Community cohesion

Community cohesion is a new framework for race  and diversity which was developed in the UK in 2001, though similar programmes are now being developed in other countries. It brings together the broad-based programmes of citizenship and belonging with very specific arrangements for interaction between diverse groups to promote understanding and respect. Its primary use in the UK has been by public authorities, particularly local government, and has incorporated traditional equality measures and legislation.

The legislative framework in which community cohesion sits is an important factor in considering its viability and use for practitioners. Public authorities have been under  a general duty for over 30 years to promote ‘good race relations’.  The 2000 Race Relations Amendment Act went further and introduced a General Duty on public bodies to promote race equality. Subsequent legislation has introduced similar duties in respect of gender, disability, sexual orientation, religion or belief and age. Furthermore, the Education and Inspections Act 2006 placed a duty on all maintained schools in England to promote community cohesion. Many Local Authorities are combining equalities, diversity and cohesion at policy, management arrangements and staff levels.

The term ‘community cohesion’ was not developed into a policy framework until 2001. It was the response to the riots in Bradford, Burnley and Oldham that prompted its use as a policy and implementation tool. The various reports at the time argued that the fragmentation of communities along faith and ethnic lines, reinforcing levels of disadvantage and discrimination and the lack of contact between those communities, was a major and underlying cause of the unrest. Different communities were described as living ‘parallel lives’ and programmes of ‘cross-cultural interaction’ were created. This is very similar in conceptual terms to ICD and has a clear aim of bringing together communities into more meaningful and regular contact with one another.

Community cohesion has been the primary policy tool used by the public sector since the Government largely adopted the findings of the Cantle report. Much of the practice that has developed has been rooted in ‘contact theory’ and the belief that contact between groups can reduce prejudice. Contact theory challenges assumptions about existing group identities and suggests that contact is the key to forming new identities and to establishing relationships based upon mutual interests rather than a fixed identity. It is a way that we can move from bonding to bridging social capital. Positive interactions can challenge assumptions about who ‘people like us’ might be. It is social circumstance and familiarity that should determine relationships, rather than these being the result of prejudice, heritage or instinctive bonding. This notion was recently endorsed in the Government’s response to the Commission on Integration and Cohesion.

The various reports into the 2001 riots did not formally define community cohesion but rather proposed a range of activities that were designed to close the gap between communities. Again the similarities with the principles of ICD are strong, but it should be noted that ICD was just one component of a broader programmes intended to bring about a more equal and cohesive community. This ethos was recognised by the specific definitions. In 2002, the LGA, Home Office, ODPM, CRE and Inter-Faith Network produced their ‘Guidance on Community Cohesion’ which included the following definition which was widely adopted across government at all levels and in the third sector:

A cohesive community is one where:

• There is a common vision and sense of belonging for all communities
• The diversity of people’s different backgrounds and circumstances are appreciated and positively valued
• Those from different backgrounds have similar life opportunities; and
• Strong and positive relationships are being developed between people from different backgrounds in the workplace, in schools and within neighbourhoods (LGA et al, 2002).

More recently the Commission on Integration and Cohesion reinforced support for the concept of community cohesion and proposed a wider definition, which includes trust in local institutions, the rights and responsibilities of individuals and recognising the contribution of new arrivals. In its response to the CIC report the Government has developed a new definition:

As the response recognises:

“This is different from the old definition of community cohesion in two key ways. First, it reflects a greater emphasis on the importance of citizenship and community empowerment to building cohesion – ranging from rights and responsibility to a shared future vision. Second, in its recognition of the increasing importance of integration to cohesion – how important a sense of having things in common is to building trust and positive relationships between new and existing residents.”  (DCLG, 2008).

These wider definitions are bringing community cohesion much closer in concept to social capital and social cohesion. The specificity also allows public authorities and others in both the private and voluntary sectors to develop policies and programmes within this framework.

Thus community cohesion has a history, albeit a short one, of being linked to specific policies, programmes and monitoring procedures by a range of organisations. This gives it a relevance and practical application that is more established than that which currently exists for ICD.

Subsequently, cohesion – and indeed integration in a UK context – would for the moment appear to have a clearer definition than ICD as it currently stands. Both terms stress the importance of a life chances agenda to positive inter-ethnic or cultural relations and assert the inter-dependence of equality and interaction. The application of cohesion and integration in the UK has been crucial in stressing that policy makers and practitioners should emphasise people’s relationships with each other as well as individual life opportunities. ICD entirely complements this view, however, it perhaps places more emphasis upon the relationship aspect than the equality agenda.