How can we measure community cohesion?
Since community cohesion is about the degree of harmony and mutual respect in our communities we need indicators that measure the strength of our social capital as reflected in our social networks, degrees of positive interaction and both shared and individual sense of identity. We also need measures which help us to recognise when underlying tensions in a community are rising to a point when they might turn into riots and violence on the streets. Some of the main lessons from recent work on this subject are as follows:
- It is helpful to have a national framework for measuring cohesion over a reasonable period of time on a consistent basis enabling us to identify national trends. The 'Our Shared Future' report of the Commission on Integration and Cohesion recommended that there should be a single national Public Service Agreement (PSA) target and the Government has now adopted a new cross-government PSA (PSA21) 'to build cohesive, empowered and active communities'. This will be
measured against four national indicators:
- The percentage of people who believe people from different backgrounds get on well together in their local area
- The percentage of people who believe they belong to their area
- The percentage of people who have meaningful interactions with people from different backgrounds
- The percentage of people who feel they can influence decisions in their locality
- Where Local Strategic Partnerships decide that improving community cohesion is a priority within their Local Area Agreements, these indicators will be used to assess performance and provide an incentive for action. In 2008, 92 areas have selected one or more of the four indicators (mainly the first one) for their Local Area Agreements thus making a partnership commitment to community cohesion. There are also some very clear and important 'hard' indicators which are used nationally and locally, such as the level of hate crime and the extent and nature of racist literature and extremist activity.
- In addition to national indicators it is essential to identify local indicators that reflect those factors which are particularly significant to the locality. The 'Our shared future' report (page 58) identifies five types of area where perceptions of cohesion may be below average and targeted action on integration and cohesion may be needed. The risk factors and hence, the action required, are different in each case. For example, one of the area types is 'Changing less affluent urban areas' such as coastal towns where there is high demand for low skilled labour resulting in increased numbers of migrant workers and competition for jobs. In other areas the risk factors may be about pressure on the local housing stock, economic decline and deprivation, cultural differences, particularly in areas that are experiencing levels of migration that are new to the area, or special factors such as arrests for alleged terrorism or proposals for the location of a centre for asylum seekers. This variation in local experience points to the importance of adopting a basket of indicators that suits the local conditions. Health managers and commissioners can play an important role in helping to choose the appropriate indicators as the health and wellbeing needs and concerns about equity of health provision will vary between the different types of area.
- In developing a basket of local indicators it is helpful to choose a mix of perception indicators, which give a picture of people's current feelings obtained from local residents' surveys, and some objective indicators that focus on underlying risk factors. In the research we have done for several Local Authorities, iCoCo has found it helpful to measure the degree of segregation in a community (e.g. high degrees of concentration of families from particular ethnic groups in certain housing estates or high concentrations of pupils from an ethnic group in a small number of schools). Many of the publications on community cohesion contain useful suggestions about the types of indicators that may be helpful (see The Home Office, July 2003; LGA, 2004 and iCoCo and Metropolitan Police 2008). The LGA action guide of 2004 describes how data from the Home Office biennial Citizenship survey can be used to monitor data on rights and responsibilities, racial prejudice and discrimination, neighbourliness, active community participation and family networks and parenting. However few of the publications provide advice on the type of health or health inequality indicators that could be included. Indicators that highlight sudden changes in pressures on services due to new migration can be particularly useful (e.g. a rapid rise in demand for maternity services from young migrant workers from eastern Europe or an increase in diseases like diabetes that have a high incidence amongst particular ethnic groups). If new trends are identified at an early stage and appropriate action taken, it is clearly helpful in tackling the health issues and it is also much easier to avoid the negative perceptions about particular groups that can easily build up if settled residents feel that resources are shifting away from them.
- Having decided on the indicators you will use to measure cohesion, it is important to establish a baseline and ensure that systems are in place to collect and analyse data on a consistent basis and to monitor the data at regular intervals. Experience in the community cohesion pathfinder and shadow pathfinder areas shows the benefit of working with other areas and adopting similar indicators.
- Health practitioners can play a key part in monitoring tensions and in intervening before they become more serious. iCoCo has developed a tension monitoring toolkit which is being used by local partners and is based upon the sharing of data and intelligence about what is happening on the ground. Find out if you are represented on the local tension monitoring group and how you can contribute to it.
In the North West, four Local authorities (Rochdale, Bury, Oldham and East Lancashire) worked together to develop a consistent approach to monitoring cohesion, benefitting from one another's experience and providing a framework for benchmarking (see LGA 2004).
Bradford shadow pathfinder offers a good example of a well thought out basket of indicators. As part of their community strategy they developed a set of indicators that describe seven dimensions of community cohesion. The indicators (which cover employment, education, areas of stress, perception, community participation, residential segregation and crime and disorder) are measurable, outcome focused, relevant and concise.
