Sowing the seeds so that true sustainability can take root

Jul 28 2008 Agenda

The phrase “sustainable communities’’ is now widely used in local and central government circles. But what exactly does it mean? Prof Peter Latchford explains

We usually think of sustainability as an environmental issue; the challenge of living within the limits of our own resources.

Sustainable communities is a phrase which has also come into more common usage, particularly in government circles.

Its meaning encompasses environmental concerns, but also includes a more subtle issue – the extent to which people live fulfilling lives, at peace with themselves and their neighbours.

It is more than two years since the Lozells disturbances in North West Birmingham, which resulted in two deaths.

It is over-simplistic to say that they were the result of inter-ethnic tensions. But issues of identity – how we define ourselves, for instance, by gender, race, class, postcode – combined with a variety of different values, assumptions and habits to create a heady mix.

Our city and our region do pretty well at recognising that this “heady mix” can be a virtue: that the combination of different cultures and histories can create a unique and valuable future. We remember the Lozells disturbances because they were so unusual and out of character ... Birmingham is by nature and history a welcoming place. But the Birmingham city region is set to grow, possibly by up to 10 per cent over the next decade or so.

Our young and diverse city is set to get younger and more diverse. Some of our poorest wards, in North West Birmingham and Sandwell, are the most vibrant, the most diverse and the most densely populated. The broad harmony between people of different ages, backgrounds, religions, outlooks and cultures cannot be taken for granted.

Even without additional population growth, there is more work to be done to reduce poverty, and to create genuine depth of understanding across groups, and across neighbourhoods. And these poorer wards are also likely experience the greatest pressure for growth. So the need to create conditions in which people live in harmony is even greater. So what does it mean to live in harmony? How do we go about creating that greater level of understanding?

In the past, the focus has been – rightly – on reducing inequalities, on addressing discrimination.

The public sector approach has been to identify, contain and attempt to address this as a problem. Legislation (on race, gender, disability discrimination) has supported this approach. As a result, some of the more gross and explicit forms of discrimination have been addressed. But fundamental inequalities are still not hard to find: the lack of opportunities in better paid jobs for specific minority ethnic groups; the challenge of combining a career with motherhood; the educational under-achievement of working class boys. History has shown us that no community is settled and at peace when dividing lines remain based on categories rather than ability.

Traditional problem solving of this type can all too quickly encourage a blame culture based on category. Guns and gangs become a black community problem. Islamic extremism becomes a Muslim community problem. Teenage pregnancy becomes a working class problem. Media messages reinforce this. Our conversations in pubs, cafes and at work perpetuate it. Our politicians respond to it. And public funds are allocated to interventions designed accordingly.

As a result, the imaginary dividing lines between groups of people become more real. Stereotypes become further entrenched. And the opportunity for people to connect across those dividing lines – to become friends, to marry, to offer employment – reduce. And the very thing we are trying to solve is made worse. The problem is not solved at all.

The point is that problem solving forces us to categorise; and when we categorise people we generalise. And when we generalise about people, we stereotype. And when we stereotype … bad things happen.

We can’t stop the problem solving approach or disregard the anti-discrimination mechanisms which have given us this foundation.

Yet, there is now an opportunity to build on them in a new way; to progress from their problem-solving orientation, and to find a new, more sustainable and positive approach.

We must reclaim some of the words used in this debate. For instance, a community is not a category of people with the same racial heritage, religion or sexual orientation. A community is a web of interpersonal relationships between individuals. A sustainable community comprises a thick, three-dimensional web of relationships: the stronger the sense of community in a particular place, the lower the crime, the better the mental health, the happier the people. The public sector must continue its journey towards the personal. Public sector organisations must ensure that their employees understand that relationship development with citizens and service users is of comparable importance to service delivery. Engaging with people takes time and is based on building strong relationships which are personal and built on trust.

Public sector working practices, recruitment, and procurement must honour and develop the network of relationships that individual workers have as part of what they offer.

The City Council’s move towards neighbourhood management is potentially very positive in this regard, as is the commissioning model in primary health and in adult and community services. The Every Child Matters approach adopted in Children’s Services is potentially ground breaking. And the police are often leading the way with community linkages and neighbourhood policing. But the point is more than about structures and programmes: it is about the personal; the way individual members of staff do their job, the way that managers walk the talk. Urban Living was not set up to address sustainability or community cohesion. It is part of a central government funded programme to address housing market failure. In parts of North West Birmingham and Sandwell, our target geography, the poor quality and variety of some of the housing stock acts as a constraint on economic and social development. Over the last year, however, we have significantly broadened our approach, working hard with our partners Birmingham City Council and Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council to help improve social cohesion and economic inclusion in North West Birmingham and Sandwell.

Integral to this strategy is the role of our community engagement staff. As local residents of the pathfinder area, they are providing on-the-ground support by listening to the needs and views of local people and developing long-term relationships with the communities that we serve. Other key facets of our programme include improving access to jobs and training, as well as arts and community-based activities for local people. This is founded on a real need to demonstrate to local people how much they have in common with each other. As one example, we are working closely with Handsworth-based Banner Theatre, a leading theatre group, to host performances which explore the relationships between Eastern European migrants and black minority ethnic groups (BME) within Handsworth.

We are aware that it will take time to deliver safer, brighter and better communities in North West Birmingham and Sandwell. This will be achieved by all public sector organisations working together with others to adopt an approach which is based on building and maintaining long-term personal relationships with the communities that we serve. This is true sustainability.

* Professor Latchford is chairman of Urban Living, a Government-backed housing market renewal scheme for Birmingham and Sandwell. In May 2007, Professor Latchford compiled a report on the Lozells disturbances for Birmingham City Council’s Equality and Diversity Division.