Migrant Communities and the Big Society Report (MRCF 2011)

8/7/2019 Migrant Communities and the Big Society Report (MRCF 2011)

1/32

Migrant Communities

and the Big SocietyStruggling to Belong in the Age of Austerity


2/32

AcknowledgementsThis report was wrien by Kristina Hemon from MRCF and by Ruth Grove-White and LouisaAnderson at the Migrants Rights Network (MRN) in close collaboration with Zrinka Bralo, BethCrosland and Nick Micinski at the Migrant and Refugee Communities Forum (MRCF). It is part ofMRCFs Engage to Change project, and is funded by London Councils.

All photographs were taken by Beth Crosland, unless stated otherwise.

Design and layout by Nick Micinski.

March 2011


3/32

Contents

Introduction............................................................................................................................................4

Methodology..........................................................................................................................................6

Why Do Migrant and Refugee Organisations Exist?......................................................................8

What Do Migrant and Refugee Organisations Do?......................................................................10

Weathering the Storm: Past and Future Challenges for MRCOs...............................................16

What Needs To Be Done Now?.........................................................................................................18

Equality and Integration in Action: Five Communities Doing Big Society.............................20

The West and North West London Vietnamese Association................................................21The Chinese National Healthy Living Centre.........................................................................22The Zimbabwe Womens Network in Isleworth....................................................................24Shpresa Programme for Albanian Speaking Community.....................................................26

Midaye Somali Development Network...................................................................................28

End Notes..............................................................................................................................................30

Further Reading...................................................................................................................................31

Appendix...............................................................................................................................................31

3


4/32

IntroductionThe pace of change in our communities, coupled with the uncertainty brought about by austeritymeasures, is more than most of us can make sense of, or cope with. We must remind ourselves thatfairness and justice are the core values of our society, and that they are all the more important topreserve during hard times.

You have probably heard about the concept of Big Society many times by now, given the Govern-

ments vocal support for the policy over the past year. You may have also witnessed the equally vocalbacklash against the idea, which is a direct result of the dierence between the Governments rheto-ric and the reality of public cuts, as shown by the reaction of community organisations in Liverpooland in Hammersmith and Fulham.

The recent BBC Four documentary series entitled Justice eloquently outlined the debate on justice,fairness and the Big Society, and oered a crucial insight into what the public really thinks aboutthe concept as proposed by the current government. When polled by philosopher Michael Sandelduring the live studio debate, more than two thirds of the audience turned out to be skeptical aboutthe concept. They believed in community and voluntary work as the key to improving our commu-

nities and contributing to a good society, but they did not have as much faith in the Big Society asproposed by the government.

At the Migrant and Refugee Communities Forum (MRCF), we work with many dierent commu-nity and civil society organisations, and we have been wondering: Why all this fuss about the BigSociety? Community and charity organisations across the country have been doing it for years. Weare the Big Society. We welcome the promotion of Big Society, as well as a debate about how to do itbeer, but the timing of Big Society speak in the context of a massive withdrawal of resources has thepotential to backre completely.

In order to have a principled discussion on the issue of a beer society, the key question to ask is nothow to do it for free, but how to do it fairly, so that the hard won accomplishments that have madeour communities beer and more self-reliant are not swept away by austerity measures. A commit-ment to fairness with a corresponding investment in a just society will also bring about savings inthe long term.

The harsh reality of public sector cuts is already creating tensions where there should be harmo-ny. For example, is it fair to displace dozens of community organisations from Hammersmith andFulhams Pallinswick House only to sell the community building to a new Big Society-style schoolchampioned and run by what appear to be privileged parents? Is the Big Society meant for all, oronly for some?

The Big Society, or beer yet the Good Society, is viable only if it strives towards equality and fair-ness, and is based on cooperation rather than the free market idea of competition. The Big, Good,Fair, Just, Happy Society is not about charity; it is about justice! If you are not sure where you standin this equation, ask yourself if you would rather be on the receiving end of someones charity or apart of the solution as someone who is recognised and respected for the eorts you make togetherwith your fellow citizens.

The beer society needs to reect achievements and a knowledge of human development. As ourworld is made up of collaborative communities, and diverse individuals within these, our society

must value cooperation over competition. Most importantly for us at MRCF, it needs to be an in-clusive society, where new and existing citizens can have a voice and are respectfully accepted andvalued for their contribution.

4


5/325

At MRCF, we know a thing or two about justice and fairness, as many of our members have experi-enced persecution in their countries of origin when opposing oppression and continue to strugglewith access to justice in the UK. Many of them succeed despite the odds. They tell us that their suc-cess is due to their connectedness to others who support them: (extra)ordinary citizens, British andmigrant alike, who believe in mutualism and the common good as the foundation of a good societyand who are organising on issues that are important to all our communities. Similarly, our successas a society during these hard times depends on how well we relate to each other and everythingaround us.

We oer you this short paper as a reminder of how migrant and refugee communities contribute to

and help build a beer society.

In order to acknowledge and build on Britains investment in the meaningful integration of mi-grants over the last two decades, we ask that:

1.The contribution of migrant and refugee community organisations to the Big Society istaken into account, acknowledged and preserved.

2. We, migrants and refugees, are included in the conversation about building a beer andbigger society.

3. British society, regardless of its size and political agenda, remains underpinned by prin-ciples of equality and fairness for all its citizens.

4. The pace of change slows down enough to ensure that we dont lose the progress madethus far, remembering that there is no quick x to inclusion and integration, particularly ofmarginalised and vulnerable communities.

And, in the spirit of a beer and bigger society, this report was wrien in collaboration by the MigrantsRights Network and MRCF, with participation from the Chinese National Healthy Living Centre, the

Midaye Somali Development Network, the West and North West London Vietnamese Association,the Shpressa Programme for Albanian Speaking Community and the Zimbabwean Womens Net-work in the UK.

Justice for Domestic Workers


6/32

Methodology

This report forms part of MRCFs Engage to Change project, which aims to bring out the experiences,perspectives and concerns of migrants and refugees in London in order to develop their capacity toinform public debate and contribute to change.

This report draws upon and complements a number of recent studies on the impact of the recent eco-nomic recession on migrant groups coupled with the rst round of funding cuts to Migrant and Refu-

gee Community Organisations (MRCOs) in London, including research by the Migrant OrganisationsDevelopment Agency and Middlesex University, the Evelyn Oldeld Unit and the Greater LondonAuthority, and numerous others.

The case studies feature ve MRCOs and are based on interviews with their leaders, sta and volun-teers held towards the end of 2010. All quotes in the report are taken from the interviews, unless speci-ed otherwise. In addition, MRCF consulted the organisations published annual reports, websitesand other material describing their work and nancial standing.

About the Migrant and Refugee Communities Forum (MRCF)

MRCF is a user-led community empowerment alliance of 40 organisations,with 17 years of experience in supporting refugee and migrant communi-ties. Our work practically addresses the social exclusion of migrant andrefugee residents and strengthens their voice and civic participation, withthe overall aim of achieving equality for disadvantaged individuals andcommunities.

We assist refugee and migrant community organisations on a daily basis in their eorts to empowerand integrate their communities. Our support for community organisations and projects is tailored ac-cording to the needs and capacity of each group. It is holistic and guided by our belief in self-advocacyand includes help with governance, project development and fundraising, partnership brokerage andstrategic planning. We support communities to serve their members and to engage with the complexworld of funders, local authorities and policy makers and the mainstream voluntary sector.

Our Engage to Change initiative, of which this report is a part, provides our member organisations(migrant and refugee community organisations MRCOs), individuals, partners and sta with oppor-tunities to engage with policy makers. This is mainly achieved through public meetings with highprole speakers on relevant topics and the production of reports, briengs and consultation responsesthat give voice to their concerns.

Engage to Change is funded by London Councils.

About the Migrants Rights Network

The Migrants Rights Network (MRN) was established in December 2006.MRN works to support migrant community organisations andorganisations working with migrants on issues related to employment,community, access to public services, and other maers which have

consequences for migrants rights and social justice. MRN employs adiscussion framework, experience sharing, research promotion, policy analysis, as well as lobbyingand campaigning. MRN works in partnership with MRCF to help add voices of migrants and refugeesto policy debates.

6


7/32

The purpose of this report

Recession and the rst round of cuts have already placed pressure on the voluntary sector, especiallyin relation to employment, welfare and housing issues.1 More is to come: tougher immigration poli-cies, changes to the welfare system and legal aid cuts are bound to create a greater demand for ser-vices provided by the voluntary and community sector.

Since the May elections, in our conversations about migrants and the Big Society with decision mak-ers at all levels and from all political backgrounds, we have been concerned to discover that so manypolicy makers have an outdated or inaccurate understanding of what organised migrant and refugeecommunities do, why they had to be set up and what would happen if they did not exist.

We were told that the cuts would be distributed so as not to hurt the most vulnerable, but there isalready evidence to show that this is not the case. MRCOs along with other minority groups areparticularly vulnerable and there is no evidence that the Government understands the social impactof their work. Without careful consideration, further cuts may severely undermine the integration ofthese communities, costing British society much more in the long run.

The aim of this report is to present the case for, and explore the critical role of, MRCOs in providingsocial protection, accelerating integration and improving lives in Londons diverse communities. Inother words, we aim to show why MRCOs are a crucial part of the Big Society.

A beer understanding of what MRCOs do, how they do it and the diculties they encounter mayhelp secure their funding and future, as well as a beer provision of services in their communities. Itwill also help with integration, which will lead to a beer use of resources and a more cohesive andequal society for all.

To get a clearer understanding of MRCOs role in society, three key issues need to be carefully con-

sidered:

1) Practical - Barriers to accessing mainstream services specic to migrant and refugee commu-nities can only be overcome through partnering with MRCOs embedded in those communities.Given the anticipated impact of the rst round of cuts, it is reasonable to expect a growing needthat only MRCOs will be able to successfully address through their role as partners to statutoryagencies, helping the most vulnerable to survive the austerity measures.

2) Ethical - Social cohesion and integration remain one of the governments priorities. The BigSociety can form part of the solution for weathering the storm created by necessary funding

cuts only if there is a safety net provided by the goodwill, skill and dedication of our commu-nities. This task will be all the more dicult without MRCOs to work as points of access andsources of intelligence and specialist knowledge to facilitate, inuence and ease this change.

3) Strategic In order to carry out this mission, MRCOs are heavily reliant on external funding,both from statutory and independent sources. These funders and commissioners have been un-der nancial pressures for some time, rst due to the recession in 2008 and now due to the rstround of public service cuts. Any further cuts need to be thought out carefully so as not to loseMRCOs as partners in reaching out to the most vulnerable citizens. Their voices and experiencemust be considered in any future public policy discussion on how to deal with the fallout fromthe rst round of cuts and welfare system reforms.

7


8/32

London is home to some 900,000 migrants andrefugees. Over 40% of the UKs migrants live inthe capital,2 making it the UK city with the high-est concentration of diverse communities, aswell as one of the most cosmopolitan cities in theworld.3 Many of Londons migrant communi-ties are long-established, following paerns setby historical in-ows from European and Com-monwealth countries.4

Last year, London came rst in a survey whichconsidered the capacity of cities around theworld to aract and benet from internationalpopulations. The British Councils OPENCitiesproject compared 26 cities worldwide, lookingat factors including diversity policies, quality oflife and education. Professor Mike Hardy, thehead of partnerships at the Council, said:

Openness is a real advantage for cities if they arepursuing plans to be internationally connected andplay international roles. While some of the factors in-uencing openness are beyond the direct control ofcities, many of these factors are well within the con-trol or immediate inuence of city governments: thecitys identity and character; its education, housingand cultural oer; the kind of local democracy it prac-tices and the forms of participation it encourages.5

Since the late 1980s, London has seen a substan-tial diversication in the communities that have

seled within the capital.6 During the late 1980sand 1990s, many people from conict-riddencountries such as Zimbabwe, Somalia, Sudan,Eritrea, Bosnia, Kosovo and Iraq sought asylum

in the UK. The government policy of openingup Londons labour markets to migrant work-ers during the 1990s led to the arrival of a morediverse spread of migrant workers, includingfrom within East and South East Asia and SouthAmerica. This trend continued with the acces-sion of the ten new EU member states in 2004.Continued family reunication and wider sele-ment from these countries has led to the growthof Londons newer and substantial, migrant

communities.

New Arrivals Face New Challenges

The experiences of the capitals newer migrantsare highly varied. This is often dependent upon anumber of integration factors, including particu-lar cultural needs within the community, Eng-lish language skills, existence of social networks,and aitudes towards migration and employ-

ment opportunities within their local area. Asimmigration controls have toughened, the im-migration status of Londons migrants has alsobecome increasingly signicant in determiningtheir rights and entitlements. This means thatthe experiences of highly skilled migrant work-ers or most European Union nationals are stark-ly dierent from those of other migrant workers,asylum seekers and undocumented migrants inthe capital.

Although many migrant communities in Lon-don have demonstrated an enviable capacity toadapt and integrate successfully into the city, agrowing body of evidence indicates that other

Why Do Migrant and Refugee

8

Chinese National Healthy Living Centre. Photo by CNHLC


9/32

Community Organisations Exist?

recent arrivals, particularly those with less ad-vanced English language skills and educationalqualications or with substantial cultural dier-ences to the majority population, have found itmore dicult to orientate and sele in the UK.The diculties they encounter are likely to in-clude:

1) Insecure employment Londons mi-grants are disproportionately representedamong the low-skilled, low-paid workers whoprovide exible labour for employment agen-cies in sectors such as cleaning, care work andhospitality. Their work is marked by insecurity

due to temporary contracts, part-time jobs andnon-recognition of migrant qualications.7

2) Increased risk of some health prob-lems Migrant workers are believed to suertwice the rate of workplace accidents and occu-pational diseases as the rest of the population.8Some migrant communities experience particu-lar physical and mental health problems; oftenthere are cultural taboos associated with com-

munity-based problems, which can make themmuch harder to address. Refugee communitiesare also often dealing with the trauma caused bywar and exile.

3) Risk of exploitation in the privatehousing sector Many migrants are not en-titled to social housing, leading to an increaseddependence on the private housing sector andan accompanying exposure to overcrowdingand inated pricing. Recent research lookingat Eastern European migrants in the UK foundthat 44% of migrants interviewed were sharing aroom and a third of them had moved in the lasteight months.9

4) Lack of awareness of rights in the UK New arrivals are often unaware of the rightsand entitlements that they may have in the UK,or of wider support networks that are availableto help them. This can mean that they are morevulnerable to exploitation or discrimination.

5) Feelings of social exclusion or isola-tion Many people arriving in London reportexperiencing wider social isolation, a lack of op-

portunities to meet local people, a lack of con-dence and the expectation that they will encoun-ter hostility from their local community.

Many of these diculties are coupled with a lackof access to mainstream public support, includ-ing public services and the welfare state. Whenaccessing healthcare, social services and publicbenets, the problems are often reported to arisedue to complicated and at times adversarial bu-

reaucratic systems, and their confusion aboutmigrants entitlements.

Other obstacles such as lack of language supportand translation services further complicate theproblems. Ocial equalities enquiries (in par-ticular the Parekh report and the MacPhersonenquiry) echo ndings that, overall, British pub-lic services do not yet adequately meet the needspresented by the UKs ethnically, culturally andlinguistically diverse communities.10

Austerity measures make improvements toequal access to services even less likely. The re-cent public sector cuts have further jeopardisedthe capacity of public service providers to meetthe diverse needs of migrant communities in theUK. Local authority budgets for integration sup-port to new arrivals are severely limited, as is theprovision of interpreters for accessing serviceproviders.

Combined with reduction of funding for freeESOL provision, this situation is likely to resultin thousands of people not speaking any Eng-lish, unable to participate in society and exposedto all kinds of exploitation.

Finally, the proposed legal aid cuts mean that ac-cessing free specialist legal advice will becomeall but impossible to those without funds, con-

dence, knowledge and communal links to accessand utilise possible alternatives such as pro bonolegal advice or telephone helplines.11

9


10/32

Many of the problems outlined above are be-ing addressed by MRCOs. Londons estimated335 MRCOs generally operate on the basis ofself-help and are organised along the lines ofidentity traits, but also along common interestssuch as protecting the rights of domestic work-ers. Other MRCOs are aimed at specic sectionsof the community, such as women or elderlypeople.12

MRCOs are usually set up and led by knowl-edgeable and active community members with-in a local area, and are usually heavily depen-

dent on volunteers while also collaborating withmainstream services. They often begin in some-ones living room, as a way of helping people to

deal with everyday needs, functioning as a homeaway from home, particularly for communitiesexiled by war or political violence. Many go on

to obtain charitable status, acquire resources andemploy sta and engage volunteers. This reportcontains ve case studies which aim to providean insight into the work of MRCOs. This chapterprovides a summary and an analysis of the mainthemes which these case studies reveal.

A few MRCOs (including MRCF) work acrossLondon and partner with other organisationsto address problems that are common to many

community organisations across the capital, suchas advice, mental health, education and employ-ability support. The idea is to pool resources and

What Do Migrant and Refugee

10


11/32

Community Organisations Do?

eorts in order to address these issues, leadingto cost savings and eciency in the long run.Another idea is to utilise the more capable mem-bers of communities as cultural brokers to im-prove access, opportunities, quality of life andthe quality of society overall.

MRCOs are caught on the one hand between thedemands posed by their users and their role ascivil society self-help groups, and on the otherhand trying to meet some of those needs throughresources commissioned by the public sector andthus acting within a more professionalised third

sector framework delivering statutory targets.

This means that MRCOs frequently deliver twofor the price of one support, but have tradition-ally been in re-ghting mode, too overstretchedto nd time and resources to do policy researchand present these experiences in the form of

hard hiing evidence that would aect widerchange.

This kind of community work, which saves mil-lions of pounds because it is preventative, is nowhighly jeopardised by the proposed cuts to localauthorities, NHS and funding designed to ad-dress London-wide issues. Funding and servicecuts to vulnerable communities and the impactthese will have on equality are at present being

tested in a number of Judicial Reviews (JRs).These JRs highlight the problems resulting fromthe rushed austerity measures. In the most recentjudgment about proposed cuts to London Coun-cils funding, a Judge ruled that London Coun-cils consultation process had failed to meet theirstatutory equality duties. He said that LondonCouncils must re-run the process, this time withfull equality impact assessments.13

The work of MRCOs is mainly concerned withpractical assistance, but they are also well placedto amplify the voices of isolated and disadvan-taged members of migrant communities andshare their experiences with public agencies andthe general public. Their work is generally fo-cused on three objectives:

1) To meet the needs in their communitywhich are left unmet by public services;

2) To build bridges with others in order tosecure wider social cohesion and the inte-gration of their communities; and

3) To give voice to their users concern in or-der to inform the process of social change.

11

Hodan Somali Community


12/32

Meeting community needs left unmetby public services

MRCOs aim to ll gaps in mainstream publicservices that are not being lled by local authori-ties, such as new arrivals support (including ori-entation), access to public services (education,welfare, health and housing) and skills devel-

opment. The need for this kind of support is ingreat demand and is expected to rise as govern-ment services are scaled back.14 The needs aresimple but they require a multifaceted approachand complex solutions. A successful responserequires in-depth knowledge and understand-ing of the communityits experiences, culture,needs and perceptionsas well as an under-standing of how mainstream society operates.MRCOs are embedded in both worlds, resulting

in creative, adaptable and innovative solutions:

[Zimbabweans] can get clinical help but not helpwith social and economic issuesI dont think socialservices are in a position, when people rst come in, totake up their issues immediately (Trizah, ZimbabweWomens Network UK)

MRCOs often work in partnership with main-stream voluntary sector organisations, such asAge Concern. By collaborating with organisa-tions oering basic skills training, legal adviceand mental health support, MRCOs can ensurethat the needs of their communities are recogn-ised and addressed. This means that the exper-tise of the specialised voluntary sector organisa-tion is combined with the community links andexpertise of the MRCOs. These partnerships de-liver well designed and cost eective services,but require resources to set up and maintain.

Providing information on the rights and respon-sibilities in culturally appropriate way helps toovercome the isolation and disorientation expe-rienced by many migrants. This initial responseby MRCOs often extends to wider orientationservices that are not provided by local authori-ties, such as signposting, information on job op-portunities and access to education. Some MR-COs educate their community members aboutlaw, customs and citizens responsibilities, while

others oer drop-in health centres, advice clinicsand supplementary homework classes for chil-dren.

Without the support we give to vulnerable membersof the Chinese community, people can spiral downand never come back. (Eddie, Chinese Healthy Liv-ing Centre)

Often, MRCOs operate as a port of last resort forpeople who are depressed, destitute or illone

step away from complete isolation.

If someone comes in here and talks to us, they goaway thinking its not the end of the world, life canstill go on. (Trizah, Zimbabwean Womens Associa-tion)

Finally, commonly provided services also focuson skills-development not addressed by the stat-utory sector and voluntary organisations. Theseare often aimed at more vulnerable members of

the community (e.g. women, teenagers and theelderly) and range from language services andtranslation, to specic skills tutorship leadingto vocational and professional qualications orvolunteering positions. The heavy reliance ofmost MRCOs on volunteers means that they of-ten inadvertently provide ad hoc training andvolunteering opportunities for members of theircommunity.15

Shpresa became my window of knowledge, my hopeand inspiration. [Volunteering for] Shpresa was mylaunch-pad into employment. (Besa, volunteer forShpresa project)

Building bridges to improve social cohe-sion and integration

The work of MRCOs results in more indepen-dent individuals who can take part in society on

an equal footing with other citizens. That partici-pation leads to beer community cohesion andsocial integration which not only benets theirown interests but society as a whole. The termintegration is often taken by policy makers tomean eorts to be made by immigrants to t intomainstream society, whereas the approach tak-en by many MRCOs is of a two-way integrationprocess whereby migrants and refugees play anactive and equal role in society, feel that they be-

long and are supported and respected for theircontributions.16

12

Opposite: St. Antonio Eritrean Womens Group


13/32


14/32


15/32

The question to ask about integration is: When dowe stop being immigrants and become citizens? Ithas been our experience that from the moment youstart caring for your neighbourhood, your communi-ty, for your city, and start working to make it beer,you are integrated.17 (Zrinka, MRCF)

Through addressing immediate needs and help-

ing community members navigate various chal-lenges, MRCOs help build their condence andskills to break out of isolation, take part in widercommunity initiatives and advocate their owninterests within a wider social agenda. Com-munity work brings people together, generat-ing a sense of solidarity and obligation to others,thereby generating cohesiveness that is criticalto developing a sense of belonging. Communi-ties with strong internal bonds are more likely

and more able to link to other communities, andthe wider society.18

We want [Albanians in London] to feel more con-dent, to vote, to take care of their environment, to beless isolated and to be happy. (Luljeta, Shpresa)

MRCOs Give Voice to New Citizens

MRCOs actively voice the interests and rights oftheir members pressing for statutory responsesthat adhere to equality and human rights. Inthe process of helping statutory service provid-ers make their services accessible to minorities,MRCOs actually perform a civil society role, astheir interventions improve the performance ofgovernment departments and therefore contrib-ute to a fairer and more ecient society. Whilethe Equality and Human Rights Commissionwatches over our national human rights frame-work, MRCOs bring equality to individuals in a

practical way.

There is an important point to be made here aboutthe legitimacy of MRCOs. This comes from theirknowledge and expertise based on links to theircommunity. MRCOs are truly grassroots organi-sations, with unique insights, knowledge andperspectives that should be considered whendesigning public policies.

This legitimacy is sometimes confused with rep-resentation in a political sense, so that MRCOsare often dragged into consultations to speak on

behalf of entire ethnic groups and to satisfy tickthe box approaches to equalities obligations.Since MRCOs are not representative in the tradi-tional political sense, when they engage in suchexercises without proper facilitation, it can resultin gatekeeping and community divisions.

But where MRCOs are asked to cooperate with

dierent levels of government, other NGOs andcivil society groups on the basis of their under-standing of the relevant issues, they are unique-ly placed to contribute to public dialogue on is-sues of social policy. And in this way they oer apathway to institutions, services and a means ofcivic participation for migrants:

[Our work has] provided a venue for and encour-aged community participation... as one way of teach-

ing democratic and citizenship values to Vietnamesemigrants [and] baling their isolation. (Long Lam,Vietnamese Association)

We are commied to assisting African women andtheir children aain their full potential in their newBritish culture by helping them with the transitionprocess from their African past to their British pres-ent and future. (Trizah, ZIWNUK)

MRCOs have a role to play in deliberative de-

mocracy and participatory government becausethey provide a conduit through which immi-grants can challenge barriers and build links withreceiving communities by helping plan policiesand services.19 London government has a historyof initiatives in partnership with MRCOs, suchas the Greater London Authority (GLA) RefugeeImplementation Strategy where MRCOs wereboth consultants and delivery partners.

However, the ability and condence of newcommunities in the UK to play an eective rolein the local governance processes is inuencedby many factors including how the governmentchooses to act on its equality obligations, nation-al policies related to diversity and communitycohesion, the approach of local decision-makersand statutory bodies, as well as their own inter-nal community dynamics, skills and resources.This process only produces results when those

in power take responsibility by including newcitizens and MRCOs, recognising the value oftheir contribution.

15

Opposite: MRCF Engage to Change meeting


16/32

The quality and signicance of the work ofMRCOs does not correspond to the nancialsupport they receive: 63% of refugee community

organisations surveyed in 2007 had an annualincome of less than 50,000,20 of which a largeproportion came from external resources, name-ly local authorities and charitable trusts, whileonly a minimum proportion of their income wasfunded by membership fees, donations or fund-raising activities.21 Securing adequate nancialresources to support their work is a substantialchallenge. The extent of the reduction in fundingfor MRCOs in London in 2008 and 2009 has notyet been compiled centrally, but anecdotal evi-dence as well as evidence drawn from the volun-tary sector as a whole is extremely troubling.

The pressure on MRCO budgets has been steadi-ly increasing over the past decade. The CharityMarket Monitor 2009 reported that 41% of thetop 300 charitable trusts found their grant-mak-ing value fell in 2008 during the recession. Therewas a drop of net asset value among the toptrusts of 10%, impacting on their grant-making

capacity.22 In March 2009, the Charity Commis-sion reported that over a half of charities hadbeen impacted by the downturn, with 58% ofthese charities directly experiencing a reducedincome.23

In addition to the availability of funds, the struc-ture of funding also poses a challenge. The shiftin policy from grant funding towards servicecommissioning, or contract funding has re-

duced the possibility of securing funding for thecosts of overheadsso called core costs.

Rather than responding to community needs,many community groups have had to developnew services to meet funder priorities, mainlyshort-term activity-led projects with no strategicplanning. These projects can be demanding interms of delivery and reporting, making it moredicult for community organisations to recovercore costs, develop internal reserves and increasetheir long-term stability. It is increasingly hardfor MRCOs to raise funds to employ administra-tors and/or coordinators, yet like any charitable

organisation they are required to comply withrelevant laws and to demonstrate quality andhigh levels of nancial and overall accountabil-

ity.

If the government is serious about the big so-ciety philosophy, it is important that they cre-ate stability for these types of organisations sothat we can pay our core and xed costs. (EddieChan, Chinese Healthy Living Centre)

The changing policy approach towards migrantand refugee communities over the past decadehas also made it increasingly dicult for the

community-specic work done by many MR-COs to secure funding.

The role of MRCOs in supporting long-termintegration has long been recognised by policymakers. Integration Maers, the Home Of-ces 2004 strategy paper, cites the enormouslyvaluable work of Refugee Communities Organisa-tions, which build links between refugees and thewider community.24 The Department of Com-

munities and Local Government acknowledgesthat community development and participationare crucial not only to refugee integration, but tothe improvement of community and civic life, politi-cal engagement and community cohesion.25 Andthe London Government Authority is commiedto supporting migrant integration in the city.26

However, the national funding priorities lter-ing down to local authority agendas have in-

creasingly favoured larger voluntary organisa-tions and activities seen to be supporting widercommunity cohesion and integration, and notcommunity organisations.27

The Coalition government shows signs of rec-ognising this problem in its green paper Mod-ernising Commissioning, which proposes newways of boosting the role of charities, socialenterprises, mutuals and cooperatives in pub-lic service delivery.28 But the real question iswhether these new ideas genuinely allow for theinvolvement of community organisations.

Weathering the Storm:Past and Future Challenges for MRCOs

16


17/32

Despite all these commitments to MRCOs, thereremains a real ambivalence among some policy-makers and funders regarding the way that MR-COs should be developing their work in order toboost the integration of Londons migrant com-munities. MRCOs are increasingly assessed ontheir compatibility with a mainstreaming agendaand in particular on whether active measures are

being taken to reach out beyond immediate com-munities in order to engage with wider society.29A frequently asked question is: Are single is-sue or single ethnicity community groups con-tributing towards a gheoisation of migrantsand refugees thereby leading to more isolationand social divisions? Such considerations haveshaped the funding of MRCOs and continue tobe coupled with other eciency criteria, suchas prospects for merging with similar organisa-

tions in order to deliver beer value for moneyand demonstrate a willingness to extend workbeyond a core constituency.

Whilst helping MRCOs to link their communi-ties with the mainstream is undoubtedly to besupported, it must be recognised that this workwill require more and not fewer resources for itto be eective.

If MRCOs are to survive in the new funding and

policy environment they will have to make theiralready scarce resources stretch even further.Under the pressure of external changes manyMRCOs have already had to adjust their fund-raising, their choice of activities and the waythey prove the value of their work, as well as in-vest time in developing partnerships and merg-ing with other organisations in order to aractavailable funding.

MRCOs will nd it dicult to address any furtherpressures in relation to resources and increasesin workload they are under-staed and preoccu-pied with the immediate delivery of services oractivities, which leaves lile time for developinginternal sustainability.30 MRCOs also may nothave the necessary sta skills to navigate the fastchanging funding and policy environment.

Many MRCOs already report an increasing dif-

culty with completing funding applications,often online, and satisfying administrative andstructural requirements of funders especially

when commissioned contracts are involved. De-spite aempts to address these issues via ongo-ing capacity-building work by infrastructureorganisations, many MRCOs are likely to ndthemselves without the skills to meet funder de-mands in the current climate or compete withother, more competitive voluntary sector or evencommercial providers.

The most eective MRCOs have a deep-rootedconnection to and the trust of their community,are able to develop wider partnerships withinthe voluntary sector and with statutory bodies,and understand how best they can add value, inparticular whether a specic situation calls fordeveloping a new service or inuencing an exist-ing one so that it beer meets the needs of theircommunity.

Their work is also underpinned by professional-ism, including democratic governance and trans-parent nances. Their capacity and communitybuilding activity is also greatly enhanced by vol-unteers who themselves gain skills and integratemore fully through their volunteering. It is theseMRCOs who are most likely to be able to survivethe austerity measures as they will be able todemonstrate good value for money in their de-livery, submit good quality applications show-

ing sound nancial management, and engagein rigorous monitoring and evaluation of theirprojects in order to demonstrate positive impact.They are also most likely to have the skills andresources needed to achieve merges or partner-ships with other organisations if adequate sup-port and processes are in place.

However, although more eciency can be gainedwith restructuring and collaborative work, these

changes will not fully solve funding needs. Theausterity measures are likely to wipe out manyMCROs leaving their communities without animportant integration vehicle, and leaving themost vulnerable and isolated people unable tobenet from the statutory services they are en-titled to.

17


18/32

1. The work of MRCOs cannot be replaced

by statutory service providers

MRCOs provide services which public authorities, particular-

ly those under nancial pressure, will not be able to provide.Their links to and understanding of the communities they servemakes them irreplaceable. Their work cannot be delivered bymainstream organisations without substantial training and re-sourcing.

The long-standing development and value of this work will belost with their closure. In cases where closures do happen, dueconsideration is required in order to make adequate transitionsso as not to leave communities without support. A commitmentto dialogue on future steps is necessary and it must involvepartners from these communities to agree to concrete measuresto replace their services by other providers.

What Needs To Be Done Now?The Big Society policy providesscope for MRCOs to be re-evaluatedas an integral aspect of a rich and di-verse national community. Now morethan ever, MRCOs serve as a crucial

safety net for the most vulnerable inour society.

We therefore ask that the followingis taken into consideration in futurepolicy dialogue concerning the BigSociety.


19/32

2. The need for MRCOs is likely to increase

over the coming period

Migrants and refugees who use the services of MRCOs are vul-

nerable and socially excluded members of our society. Cuts topublic funding and changes in the welfare state are likely to in-crease their vulnerability. The needs of community members inrelation to employment, housing, benets, legal aid, and so on,is likely to increase rather than decrease in the context of greaternancial pressures.

It is likely that mainstream agencies will have fewer resources toaccommodate people with dierent cultural or linguistic needs.It is also likely that developments within immigration policy willalso play a role in increasing the vulnerability of these communi-ties. The vortex of measures negatively inuencing refugee andmigrant communities will render MRCOs all the more importantin preventing destitution and other social and economic prob-lems which can impact on society in general.

We ask for government departments on every level to considerthe savings that will be made through small investments intoMRCOs preventative work.

3. Supporting MRCOs isan investment in cohe-

sive and fairer society

The process of integration is an in-vestment in the future of a stableand fair society. By providing newcitizens with knowledge and skillsto become self-sucient membersof society, MRCOs are a conduit forthe greater integration and public en-gagement of migrants and refugeesin British life.

MRCF Annual General Meeting 2010


20/32

Equality and Integration in Action

Five Communities Doing the Big SocietyThe following case studies describe the work of ve very dierent migrant and refugee communityorganisations currently operating in London:

The West and North West London Vietnamese Association

The Chinese National Healthy Living Centre The Zimbabwe Womens Network in Isleworth Shpresa Programme for Albanian Speaking Community Midaye Somali Development Network

These organisations have substantial dierences: some are well established, others have been morerecently established; some are gender-focused, others organised around people from a particularcountry of origin. Their size and reliance on public funding also varies greatly. However, all areexamples of the range of creative and commied work being undertaken across London in order toaddress the pressingand otherwise unmetneeds of migrants and refugees.

Despite limited funding and a host of other challenges, these organisations provide high qualityservices and foster a culture of mutual support and social entrepreneurship. Their services areheavily dependent on the skills and commitment of volunteers.

All are exible organisations that have sought to respond creatively to the gaps and failings ofthe mainstream system often by working in partnership with the statutory and voluntary sector.They are constituted organisations, with democratic structures and transparent and well-managednances.

They are organisations that play a crucial role in fostering the two-way integration process at thecentre of wider social cohesionfacilitating a sense of belonging as well as participation and ac-tive citizenship. They demonstrate in practice how focused support for one community or interestgroup can be benecial for the wider society.

Photo by Shpresa

20


21/32

The West and North West London VietnameseAssociation (WNWLVA) was set up to supportnewly arrived Vietnamese migrants in the late1980s. At that stage it provided ESOL classes,signposting to services, job seeking assistanceand supplementary schooling.

Twenty years later the organisation still existsand is responding to the changing needs of thecommunity, chiey that the older generation isgrowing old in exile. For the elderly, it providessocialising opportunities, such as accompaniedshopping, house visits and befriending services,to prevent isolation. Other major issues facingthe community are unemployment and under-employment, as well as family breakdown. TheAssociation has previously provided intensive

employment training but has had to substantial-ly reduce its work on this issue since its fundingfrom the Big Loery ended.

The Association has also encouraged and pro-vided a venue for community participation asa way of teaching democratic and citizenshipvalues to Vietnamese migrants unused to livingin a democratic society. It has oered volunteer-ing opportunities which have often given the re-

cipients the necessary work experience to securepaid employment. This activity has also had theadded benet of linking together dierent gen-erations, as young members of the communityvolunteer to support the elderly.

The Associations funding situation has beenprecarious for some time and its work, whichserves a core client base of over 200 people (120of which are elderly), has always relied heavilyon volunteers. At present it has 6 core volun-teers who each contribute 2 to 3 hours a week.The minimal funding it received from a chari-

table trust in 2009/10 was just enough to coverthe part-time salary of co-ordinator Long Lam,the only paid sta member, but that has sincenished and the association now relies solely onvolunteers.

The Vietnamese community has lile businessbase to draw on for private fundraising and isentirely dependent on public and charitabletrust funding which makes it particularly vul-

nerable to funding cuts. Funding from two localauthorities has to date covered oce rent, main-tenance and basic running costs. However Ham-mersmith and Fulham, the Associations hostlocal authority, has announced that for 2011/12that it is cuing its funding by a third. Long hasbeen told to expect further cuts in 2012/13 and in2013/14. He has also been given notice that thebuilding where they are based is likely to be soldo to raise capital. He is extremely worried that

the Association will be forced to close.

West & North West London Vietnamese Association,Shepherds Bush

21

Photo by WNWLVA


22/32

Set up in 1987, the Chinese National HealthyLiving Centre (CNHLC) was originally formedby a group of British-Chinese NHS doctors whowere volunteering their time to run Sunday sur-geries for the Chinese community. They wantedto address the health inequalities caused by thelinguistic and cultural barriers which were pre-venting many Chinese migrants from accessingmainstream health services.

23 years on, the Centre has developed into theUKs only national Chinese voluntary organisa-tion. It has established a reputation as an expert

in Chinese health in the UK and has been vis-ited by a number of Health Ministers and seniorocials from the UK and abroad. The organisa-tion is recognised as a key model for deliveringhealth improvement to minority ethnic commu-nities and has used its expertise to help manyother communities to tackle health inequalities.

It has delivered some 40 projects and servicesto thousands of peoplean estimated 10,000 in

2009 alone. For there is a real need: long restau-rant working hours, poor English and commu-nity dispersion mean that many Chinese peopleface barriers to accessing mainstream health ser-

vices. The Centres importance however is notonly in guiding people towards these servicesbut also in providing specialist medical aen-tion at a bilingual doctors surgery, includingpractical support in translating and interpreting.For example, a Hepatitis B clinic aends to theproportionally high numbers of Chinese peopleinfected with this disease.

As the director Eddie Chan points out, these ser-vices which include free mental health and ad-diction counselling in Cantonese and Mandarin,respond to unmet needs in a way that is lifesav-

ing. The Centre also oers health education andinformation including outreach work in the re-gions, where many of the UKs highly dispersedChinese population live. More recently, the cen-tre has provided services for the health needs ofirregular migrants who have no automatic rightto access state healthcare.

Much of the Directors time is also spent work-ing with the statutory sector and the mainstream

voluntary sector to make their services more costeective. For example he advised the NHS onChinese language needs when they were seingup NHS Direct and Cancer Backup (now part of

The Chinese National Healthy Living Centre, Soho

22

Photo by CNHLC


23/32

Macmillan Cancer Support) on providing tele-phone support in Chinese. He also worked withthe Health Protection Agency on the bird uoutbreak. The Centre has been recognised for itsexpertise through awards from the Kings Fund,the London Development Agency and the May-or of London. In addition, the centre provideshealth expertise to small Chinese community as-

sociations across the UK. In 2010, along with theChelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foun-dation Trust, it won the NHS London RegionHealth and Social Care Award for successfulpartnership working and was shortlisted for aNational award.

CNHLC has an impressive range of funding. Ithas been particularly successful in raising mon-ey through selling services and social enterprise(a total of nearly 13,000 was raised this way inthe nancial year 2009/10). As well as demon-strating independence and self reliance, muchof this work also benets the wider UK popula-tion. Most signicantly, CNHLC has run a pro-gramme, initially funded by the British HeartFoundation but more recently through commis-sioned contracts with local authorities, to helpChinese takeaways and restaurants cook healthi-er food. As Eddie says, If we have to close downwe wont be able to do things like this, the gen-

eral public will miss out.

Like most MRCOs, CNHLC relies heavily onvolunteers, many of whom are highly skilledmedical professionals. It has an innovative ap-proach to nding volunteers. For example, it re-cruits Chinese speaking students from Londonuniversity medical schools to interpret for nonChinese speaking NHS sta when they are car-rying out health checks at outreach events.

The public funding that the centre does receive,mainly from the Department of Health and West-minster PCT, goes directly to pay for xed coststowards its central London location and someof the specialist medical sta. In Eddies wordspeople dont mind doing some voluntary work,they feel like they are doing something useful toaddress the unfullled needs of the community,but if you exploit them the quality of the workwill drop and they will say no more.

Given that much of its current public fundinggoes directly to pay xed costs, further cutswould put the Centre at real jeopardy. As Eddiepoints out, we cannot survive without fundingfor management support. Previous cuts in 2005led to the closure of centres in Birmingham andManchester and the services are still missed to-day. The community will feel totally let down

if you fund something to help them, which theyget used to, and then you pull it, explains Ed-die.

As this report goes to print CNHLC is still wait-ing to hear about what public funding it willhave for 20011/12. Westminster City Councilwho currently fund the centre have announcedthat all funding of over 5,000 to the voluntarysector will now be distributed through commis-sioned contracts but no details are available asyet. Similarly, Westminster PCT, another corefunder of the centre, is yet to make a decisionabout what funding it will provide. As always,CNHLC is being as proactive as it can and hasapplied to the Governments Transition Fundand the Department of Healths Financial Assis-tance fund.

23

Photo by CNHLC


24/32

Zimbabwe Womens Network in the UK (ZIWNUK),IsleworthPeople imagine that you come to London because youknow it, but you have no clue. You have no idea where togo if you are sick, its like youre just dropped here Weare here to ll that gap... Back in Africa we dont have y-ers and materials so you dont know where to go.

These are the words of Trizah, ZIWNUK co-ordinator,and they echo the raison dtre of most MRCOstheneed to provide a much-needed link between main-stream services and isolated communities who maynot initially understand each other.

Originally set up in 2003 to address the rights andwelfare of recently arrived Zimbabwean women andtheir children, today ZIWNUK provides emotionaland practical support to refugees, asylum seekers,

students and migrants from all over Africa and theCaribbean as they face the challenges of selementand integration in Britain. ZIWNUKs organisationalleaet states:

The philosophy of ZIWNUK is based on the belief thatchange comes from within. As African women we need tobe educated about our rights, health issues, environment,the myths and realities of oppressive cultural practices...We are commied to assisting African women and their

children aain their full potential in their new British cul-ture by helping them with the transition process from theirAfrican past to their British present and future. We believethat this transition, will be even smoother and faster if thewomen receive support in all aspects that make them com-plete, and these include children, family and self reliancemajor African values.

The communities that ZIWNUK serves have realneeds that are unmet by mainstream services: manyclients have suered trauma as a result of persecution

and war, some have also been the victims of rape,many others are HIV positive and once they arrive inthe UK they face many barriers to access the supportthey need. These issues, if not addressed at the pointof arrival, can lead to social and unemployment prob-lems, as well as a sense of acute isolation.

They give up on life, sit at home and wait to dieforexample, a teacher who is out of work for 5 years maybebecause of immigration status, or because of illness ex-

plains Trizah.

Many women also arrive with their children and needhelp with the process of seling them into life in Lon-don. It is during these initial months where ZIWNUK

comes in, guiding new arrivals and informing themof their rights and responsibilities, reaching out tothem in a moment when they may be isolated fromtheir community and mainstream services.

They need to nd somebody with whom they can con-nect somebody who looks like them she adds.

The organisation oers advice to its 400 clientsthrough one-to-one sessions and telephone supportas well as group meetings to work on issues suchas sexual health, domestic violence and other blackwomens issues: some 80% of HIV+ Zimbabweansin the UK are women. They have forged strongpartnerships with other statutory and voluntaryorganisations to make sure that they are makingthe best use of available resources. ZIWNUK rec-ognises that specialist services provided either bythe public or voluntary sector are best placed todeal with clinical issues and that they should fo-cus their work on social, emotional and economicproblems.

ZIWNUK also delivers general advice on immigra-tion, health, and housing and projects for familiesand young people. They are currently involved in aBig Loery funded project with other local organi-sations which brings together families from a range

of cultural backgrounds to share and learn abouteach others cultures. In addition they are deliver-ing a project called Choose a Future which is rais-ing the condence and self-esteem of girls and boysand helping them to make informed choices.

With an income for 2009/2010 standing at only47,000 mainly generated through statutory fund-ing ZIWNUK relies almost exclusively on regu-lar volunteers who between them put in some 73

hours a week. The coordinator is a paid sta mem-ber for two days a week and her time is fundedthrough the various projects the organisation runs.She works for the rest of the week and often at theweekend as a volunteer.

The organisation is growing and is in the processof acquiring charity status (it is currently a chari-table company), but without its current funding, itwould have to close, with signicant implicationsfor the wider community. As Trizah explains, ZI-WNUK is unique for the cultural expertise it canoer. We are the only ones in West London cater-ing for this group of clientswomen, children andyoung people.

24


25/32


26/32

Many see social entrepreneurship as the wayforward for MRCOs in tough economic times andthe experience of Shpresa (which means Hopein Albanian) is a good example of the possibili-ties it opens up. When Luljeta arrived in Londonin 1999 as an Albanian refugee she found it veryhard to sele into life in East London without

the language or much support. In particular, sheexperienced problems in nding out about localshops and services, including English languageservicesthe general lack of orientation in thelocal area made it much harder to build a lifehere.

Once she nally was on her feet, she startedproviding services to other recent arrivals fromAlbania through a new project called Shpresa,

which was initially located within the RefugeeRenewal and Migrant Project (RAMP) in EastLondon. She did a two-year training course withthe School for Social Entrepreneurs to develop

the business plan for the charity, and its coremission. Today Shpresa is a registered charitywith four full-time sta members, two part-timeworkers and 41 volunteers. Its core work is nowwith women and children in six London bor-oughs and includes a combination of practicaladvisory work to Albanian speaking refugees

and migrants and campaign worksimulta-neously focused on promoting integration andan understanding of the UK while encouragingpride in Albanian cultural identity.

Shpresas projects include campaign and advo-cacy work, at times with organisations like Cit-izens UK, as well as its core services of much-needed advice and support in helping peoplend training, employment or volunteering, as

a way of participating in society. Shpresa viewsactive citizenship as crucial to facilitating socialcohesion.

Shpresa Programme for Albanian Speaking Community,Plaistow

26

Photo by Shpresa


27/32

Shpresa is big on partnership work and alwaysapproaches partners with an aitude of how canwe help you? The organisation has been partic-ularly successful in forming partnerships withlocal schools to incorporate Albanian languageclasses for Albanian children and Albanian iden-tity clubs for all children, where they can learn

about Albanian culture and about refugees. Inthis way Shpresa relays a message to schools,teachers and other children of cultural pride andanti-discrimination but also one of participationin local communities. The positive eects havebeen felt by many, as one teacher explained: ithas had a big impact on self-esteem and pridein cultural heritage. This year in Year 1 severalfriends of the Albanian pupils have asked to jointhe club.

In addition Shpresa runs a health and well be-ing project for women in partnership with theWomens Therapy Centre. As they say on theirwebsite:

Shpresa believes fervently in providing women withhigh quality support to enable them to build a newlife in which they feel safe and able to contribute totheir families and communities as full and active citi-

zens Tackling domestic violence and the long-termimpact of exile has been challenging but Shpresa hasdeveloped a partnership with the Womens TherapyCentre enabling women to nd a safe space to explorehow they feel and what they want for themselves andtheir children. Shpresa has seen women grow anddevelop taking up employment and becoming com-munity leaders as well as condent and skilled par-ents. We are also delighted that mainstream providerswant to learn from us and develop culturally sensitiveservices for women from the Albanian speaking com-

munity.

A major reason for the organisations success inhelping to integrate Albanian refugees and mi-grants into UK life is their focus on volunteeringprojects for the Albanian-speaking communityas a pathway into employment. This emphasison volunteering (Shpresa has 41) fosters a senseof belonging and of real participation in Britishsociety.

Shpresa has a larger budget than many otherMRCOs, with an income of some 227,000 inthe year ending in 2009. Also, unlike many MR-COs, Shpresa receives very lile public funding.However, in this climate of funding cuts, it toofaces having to cut back on the services that areso valued by its client base, and by its partners inthe wider community. As Luljeta explains, ourwork is so unique that no one else could replaceit... We have built a long-term trust relationshipbetween our communities and others... we shareour working model with other communities because it worksHowever we have started tofeel the pressure of the cuts, now the competitionis very high. We have had more rejections thanever. When we have asked for feedback the an-swers were similar we have had more funding

applications than we anticipated and the boardmembers had to make dicult decisions, thosegranted scored higher than you. I am not able totell you what you can improve on.

27

Photo by Shpresa


28/32

Midaye Somali Development Network, Ladbroke Grove

28

When Waris Mohamoud arrived in London in 1990from Somalia as a refugee and mother of ve childrenunder 12 years of age, she struggled to break past cul-tural and linguistic barriers to nd support and ac-cess mainstream services. She persevered however,and would later use her hard-won experience to help

other Somali mothers in London, oering advice fromher living room from 2001. In 2002, Waris started Mi-daye Somali Development Network, in response to theneeds of the local Somali community. Since then, theorganisation has grown impressively. It still oers in-formation, advice and advocacy to its largely refugeeclient base but also other services aimed at promotingintegration, including a weekly supplementary schoolfor 60 Somali children, study support groups, AdultEnglish classes, a womens health project and elderlycare. The kind of actions that Midayes team take aspart of their advice work include supporting parentsto engage with schools about their childs educationand intervening to sort out benet and housing prob-lems.

The most widespread community problems are thoseof isolation, destitution, long-term unemployment andfamily breakdown caused by the various strains of liv-ing in exile. Anti-social behaviour is also becoming aproblem amongst the younger generation, and men-

toring workshops are run informally to address this.Yet, this work too remains unfunded despite aemptsto work in partnership with the borough police. Equal-ly, the organisation has worked to raise awarenessamong the community of their rights and responsibili-ties within wider British society and the importanceof participation, including citizenship training. In thisway, Midaye acts as a bridge between the community,local authorities and mainstream society.

Midayes budget stood at 143,000 in 2009/2010,20,000 of which came from the Royal Boroughof Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), its host localauthority and 54,000 from the local NHS Trust todo health promotion work. And with this moneythey do a huge amount: they serve some 1,100 cli-ents a year some of whom cross the city to re-ceive their services and pay for seven part-timeworkers. Funding does not, however, cover allthe costs of running the organisation the rest ofthe work is undertaken by a commied team ofseven volunteers who between them contribute 45hours a week. Various projects have already hadto be stopped prematurely such as a short edu-cational lm where children from the communityacted out how to combat anti-social behaviour.

However, the organisation is resilient and hasbeen creative in nding ways to supplement itssmall budget and extend services to people inneed. It has partnered with other organisationsincluding Open Age (a local voluntary sectororganisation for older people), the BME HealthForum, local community centres and other mi-grant community organisations including HodanSomali Community and Al Hasaniya MoroccanWomens Centre. Clients also contribute to the

costs of some services, specically the supple-mentary school. Additionally it has social enter-prise ambitions, including wanting to start up asewing group, but even these are limited by thelack of funding needed to get these projects o theground. Yet despite these restrictions it is impor-tant to note that the advisory serviceswhich inWaris own words are the most important and indemand aspect of our organisation continue,despite being entirely unfunded. It is important tounderstand that were Midaye not to provide theseadvisory services, the likely outcome would be anescalation of problems.

Midaye is also facing budget cuts and uncertain-ty for 2011/12. Its small core grant of 7,500 fromRBKC has not been cut because it took a cut of25% the year before. However its funding fromNHS Kensington and Chelsea has been substan-tially reduced despite the fact that it is now work-ing in partnership to deliver its work with another

local community organisation. Other public fund-ing has been extended for three months until June2011, but we do not know what will happen afterthat date.

Photo by Midaye


29/3227


30/3230

[1] Migrant and minority community organisations: fund-ing, sustainability and ways forward. Interim report. 2010Alessio DAngelo, Erin Sanders, Ranmal Burkmar, Mi-grant Organisations Development Agency and MiddlesexUniversity: London

[2] Migrant Capital: a perspective on contemporary migra-tion in London, 2010, Migrants Rights Network: Londonp.35

[3] Refugee and Migrant Community Organisations in2009 The rst in an annual series of reections on the stateof the sector, Ruth Valentine for The Evelyn Oldeld Unit:London p.3

[4] Figures show that the largest proportion of Londonsmigrants come from Europe (some 30%), followed by Afri-ca (23%), the Indian subcontinent (17%), and the Americasand Caribbean, reported in Migrant Capital: a perspectiveon contemporary migration in London, 2010, MigrantsRights Network: London p.35

[5] British Councils OPENCities project. hp://www.thi-sislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23914825-london-tops-league-table-of-cities-open-to-foreigners.do

[6] The Emergence of Super-Diversity in Britain, 2006, Ste-phen Vertovec, Centre on Migration, Policy and SocietyWorking Paper No. 25, University of Oxford

[7] Global Cities at Work: New Migrant Divisions of La-bour, 2010, by Jane Wills, Kavita Daa, Yara Evans, JoannaHerbert, Jon May and Cathy McIlwaine, Pluto Press.

[8] The equality implications of being a migrant in Brit-ain. 2009 Kofman, Eleonore and Lukes, Sue and DAngelo,Alessio and Montagna, Nicola. Equality and HumanRights Commission, London.

[9] The equality implications of being a migrant in Brit-ain. 2009 Kofman, Eleonore and Lukes, Sue and DAngelo,Alessio and Montagna, Nicola. Equality and HumanRights Commission, London.

[10] See The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain: The ParekhReport, 2000, the Commission for Multi-Ethnic Britain,Runnymede Trust: London. See also The Stephen Law-rence Inquiry (The MacPherson Inquiry). Report of aninquiry by Sir William Macpherson of Cluny. Presented toParliament by the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-ment by Command of Her Majesty. February 1999.

[11] See hp://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/legal-

aid-reform-151110.htm[12] Refugee and Migrant Community Organisations in2009 The rst in an annual series of reections on the stateof the sector, Ruth Valentine for The Evelyn Oldeld Unit:London p. 2

[13] See hp://www.pierceglynn.co.uk/ for more details.

[14] Migrant Voices, Migrant Rights: Can migrant com-munity organisations change the immigration debate inBritain today? 2006, Barrow Cadbury: London

[15] London Enriched: the mayors refugee integrationstrategy, 2009, Greater London Authority: London, p.15

[16] [Integration is] the processes of interaction betweenmigrants and the individuals and institutions of the re-ceiving society to promote the economic, cultural, socialand civic participation of all residents, including migrants,

and an inclusive sense of belonging at the national and lo-cal level. From an evidence base on Migration and Inte-gration in London, 2010, Dr Ben Gidley and Dr HiranthiJayaweera, ESRC Centre on Migration, Policy and Society,University of Oxford: Oxford

[17] Zrinka Bralo, interviewed in Migrants for Lon-don, London for Migrants video, 2010 Migrants RightsNetwork: London hp://www.youtube.com/user/migrantsrights?feature=mhum#p/u/0/MdDrUDCfoCY

[18] The potential of migrant and refugee community or-ganisations to inuence policy, 2009, Sue Lukes, with helpfrom Vaughan Jones and Yesenia San Juan, Praxis: Lon-don

[19] Handbook on Integration for policy-makers and prac-titioners: third edition, 2010, Directorate for Justice, Free-dom and Security, European Commission, p.10

[20] Refugee and Migrant Community Organisations in2009 The rst in an annual series of reections on the stateof the sector, Ruth Valentine for The Evelyn Oldeld Unit:London, p.3

[21] Migrant and minority community organisations:funding, sustainability and ways forward. Interim report.2010 Alessio DAngelo, Erin Sanders, Ranmal Burkmar,Migrant Organisations Development Agency and Middle-sex University: London

[22] Value of charitable trusts falls 10 percent due to reces-sion, 12th February 2010, Charity Market Monitor website,- hp://www.knowhownonprot.org/news/value-of-char-itable-trusts-falls-10-percent-due-to-recession

[23] More than half of charities now feeling impact ofdownturn. 17 March 2009, Charity Commission press re-

lease[24] As quoted in Refugee and Migrant Community Or-ganisations in 2009 The rst in an annual series of reec-tions on the state of the sector, Ruth Valentine for The Ev-elyn Oldeld Unit: London, p.17

[25] London Enriched: the mayors refugee integrationstrategy, 2009, Greater London Authority: London, p.28

[26] Mayor of London signs European charter on migrantintegration, Greater London Authority press release 22ndFebruary 2010 hp://www.london.gov.uk/media/press_releases_mayoral/mayor-london-signs-european-charter-migrant-integration

[27] The potential of migrant and refugee community or-ganisations to inuence policy, 2009, Sue Lukes, with helpfrom Vaughan Jones and Yesenia San Juan, Praxis: Lon-don

[28] Modernising Commissioning: Increasing the role ofcharities, social enterprises, mutuals and cooperatives inpublic service delivery

[29] London Enriched: the mayors refugee integrationstrategy, 2009, Greater London Authority: London

[30] Migrant and minority community organisations:funding, sustainability and ways forward. Interim report.

2010 Alessio DAngelo, Erin Sanders, Ranmal Burkmar,Migrant Organisations Development Agency and Middle-sex University: London p.10

End Notes


31/32

Migrant and minority community organisations: fund-ing, sustainability and ways forward. Interim report. 2010Alessio DAngelo, Erin Sanders, Ranmal Burkmar, Mi-grant Organisations Development Agency and MiddlesexUniversity: London

Migrant Capital: a perspective on contemporary migrationin London, 2010, Migrants Rights Network: London

Refugee and Migrant Community Organisations in 2009The rst in an annual series of reections on the state ofthe sector, Ruth Valentine for The Evelyn Oldeld Unit:London

An evidence base on Migration and Integration in Lon-don, 2010, Dr Ben Gidley and Dr Hiranthi Jayaweera,ESRC Centre on Migration, Policy and Society, Universityof Oxford:

London Enriched: the mayors refugee integration strat-

egy, 2009, Greater London Authority: London

Handbook on Integration for policy-makers and practitio-ners: third edition, 2010, Directorate for Justice, Freedomand Security, European Commission

Migrants for London, London for Migrants video, 2010Migrants Rights Network: London hp://www.youtube.com/user/migrantsrights?feature=mhum#p/u/0/Md-DrUDCfoCY

Migrant Voices, Migrant Rights: Can migrant community

organisations change the immigration debate in Britain to-day? 2006, Barrow Cadbury: London

The potential of migrant and refugee community organisa-tions to inuence policy, 2009, Sue Lukes, with help fromVaughan Jones and Yesenia San Juan, Praxis: London

Government policy, recession and the voluntary sector: areport for UNISON, Steve Davies, Senior research fellow,Cardi School of Social Sciences, November 2009

Strangers or Citizens? Refugee and migrant participationin local political processes in London, 2009, Migrant and

Refugee Communities Forum: London

The equality implications of being a migrant in Britain.2009 Kofman, Eleonore and Lukes, Sue and DAngelo,Alessio and Montagna, Nicola. Equality and HumanRights Commission, London.

Further ReadingQuestions asked for case studies

1. Why do you exist and why do you do what you do?What needs do you serve?

2. Basic info your organisation (how long have you exist-ed, what is your annual turnover/budget)

3. Core activities: what services do you provide; what proj-ects do you run?

4. Sta/Volunteers: how many people do you employ,how many volunteers you have, how many hours thesevolunteers work in your organisation?

5. How many clients do you serve per year (their age, gen-der, etc.), their needs, etc. How many community mem-bers/families do you assist?

6. Which organisations do you work with (statutory, vol-

untary, community) and what are you joint projects/col-laboration? Examples are needed.

7. Your past and current initiatives

8. What kind of informal work do you do in your com-munity (the one that you receive no funding for but youdo anyway)?

9. What are the challenges your organisation faces in itswork?

10. Tips for the future (what would you do if you hadmore money?)

11. Examples of how your work improved/changed livesin the community (clients stories).

Appendix

31


32/32

2 Thorpe CloseLondon W10 5XL

Documents

Migrant Communities and the Big Society Report (MRCF 2011)