Level 3 REC Report TDP

SOUTHWARK RACE AND EQUALITIES COUNCIL Report on Racial Incidents Forum
March 2005
Prepared by Delroy Constantine-Simms Rhema Management & Training Consultants Ltd 867 High Road, Tottenham, London N17 8EY Telephone: 0845 4900 318 Fax: 0845 4900 319 Email: info@rmtc .co.uk
Southwark Race & Equalities Council
Report on The Racial Incidents Forum - 1
CONTENTS PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................3 1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................9 1.1 THE AIMS OF THE RACIAL INCIDENT FORUM ....................................9 1.2 FUNCTION AND PRIORITY OF THE RACIAL INCIDENT FORUM ...11 1.3 PROBLEMS FACED BY THE RACIAL INCIDENTS FORUM ................12 1.4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .................................................................12 2. Background Information on Racial Incidents ............................................................14 2.1 THE SOCIO-ECONOMICS OF THE LONDON BOROUGH OF SOUTHWARK .......................................................................................................14 2.2. SOUTHWARKS COMMUNITY SAFETY .................................................15 2.3 HATE CRIME IN THE LONDON BOROUGH OF SOUTHWARK ........16 2.4 THE IMPACT OF HATE CRIME ................................................................17 2.5 THE BEGINNING OF THE RACIAL INCIDENT FORUM ....................18 2.6 RELEVANT LEGISLATION .......................................................................18 3. Summary of Research Findings .................................................................................19 3.1 SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY............................................19 3.2 FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS..................................................................20 3.3 KEY PLAYER INTERVIEW RESPONSE...................................................24 3.4 THE FUTURE OF THE (RIF) RACIAL INCIDENTS FORUM .................26 4. Conclusions ................................................................................................................29 5. The Way forward for the RIF.....................................................................................32 5.1 INCREASING AWARENESS .....................................................................32 5.2 SERVICE DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................34 5.3 PUBLIC RELATIONS AND PROMOTION ..............................................34 5.4 ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ..............................35 5.5 HUMAN AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES ...............................................35 7. Work Plan...................................................................................................................38 8. Terms Of Reference ......................................................................................................41 9. Organisations Contacted for the Research .....................................................................43
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RHEMA Management & Training Consultants was commissioned by Southwark Race & Equalities Council (SREC) in January 2005 to initially work with the Racial Incidents Forum Development Worker to develop a work plan and undertake some background research activities on the future of the Southwark Racial Incidents Forum (RIF). Our role was expanded to cover the full research and development of a comprehensive report including a forward strategy with an action plan based on the outcome of the research
Reasons For Report

The main purpose of the research is to undertake extensive review of the activities and support mechanism for the RIF, investigate the reason for loss of focus and provide both the SREC and the Council with a comprehensive report on the long-term success of the Racial Incidents Forum for the community. This research has been initiated because the Racial Incidents Forum failed to meet its original aims and objectives as outlined in the SRB6 delivery plan. The partnership board undertook a review of the funding arrangements in September 2004 and made some recommendations on the way forward for the forum. The review was as a result of the RIF failing to meet the overall aim of the funding approved by the SRB Board, which is to develop a community based Racial Incidents Forum to bring together representatives of BME groups across Southwark to help reduce the incidents of race hate crimes in the borough, through provisions for support, information, help to develop and identify service needs and raise awareness through improved social cohesion. The result of this meeting was to refocus the activities of the project for the last two quarters of the financial year on establishing a strategy to ensure that the Racial Incidents Forum is a long-term success for the community. This research included and investigated the following issues: 1. How and why the Racial Incidents forum failed to meet its original aims and objectives. 2. Extensive literature and benchmarking reviews in addition to wide ranging community consultations, engaging upon a borough wide outreach programme and seeking appropriate community representation for the forum. 3. Identifying the groups and forums currently in operation in the borough for BME community and evaluating the effectiveness 4. Review of existing provisions and gaps, and where required qualify the need. 5. Production of a comprehensive report on the Racial Incidents Forum This study also intends to establish if the priority of the forum and the functions in its current form can be effective. As well as establishing if the forum should be allowed to function in its current form and the study will also look at other possible alternatives in terms of broadening the RIF remit.
The claim is that the RIF started out with good intentions but become too focused on casework while neglecting areas such as research, campaigning and public relations. Furthermore, there are charges that the RIF attempted to operate as a separate entity to the point of replicating the functions of well-established funded organisations without having the necessary economic and social and organisational systems in place to enable them to function effectively. The method of accessing information for this research required a variety of research methodologies ranging from the use of interviews, questionnaires and group forum discussions. In this particular study questionnaires were sent to every community group within the Southwark geographical area. Over of 300 questionnaires were sent out to all community groups and strategic agencies in the borough, with an invitation to the focus group discussion meetings scheduled for 21st January and 22 February respectively. All institutions in the borough including schools, colleges, and libraries had all been notified of the existence of the forum and the research activities including relevant Council departments. Responses to the general questionnaires were low, however, attendance at the focus group discussions meetings were very reasonable for this type of activities with an average of 22 people attending each session. Key players activities and interviews were used to supplement information gathered from the above focusing on actual delivery of support services and community expectations. Despite the extensive mailing and targeting of officers across the sectors, we were unable to get full corporation from the statutory sector due in part to time constraints and possible lack of interest in the work of the forum. While most of the statutory agencies we contacted were interested in the main but did not have the time commitment for it and those that had were slightly concerned about the key role of the forum. Participation of the Council officers was limited, although highly solicited during the process of the research.
Key Research Findings

The data gathered during the research process has highlighted a spectrum of opinions on the Racial Incident Forum (RIF) as perceived by practitioners, community groups and other statutory bodies, which were explained by first looking at responses from the focus group discussions, the questionnaire and the one to one interviews. The following summarises the key research findings: 1. A significant majority of respondents and contributors agreed that the (RIF) is an essential vehicle for communicating information and ideas regarding updates in legislation as well as strategies for tackling racial incidents that could be disseminated to all interested parties. Furthermore, its widely accepted that networking arrangements are not in the remit of the current forums to address some of these issues. 2. All participants unanimously agreed on the appropriateness of the RIF to be funded by the Council as there are funding for this sort of work. The RIF should also play an advisory, research and information-sharing role within the community. However, they pointed out the need for autonomy in the operations of the RIF is crucial for its long-term existence.
3. There was a consensus that the future of the RIF can only be effective if a partnership approach is adopted with the voluntary sector taking lead in the recommendation of solutions/actions and the statutory agencies acting on these recommendations. Theres a need for consultation with the public in order to identify needs and decide on best to support the community (victims and perpetrators). 4. If the RIF is to succeed it must improve its networking effectiveness by building a sustainable bridge of confidence between the forum and the community, by ensuring adequate dissemination of information and resources. Further more, a meaningful interaction and value chain must be established between the forum and the community. 5. The respondents also articulated the view that there are gaps in service provision to victims of race hate crimes, particularly in relation to community expectations and networking arrangements in the borough. These gaps are further compounded by the lack of relevant organisations, institutions operating in this area in the borough. 6. The respondents suggested that it is essential that RIF be collocated with the SREC for continuous support and development. The pace of development will be dictated by the activities and seriousness of the members. 7. It was revealed that RIF should have a multi-functional approach such as reporting, recording, evaluating and disseminating information to the wider community. Respondents also cited the role of the Institute of Race Relations and the CRE as examples that the RIF could follow. 8. Respondents agreed that the RIF should only be for practitioners and to act as a consultative body on racial incidents matters across the borough while working with other agencies. Its role should not be casework focused but facilitating effective networking and information sharing. 9. There was a unanimous view that the RIF should aim to be self-sustainable post SRB funding. A major concern of respondents is that organisations that are perceived as pressure groups like RIF is that dependency on Council funds should not necessarily be compromising. 10. Some respondents argued that the procedures for reporting incidents are unclear as well as what constitutes a racial incident, however, the criteria for determining what constitutes a racial incident or racial harassment are a training issue and should be widely encouraged across the community. 11. There were contrasting views on networking arrangements within the borough and it was acknowledged that the forum need to be pro-active as oppose to being reactive in response to meeting community needs. 12. A majority of respondents acknowledged that the initial aims and objectives were holistic but had changed to specific with a strong emphasis on advocacy. While the group support the holistic aims of the RIF they acknowledge the need to tackle categorisation/discrimination in service provision. The group acknowledged that finance and independence are linked to organisational effectiveness and their ability to empower their target group and RIF ability to
make a difference to the lives of Race/Hate victims. However no clear strategies were voiced in terms of how the group sustain itself without funding from the very authority that they expect to financially underwrite and ensure their sustainability as an effective group without upsetting their paymasters. It was unanimously agreed that the Council has a big role to play especially in a borough, which has 43% and 11% of its population residing in Council housing and housing associations respectively. In essence, Council should still be able to fund the RIF and relate to it as a Critical Friend. As the group discussion continued it became clear that the effectiveness of the RIF and local authority funding were not mutually exclusive.
Conclusion and Recommendations

Having undertaken an extensive research of the needs and expectations of the community regarding the current and future role of the Racial Incidents Forum in the borough, it was evident from the research material that a community based racial incidents forum is still required and would be a valuable source of support for the local community in their effort to tackle racial discrimination and harassments in the borough. In addition the following conclusions and recommendations are suggested: The RIF should adopt a borough wide multi-agency racial incidents role with two-tier approach that would incorporate policy and action or casework referral as a last resort for victims of race hate crimes that have not received satisfactory support from other agencies working in the borough. It is recommended that SRB funding and Council support should still be provided to the RIF with new targets and clearly defined aims and objectives. The RIF in its current form should be reappraised for funding with new milestones and key performance indicators for the duration of the SRB funding. At least the post of a project coordinator should be funded with adequate resources for research, publicity, publication, networking etc and dissemination of good practice information. This funding plan should be linked to sustainability. The exit strategy for SRB funding should be agreed and profiled into the funding plan. Funding for this post should be in the region of 90,000 per annum and SREC should be encouraged to seek and secure additional funding for further development of the activities of the forum. The structure of the RIF needs to be formalised as part of the exit strategy from SRB funding so that it can continue to seek and secure funding from other sources locally and nationally. There is no suggestion that the RIF would not receive independent finance however the issue of market presence and distinction from similar organisations that have very strong track records should be clarified. The RIF should continue to be collocated with SREC as the hosting organisation as its work is closely associated with the role of the SREC in the borough and expertise, knowledge and experiences gained over the years would be vital in the reorganisation of the forum now in its current state.
The role and functions of the RIF should be clearly defined and separated from the main role of the SREC. There has to be a clear distinction between the activities of the SREC and the RIF so that it is not seen or perceived by some in the community as the advocacy wing of the SREC. These perceptions has led to some confusion in the essence of the RIF in comparison to other forums domestic violence and homophobic forums by practitioners in terms of funding and duplication of services. It is suggested that the RIF has to be focused in its remit and scope of operation in order to be more identifiable to its target group and practitioners. The refocused RIF should not be directly involved in case work but should act as a strategic consultative body for practitioners and the community. The main focus should be on promoting racial awareness and facilitating effective networking opportunities for reporting, recoding and responding to racial incidents in the borough. The project must focus upon the development of a racial incidents forum and not casework; the project must include the setting of future milestones for the life of the project funding. SREC needs to develop an effective marketing and public awareness campaigns to raise the profile of the RIF as an independent networking body within the borough. This would enable the forum to become a beacon for tackling race related crimes as well as providing research material that could be used in a variety of settings. The forum should be widened to include all BME communities and representation from the PCT, School governors, Chamber of Commerce, the Police, community groups, Council departments and practitioners. This is required for effective gathering of information and statistics on racial incidents and solutions for tackling and ensuring better community cohesion. The RIF should be encouraged to set up a Steering Group within the next quarter to provide advice and direction for the work of the RIF worker. The Steering Group should be made up of practitioners and relevant officers at very senior officers level in the borough i.e. leader of council, borough commander, voluntary/community organisations and members of the Hate Crime SRB partnership Board. This race hate partnerships should cover hate crime and equality issues and provide holistic solutions to tackling race hate crimes suggested in the borough. The RIF coordinator should service the forum and provide access to all local community to engage in the activities of the forum locally and borough wide. The function of the Steering Group should only be for monitoring and providing strategic direction to the project. The RIF worker should be encouraged to develop wider community outreach activities, extensive networking with other agencies in the borough and should have the primary role of servicing the forum. The structure will greatly be dependent on the management of SREC and establishment of good working relationships with members of the forum in terms of the remit and scope of operation. There should be greater linkages with neighbouring boroughs so that important information can be shared and good practice examples used to bring effective support and coordination to the borough. The forum should actively embraced real strategic partnerships across the sectors and in particular with organisations such as the Police, PCT, Council Housing and other RSLs, local
businesses etc to enable them establish their credibility and generate income and funding opportunities for their long-term success. Good practice suggests a growing consensus that the most effective means for addressing and reducing race related incidents is by collaborating with other voluntary and statutory agencies. This can also be achieved by offering holistic solutions, which are problem-oriented rather than defined according to the means most readily available for their solution. Following the change up agenda, it is essential that the RIF is based within a strategic BME and race equalities focused organisation in the borough. This would bring enormous economic advantage to the RIF as its work can be mainstreamed easily within the organisation, and will ensure that the expertise of SREC is levered into the development of the project. It is recommended that RIF should remain under SREC and encouraged to develop as a major race consultative body within Southwark. In fact the SREC as an organisation is one of the oldest voluntary sector groups in Southwark. It has been in existence for more than 38 years and has an extensive track record and reputation for engaging and facilitating community relations and development. Southwark Council for Community Relation (SCCR) as it was formerly known was established as a body to address the needs of individuals and community organisations working in Southwark. The SREC was established and developed by CRE in partnership with London Borough of Southwark as a result of the continuous increase in social tension and lack of effective community advocates in race relations and equality related issues, and is still currently the main funder of the organisation. SREC has continued to champion the needs of the community and have been successful in securing funding support from Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) and the Home Office has supported the organisation in its activities. Since the establishment of SREC, the organisation has seen effective community promotion services as a key part of its activities. The SREC currently has a wide ranging approach to its work and engaged in various partnerships arrangements some of which are not properly focused on it main priorities. The organisation would need to redefine its focus to attract wider support and enhanced credibility, particularly in terms of acknowledging its own shortcomings in the management of the organisation and programmes of activities and clearly defined priorities within the community. Sir Herman Ouseley also echoed this view in his report on Southwark Equalities that SREC should be supported to play a more leading role with the Council in promoting better race relations locally. Overall, the research outcome shows that there is a strong need and support for the RIF within the community and it can only have long-term success if funded and adequately supported by the statutory sector. The structure will greatly be dependent on the establishment of the Steering Group and the remit of operation. It is evident that the forum should be encouraged to operate as a strategic consultative group rather than a one-stop shop for racial incidents case work in the borough. The role of the RIF should also be clearly separated from the work of the SREC, although the project is hosted and funded through the SREC, its activities should be seen as separate by the organisation and supported to function like the other forums within the borough.
1. Introduction
This report on the Racial Incidents Forum (RIF) has been produced for Southwark Race and Equalities Council (SREC) to inform all stakeholders, strategic partners, and local providers of the outcome of the research undertaken by the SREC on the long-term success of the RIF for the community. This report has been initiated because the Racial Incident Forum has failed. This report will investigate how and why the Racial Incident forum has failed to meet its original aims and objectives. The claim is that the RIF started out with good intentions but become to focused on casework while neglecting areas such as research, campaigning and public relations. Furthermore, there are charges that the RIF attempted to operate as a separate entity to the point of replicating the functions of well-established state funded organisations without having the necessary economic and social and organisational systems to enable to function in competition with established organisations such as the SREC, SAVO, Victim Support etc which have long established reputations. This study intends to establish if the priorities of the forum and the functions in its current form are effective as well as establishing if the forum should be allowed to function within the current remit and funding arrangement. An evaluation of the research undertaken across the borough reveals a strong desire by all stakeholders to have a racial incident forum in the community funded as an independent organisation with a coherent strategy for implementing, advocating and disseminating good practice information on tackling racial incidents and diversity in service provision, while taking into consideration the impact of the work of other forums and strategic agencies already working within the borough. This section of the report is summarised under the following headings: i. ii. iii. iv. Aims and objectives of the Racial Incidents Forum The function and priorities of the Racial Incidents Forum Problems faced by the Racial Incidents Forum Research Methodology
Each of these is described in more detail below: 1.1 THE AIMS OF THE RACIAL INCIDENT FORUM The original approved funding bid for the RIF has the following overall aim: To develop a community based Racial Incidents Forum to bring together representatives of BME groups across Southwark to help reduce the incidents of race hate crimes in the borough, through provisions for support, information, help to develop and identify service needs and raise awareness through improved social cohesion. The bid was successful with the inclusion of the following conditions: That the project must focus upon the development of a racial incidents forum and not case work
The project must include the setting of future milestones for the life of the project and its funding These conditions were to be used to monitor the performance of the project. However, the RIF failed to adhere to the above aims and hence a gradual demise of membership. The development of a community-based Racial Incidence Forum (RIF) is to bring together representatives of BME groups - including businesses, to facilitate the provision of specialist support and advocacy to practitioners; in particular, those who have slipped through the net and are excluded from mainstream provision. In addition the RIF should aim: RMTC would suggest that the RIF is reconstructed to undertake the following aims: To Act as a multi-purpose voluntary community education and social action organisation working mainly in the London Borough of Southwark, liaison and networking with neighbouring boroughs. To provide Southwark residents with a platform to share and exchange information, coordinate activities and services provided, and develop a co-ordinated response in order to avoid duplication of effort and maximise opportunities for service delivery and financial sustainability. To bring together all voluntary, community, private and faith organisations working in Southwark. As a result of our research activities, the following objectives were discussed and agreed as part of the consultation exercise. For the RIF to become effective and relevant to the community, there needs to be a clear distinction between its role and functions in relation the activities of the hosting agency SREC. However, SREC expertise in race relations and equalities case work and support should be levered to ensure the successful development of the forum. 1.1.1 The Objectives Of The Racial Incident Forum The primary objective of the RIF is to bring awareness within the Southwark community by providing a full range of support services to community organisations working in the borough. The (RIF) should provide a wide range of resources and services aimed at supporting and empowering individual local groups and communities in their fight against discrimination. This includes: To identify the issues of race hate crimes and work towards their elimination whilst promoting equalities of opportunity and good relations between person of different racial groups.
10
To provide a wide range of resources and services aimed at supporting and empowering individuals, groups and communities in their fight against discrimination. To identify means of achieving change through policy development by attending strategic meetings and forums to represent the views of the ordinary citizen by pressing for and effecting change at a number of different levels. To act as an information gathering and disseminating body to a number of smaller voluntary organisations by providing information, advice and training to these voluntary organisations. 1.2 FUNCTION AND PRIORITY OF THE RACIAL INCIDENT FORUM The RIF should exists entirely to benefit individuals and groups in Southwark by providing information and supporting the diverse local communities. The RIFs main role includes: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Working towards raising awareness effective information sharing on racial incidents. Confidence building, and advocacy with local bodies to influence change. Providing strategic influence as a watchdog for the community. Assisting to formulate strategies and policies on tackling racial incidents Working in partnership with other agencies in the borough
The key functions of the RIF are: To provide free hate/race specific advice and information. To develop an alliance of BME Groups, including individuals and organisations. To empower hard to reach communities to report racial incidents. To provide a platform for sharing and monitoring racial incidents information. 1.2.1 The Priorities of the Racial Incident Forum Following the extensive research and consultation with the local community, it is suggested that the RIF should focus on the following priorities: To collect, promote and disseminate information. To network and liase with community groups. To create awareness of its role in Southwark and neighbouring boroughs. To promote racial awareness and prevention of all forms of racial incidents. To lobby, advocate and represent members and the wider community. To provide advice, support, training and information to affiliated groups. The organisation should undertake the above priorities mainly through raising awareness in the education of the local communities by providing workshop, seminars, conferences and events on key issues and changes in legislation.
11
1.3
PROBLEMS FACED BY THE RACIAL INCIDENTS FORUM The RIF was conceived with much fanfare and expectations. However the RIF did not meet the expectations and priorities outlined in the original plan. Not because of poor staffing or finance but a clear loss of direction reinforced by the loss of the SREC Director for about one year due to long term illness and organisational changes - management board personalities, including the mirroring of aims and objectives that have been conducted by the local SREC. By comparison the RIF was set up to achieve similar aims and objectives, although hosted by SREC its role was not made clear hence successive development worker became confused as to the strategic direction of the RIF and support, tolerance and understanding from the Council and relationship with other umbrella organisations in the borough was broken amidst the confusion. While SREC has conducted a number of structural and management changes to make it more responsive to the changing needs and demography of the community including its ability to respond and relate to the changing political landscape of the Town Hall. The role of the RIF became political and effective delivery of intended services was halted by the loss of the development worker in August 2004 and the reorganisation of the host organisation. The service gap created by the loss of the development worker meant project deadlines and milestones were not achieved for the period including a near complete break down of the project due to the disintegration of the working group. The lack achievement of appraised funding outcomes and milestones led to a series of meetings with the SRB partnership Board and the host organisation to ensure that the project is borough on track and where possible refocused. These problems have somehow been resolved with time and the RIF now has in place an active development worker who is working relentlessly to meet the work plan agreed in December 2004 and also gradually gaining the confidence of the community in the work of the RIF. The main problem of lack of performance was due to the lack of clarity of the main role of the forum and influences of local politics and inconsistencies in the message that has been put across by the various factions within the community. However, the mood and support for the organisation within the community, in particular the BME communities is still very high and the relevance of the RIF cannot be underestimated within these communities.
1.4
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The method of accessing information for this research required a variety of research methodologies ranging from the use of interviews, questionnaires and group forum discussions. In this particular study, questionnaires were sent to every community group within the Southwark geographical area. However, due to time constraints and the pressure of financial year-end and bidding rounds for the community groups, we were unable to interview each respondent extensively. The following methodology was used to gather information for this research:
12
Extensive desk research and mapping exercise of agencies providing similar support General questionnaire survey sent out to all community groups Focus groups discussions to review and refine research information Face to face interviews with key players, project workers and SREC Officers Consultation meetings and observations/participation at meetings and events Furthermore, it was necessary to interview key players who were directly or indirectly involved in race or other hate related issues. In order to ensure that this research could capture an element of community participation and naturally avoid charges of nonconsultation by parties that have a vested interest. Information about the RIF and the meetings were distributed to schools, libraries and police stations located in the Southwark area. Once the information had been gathered from note taking the next step was to extract all the relevant data from the questionnaires, the interviews and the group forum meetings.
13
2. Background Information on Racial Incidents

Southwark is an inner-city borough on the south side of the Thames undergoing significant regeneration. Levels of deprivation in the Borough are high and the 2000 index of multiple deprivations establishes Southwark as the 9th most deprived local authority area in the country using the average of ward ranks. At ward levels there is a great disparity in the levels of deprivation with over 50% of its wards ranked within the 10% most deprived wards in the country. However, the Borough is renowned for its close proximity to the City and Westminster and is also home to the Tate Modern, the Mayor and Greater London Assembly and most recently the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE). The total population of Southwark approximately stands at 242,300, of whom 116,800 are male and 125,500 are female. There are estimated to be 108,000 households in the borough, which is predicted to increase by almost 4% over the next 8 years. Of significant important is the fact that 32.3% of the population of Southwark are members of black and ethnic minority groups. In addition to the above, the following briefly summarises some of the characteristics of the population of Southwark: 60% of Southwarks pupils are from ethnic minority backgrounds. 43% of pupils in Southwark schools speak another language in addition to English 105 languages are spoken in the schools. 39% of primary school pupils and 53% of secondary school pupils are eligible for free school meals. A significant proportion of the population of Southwark is defined as belonging to hard to reach groups such as black and ethnic minorities, lesbians, gay, bisexual, travellers, refugees, asylum seekers, migrants, youth, older people, women and women returners, unemployed, offenders, children and families, faith groups, single parents and disabled people. The majority of refugees in Southwark are under 30 years old with a large proportion of families having school age children. This group of people are mainly from the following countries of origin: Somalia, West Africa including Nigeria and Latin American counties such as Columbia. A growing percentage is Kosovan. As the demography of Southwark has changed in recent times so also has the rate of street crime amongst young people. One third of the victims of crime in the borough are aged between 10 17 years old. Most notable of this type of crime is the death of Damilola Taylor. The issue of community safety is very high on the agenda and although rates of crime are reducing overall, the borough still experiences the 8th highest crime rate in inner London. 2.1 THE SOCIO-ECONOMICS OF THE LONDON BOROUGH OF SOUTHWARK The Index of Multiple Deprivation 2000 puts Southwark as the fourth most deprived London borough in relation to access to employment and the fifth most deprived in terms of dependency on means tested benefits. In addition, thirteen thousand (13,000) people are unemployed a rate of unemployment of 8.5%, Furthermore, forty five thousand (45,000) persons of working age are economically inactive (30%) also 70.1% of 16 years old students
14
stayed on in full time education or training. Nearly 70% of households in the borough have income below 25,000.There are approximately 10,500 businesses in the borough. The Real Estate sector accounts for the largest number of businesses in the borough, 36% as measured by VAT registrations. The next largest sector is wholesale and retail, which accounts for 21% of businesses in the borough. The business mix is such that between 1995 and 2000 the key areas of business growth as measured through VAT registrations has been in Hotels and Restaurants, Real Estates, Public Administration, Education and Health. The biggest percentage reduction during this period has been in Finance and Banking. 2.2. SOUTHWARKS COMMUNITY SAFETY Southwark experiences the 8th highest rate of crime in Inner London. The risk factors for levels of crime such as unemployment, low income and deprivation, low school achievement, poor parenting skills and support and anti-social behaviour remain high. The following statistics summarises the level of community safety and crime in the Borough. The number of young people aged 16-20 (the peak age group for offending) is projected to increase over the next 18 years. Performance against the Crime Reduction Partnership family of 11 comparable London boroughs (CRP) shows that Southwark has improved. Residential burglaries in Southwark decreased by 30% and vehicle crime by 8.5% from 1998. Although this matches the national trend, it is also the best performance in the CRP family. Violence against the person increased by 28% (this is 18% of crime in Southwark) and street crime increased by 60%, which is about 7% of crime in the borough. The proportion of residents who say they feel fairly safe after dark has fallen from 48% to39 % since 1998. The proportion of residents who say they feel very safe walking around in the area in daytime has fallen from 52% to 42% over the last two years. Over 70% of crime is against property of which 26% is against vehicles. 17.5% of all crime in the borough is committed by a relatively small number of offenders aged between 10 and 17 years old. One third of the victims of crime are aged between 10 17 years. 2.2.1 Education and Training This is a growing area of concern nationally for BME pupils underachievement in school and the community. Southwarks currently experiences the following: A total of 20.9% of adults aged16-20 in Southwark were estimated to have very low/low literacy skills compared to the national average of 15%. 17.11% have very low innumeracy skills compared to the national average of 12%. A large proportion of pupils leave school without qualifications and a third of the adult population has no recognised
15
professional or technical qualification. In addition people from black and minority ethnic groups make up 47% of pupils in special schools. Furthermore, 56% are in primary schools and 65.1% in secondary schools. More than one third of pupils in primary, secondary and special schools have English as an additional language. Pupils in Southwark speak more than 105 languages. The three most spoken mother tongue languages after English (63%) were Yoruba (9.7%), Bengali (2.3%) and Twi (2.0%). English language is the first language in 84.1% of Southwark households and not in 15.9% of households. Over 75% of permanent exclusions from schools are from non-white ethnic minority pupils. 2.3 HATE CRIME IN THE LONDON BOROUGH OF SOUTHWARK Compared with other London boroughs, levels of crime in Southwark are relatively high. More particularly, there is clear evidence that this applies to hate crimes (here including racist crimes, homophobic crimes and domestic violence) as well as other forms of offending. In the financial year 2000-01, Southwark was ranked in the top three boroughs in terms of reported incidents in all three categories of hate crime. There is also no doubting the seriousness of the incidents. Approximately half of all allegations in domestic incidents concern violence, threats or harassment. Over one quarter of racist incidents involve violence and a similar proportion involves threats or harassment. These proportions are even higher in connection with homophobic incidents. Repeat victimisation is of importance in understanding patterns of both racist incidents and domestic violence, and should be central to any policing strategy aimed at reducing such incidents. Geographically, there are some clear hot spots for racist crime in the North East of the borough. 2.3.1 Engaging on a Borough wide Outreach Programme All institutions in the borough including the Police, schools, colleges, and libraries had all been notified of the existence of the forum and the research activities including relevant Council departments undertaken in conjunction with the RIF development worker currently in post. The result of this outreach work has led to most of the libraries in the borough putting up the race hate crime posters and ongoing visits to these venues has started to generate increased interest in the work of the RIF. The two focus group discussions held during the process of this review has also helped to increase the profile and awareness of the forum among the local community and as such participation and interest levels is gradually increasing. As a result of these outreach activities, a lot of people have called SREC enquiring about the next forum meetings, and how they can be involved in the forums activities and information pack about the forum has been sent out to corresponding participants. The RIF is now in the process of engaging in a borough wide partnership and networking programme to ensure wider support for its activities and also take forward the recommendations described in this report.
16
2.4
THE IMPACT OF HATE CRIME Victim Impact It is well established that victims of hate crime are attacked for being different. Because the basis for their attack is their identity, they may suffer a deep personal crisis. Moreover, research shows that people who are attacked for reasons of prejudice suffer more than people who are victims of similar attacks not motivated by prejudice. Secondary Impact The impact of hate crimes is often made worse by the insensitivity of those responding to it. This is known as the secondary impact many crime victims experience some type of secondary impact as they come into contact with the systems that provide physical or mental health care, process insurance claims to recover losses, or are responsible for dealing with offenders. Hate crime victims frequently feel betrayed and hopeless when they confront institutional prejudice/racism. Community Impact It is not just individuals that suffer from hate crime. Victimisation because of race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation, affects the communities in which victims live. Current Good Practice and Hate Crime A review of existing work in this area suggests that effective strategies aimed at dealing with hate crime must be based on: An understanding of the underlying causal factors that predispose an offender to behave in the way that he/she does An assessment of the impact of such behaviour on the victim(s) and an understanding from that of the victim(s) needs An understanding of the social context and environment in which such behaviour stems and is tolerated. These impacts further strengthens the need for the RIF in the borough as a consultative and networking organisations working with voluntary, statutory and private sectors to bring a radical change in the process of tackling racial incidents in the borough.
17
2.5
THE BEGINNING OF THE RACIAL INCIDENT FORUM Racial Incident Forums (RIFs) were introduced as a result of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry and findings. The inquiry brought out the fact that victims of race/hate crime are not only affected by crime itself but are further affected by their treatment by the bodies concerned as they never ever get satisfying results. Furthermore, the RIF were developed to address gaps identified in collaboration with key strategic agencies. Its purpose is to underpin the Amended Race Relation Act 2000 and Human Rights Act 1998, which form the rationale for government ratifying several international treaties and place statutory duty on local authorities to implement strategies, policies and activities, to monitor their impact and, where appropriate, take the necessary steps to instigate judicial proceedings. RIFs were therefore a result of this dissatisfaction and should ideally work towards realisation of satisfactory responses and results with regards to getting support and also following up of the race and hate crime perpetrators.
2.6
RELEVANT LEGISLATION Racially aggravated crime was introduced by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. This Act defined what is meant by racial aggravation and created specific offences of racially aggravated assault, criminal damage, public order and harassment. Additionally, section 153 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, as amended by the 2001 Act, imposes a duty on sentencing courts to treat evidence of racial aggravation as an aggravating feature, increasing the seriousness of the offence and the sentence to be imposed, in cases where offences are not specifically charged under the 1998 Act. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was amended by the Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 to include specific offences of religiously aggravated assault, criminal damage, public order and harassment. In addition, the duty on sentencing courts was extended to include evidence of religious aggravation as an aggravating feature. Details of all cases identified by either the police or CPS as racist or religious incidents are kept by each of the 42 CPS Areas and by the Casework Directorate in London, a specialist unit dealing with serious crime. Returns are provided monthly to CPS Headquarters in York where the information is collated and the annual report prepared. The cases were finalised before the introduction of Statutory Charging under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
18
3. Summary of Research Findings

The information gathered so far has been successful in proving that the multiple methods of extracting perspectives on the RIF using a variety of research tools have proven to be invaluable. The data has highlighted a spectrum of opinions on the Racial Incident Forum (RIF) as perceived by end users, community groups and other statutory bodies, which will be explained by first looking at responses from the group forum discussion, the questionnaire and the one to one interviews. This section is summarised under the following headings: i. ii. iii. iv. Questionnaire surveys Focus Group Discussions Key Players Interviews Future of the Racial Incidents Forum
Each of these is described in more detail below. 3.1 SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY A short questionnaire was designed at commencement of the research and sent via SREC to all community groups and identified key players, centre of influences and umbrella organisations in the borough. Response from the questionnaire survey was limited, however comments from respondents were very useful in the compilation of the report. The following summarises the comments from the questionnaires: Respondents were asked of the views on how the RIF can encourage or facilitate adequate participation of local residents and minority ethnic groups in its activities? Overall response was that there needs to be clarity of purpose and agenda for the RIF, in particular the forum should actively engage in sensitive campaigns, encourage community groups to voice their views, experiences of race hate crimes thus defining the problems according to experiences of the people directly involved in dealing with race hate crime in their locality. In addition, the RIF should provide a platform for sustainability through a neutral forum where residents and practitioners can meet and discuss key concerns objectively. Other responses includes: Clarity and focused-based approach in relation to specific objectives Engaging local researchers to identify specific needs of the people Seconding existing Community Officers and CIDA to do walkabouts and facilitate focus groups Encouraging and inviting all BME groups to these meetings, ensuring translations services, etc Engaging in wider communication via publicity and contact with relevant agencies
19
Level of involvement in the management of Racial Incidents Forum in the borough? An overwhelming majority agreed that the forum should encourage practitioners and key officers to be involved at strategic levels and management of the forum, while about 44% of respondents agreed that their should be active resident and service involvement in the management of the forum. The need for a Racial Incidents Forum in the borough All respondents to the questionnaire unanimously agreed that there is a need for a separate and independent forum in the borough with specialist role and encourage wider gathering and sharing of information to effectively tackle racial incidents in the borough. Should the forum be dealing with casework? A significant majority of respondents argues that although this role is vital in the tackling of racial incidents, it should not be the primary concern of the forum as there are organisations funded to undertake this function within the borough including the SREC. Even in the event that a paid worker is in place its role should be more of facilitating and sharing information than casework. However, the RIF should only be involved in case work that are irresolvable at the rest of the levels only as the last resort for hearing complaints and lack of support from existing channels of support in the borough. Eventually the RIF should act as a monitoring agency and also conduct regular mapping exercises on the gaps in service provision and referral agencies competencies to deal with What other issues do you think the forum should be dealing with? When asked if the RIF should be involved in other activities, respondents suggested that the forum should focus on externally challenging racism in Southwark Council service delivery, pursue to find out the reason why race crimes are not being reported and the implications of lack of reporting, recording and responding to these crimes. In particular, the RIF should consider investigating how race issues are linked with the health of BME people in the borough. Results of any research undertaken by the RIF or other agencies should be widely disseminated to the communities. 3.2 FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS The focus group discussions meeting were held in January and February respectively with an open invitation sent to all community groups and racial equalities and social inclusion practitioners within the community. These meetings were facilitated by an experience RHEMA consultant, guided with a structure interview proforma, a short presentation of key findings and an open discussions of major concerns, community aspirations and expectations. The outcomes of the discussions are as follows:
20
Networking Arrangements on Race Hate Crimes The forum accepts that there is a need for a racial incident forum. Several contributors agreed that the (RIF) is an essential vehicle for communicating information and ideas regarding updates in legislation as well as strategies that could be disseminated to all interested parties. Furthermore, its widely accepted that networking arrangements are not in the remit of the current forums to address some of the issues. The forum also articulated the view that there are gaps in service provision to victims of race hate crimes, particularly in relation to community expectations and networking arrangements in the borough. These gaps are further compounded by the lack of relevant organisations, institutions operating in this area in the borough. The Role of The Racial Incidents Forum In The Borough Participants in the group discussions shared the view that the main role of a borough wide multi-agency Racial Incidents Forum should be mainly to arrange information sharing meetings with practitioners and the general public; handling case work in limited cases only; act as a scrutiny/lobbying panel for the community. All unanimously agreed on the appropriateness of the RIF to be funded by the Council, as they have a statutory commitment to tackling race hate crimes and ensure community safety. However, they pointed out the need for autonomy in the operations of the RIF. Concerns were raised about the possibility of the Council compromising the operations of the RIF e.g. were the RIF to point out weaknesses/failures in the role of the Council in tackling race hate crimes. Differentiation of roles (Council and RIF) was seen as a solution to this. Some of the suggestions emerging included: SREC to work out a strategy/framework within which hate crime forums and organisations could operate. Also SREC should still continue to assist and support in the set up and operation of RIF. While these aspirations were considered admirable participants suggested that RIF is not a statutory body but a voluntary structure that functions within a statutory context but work independently from the council. A significant proportion of participants are familiar with the existence of the forum, the difficulty confronting the forum and the lack of public awareness. The most effective method of changing the lack of awareness as mentioned by many forum members is the need to work towards the coordination of the activities of all players in this area including the local community and to work towards filling in the gaps which may be highlighted in the process. Without the public awareness of the forum participants mentioned that RIF needs to create a clear conduit of empowerment for BME's and refugees in relation to their rights while acknowledging that refugees needs are unique to BME needs. Essentially, the RIF should involve and support not just BME but other community members by establishing a mechanism of ensuring race hate crimes are reported and recorded for monitoring. Also it is essential that the RIF ensured the provision of positive reaction by service providers, following reports by victims.
21
The group members accept that it is essential that RIF work with the SREC but must be fully supported and resourced to be successful. The RIF should have a multi-functional approach such as reporting, recording, evaluating and dissemination of information. Focus group members cited the role of the Institute of Race Relations, the London Wide Racial Incidents Forum and the CRE as examples that the RIF could follow. It is clear among focus group members that whatever management system that is put in place to support this multi-functional approach, this system should be supported by key players with clearly defined roles that should include the dissemination of information that would educate BME groups in the borough. The RIF should also play an advisory and research role. The emphasis with the RIF is such that the group has taken on more of an advocacy for mediation vis a vis prosecution which replicates the role of the SREC. While this is commendable again the current role of the RIF has become case focused rather than information gathering and information dissemination. Members do agree that the RIF should be in a position to campaign for change but not in the manner in which it currently functions. It is fair to suggest that the RIF has focused heavily on advocacy, advice and support in terms of dealing with perpetrators of race related hate crimes at the same time other functions have fallen by the way side. In fact the RIF has moved so far from its original remit to the point that the RIF is often perceived as the advocacy wing of the SREC. Most importantly if there were any areas of concern in respect of Council policies and practices that impact on BMEs, the RIF should be able to offer constructive criticism to the Council and work with them to addressing the issues. Essentially, the RIF must have a multi-sectoral approach and seriously considers the issue of sustainability post SRB funding and direct funding from the Council. Views on the structure of the RIF The group suggested that it needed to be strategic in thinking but grassroots in working: The group agreed that there should be a loose and informal evolving structure that would be open to all practitioners and local funders. Furthermore, the RIF should be facilitator as opposed to a delivery agent. The suggested structure should include a partnership approach in which the RIF should work alongside other committees and forums in this area e.g. Community Safety Unit, Race Hate Crime Board, and metropolitan Police etc. Views on The Future of The Racial Incidents Forum The general consensus regarding the future of the RIF is clear. The future of the RIF can only be effective if a partnership approach is adopted with the voluntary sector taking a lead in the recommendation of solutions/actions and with the statutory agencies acting on these recommendations. Theres a need for continuous consultation with the public in order to identify needs and decide the way forward. The group members all acknowledge that the localised approach is appropriate as each locality has its own unique problems and as such require responses that are unique to their situations.
22
Group members also agreed that the introduction and operations of RIFs might not necessarily end racial incidents, however it is a step forward in tackling this pandemic. Race and hate crimes are crimes of prejudice. Prejudice cannot be legislated against, however actions of prejudice can be legislated. Discrimination is not just racial but inter and intra-racial. Group members have again acknowledged the issue of public awareness of the RIF is inextricably linked to victim awareness of their rights and support structures in place that would encourage reporting but also they need to have adequate infrastructure in place to be able to respond to the report effectively. They all agreed that that there is a significant role and future for the RIF in Southwark as the demography changes. The forum acknowledged that the initial aims and objectives were holistic but had changed to specific with a strong emphasis on advocacy. While the group support the holistic aims of the RIF they acknowledge the need to tackle categorisation and discrimination in service provision. The group acknowledges that finance and independence are linked to organisational effectiveness and their ability to empower their target group and RIF ability to make a difference to the lives of BME groups and victims race hate crimes. Views on funding of the RIF post SRB Funding There were mixed views in terms of whether the RIF should come under the umbrella SREC and continue to be hosted by the organisation. A major concern of group members is that organisations that are perceived as pressure groups like RIF is that dependency on Council funds should not necessarily be compromising. Hence, the unanimous view that the RIF should aim to be self-sustainable. However no clear strategies were voiced in terms of how the group sustain itself without funding from the very authority that they expect to financially underwrite and ensure their sustainability as an effective group. Although it was acknowledged that the Council has a big role to play especially in the Southwark borough, which has 43% and 11% of its population residing in Council housing and housing associations respectively. In essence, Council should still be able to fund the RIF post SRB funding and relate to RIF as a Critical Friend. As the group discussion continued it became clear that the effectiveness of the RIF and local authority funding were not mutually exclusive. The group accepted that the RIF in its current form did have access to resources by virtue of their relationship and location within the SREC. There is no suggestion that an independent RIF would not receive independent finance but again the issue of market presence and distinction from similar organisations that have very strong track records such as the SREC, SAVO Victim Support, Bede House, other forums etc. It is quite clear that detractors may suggest that the RIF are duplicating the role of the funded SREC. Hence the existence of a fully council funded RIF would be difficult to justify. Furthermore, group members did not provide any clear distinction between the activities of SREC and RIF that were clear, separate and distinct. The only distinction is that the former is funded while the latter is voluntary. In essence, the group recognised that the
23
RIF would have to broaden its remit in order to make it more identifiable to its target group and practitioners. 3.3 KEY PLAYER INTERVIEW RESPONSE During the process of the research we were able to meet with a number of key players in the borough ranging from SREC officers, key community Involvement Officers to Director of the CRE. The key player responses regarding the needs of local people, and expectations of the forums ability to tackle racial discrimination, suggests that the forum needs to establish what the key issues are in order that issues surrounding race and hate crimes can be tackled effectively. The nature of the forum and the manner in which the forum was launched raised expectations. While the expectations of the community in terms of what they expect the Racial Incident Forum to achieve were high, the forum has not been able to deliver hence community apathy towards the forum. The following summarises the outcomes of the key players interviews and consultations. Views on current networking arrangements If the RIF are to succeed they must improve their networking effectiveness by building a sustainable bridge of confidence between the forum and the community by ensuring that information is shared and supported by adequate dissemination of information and resources. A meaningful interaction and value chain must be established between the forum and the community. Most importantly, the RIF need to adopt a short-term approach to solutions i.e. temporary housing instead of permanent. A majority of the key players commented that perceptions of service provision for the local community are not often clear. It has been suggested by the key players that whatever agency receives a victims report first, should be the agency that should work through the process with other organisations to support the reporting and recording of the incidents. This information is in most cases sensitive but statistical data should be shared with other practitioners so that the impact of their work can be gauged. Most of the key players also suggested that there must be adequate systems and procedures that would enable the RIF to co-ordinate their activities with other agencies and relevant interest groups and parties. The current situation is such that there is a lack of trust between statutory bodies that often fail to support voluntary sector organisation. There is no denial of the existence of Police at strategic level in terms of dealing with hate crimes that are race specific but this is not always filtered to front line staff which is compounded by high turnover of staff so some initiatives are not continuous. Whatever initiatives do exist they are not enthusiastically driven and certainly lack quality. A common view held among key players is that the RIF will only be effective if there is more support and clear strategic vision.
24
Views on the current initiatives designed to tackle racial incidents and hate crimes in the borough. Most responses acknowledged that the CRE now based in Southwark is an active stakeholder that works with the Council in hot spot areas such as Bermondsey. However, only a very few key players could identify networks operating effectively in the area with the exception of Southwark United Group against racism. The general perception is that whatever groups do exist they can only be effective if they function in a centralised manner as opposed to everyone working in a peripheral and unco-ordinated fashion. There are some concerns among key players that despite all the organisational issues regarding the RIF there are not enough incidents to justify the RIF obtaining and individual funding let alone function as a separate and distinct organisation. In contrast, while there was a consensus, a majority of key players agreed that the lack of reporting did not reflect the lack of incidents therefore the RIF did have a role to play and is deserving of funding. This key player argued that the procedures for reporting incidents are unclear as well as what constitutes a racial incident. The criteria for determining what constitutes a racial incident or racial harassment are a matter for training. In contrast to other key players, this particular key player suggested that network arrangements were good but acknowledged that the forum needed to be pro-active as oppose to being reactive. Which appears to contradict their claims about good networking in Southwark, Furthermore, none of them could give any named examples to support their good networking claim. More importantly, they were unable to identify by name any other groups that they considered effective in tackling racial incidents. This is because there is currently no central point for collating this information. In respective of initiatives key players support the view that the forum and other groups are not necessarily overworked in Racial Harassment and Racial Incidents cases. Hence the lack of evidence to support more extensive anti-hate crime initiates which has impacted on the views of many who would like the RIF to become a separate funded entity. Views on the type of networking arrangement they would you like the council/(delivery agent) to adopt for tackling race hate crimes in the borough. It was suggested that RIF should bridge the gap of networking within the community and also set up a panel of voluntary and statutory bodies to advise on race issues; set up of a victim support group to gather information on victims at a casework level and to share ideas etc. This forum could then become a central body reporting to the Campaign Against Hate Crime Partnership board.
25
Views on the gaps in service provision to victims of hate crimes, particularly in relation to community expectations There needs to be a process of managing community expectations and the role of forum. It is evident that no one organisation can effective claim to have the answers to hate crime in the borough, and the reconstituted RIF should be careful in the way it communicate its role to the community. Most of the key players suggested that there should be an Action Plan to meet council objectives and victims of hate crime. Furthermore, all performance monitoring and action taken should be transparent this also includes performance indicators for police and council on hate crime. The existence of such evidence is important for current race relations in Southwark as a means of meeting the expectations of a largely apathetic community in respect of the forum and their ability to tackle racial harassments and racial incidents. Some argued that caseworkers need to be assigned to follow cases through. Without this follow through process clients will continue to have low expectations and is currently the case, clients will continue to be dissatisfied with Racial Harassment and Racial Incidents (RH/RI) outcomes. Key players recognise that moving people for RH/RI when there is no safety issue e.g. to move perpetrator or victims of dispute out of the area and move new people in would create a lack of cohesive community & Ghettos. Most importantly, the issuing of Anti Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) as a tool is effective to a point but it doesnt deal adequately with the underlying issues. 3.4 THE FUTURE OF THE (RIF) RACIAL INCIDENTS FORUM All key players acknowledge that the Racial Incidents Forum in its current form does have a future but not every one agrees that the RIF cannot function outside the SREC as a separate funded entity. The future of the forum for many key players lies in the forums ability to play a key role in the development of policies on racial incidents that can be filtered through other statutory bodies within the borough. Furthermore, effective marketing and public awareness campaigns would enable the forum to become a beacon for tackling race related crimes as well as providing research material that could be used in a variety of settings. The forums future can only be guaranteed if they work in conjunction with other agencies. Key players acknowledge that they can pick up cases that have slipped through the wider systems net. The effectiveness of the RIF in response to racial incidents can only be as effective as the systems in place as well as the number of staff involved in the process of continued information sharing to hate crime victims and other service providers.
26
Opinions on the most appropriate type of support required by the local communities and providers in reporting; recording and responding to race hate crimes. Overall response was that with the nature of the offences it is clear that the victims need to feel comfortable about reporting racial incidents. Therefore guaranteed confidentiality for those who come forward as witnesses as well as victim support were considered paramount. Also there should be clear output and outcomes from the very outset. Key players were also of the view that recording action plans for police in recording such incidents needed to be clear and effective. This could only be achieved if there were a uniform method and forms for recording and sharing information amongst the practitioners. Once this information has been gathered the forum needs to be able to measure the data to understand Gaps, respond to issues and create solutions. The group suggested that the above strategies would empower reluctant and sometimes hard to reach communities to come forward. One key player made it quite clear that the forum should operate as a consultative group and not a separate entity. It was also suggested that the initial aims, objectives and functions are not being achieved and that the forum focused too much on casework whilst neglecting other important areas stated in its initial launch documents. In support other key players mentioned that the RIF is in danger of being seen as a parallel race orientated pressure group that is doing similar work to other well known organisations although funded by the government through SREC. Views on localised, partnerships approach and holistic solutions to tackling hate crimes. Most suggested that race hate partnerships should cover hate crime and equality issues. The forum can report to a race panel. The membership of this panel should include very senior officers e.g. leader of council, borough commander, voluntary/community organisations. As previously stated there needs to be an out-of-hours support for the community like a telephone hotline. The reason for this is because many of the incidents are perpetrated at hours convenient to themselves as opposed to the victim. Even when the incident is reported the community appears to have little confidence in the way the incidents are dealt with and thus seldom report incidents at the early stages. Even when incidents are reported dealing with clients who speak little English can be expensive. Having noted the ever changing race profile of the Borough and the continuing problem of racial incidents there is no doubt that issues of expense will be a factor that determines whether the forum can exist outside the SREC. There was a suggestion that the name of the forum should be changed in order that the forum could have a much wider effect. The suggestion was that the (RIF) should be taken out of the hands of the Council and delivered via Voluntary Sector independently regardless of where it seeks it funding from.
27
Key players opinion on the racial incidents forum being funded by the Council, and delivered through the voluntary sector. Many argued that the Council have a duty of care to assist voluntary sector to lead but at the same time accepted that the RIF should include public and voluntary sector input in its decision-making processes. Reservations were expressed about funding to the point that many agreed that the RIF is an important forum yet highly case work focused and hence not living up the initial to expectations stated in their aims and objectives. The issue of undue influence and inability to criticise their funders may thwart their ability to investigate with enthusiasm and sincerity racial incident cases that may have involve the main funding agencies. However, their role should not be that of investigation but facilitation of support across the borough. The best way forward is to include all sectors for balance of power and avoid misinterpretation. While it is widely recognised that there is a need to tackle racial discrimination in the London Borough of Southwark views expressed by key players suggest that the racial incidents forum should be a council funded two tier body that must be transparent in terms of policy, practice and management. There must be more support for caseworkers involved in race related crimes. Key players have noted that the forum in its current form have not actively embraced any real strategic partnerships that could be promoted to funding bodies. The key players also suggested that the group should have a new steering group in order to survive. Most importantly the forum needs to adopt a more strategic overview in respect of networking by including other voluntary and strategic organisations in its quest to tackle racial discrimination.
28
4. Conclusions
This section of the report brings together the summaries of our research findings and conclusions on the way forward for the forum. Having undertaken an extensive research of the needs and expectations of the community regarding the current and future role of the Racial Incidents Forum in the borough, it was evident from the research material that a community based racial incidents forum is still required and would be a valuable source of support for the local community in their effort to tackle racial discrimination and harassments in the borough. In addition the following conclusions and recommendations are suggested: The RIF should adopt a borough wide multi-agency racial incidents role with two-tier approach that would incorporate policy and action or casework referral as a last resort for victims of race hate crimes that have not received satisfactory support from other agencies working in the borough. SRB funding and Council support should still be provided to the RIF with new targets and clearly defined aims and objectives. The RIF in its current form should be reappraised for funding with new milestones and key performance indicators for the duration of the SRB funding. At least the post of a project coordinator should be funded with some resource funding for research, publicity, publication, networking etc and dissemination of good practice information. This funding plan should be linked to sustainability funding that can be generated post SRB funding. The exit strategy for the SRB funding should be agreed and profiled into the funding plan. Funding for this post should be in the region of 90,000 per annum and SREC should be encouraged to seek and secure additional funding for further development of the activities of the forum. The structure of the RIF needs to be formalised and clearly defined as part of the exit strategy so that it can continue to seek and secure funding from other sources. There is no suggestion that the RIF would not receive independent finance but again the issue of market presence and distinction from similar organisations that have very strong track records should be clarified. The RIF should continue to be collocated with SREC as the hosting organisation as its work is closely associated with the role of the SREC in the borough and expertise, knowledge and experiences gained over the years would be vital in the reorganisation of the forum now in its current state. The role and functions of the RIF should be clearly defined and separated from the main role of the SREC. There has to be a clear distinction between the activities of the SREC and the RIF so that it is not seen or perceived by the community as the advocacy wing of the SREC. These perceptions has led to some confusion in the essence of the RIF in comparison to other forums domestic violence and homophobic forums by practitioners in terms of funding and
29
duplication of services. It is suggested that the RIF would have to be more focussed in its remit and scope of operation in order to be more identifiable to its target group and practitioners. The refocused RIF should not be directly involved in case work but should act as a strategic consultative body for practitioners and the community. The main focus should be on promoting racial awareness and facilitating effective networking opportunities for reporting, recording and responding to racial incidents in the borough. The project must focus upon the development of a racial incidents forum and not case work, the project must include the setting of future milestones for the life of the project funding. SREC needs to develop an effective marketing and public awareness campaigns to raise the profile of the RIF as an independent networking body within the borough. This would enable the forum to become a beacon for tackling race related crimes as well as providing research material that could be used in a variety of settings. The RIF should be encouraged to set up a Steering Group within the next quarter to provide advice and direction for the work of the development worker inline with strategic objectives agreed in the project plan. Membership of the RIF should be made up practitioners and relevant officers at very senior officers level in the borough i.e. leader of council, borough commander, voluntary/community organisations and members of the Hate Crime SRB partnership Board. This race hate partnerships should cover hate crime and equality issues and provide holistic solutions to tackling race hate crimes suggested in the borough. The RIF coordinator should service the forum and provide access to all local community to engage in the activities of the forum locally and borough wide. The function of the Steering Group should only be for monitoring and providing strategic direction to the project. The RIF worker should be encouraged to develop wider community outreach activities, extensive networking with other agencies in the borough and should have the primary role of servicing the forum. The structure will greatly be dependent on the management of SREC and establishment of good working relationships with members of the forum in terms of the remit and scope of operation. There should be greater linkages with neighbouring boroughs so that important information can be shared and good practice examples used to bring effective support and coordination to the borough. The forum should actively embraced real strategic partnerships across the sectors and in particular with organisations such as the Police, PCT, Council Housing and other RSLs, local businesses etc to enable them establish their credibility and generate income and funding opportunities for their long-term success. Good practice suggests a growing consensus that the most effective means for addressing and reducing race related incidents is by collaborating with other voluntary and statutory agencies, and this can also be achieved by offering holistic solutions, which are problem-oriented rather than defined according to the means most readily available for their solution.
30
Overall, the research outcome shows that there is a strong need and support for the RIF within the community and it can only have long-term success if funded and adequately supported by the statutory sector. The structure will greatly be dependent on the establishment of the management of SREC and relationships with members of the forum in terms of the remit of operation. It is evident that the forum should be encouraged to operate as a strategic consultative group rather than a one-stop shop for racial incidents case work in the borough. The role of the RIF should also be clearly separated from the work of the SREC, although the project is hosted and funded through the SREC, its activities should be seen as separate by the organisation and supported to function like the other forums within the borough.
31
5. The Way forward for the RIF

In order to achieve the above recommendations the racial incidents forum needs to consider a number of options for the development of the organisation and general implementation plans. These are presented as an action plan checklist with clearly defined objectives for a specific period of time. The following describes the key issue identified during the research and the recommended implementation plans. These issues are classified under the following headings: i. ii. iii. iv. v. Increasing awareness Service Development Networking Arrangements Organisational and management Systems Human Resources
Each of these is described in more detail below. 5.1 INCREASING AWARENESS Race related incidents could best be tackled through a holistic model that includes the following: Measures: Increasing Awareness Publicise RIF and increase awareness of its role amongst refugees and people seeking asylum. Advertise RIF in the local media. Raising awareness of racism, racial harassment through seminars and reports and increase awareness amongst all communities as on racial harassment and its impact on the community. Work with the local media to portray a more positive image of refugees and people seeking asylum. Challenge common perceptions that racism is just a part of every day life. Raise awareness and make challenges around the increase in support to racist organisation and parties. Raising the wider communitys awareness about black and minority ethnic groups Challenge the medias portrayal of back and minority young people.
32
Place positive publicity in the local media re black and minority ethnic achievements. Increase awareness of racism and cultural diversity Output: Increasing Awareness of RIF Provide bi-monthly seminars/briefings on RIF and race harassment. Raise awareness re racial harassment amongst community groups and agencies. Provide briefing and training sessions on racial harassment to community groups. Place articles about race harassment in the local media. Partner agencies to engage in public awareness raising challenging perceptions about racism, raising awareness about the issue, and challenging the increase in support to racist organisations and parties. 5.1.1 Publicity And Marketing Publicity and marketing should be a key function of the RIF. It needs to be effectively coordinated and promoted not as duplicating existing provision but complementary to services already provided by members and other local statutory and voluntary sector providers. The aim should be to highlight the synergies and opportunities for greater networking between the groups and key benefits to the community at large. Activities should include: Publicity of Race and Equalities awareness - the organisation needs to fully utilise its position as the leading voice for black and minority ethnic communities in the borough to develop a strong brand image and awareness, including developing suitable marketing materials, especially a prospectus. Forum members need to develop new marketing ideas that will reflect the unique nature of this group. A range of publicity measures should be used to promote the substantial opportunities for effective networking for tackling racial incidents, addressing race and equality issues across all sectors of the community within the borough. It is ideal to develop an interactive website for the organisation to promote and encourage greater awareness of the race and equality initiatives within the local communities. Greater involvement from the diverse communities within the area should be encouraged, in particular the Black and Minority Ethnic Communities to ensure they receive better access to information and news on the development of the forum including better opportunities to participate in the programmes. Publicity measure will acknowledge support from all funders, and where possible will include a community newsletter, which will be distributed to households and businesses in the borough at least twice a year. The forum should also produce the annual report as a publicity tool detailing past achievements and key areas of concerns.
33
5.2
SERVICE DEVELOPMENT The RIF needs to include the following elements as part of its development plan: 1. To concentrate on campaigning more on race and community development/empowerment work within the community and target new opportunities to provide services to local businesses on a strategic advisory level To develop a strategic and comprehensive approach to racial harmony promotion through existing projects and seminars to raise people awareness of diversity issues as it affects the whole community To promote race equalities in the borough and act as a watchdog to statutory organisation and support to individuals and the wider community. To initiate and develop detailed community consultation and audits of needs, including establishing feedback mechanism from local residents and businesses on its activities so that the organisation can be more responsive to the changing needs of the local community.
2.
3. 4.
5.3
PUBLIC RELATIONS AND PROMOTION The following activities need to be undertaken by RIF in conjunction with the SREC to effectively promote the project: 1. To develop and establish a coherent communications strategy within the organisation and external agencies. This will ensure that staff and management board are fully informed about developments and relevant information is disseminated to the public appropriately. 2. To establish effective networks and publicity activities with other agencies in addition to existing work undertaken with these agencies in order to raise the profile of the organisation with the formal and informal networks operating within the borough. Communication and reporting links between planning group and stakeholders should be defined as part of the process. 3. To develop a range of posters, flyers and leaflets on histories of BME's communities in particular and the wider communities reflecting the diversity of the borough and significance of each ethnic groupings etc. 4. To effectively publicise services through all available media. This may include the publication of a regular newsletter on race and diversity issues in the borough, highlighting the impact of the RIFs work in addressing the issues within the borough and other key issues.
34
5. To foster good cooperation with Commission for Racial Equalities and other local Race and Equalities Councils in neighbouring boroughs. 6. To produce a comprehensive marketing pack detailing all projects and activities. 5.4 ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS The RIF need to establish a clear management policy, and communication structure capable of supporting and developing the activities of the organisation. While the RIF may have adequate organisation and management systems in place through SREC, there is still a need for a more effective organisational forum structure and management systems that incorporates an organisational chart showing line and links that highlight links with other agencies. The implementation of the aforementioned strategy would enable the RIF to develop its full potential by focusing the core activities, and strategic liaison with relevant bodies within the borough to promote racial justice for all. However, there appears to be no clear organisational strategy or system that would enable this to work effectively due to there being a lack of or little organisational or community networking. This failing is due to the lack of clear strategic alliances and the absence of a membership system. The importance of developing and extending the membership is important for developing a wider representation of the diverse communities and to put in place a process of involving emerging communities in the activities of the forum. Sadly there isnt much evidence of this approach being adopted by the RIF. Therefore it is important that the RIF review and improve their means of information sharing amongst members and develop a more cohesive approach to planning and delivery of services related to race issues as well as incidents. 5.5 HUMAN AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES Human resource is a crucial element of any organisational planning, SREC needs to recognise that the SREC and the RIF are not perceived as two separate organisations that have parallel aim and objectives. It is incumbent on the SREC that all practitioner roles are clearly defined under the umbrella of the RIF. Therefore it is essential that all parties concerned ensure that RIF must strive to ensure that the roles and responsibilities of members and key officers, relevant training and support should be provided to members to enable them carry out their duties as ambassadors of the RIF. Bearing in mind that the aims of the SREC should be a priority and as such the RIF must be allowed to function according within the SREC structure. For the RIF to function effective, there needs to be continuous funding for the development worker who will facilitate information sharing and service the Steering Group on a regular basis. Operating with a volunteer structure would mean a break down of the activities and non-realisation of the overall aims of the RIF. In addition, the RIF need to devise and
35
implement a strategy to ensure the widest possible skill base on the membership board and ensure that training opportunity is made available to members to effectively develop their skills. The project needs to be reappraised with new milestones and key performance indicators to enable it to function within the new remit. It is suggested that funding should be made available for a development worker or coordinator. Funding for the project should be in the region of 90,000 per annum. The main function of the development worker should be to encourage the reporting and recording of racist incidents across the borough and sharing of information amongst the organisations working to tackle racial discrimination with the borough. The RIF should also be encouraged to: 1. Improve reporting through agency distribution points 2. Review returns from agency distribution points and provide training to those agencies where returns have been poor. 3. Expand distribution points in agencies where currently there are few or none. 4. Where practicable, ensure that staff at distribution points is trained to assist in form completion and return. 5. Expand access to RIF for black and minority ethnic community members. 6. Expand distribution points amongst community groups. 7. Provide training to community groups at distribution points. 8. Develop the restructuring of the Partnership to ensure the involvement of black and minority ethnic groups. 9. Investigate measures to put in place a help line for people to make reports and receive advice. 10. Review RIFs current methodology for the reporting of racist incidents to RIF. These role functions should be viewed as a long-term role for the RIF once it has been established and fully functional.
36
Appendices
37
7. Work Plan
PRELIMINARY RIF STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES Dec 04 March 2005

Objective 1. To conduct a mapping exercise and bench making reviews. Activities Introductory letter of RIF personnel to stakeholders etc. Comprehensive Questionnaire design & survey. Conduct in-depth research. Identify local needs, problems, stakeholders plus extensive bench marking. Identify strategic solutions. Feedback evaluation. Meetings. Review Borough-wide needs & gaps in provision. Updating database including potential partners. Telephone, face to face & other contacts vigorous pursuance. Target Date Dec. 04 31st Jan 2005 Project Outcome Scope of the need of target groups. Identify forums/groups and service providers for BME communities Produce summary report on research activities. Resources Comment RIF Coordinator RIF Coand ordinator already Consultants in place.
2. To develop a database of contacts/ stakeholders public, private, businesses, key individuals 3. To develop and agree terms of reference. 4. To develop &
Ongoing
Up-to-date/current database of potential forum members/stakeholders
SREC Directors Attention invaluable.
Administrators to make available all electronic and other relevant information. Encourage input from all concerned. Input from
Review & produce new ToR and organize 2 days focus group seminars/meetings; 4 sessions over 2 days/consultation (morning & evenings) Conduct in depth interviews with
Jan & Feb 2005
Establish foundation for RIF forum. Consultant
March 2005
Provision of a new face
Report on The Racial Incidents Forum - 38 38
agree a new forum structure and membership base. 5. To organize a high profile launch of new RIF 6. To undertake a borough-wide outreach programme and local consultation. 7. To organize know your members partners familiarization event. 8. To develop networking meetings to discuss incidence of race hate crime
key players; face-to-face meetings. Active recruitment of members from all sections of the community. Active networking with local agencies, encourage and facilitate local press coverage. Undertake event to re launch the RIF in Southwark. Outreach programme targeting hard to reach groups, networking and joint events with providers and information dissemination of race hate crimes Use 2nd focus group meeting for networking and familiarization & discussion on the way forward for the RIF. Organize monthly meeting of partners, information sharing, joint working initiatives etc. Establish a joint working panel on specific race hate crimes Identify forums/groups and establish synergies with RIF. March 2005
to RIF and publicity. Established new structure and MoU for membership Publicise the activities of the forum; attract potential funders.
Consultant
Director & RIF Coordinator Actively seek involvement of all key players in the borough.
Consultant
Ongoing from Feb. 2005
Relevant Develop publicity materials; circulate to the RIF Coordinator information for all. communities, data gathering. Members/ partners to know each other. RIF Coordinator Consultant
Feb. 2005
April 2005 Upwards March 2005 March 2005
Produce a framework for accessing race hate crime services.
RIF Coordinator Wider and relevant networking staff opportunities & good practice examples
9. To produce a comprehensive action-based report for the future long-term success of the forum. 10. To organize a high profile conference on proposed equality projected future activities to eliminate racial discrimination and promote racial harmony and EOP.
Collate information from mapping exercise, needs survey, focus groups, key players interviews and borough wide consultation into a concise report. Detailing key actions and critical success criteria.
March 2005
Comprehensive report produced and circulated to all involved. Produce a 12-month action plan for RIF. Identify potential income/funding streams Reinforcement of the crucial need for RIF to tackle Race Hate crimes. Strategic extension of RIFs activities to the hard to reach groups.
Consultant
Booking a venue Contacts guess entertainers - e.g drummers and dancers from the BME communities. Publicizing event. Organise training, & education for individuals an businesses
May 2005
SREC Director Senior Race Relations Adviser
Extensive publicity drive all media sources possible.
Ongoing
Future activities RIF Coordinator to enforce the RRA (A) 2000 Relevant Consultant
Note: most of the activities on the work plan have been undertaken during the process and the development worker as part of the consultation process currently undertakes ongoing activities. It is envisaged that a new 12 months work plan will be developed in April 2005.
8. Terms Of Reference
The Racial Incidents Forum will function as a general consultative body for racial incidents and hate crimes in the borough and provide specific advice and support to practitioners and victims of race hate crimes. The forum will demonstrate its effectiveness in bringing together the community in their efforts to tackle racial discrimination and support them in reporting, recoding and responding to racial incidents in the borough. The forum will essential be involved in the sharing of good practice examples with other organisations, encourage greater partnership working between the community and statutory sectors in an open and transparent manner, including sharing public responsibility in dealing with racial harassment in the community and making Southwark a safer community for all. The following Terms of Reference is proposed for the Racial Incidents Forum: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. To monitor and review development of race hate crimes in the borough To establish a mechanism for effective and coordinated information sharing on reporting, recording and responding to racial incidents cases in the borough by all agencies To develop and establish effective working relationships with key stakeholders, statutory agencies, community groups/organisations and local businesses To identify community based support groups for victims of racial harassment, mapping and listing support services provided To provide guidance on policy to local crime and disorder partnerships to deal with race hate crimes in the borough To monitor, review and evaluate the effectiveness of statutory organisations racial incidents and harassment policies and provide relevant advice/recommendations on implementation To identify and disseminate examples of good practice to key stakeholders on how to deal with race hate crimes along with training provision to relevant practitioners and officers
8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.
To establish effective working links between all hate crime forums (Anti Homophobic forum, Domestic Violence Forum, Hate Hurt Campaign) To facilitate effective and coordinated working relationship between all of Southwarks inter related groups on Hate Crime To meet regularly with the Casework Hate Crime Network, identify trends, analyse resource allocations and service provisions to victims of racial incidents and other hate crimes To actively engage on community outreach and consultation programme to raise the awareness of racial incidents and discrimination in the community and provide support for grassroots involvement in tackling racial incidents To act as a last resort for victims of racial incidents and harassment who have been through the established process without satisfactory outcomes To provide strategic support and advice to all stakeholders, community groups and individuals that require expertise and co-ordination in the event of any critical race hate crime incidents To act as a referral agency for all racial incidents cases in the borough and support community organisations to effectively deliver services to the local community To work with local community organisations advising on minimum standards and service delivery from statutory organisations dealing with race hate crimes (e.g. Southwark Police, Council, Fire Service etc) To establish continuous and increased awareness of the forum through extensive community outreach programme, local campaigns, conferences, events, training programmes and partnership working with other agencies
9. Organisations Contacted for the Research

The survey questionnaire and general information was sent to the following organisations and a cross representative of the groups was invited to the focus group discussions. This list is in addition to the list of relevant officers from the statutory organisations and other key players, which included council officers, director of the CRE, police representative, the Bede house project, South Bermondsey partnership etc. Name of Organisations 1 AAINA Women's Group 2 AAWAZ (Southwark Asian Women's Association) 3 AAWAZ Dance AND Asian music Classes 4 AAWAZ Mother Tongue Project 5 AAWAZ Youth Project 6 AAWAZ (Southwark Asian Women's Association 7 African Women's Support Group 8 African Community Links Projects 9 African Creative Studies 10 African Foundation For Development (AFFORD) 11 African Francophone Resource & Information Centre 12 African Graduate Centre 13 African Heritage Association 14 African Research & Information Bureau (ARIB) 15 African Roots Men's Project(ARMPRO) 16 African Volunteers Network 17 African Women's Association 18 African Women's Support Group 19 Africans Families Foundation 20 Afritec 21 AFRITEC 22 Afro Caribbean Mental Health Project 23 Afro Caribbean Youth Development Project 24 Afro-Asian Advisory Service 25 Albert Kennedy Trust
Post Code SE15 4NX SE15 4NU SE15 4NU SE15 4NU SE15 4NU SE15 4NU SE1 0LT SE14 SE1 2AN SE5 0EN SE15 4RF SE16 5EW SE15 2JL SE1 7XW SE15 6JL SE5 SE15 6ND SE1 0LT SE15 5TF SE1 SE1 7AJ SW9 8JP SE15 6JL SE5 7LB
Tel 020 7358 0697 020 7252 9290 020 7252 9290 020 7252 9290 020 7252 9290 020 72529290 020 7928 7563 020 7237 9313 020 7703 6531 020 7771 1116 020 7740 2580 020 7732 4705 020 7928 8728 020 7708 2059
Fax 020 7358 0697 020 7358 9908 020 7358 9908 020 7358 9908 020 7358 9908 020 7358 9908
020 7934 9814 020 7701 2552 020 7721 1116
020 7708 2059
020 7928 7563 020 7639 1823 020 7923 3401 020 7737 3603 020 7635 6487 020 7701 0141 020 7831 6562 020 7923 3533
020 7701 1950
26 All African Association 27 Alliance for African Assistance 28 Alliance for Caribbean Empowerment 29 Alyesbury Women's Project 30 AM Art Unit 12a 31 Amanzi-My Words to Music 32 Anando Pat Community School 33 ARHAG 34 Asaholah Ministries of God 35 Asian Forum 36 Asian Society 37 Asra Housing Association 38 Association of Turkish Women's 39 Asu Maa Ten Ra Holistic Health Network 40 Aylesbury Cypriot Mums 41 Bangali Women's Project 42 Bangladeshi Families Support Project 43 Bed House Anti-Racist Project 44 Bede House Domestic Violence Support & Education Project 45 Bede House hate Crimes Project (Race & Domestic violence) 46 Bengali Dev. Project 47 Bengali Womens Group 48 Bhagini Samaj Womens Group 49 Black & Asian Women's Network 50 Black Elderly Group Southward 51 Black Elderly Group Southwark 52 Black Elderly Mental Health Project 53 Blackliners 54 Brixton Mosque 55 Broken Rainbow hotline 56 Caribbean Supplementary School 57 Caribbean Youth Club 58 Caribbean Youth & Community Association
SE15 5EB SE17 3HB SE5 SE15 4NX SE1 2HN SE15 5QT SE1 6RW SE1 9AB SE15 SE15 2HD SE22 9NF SE1 4PG SE5 8LG SE15 5GY SE15 SE1 6RQ SE1 SE16 5DT SE16 2JW SE16 2 JW SE1 SE1 SE5 SE15 SE15 4RQ SE17 SW9 6AT SE5 7LL SE5 7LL SE5
020 7277 2896 020 7708 2047 020 7207 1453 020 7920 7900 020 7278 3358 020 7635 9374 020 7639 5168 020 8693 9951 020 7940 6600 020 7740 6220 020 7403 9888 020 7232 1107 020 7237 3881 020 7237 9162
020 7740 6178
020 7357 9294
020 7635 0509 020 7940 6600 020 7252 4449 020 7403 2592 020 7237 9162 020 7237 9162 020 7394 7586
020 7635 8882 020 7639 8655 020 7701 9700 020 7738 5274 07812 644 914 020 7701 94 00 020 7701 9400
59 Carl Campbell Dance Company 60 Confederation of Africa Community Organisations (CACO) 61 Community Industry 62 Community Youth Provision Association (CYPA) 63 Confederation of Indian Organisation 64 Confederation of African Professional Organisation UK (CAP UK) 65 Confederation of African Professionals 66 Confederation of Indian Organizations 67 Cypriot Community Center 68 Dachwyng Family Centre 69 Dachwyng Supplementary School 70 Daughters of Divine Love 71 Diamond Project Young Women's group 72 Dominican Progressive Charitable Association 73 Dominica Progressive Chartable Association 74 Downside youth Project 75 Downtown Women's Room 76 Dulwich Mosque And Islamic Centre 77 Dulwich Mosque And Islamic Centre Supplementary school 78 East Dulwich TA Bengali Mother Tongue Project 79 East Dulwich Women's Action 80 Education Alliance Africa 81 El Shaddai Supplementary School 82 Elephant and Castle Mosque 83 Eritrean Community Centre 84 Ethiopian World Federation 85 Facing South Youth Project 86 Feminist library resource & information Centre 87 From Boyhood to Manhood Foundation 88 From Boyhood to Manhood Foundation 89 GALOP-Shoutline 90 Gharweg Advice Training Career Centre 91 Ghrweg Saturday School
SE15 4NX SE5 7WU SE15 4NB SE15 4NX SE1 7XW SE5 7WU SE5 SE1 SE5 SE5 5ED SE9 5ED SE17 2EN SE16 4RS SE22 SE22 0AP SE1 2EZ SE16 2QF SE22 9ET SE22 9ET SE22 SE5 8DP SE15 SE23 1NU SE1 4JL SE5 7NR SE11 4BE SE1 6AQ SE1 7XW SE15 6JL SE15 6JL SE 1 3HN SE1 7XW
020 7639 4875 020 7703 1133 020 7252 8882 020 7928 9889 020 7708 3900
020 7639 4875 020 7708 3055 020 7252 8882 020 7620 4025 0207708 3055
020 7564 3712 020 7564 3712 020 7252 7402 020 7232 0440 020 8693 7688 020 7407 0093 020 7252 2738 020 8693 8662 020 8299 3592
020 7703 8626 020 7237 6168
020 7407 2861
020 8299 1046
020 7724 8711 020 7274 4985 020 7703 5143 020 7407 3550 020 7928 7789 020 7277 0448 020 7703 6415 020 7704 2040 020 7738 7102 020 7620 1430
020 7703 5147 020 7207 2982 020 7703 6848 020 7703 6848 020 7704 3111 020 7738 7103 020 7620 1431
92 GhrwegYoung People's Support Service 93 Golden oldies Lunch Club & drop In 94 Golden Oldies Lunch Club And Drop in 95 Great Lakes African Women's Network 96 Gurudwara Baba Sahib ji Sikh Temple 97 Healthy Gay Living centre Counselling (HGLC) 98 Heartbeat Academy Of Arts And Self Development 99 Hold Tight, Tight Hold 100 Independent Association of Kurdish Women 101 International Association of African Women 102 Istri Sabbha Mother Tongue Classes 103 Istri Sabbha Women's group 104 JAA (JamicaAlumin) Super Kids 105 Jamaica Alumni Association 106 Joshua Foundation Super Kids 107 Karibbean Independent Trust for Ecology( KITE) 108 Kurdistan Refugee Womens Organization 109 Kurdistan Refugee Women's Organsation SCCR 110 Latimer Supplementary School 111 Latin American Women's Rights Service (LAWS) 112 LGBT Community website 113 LIMBIKANI 114 London African Volunteer Network 115 London Friend 116 London Lesbian and Gay Swichhboard 117 Mauritius Association 118 Maya Project-Addiction 119 Mboho Akwa Ibom 120 Meeting Point 121 Middle East Centre For Women Studies (MECWS) 122 Middle East Centre for Womens Studies 123 Muslim Association of Nigeria 124 Muslim Association Of Nigeria
SE1 7XW SE5 0EN SE5 0EN SE1 7XW SE22 9DH SE1 SE5 7NL SE1 SE15 3JQ SE22 9DH SE22 9DH SE1 4XY SE1 SE15 SE15 6TN SE15 SE15 5BS SE15 4DZ SE1Y 8RT SE5 SE5 7SW
020 7620 1430 020 7701 2999 020 7701 2999 020 7241 5557 020 8693 1162 020 7407 3550 020 7703 8523
020 7620 1431
020 7701 3151
020 8564 4040 020 8693 1162
020 7639 8523
020 7642 0650
SE5 SE15 6BN SE15 6HQ SE 15 6RS SE5 7WW SE5 SE1 5JH SE1 5JH
020 7701 7422 020 7837 337 020 7837 7324 020 7701 5600 020 7635 5070
020 7708 3814
020 7732 9382
020 7701 8330 020 7231 0100 020 7231 0100 020 7237 0009 020 7237 0009
125 Muslim health Trust 126 NAZ project 127 New Life Assembly Supplementary School 128 New Peckham Mosque & Muslim Cultural Centre 129 Newpin Black Teen Parents Project 130 NRG LGBT Youth Group 131 Open door Housing 132 Opendoor Housing 133 Organisation Of Blind African Carinneans(OBAC) 134 Organisation Of Nigerian Mariners & Friends 135 PACE 136 Pakistan Muslim Welfare 137 Papa Nelson Mandela London Project 138 Peckham Positive 139 Pierres Vicantes 140 REGARD 141 Rimin Welfare Association 142 Rise And Shine Supplementary School 143 Riverpoint 144 Rockingham Asian Youth 145 Rockingham Estate play Association Outreach Project 146 Rockingham Somali Mother Tongue & Supplementary Class 147 Rockingham Somali Support Group 148 Rockingham Somali Theatre 149 Rockingham Somali Support Youth Group 150 Rondealya Pilipino 151 Rubicon 152 Rubicon 153 Safra Project 154 Salam Bhano Asian Young women's Group 155 SASS Young Mother's Performance Group 156 SCCR Supplementary Education Project (Emotan) 157 Science Club
SE1 9RY SE22 0DA SE15 SE17 3EE
SE5 0RZ SE5 7NR SE22 SE15 1PU SE5 7JP SE5 9PU SE1 2AN SE15 5TF SE14 9PP SE1 SE1 4JL SE1 6RG SE1 SE1 6RQ SE1 6RQ SE15 5AS
020 7955 4366 020 8741 1879 020 8693 6398 020 7703 0985 020 7358 5913 020 7816 4750 020 8743 2165 020 8743 2165 020 7735 3400 020 8576 4516 020 7700 1323 020 7277 8518 020 7701 2436 020 7735 3013 020 7688 4111 020 7394 1282 020 7358 1152 020 7385 3666 020 7403 8337 020 7403 7475 020 7403 7475 020 7357 6785 020 7771 1156 020 8252 2623 020 8252 2623
020 7701 2660
029 7582 8334 020 7252 7436
020 7394 1282
020 7403 8539
N17 0WB SE1 6RQ SE15 6JL SE15 5BS SE5 8PD
020 7740 6220 020 7635 8882 020 7708 5237
020 7740 6220
158 SEMA Mother Tongue Classes 66 Great Dover Court Road 159 Sesame Supplementary School 160 Society For Black Women And Children 161 Society of Caribbean Culture 162 Sojourner Housing Association 163 Somali Association for Elderly & Disabled 164 Somali Health And Education Project 165 Somali Health Counselling Project 166 Somali project 167 Somali Women's 7 Children project 168 Southwark Musllim Fashion Project 169 South Asian Community Organisation 170 South Asian Elderly Organisation 171 South East Asian Elderly 172 South East Baitul-ul-aziz Islamic Cultural Center 173 South East Islamic Cultural Center 174 South East Muslim Association (SEMA) 175 South Thames African Welfare Association 176 Southwark African Women's Association 177 Southward African Family Support 178 Southwark African Family Support Service 179 Southwark African Federation 180 Southwark African Women's Association 181 Southwark Asian Association 182 Southward Asian Elderly Organisation 183 Southwark Bhagini Samaj 184 Southwark Caribbean Women's Football Club 185 Southwark Chinese Womens Group 186 Southward Cypriot Community Group 187 Southward Cypriot Elders Group 188 Southwark Ethnicare Project 189 Southwark Hindu Center 190 Southward Irish Cultural Arts Development
SE22 8UW SE5 7LL SE5 6DN SE5 SE5 8AB SE15 4TP SE1 4AU SE1 7XW SE16 2BS SE16 2BS SE15 4DG SE15 3AS SE15 4NU SE15 3PD SE1 4UL SE1 6DR SE15 4RZ SE15 SE4 SE5 SE5 0 EN SE1 5HU SE4 SE22 9EF SE15 SE15 4AL SE15 3DF SE17 3JD SE15 SE15 SE15 6TL SE12 SE22
020 8693 2241 0207564 5237
020 7703 8085 020 7639 1602 020 7635 7640 020 7620 4589 020 7703 5663 020 7237 8930 020 7732 8053 020 7639 9840 020 7358 9937 020 7274 4985 020 7378 7764 020 7277 8500
020 7252 5442 020 7732 3310 020 7358 9908
020 8693 2241
020 7701 0486 020 723 7798
020 7701 0737
020 8299 9901 020 7528 2521
020 7703 5257 020 8473 3108
020 7703 5257
191 Southwark Mediation Center 192 Southwark Muslim Elders Project 193 Southwark Muslim Fashion Project 194 Southwark Muslim Women's Association 195 Southwark Muslim Women's Mother Tongue Project 196 Southwark Muslim Youth Project 197 Southwark Race and Equalities Council (SREC) 198 Southwark Refugee Education Project 199 Southwark Somali Refugee Council 200 Southwark Somali Refugee Women's Group 201 Southwark Somali Union 202 Southwark travellers Action Group 203 Southwark Vietnamese Women's Group 204 Southwark West African Women's Support Group 205 Southwark Women's Aid 206 Southwark Women's working With Girls 207 Southhwark Women's Supplementary Education Project 208 South Thames African Welfare Association 209 Southwark Women's support Group 210 SREC Racial Discrimination Project 211 SREC Racial Incident Forum 212 SREC Supplementary Education Project (Emotan) 213 St, Michael's Satrday School 214 St, Michael's Circle of Friends 215 St. Michael's Homewark Club 216 Stonewall Housing 217 Stonewall Housing 218 Streetwise Youth 219 Sudanese Welfare Association 220 Survivors UK 221 Taifa Community Care Project 222 Terrence Higgins Trust 223 Thames Reach Bondway
SE5 0EG SE15 4DG SE15 4DG SE15 4DG SE15 4DG SE15 4DG SE15 5BS SE15 6JL SE5 7NA SE5 7NA SE1 2AN SE15 5TF SE15 4DG SE5 7QE SE22 0XD SE15 4DG SE15 4DG SE15 5EB SE24 9NT SE15 5BS SE15 5BS SE15 5BS SE1 5AA SE1 5AA SE1 5AA
020 7708 4959 020 7732 8053 020 7732 8053 020 7732 8053 020 7732 8053 020 7732 8053 020 7635 8882 020 7703 4046 020 7277 1770 020 7277 1770 020 7394 7880 020 7639 1823 020 7732 6114 0207703 2384 020 8639 3905 020 7732 853 020 7703 5511 020 7635 8882 020 7635 8882 020 7635 8882 020 7708 3939 020 7708 3939 020 7708 3939 020 7359 5767 020 7359 5767 020 7370 0406 020 7357 6677 020 7708 1781 020 7835 1495 020 7737 7888
020 7708 5568 020 7732 3310 020 7732 3310 020 7732 3310 020 7732 3310 020 7732 3310 020 7635 9990 020 7701 7812 020 7701 7812
020 78277 2780
020 7732 3310 020 7703 8838 020 7635 9990 020 7635 9990
020 7708 3939 020 7708 3939
SE17 2BL SE5 7DN SE1 3XF

020 7701 8766
224 The West Indian Standing Conference 225 Time & Talents Women's Group 226 Uganda Aids Action Fund 227 UK Ivorian Space 228 Union Of Ivorian Women 229 Victoria Clinic for Sexual Health 230 Vishvas Asian Womens Mental Project 231 Vishvas Project 232 Vietnamese Women's Project 233 West Indian staning Conference (WISC) 234 Women Of Nigeria (WONI): School Exclusion Project 235 Women of Nigeria International Arts Project 236 Women of Nigeria International Arts Project 237 Women of peace Counselling Group 238 Womens Aid 239 Women's Against Domestic Violence 240 Women's Education in Building 241 Women's Health Group 242 Women's Self-Development Project 243 Working men project
SE1 SE16 4JE SE16 SE11 4RN SE11 6TT SE1 SE1 7XW SE15 4DG SE1 7XW SE5 0EN SE5 0EN SE5 0EN SE16 3EH
020 7820 0937 020 87468 700 020 7928 9889 020 7277 8642 020 7358 0697 020 7252 4597 020 7252 4597 0207252 4597 0808 2000 247 020 7732 97 16 020 774 03199 020 7701 4904 020 7886 1524 020 7620 4025 020 7928 7862 020 7252 4597 020 7252 4597 020 7252 4597
SE1 1LF SE1 6RG SE17 2JU
020 7740 3201

Level 3 REC Report TDP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Level 3 REC Report TDP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SOUTHWARK RACE AND EQUALITIES COUNCIL Report on Racial Incidents Forum

Southwark Race & Equalities Council

Report on The Racial Incidents Forum - 1

Southwark Race & Equalities Council

Report on The Racial Incidents Forum - 2

Reasons For Report

Report on The Racial Incidents Forum - 3

Key Research Findings

Southwark Race & Equalities Council

Report on The Racial Incidents Forum - 4

Report on The Racial Incidents Forum - 5

Conclusion and Recommendations

Southwark Race & Equalities Council

Report on The Racial Incidents Forum - 6

Southwark Race & Equalities Council

Report on The Racial Incidents Forum - 7

Southwark Race & Equalities Council

Report on The Racial Incidents Forum - 8

Report on The Racial Incidents Forum - 9

Southwark Race & Equalities Council

Report on The Racial Incidents Forum - 10

Southwark Race & Equalities Council

Report on The Racial Incidents Forum - 11

Southwark Race & Equalities Council

Report on The Racial Incidents Forum - 12

Southwark Race & Equalities Council

Report on The Racial Incidents Forum - 13

2. Background Information on Racial Incidents

Southwark Race & Equalities Council

Report on The Racial Incidents Forum - 14

Southwark Race & Equalities Council

Report on The Racial Incidents Forum - 15

Report on The Racial Incidents Forum - 16

Southwark Race & Equalities Council

Report on The Racial Incidents Forum - 17

Southwark Race & Equalities Council

Report on The Racial Incidents Forum - 18

3. Summary of Research Findings

Southwark Race & Equalities Council

Report on The Racial Incidents Forum - 19

Southwark Race & Equalities Council

Report on The Racial Incidents Forum - 20

Report on The Racial Incidents Forum - 21

Southwark Race & Equalities Council

Report on The Racial Incidents Forum - 22

Report on The Racial Incidents Forum - 23

Southwark Race & Equalities Council

Report on The Racial Incidents Forum - 24

Southwark Race & Equalities Council

Report on The Racial Incidents Forum - 25

Southwark Race & Equalities Council

Report on The Racial Incidents Forum - 26

Report on The Racial Incidents Forum - 27

Southwark Race & Equalities Council

Report on The Racial Incidents Forum - 28

Report on The Racial Incidents Forum - 29

Southwark Race & Equalities Council

Report on The Racial Incidents Forum - 30

Southwark Race & Equalities Council

Report on The Racial Incidents Forum - 31

5. The Way forward for the RIF

Report on The Racial Incidents Forum - 32

Report on The Racial Incidents Forum - 33

Southwark Race & Equalities Council