The financing of minority groups has been thrown into confusion following a recent High Court ruling, as Phil Cooper explains
It seemed quite straightforward. Last summer, the Commission on Integration and Cohesion recommended that public funds should no longer go to voluntary organisations described as ‘single groups’, meaning those ethnic minority or refugee bodies which served a specific community.
The argument went thus: If you continue to fund them as separate organisations, it will discourage their joint working with other ethnicities.
Integration will suffer.
The voluntary bodies complained that this was not the case. Meanwhile, communities secretary, Hazel Blears, backed the commission and the CLG set about devising Cohesion guidance for funders.
This has yet to appear, but now a High Court judgement threatens to de-rail the whole process.
Ironically, the current upset has been visited upon the very local authority which played a key role in producing the single group argument in the first place.
It was Ealing LBC chief executive, Darra Singh, who chaired the commission tasked by the Government with producing a blueprint to assist in community cohesion at local level.
And it was Ealing LBC which found itself having to explain to a High Court judge this summer why it was seeking to cut funding – some £100,000 – which supported a domestic violence project run by the organisation Southall Black Sisters.
At the judicial review, the council argued that the money could be better used supporting a service which was targeted at white as well as African-Caribbean and Asian women, and it produced statistics showing that more white women in the borough suffered from domestic abuse than ethnic women from the client group of Southall Black Sisters – an argument clearly in support of the ‘no-funding for single groups’ policy.
Not a good enough reason, said Lord Justice Moses, and he began by demolishing the statistical argument.
Although a higher proportion of white women, overall, in Ealing suffered domestic violence, those from the ethnic minorities suffered more in relation to their numbers. In fact, much more.
Then his lordship rode roughshod over the notion that funding a single group somehow inhibited integration and cohesion.
Actually, the Race Relations Act made provision for such special attention.
He said: ‘Cohesion is achieved by overcoming barriers. That may require the needs of ethnic minorities to be met in a particular and focused way.
The Southall Black Sisters illustrates that principle.’
It was, he added, difficult for a provider handling multiple ethnicities to intervene in situations where cultural and religious issues were involved, for fear of causing offence.
And he summed up: ‘As I have endeavoured to explain, specialist services for a racial minority from a specialist source is anti-discriminatory and furthers the objectives of equality and cohesion.’
This leaves refugee and BME single groups – not to mention local authorities – in something of a quandary.
The voluntary groups argue that they are best suited to deal with their specific communities on a range of issues.
Take, for example, supplementary schools helping primary age children learn English. Lumping Somali, Kurdish and west African children together in one class will not be as effective as targeting a specific ethnicity.
Local authorities, meanwhile, are seeking to make best use of limited financial resources, and would like to fund projects serving as wide a clientele as possible.
In this they had the backing of the commission and the CLG. But not, it now seems, the High Court.
When she welcomed the original single group suggestion, Ms Blears said giving them money could be ‘regressive and devisive’.
She then issued a consultation on funding guidance from February to May this year, and also promised a cohesion impact toolkit to help councils come to the right decisions.
The wording which accompanied the consultation was, at least, careful.
It said that single groups should only be funded ‘where there is a demonstrable case for doing so.’
Following the High Court judgement, Ealing acknowledged it should have carried out an equality-impact assessment before trying to remove funding from Southall Black Sisters, and said it would ask the Equality and Human Rights Commission for help with this.
The CLG now needs to be unequivocal its advice on this issue, or more judicial reviews will follow. Lord Justice Moses may well have opened up a promised land for future litigation.
Phil Cooper is interim co-ordinator at Hammersmith and Fulham Refugee Forum
The argument went thus: If you continue to fund them as separate organisations, it will discourage their joint working with other ethnicities.
Integration will suffer.
The voluntary bodies complained that this was not the case. Meanwhile, communities secretary, Hazel Blears, backed the commission and the CLG set about devising Cohesion guidance for funders.
This has yet to appear, but now a High Court judgement threatens to de-rail the whole process.
Ironically, the current upset has been visited upon the very local authority which played a key role in producing the single group argument in the first place.
It was Ealing LBC chief executive, Darra Singh, who chaired the commission tasked by the Government with producing a blueprint to assist in community cohesion at local level.
And it was Ealing LBC which found itself having to explain to a High Court judge this summer why it was seeking to cut funding – some £100,000 – which supported a domestic violence project run by the organisation Southall Black Sisters.
At the judicial review, the council argued that the money could be better used supporting a service which was targeted at white as well as African-Caribbean and Asian women, and it produced statistics showing that more white women in the borough suffered from domestic abuse than ethnic women from the client group of Southall Black Sisters – an argument clearly in support of the ‘no-funding for single groups’ policy.
Not a good enough reason, said Lord Justice Moses, and he began by demolishing the statistical argument.
Although a higher proportion of white women, overall, in Ealing suffered domestic violence, those from the ethnic minorities suffered more in relation to their numbers. In fact, much more.
Then his lordship rode roughshod over the notion that funding a single group somehow inhibited integration and cohesion.
Actually, the Race Relations Act made provision for such special attention.
He said: ‘Cohesion is achieved by overcoming barriers. That may require the needs of ethnic minorities to be met in a particular and focused way.
The Southall Black Sisters illustrates that principle.’
It was, he added, difficult for a provider handling multiple ethnicities to intervene in situations where cultural and religious issues were involved, for fear of causing offence.
And he summed up: ‘As I have endeavoured to explain, specialist services for a racial minority from a specialist source is anti-discriminatory and furthers the objectives of equality and cohesion.’
This leaves refugee and BME single groups – not to mention local authorities – in something of a quandary.
The voluntary groups argue that they are best suited to deal with their specific communities on a range of issues.
Take, for example, supplementary schools helping primary age children learn English. Lumping Somali, Kurdish and west African children together in one class will not be as effective as targeting a specific ethnicity.
Local authorities, meanwhile, are seeking to make best use of limited financial resources, and would like to fund projects serving as wide a clientele as possible.
In this they had the backing of the commission and the CLG. But not, it now seems, the High Court.
When she welcomed the original single group suggestion, Ms Blears said giving them money could be ‘regressive and devisive’.
She then issued a consultation on funding guidance from February to May this year, and also promised a cohesion impact toolkit to help councils come to the right decisions.
The wording which accompanied the consultation was, at least, careful.
It said that single groups should only be funded ‘where there is a demonstrable case for doing so.’
Following the High Court judgement, Ealing acknowledged it should have carried out an equality-impact assessment before trying to remove funding from Southall Black Sisters, and said it would ask the Equality and Human Rights Commission for help with this.
The CLG now needs to be unequivocal its advice on this issue, or more judicial reviews will follow. Lord Justice Moses may well have opened up a promised land for future litigation.
Phil Cooper is interim co-ordinator at Hammersmith and Fulham Refugee Forum
