group All People White Groups Mixed Groups Asian Groups Black Groups Chinese and Other Groups 39UCHC Whixhall North 1,429 1,403 7 16 ------3 - - Shropshire Rural 39UCHD Woore North 1,412 1,384 9 9 7 ------3 Shropshire Rural 39UD Oswestry 37,308 36,429 171 288 35 7 49 45 40 6 43 8 20 23 4 97 43 39UDFR Cabin Lane Oswestry 2,327 2,273 11 6 9 - 3 7 - - 4 - - 4 - 7 3 39UDFS Cambrian Oswestry 2,344 2,307 16 15 - - 3 ------3 39UDFT Carreg Llwyd Oswestry 2,765 2,682 13 23 - - 5 - - - 36 - 3 - - - 3 39UDFU Castle Oswestry 2,631 2,540 31 25 4 - 3 3 9 3 - - - - - 6 7 39UDFW Gatacre Oswestry 2,941 2,899 10 12 - - 3 3 3 - - 3 - - - 5 3 39UDFX Gobowen Oswestry Rural 3,926 3,845 10 33 4 - 5 6 11 - - - 5 3 - - 4 39UDFY Kinnerley Oswestry Rural 1,305 1,293 3 3 - - 3 - 3 ------39UDFZ Llanyblodwel and Oswestry Rural 2,319 2,287 5 10 3 - 4 4 - - - 3 3 - - - - Pant 39UDGA Maserfield Oswestry 2,600 2,492 11 22 3 - 3 6 - - - - - 3 - 53 7 39UDGB Ruyton and West Oswestry Rural 2,575 2,494 16 42 3 - 7 5 - - - - - 3 - - 5 Felton 39UDGC St. Martin's Oswestry Rural 2,631 2,597 13 11 - - 4 3 ------3 39UDGD Sweeney and Oswestry Rural 3,777 3,703 14 30 3 - 8 - - - - 3 3 3 - 10 - 39UDGE Weston Rhyn Oswestry Rural 2,672 2,584 7 40 3 - 3 4 - - - - 5 4 3 13 6 39UDGF Whittington Oswestry Rural 2,486 2,433 11 17 5 3 - - 11 - - 3 3 - - - -

41 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

Table KS06 Ethnic group All People White Groups Mixed Groups Asian Groups Black Groups Chinese and Other Groups 39UE Shrewsbury and Atcham 95,850 92,671 552 1,085 139 34 152 154 217 36 59 64 39 72 14 387 175 39UEFZ Bagley Shrewsbury 4,619 4,469 22 70 8 3 9 8 10 - - 5 - - - 10 5 39UEGA Battlefield and Shrewsbury 4,753 4,617 23 34 8 3 9 10 12 3 - - - - - 27 7 Heathgates 39UEGB Bayston Hill Shrewsbury & 5,247 5,133 21 47 - - 3 8 7 3 6 3 - - 3 10 3 Atcham Rural 39UEGC Belle Vue Shrewsbury 4,431 4,285 30 59 18 4 6 8 - 3 - - 3 - - 9 6 39UEGD Bowbrook Shrewsbury 5,181 4,929 42 68 15 - 14 8 15 - 10 - 4 8 3 32 33 39UEGE Castlefields and Shrewsbury 4,486 4,247 55 99 6 5 7 12 10 6 6 8 9 5 - 4 7 Quarry 39UEGF Column Shrewsbury 4,370 4,236 21 63 4 - 9 9 10 3 3 - - - - 7 5 39UEGG Condover Shrewsbury & 2,139 2,087 6 23 - - - 3 17 - - - 3 - - - - Atcham Rural 39UEGH Copthorne Shrewsbury 4,372 4,159 38 57 - 3 10 15 38 3 6 7 3 4 3 15 11 39UEGJ Hanwood and Shrewsbury & 2,303 2,260 11 17 3 - - - 8 4 ------Longden Atcham Rural 39UEGK Harlescott Shrewsbury 5,199 5,085 26 37 9 - 9 11 6 - 3 - - 4 - 6 3 39UEGL Haughmond and Shrewsbury & 2,236 2,167 8 35 4 - 3 - 3 - - 9 4 - - 3 - Attingham Atcham Rural 39UEGM Lawley Shrewsbury & 2,586 2,285 8 35 - 3 12 3 8 3 - 6 - 13 - 183 27 Atcham Rural 39UEGN Meole Brace Shrewsbury 4,725 4,615 25 48 - - 4 3 8 7 - 5 3 3 - - 4 39UEGP Monkmoor Shrewsbury 5,498 5,368 25 35 12 - 3 9 10 - - 3 6 4 - 15 8 39UEGQ Montford Shrewsbury & 2,397 2,343 13 22 5 - 5 3 ------3 3 Atcham Rural

42 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

Table KS06 Ethnic group All People White Groups Mixed Groups Asian Groups Black Groups Chinese and Other Groups 39UEGR Pimhill Shrewsbury & 2,007 1,951 8 22 5 - 3 3 6 ------6 3 Atcham Rural 39UEGS Porthill Shrewsbury 5,246 4,922 41 147 4 3 12 13 22 - 10 3 - 15 - 23 31 39UEGT Rea Valley Shrewsbury & 5,025 4,954 12 25 5 4 3 5 - - - 3 3 - - 8 3 Atcham Rural 39UEGU Rowton Shrewsbury & 2,667 2,622 11 14 3 - 4 4 - - - - 3 3 - 3 - Atcham Rural 39UEGW Severn Valley Shrewsbury & 2,112 2,050 18 23 3 - - 3 8 ------3 4 Atcham Rural 39UEGX Sundorne Shrewsbury 5,123 5,023 39 24 9 3 3 5 5 - 3 3 - - - - 6 39UEGY Sutton and Reabrook Shrewsbury 4,209 4,117 14 23 7 3 10 8 8 ------16 3 39UEGZ Underdale Shrewsbury 4,901 4,747 35 58 6 - 11 7 5 - 15 3 - - - 10 4 39UF South Shropshire 40,410 39,449 182 418 34 12 41 37 33 46 4 12 13 7 12 78 32 39UFGF Apedale South 1,120 1,102 7 8 - 3 ------Shropshire Rural 39UFGG Bishop's Castle with Bishop's Castle 2,474 2,431 8 29 3 - 3 ------Onny Valley 39UFGH Bitterley with Stoke St South 1,321 1,294 3 15 - - 3 3 ------3 - Milborough Shropshire Rural 39UFGJ Bucknell South 1,188 1,134 - 17 - - - 3 - 3 - - - - - 20 11 Shropshire Rural 39UFGK Burford South 1,308 1,282 6 8 - - - - 5 4 ------3 Shropshire Rural

43 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

Table KS06 Ethnic group All People White Groups Mixed Groups Asian Groups Black Groups Chinese and Other Groups 39UFGL Caynham with South 1,223 1,194 6 17 - - - - - 3 - - - - - 3 - Ashford Shropshire Rural 39UFGM Chirbury South 921 903 3 6 - - 3 3 - 3 ------Shropshire Rural 39UFGN North Church Stretton 1,969 1,918 15 27 - - 3 ------3 3 39UFGP Church Stretton Church Stretton 2,215 2,145 9 31 3 5 6 4 ------9 3 South 39UFGQ Clee South 2,615 2,563 13 19 7 - - 4 - - - - 3 - 3 - 3 Shropshire Rural 39UFGR Cleobury 2,771 2,724 9 19 3 - 6 - 3 ------4 3 Mortimer 39UFGS South 1,089 1,058 7 15 - - - 3 - - - - - 3 3 - - Shropshire Rural 39UFGT Clun Forest South 968 944 3 11 - - 4 - - 3 - - - 3 - - - Shropshire Rural 39UFGU Corve Valley South 1,043 1,033 5 5 ------Shropshire Rural 39UFGW Kemp Valley South 1,148 1,118 - 17 3 3 - 4 ------3 - Shropshire Rural 39UFGX Ludlow Henley Ludlow 2,506 2,423 17 30 3 - 4 3 4 - - 3 - - 6 13 -

44 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

Table KS06 Ethnic group All People White Groups Mixed Groups Asian Groups Black Groups Chinese and Other Groups 39UFGY Ludlow St Laurence's Ludlow 2,165 2,104 20 30 - - 3 3 ------5 - 39UFGZ Ludlow St Peter's Ludlow 2,449 2,403 5 15 3 - 3 - 7 - 3 - - - - 7 3 39UFHA Ludlow Sheet with Ludlow 2,822 2,765 13 18 - - 3 7 4 ------9 3 Ludford 39UFHB Stokesay Craven Arms 2,590 2,507 8 13 7 3 - - 9 30 - 4 3 - 3 - 3 39UFHC Upper Corvedale South 1,330 1,292 3 26 3 ------3 3 - - - - Shropshire Rural 39UFHD Wistanstow with South 1,258 1,225 13 15 - - - - - 5 ------Hopesay Shropshire Rural 39UFHE Worthen South 1,934 1,887 11 27 3 ------3 - - 3 Shropshire Rural

45 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

Index of Multiple Deprivation Scores 2004 in Shropshire County

Shropshi National Estimated Local Shropshire National LL SOA Ward name IMDS 2004 re rank rank (of SOA 2001 authority quintile percentile (of 192) 32,482) population E01028957 Harlescott S&A 40.58 1 1 4,416 15% 1,624 E01028962 Meole Brace S&A 35.16 2 1 6,178 20% 1,536 E01029007 Ludlow Henley S Shrops 34.62 3 1 6,353 20% 1,160 E01028906 Castle Oswestry 33.35 4 1 6,833 25% 1,134 E01028983 Sundorne S&A 32.33 5 1 7,210 25% 1,973 Battlefield & E01028934 S&A 30.67 6 1 7,857 1,605 Heathgates 25% E01028967 Monkmoor S&A 30.62 7 1 7,874 25% 1,486 Market Drayton E01028873 N Shrops 29.72 8 1 8,242 1,542 East 30% Whitchurch E01028891 N Shrops 28.83 9 1 8,658 1,401 North 30% E01028910 Gobowen Oswestry 28.18 10 1 8,970 30% 1,439 E01028912 Gobowen Oswestry 27.74 11 1 9,155 30% 1,126 Castlefields & E01028945 S&A 26.49 12 1 9,810 1,646 Quarry 35% E01028908 Gatacre Oswestry 26.48 13 1 9,812 35% 1,473 E01028931 Bagley S&A 25.96 14 1 10,102 35% 1,568 E01028905 Carreg Llwyd Oswestry 25.61 15 1 10,285 35% 1,473 E01028909 Gatacre Oswestry 24.92 16 1 10,641 35% 1,459 Castlefields & E01028944 S&A 24.60 17 1 10,799 1,448 Quarry 35% E01028849 Highley Bridgnorth 24.12 18 1 11,057 35% 1,724 Ellesmere & E01028867 N Shrops 23.49 19 1 11,409 1,273 Welshampton 40% Market Drayton E01028876 N Shrops 23.45 20 1 11,438 1,570 North 40% E01028968 Monkmoor S&A 23.05 21 1 11,707 40% 1,304 E01028853 Shifnal Idsall Bridgnorth 22.99 22 1 11,755 40% 1,378 Whitchurch E01028897 N Shrops 22.96 23 1 11,773 1,504 West 40% Market Drayton E01028879 N Shrops 22.51 24 1 12,048 1,524 South 40% Whitchurch E01028894 N Shrops 22.35 25 1 12,151 1,464 South 40% Castlefields & E01028946 S&A 22.04 26 1 12,363 1,229 Quarry 40% E01028838 Broseley East Bridgnorth 21.99 27 1 12,399 40% 1,434 E01028987 Underdale S&A 21.95 28 1 12,429 40% 1,677 E01028965 Monkmoor S&A 21.69 29 1 12,603 40% 1,415 Sutton & E01028984 S&A 21.31 30 1 12,874 1,329 Reabrook 40% E01028903 Cambrian Oswestry 21.18 31 1 12,973 40% 1,282 E01028871 Hodnet N Shrops 20.89 32 1 13,164 45% 1,177 E01028920 St. Martin's Oswestry 20.75 33 1 13,282 45% 1,191 Ludlow St. E01029010 S Shrops 20.65 34 1 13,357 1,285 Peter's 45% Llanyblodwel & E01028914 Oswestry 20.56 35 1 13,431 1,155 Pant 45% E01028982 Sundorne S&A 20.54 36 1 13,452 45% 1,590 E01028948 Column S&A 20.36 37 1 13,596 45% 1,508 E01028958 Harlescott S&A 20.27 38 1 13,663 45% 1,915

46 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

Appendix Three: Ethnicity Maps

Percentage of Total Population Who Have Identified Themselves as being of a Black, Mixed or Other Minority Ethnic Group

Shropshire County Boundary District Boundaries % Black and Minority Ethnic Population (including mixed groups) by Electoral Ward 0 - 0.6 0.6 - 1.1 1.1 - 1.9 1.9 - 3.4 3.4 - 10 For reference purposes only. No further copies may be made.

Data Source: 2001 Census, Key Statistics. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Office for National Statistics, Crown Copyright 2005. Shropshire County Council, 100019801, 2005.

Source: Helen Harvey (2005), Population Theme Report, Draft 2.

47 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

48 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

49 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

50 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

51 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

52 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

Appendix Four: Public agencies contacted to obtain information on BME networks, projects or initiatives

Countryside Agency The Marches Job Centre Plus Shrewsbury & Atcham Borough Council Shropshire County Council Shropshire Crime and Disorder Partnership Shropshire Learning and Skills Council Shropshire Primary Care Trust Shropshire Strategic Partnership

53 Centre for Voluntary Action Research Study into the needs of BME people living and working in Shropshire Final Report

24 August 2005

Appendix Five: Glossary of abbreviations

VCS Voluntary and Community Sector

VCO Voluntary and Community Organisation

BME Black and Minority Ethnic

CCS Community Council for Shropshire

MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

DEFRA Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

IMDS Index of Multiple Deprivation Scores

54 Centre for Voluntary Action Research