Community cohesion is a conceptual framework for social policy in the United Kingdom which attempts to measure the social relationships within a community. It relies on criteria such as: the presence of a shared vision, inclusion of those with diverse backgrounds, equal opportunity, and supportive relationships between individuals. It was introduced in the UK in 2001 after the 2001 England riots. The ideas contained within the framework have been refined a number of times, though the definition remains undefined. It has also been criticised as political in nature, with moral imperatives which are not overly helpful.
History The concept of community cohesion was established in the United Kingdom following a number of riots and disturbances in England in 2001. Although the term had been used in different contexts previously (in Canada, for example), the first report to employ the term and to propose a new policy framework around it was Community Cohesion: The Report of The Independent Review Team.Cantle, T. (2001) Community Cohesion: A Report of the independent Review Team (London: Home Office) The report considered the national and wider dimensions of community relations and reviewed both those areas that had not suffered disturbances, as well as those that had. The report's findings became best known for identifying the parallel lives of minority and majority communities, but also proposed a wide range of new policies, which were subsequently adopted by government and other agencies.
The Cantle Report was supported by three local reviews of the three towns most affected by the riots. These were: for Bradford, the Ouseley Report (2001); for Oldham, the Ritchie Report (2001) and; for Burnley, the Clarke Report (2001). (The Ouseley Report was commissioned prior to the disturbances in Bradford.) The government responded with Building Cohesive Communities, a Report of the Ministerial Group on Public Order (The "Denham Report") which set out a wide range of proposed actions.
The concept of community cohesion was subsequently widely adopted in the UK and some of the ideas and approaches have also been taken up in other countries. Government, local government, public service and voluntary agencies widely embraced the new policy direction, many establishing community cohesion officers and teams to develop strategies and implement the new approach. While the Welsh Government continues with its strategy, in England, the Coalition Government elected in 2010 preferred to build their strategy around the idea of integration, though many policies have remained the same.
Conceptual and practical development There have been at least three formal national definitions of the concept, each building upon the other from 2002 to 2008. All refer to the need for strong and positive relationships between people from different backgrounds, tackling inequalities and developing a positive climate of opinion to support diversity. There are also a large number of local definitions, which draw upon the formal national definitions but add a local context.
The first and most widely used, built directly on the Cantle and Denham reports, and was constructed by the co-authors of the Guidance on Community Cohesion, the Local Government Association, the then Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Commission of Racial Equality and the Inter-Faith Network:
Some five years later the Commission for Integration and Cohesion proposed a number of amended and additional points, which added concepts of trust, rights and responsibilities. Three 'ways of living together' were added by the Department of Communities and Local Government (CLG) in response to the CIC report.
The policy domain produced guidance and resulted in less reliance on the definition and more upon the emerging practice. LGA et al. issued guidance to support local government and partner agencies. This emphasised the importance of common values, cross community and cross disciplinary working, and the need to continue to tackle inequalities and disadvantage. Moreover, a Community Cohesion Unit was established in 2002 to co-ordinate national work and implement practice. This was supported by an independent panel of practitioners who developed guidance and best practice on cohesion. Its work concluded with a final report the End of Parallel Lives that stressed the importance of mainstreaming cohesion into local government services. Much of this thinking was brought together by the Home Office publication Improving Opportunity, Strengthening Society in 2005. Building community cohesion was one of the four key themes alongside addressing inequality, promoting inclusiveness and tackling racism and extremism.
Guidance was produced on a wide range of policy areas. These included:
Commission on Integration and Cohesion (CIC) (2007): What Works in Community Cohesion Commission on Integration and Cohesion (CIC) (2007): Integration and Cohesion Case Studies Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2008): Cohesion Guidance for Funders: Summary of Responses Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2009): Guidance on meaningful interaction – How encouraging positive relationships between people can help build community cohesion Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2009): Delivering Mixed Communities – Learning the Lessons from Existing Programmes Department for Children, Schools and Families (2007): Guidance on the Duty to Promote Community Cohesion Home Office et al. (2003): Building a Picture of Community Cohesion Home Office and Office Deputy Prime Minister (2004): Building Community Cohesion into Area Based Initiatives Home Office (2004): Community Cohesion Standards for Schools Home Office (2005): Community Cohesion: Seven Steps Home Office (2005): Integration Matters: A National Strategy for Refugee Integration Institute of Community Cohesion (iCoCo) (2006): The Power of Sport—Policy and Practice: Sport and Cohesion Institute of Community Cohesion (iCoCo) (2006): A Sense of Belonging, The Communications Toolkit Institute of Community Cohesion (iCoCo) (2006): Cohesion Mapping of Community Dynamics (COHDMAP) Institute of Community Cohesion (iCoCo) (2006): Challenging Communities to Change: A Review of Community Cohesion in Oldham Institute of Community Cohesion (iCoCo) (2007): Understanding and Monitoring Tension in Local Communities Institute of Community Cohesion (iCoCo) (2007): Promoting Sustainable Communities and Community Cohesion Institute of Community Cohesion (iCoCo) (2007): New European Migration, A Good Practice Guide for Local Authorities Institute of Community Cohesion (iCoCo) (2008): Understanding and Appreciating Muslim Diversity: Towards Better Engagement and Participation Institute of Community Cohesion (iCoCo) (2011): Far Right Electoral and other Activity: the Challenge for Community Cohesion Local Government Association et al. (LGA) (2002): Guidance on Community Cohesion Local Government Association (LGA), Home Office, ODPM, CRE, The Audit Commission, The IDeA, The Inter-Faith Network (2004): Community Cohesion—An Action Guide Local Government Association (LGA), Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA), the Home Office, Audit Commission and Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. (2006): Leading Cohesive Communities: A Guide for Local Authority Leaders and Chief Executives Local Government Information Unit (LGIU) (2005): Scrutiny of Community Cohesion Issues Local Government Information Unit (LGIU) (2006): Countering Myths and Misinformation during Election Periods
Academic critique In contrast to the policy literature, academic publications were initially few and far between. On the whole they tended to be critical of the concept of community cohesion, though some of the more recent works have been supportive.
The first academic textbook, produced by a proponent of the concept and author of the Cantle Report was supportive and attempted to build a substantial and theoretical underpinning for community cohesion. Community Cohesion: A New Framework for Race and Diversity was first published in 2005, with an updated version in 2008.Cantle, T (2008) 'Community Cohesion: A New Framework for Race and Diversity' Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan This analysis suggested that multicultural policy and practice had contributed to separation and segregation and built on the idea of the parallel lives of the earlier Cantle Report. However, it also sought to establish a broader sense of difference, in which identity was not limited to the multicultural paradigm of race and suggested that cohesion was concerned with identity based on sexual orientation, gender, faith, disability, nationality and other forms of identities, as well as that of ethnicity.
Other academics claimed that community cohesion was being used as part of a new politically inspired approach to, firstly, shift the agenda towards one of assimilation of minorities and, secondly, move away from the focus on inequalities and disadvantage. McGhee (2005), for example, challenged the notion of the cosmopolitan identities and associated it with the then politics of New Labour. He suggests that "identity, culture and tradition are seen as conducive to prejudice, antagonism, polarization, mistrust, hatred and overt (fanatical) loyalty associated with preservationist or past-orientated orientations" and that emotionally hot patterns of identity are being replaced by "a calmer cosmopolitan mentality which is characterised by flexibility, ‘cool’ loyalties and thin patterns of solidarity."McGhee, D. (2005) Intolerant Britain? Hate, Citizenship and Difference. (Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education) p. 172 Burnett (2004) saw the debate in the same political terms as McGhee and similarly detected assimilationist tendencies in the reform of the notion of identity and suggested that the then New Labour Government used both the idea of community cohesion and the idea of communitarianism as a "bridge between the concept of citizenship (and its obligations) and ever widening notions of criminality." He believed this amounted to the conjuring up of a fear of a "new moral order." Burnett's later comments (Burnett, 2007), however, acknowledged that community cohesion policies did also put an emphasis on the need for majority White majority communities to change. McGhee (2008, p53) is also concerned about what this change of direction means in practice and for example, sees attempts to develop the use of English language on a more pervasive basis as an extension of the Government's ‘linguistic nationalism’ which focuses on the "easiest signifier of sameness and difference,"McGhee, D. (2008) ‘A past built on difference, a future which is shared’ – a critical examination of the recommendations made by the Commission on Integration and Community Cohesion. (People, Place & Policy Online (2008): 2/2, pp. 48-64) rather than it being a means by which diverse communities can communicate and interact. Harrison (2005)takes a similar view, fearing assimilation "in which the entrenched barriers and values of white communities pass relatively unchallenged (Harrison, 2005, p. 91)."Harrison, H. (2005) ‘From Community Cohesion to an Inclusion and Co-operation Agenda’ in Housing, Race and Community Cohesion, Harrison et al. (Oxford: Chartered Institute of Housing).