The Rumourless Cities project is co-funded by the URBACT III Programme and ERDF. This document reflects only the views of the authors and the URBACT III cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

Building place based narratives of inclusion

This was a co-designed and collaborative workshop bringing the Rumourless Cities (RC) and Inclusive Cities (IC)networks together. IC is a network of 12 UK cities sharing ideas around building strategic working and inclusive narratives which is led by the local authorities. Cardiff was the link city- being a member of both networks and brokered and hosted the collaboration and event. The event started with a political roundtable with cabinet members, council leaders and mayors coming together from over 15 cities. Key messages which came out of this session were:

-Migration is a win-win factor- it is not just a matter of welcoming immigration but cities need immigration.

-It is essential to recognise the growing issues of economic exclusion and widening inequality and it's impacts not only on migrants but may other people.

-Despite years of hard work, progress has been slow and things have for some got worse. This highlights the structural and national political and economic influences beyond the city level.

-Cities face severe financial constraints

-Use of language and it's links to values is important to recognise. Words such as 'cohesion' and 'inclusion' can be a bit abstract but leadership which talks of 'kindness' or 'sharing' for example can be more meaningful to people

-The staffing of local authorities is still not representative or diverse enough

-There is a need for an integrated approach with other sectors and civil society.

Context setting- On day 2, the day began with some context setting by Jacqui Broadhead of Inclusive Cities and Haroon Saad from Rumourless Cities. Jacqui presented the Inclusive Cities Network framework which highlights some important factors such as:

-The importance of understanding local opinion

-People are often more positive about the local area than national level

-The importance of language and benefits of talking about 'friendliness', 'kindness', 'sharing' etc (echoing a point made in the political roundtable.

-Presenting a positive sense of place, talking about shared history, values etc and using an asset based approach

The framework has five elements, each posing a useful set of questions for cities to ask themselves:

1. Leading in the development of a shared local story of inclusion

2. Supporting and driving inclusive economic growth

3. Connecting communities

4. Mainstreaming and building inclusive public services

5. Encouraging ccivic participation and representation

Key points made by Haroon Saad include:

-Inclusion is deeply connected to inequality and economic exclusion which are structural- distributive justice is essential for more inclusive societies

-Social cohesion depends to a great extent on the legitimacy of local and national institutions and currently there is a low trust in democracy

-Accessing experiences through narrative does not automatically create a unified vision of what a place is or should be.

-In order to combat spacial segregation we need to ask how inclusive are public spaces to citizens from a variety of socio-economic backgrounds?

-A preoccupation with market values can crowd out other more important values such as empathy, generosity, solidarity, kindness

-place branding essentially seeks to convert places into spaces of consumption. It is not the brand result but the branding process that offers opportunities for community engagement and ownership.

Some good examples of building inclusive narratives include:

Be Berlin- this campaign was a participative process which upheld that every Berliner's story is valid

Affective Digital Histories- telling the story of former industrial communities in the UK- tracking economic and social change and uncovering hidden stories of people's lives.

Using the world cafe methodology, participants shared a rich exchange around a number of key questions. The questions and a summary of points raised are below:

Table 1: Definitions- What do we mean by inclusive communities? Is is possible to define an inclusive community?

-At what levels and for whom? Needs to be situated to have meaning.

-Is it the absence of exclusion? E.g., poverty, inequality, hate crime, fear. Alternatively, does it imply that someone or some group is excluded?

-Fosters a sense of belonging in all of its members but also circumscribes this group as somehow distinct from those who are not members

-Means having shared values.

-Does not aim to ensure the equality of outcomes but the equity of outcomes. It provides equal access to opportunities.

-Acknowledges the intersectionality of individuals; it fosters 'free movement' across many different boundaries in a society.

-Can borrow from the family unit; as with a family, the members of an inclusive community, while individuals and different in many ways, have shared responsibilities and their belonging is uncontested.

-Is cohesive but appreciates difference

-Is a safe community

-Needs to be flexible

-Provides opportunities and places for different people to mix/participate

Table 2: Benchmarks- What would be the essential benchmarks for an inclusive city?

The importance of available data and measurement was highlighted, including the many gaps in available date, but matched with a sense that there can be ‘survey fatigue’ which can actually impede action in some circumstances. Approaches to defining benchmarks need to be pragmatic, to include qualitative measures as well as quantitative. Targets or benchmarks can be useful in creating institutional buy-in and forward momentum but shouldn’t drive policy – as they often limit what is done to what can be measured. How can existing data sets and evidence be used and how can the link between research and policy be strengthened to take advantage of the existing evidence base?

The level of the ‘benchmark’ needs to be identified. Too often there is confusion between whether the intervention is focussed on the individual, the neighbourhood or the city level. However, there is also a need to look at issues structurally and not only focus on the individual – for example thinking about how representative an employer is and what the structural barriers might be, rather than just focussing on improving the skills of individual job seekers.

There is often a lot of activity at the grassroots level which is not captured – how might we define and harness this ‘community capital.’ Could having this or having the conditions for this kind of activity be a ‘benchmark’

Other benchmark areas identified:

-Local public opinion and the creation of a local narrative

-Community capital

-Economic outcomes and the importance of including questions of poverty and inequality alongside questions of cohesion and inclusion

-Spatial approaches including the quality of public spaces, urban planning and the public realm

-Specific targeted measures such as school attainment

-How representative public services are – including looking internally at the local authority itself

Table 3: Reality check- to what extent do you consider your city inclusive and what more needs to be done?

Many of the issues were considered structural and hard to influence at the city level. Cities identified specific aspects in which they were underachieving:

-Cohesion is not mainstreamed throughout the council and a lack of recognition of the inclusion agenda

-Physical development being prioritised over social agendas -

-Difficulties of inclusive particularly with long-standing communities and the Roma community

-Importance of housing related issues and housing inequality exacerbating division

-Precarious living conditions of migrants in private rental who are disempowered and new reluctant to testify against exploitative landlords and lack of public housing

-The workforce of the local authority is not reflective of the city’s diverse population

-Despite new housing projects to support inclusivity but there is still a lack of space and appropriate mixed housing

-Attitudinal and political division has grown with the increase of anti-immigrant attitudes

-We need more positive and ‘normal’ role models (ie not just focusing on exceptional people to create positive images but the everyday community member)

-Cohesion, inclusion and equalities related training within local authorities can be weak and tokenistic- particularly for those cities delivering it online.

Table 4: Future Scenario- What does an inclusive approach look like in your city and how do you measure progress?

Two questions for the table were posed in order in order to(a) envisage what a future scenario would look like in respective of inclusive cities and (b) how would progress be measured?

Key points:

(a) envisage what a future scenario would look like in respective of inclusive cities

-Decision makers(politicians ) and those working in local institutions are diverse in respect to race, gender, age , disability, sexual identity and age.

-Inclusion and Fairness become the default position for all policy making-a real organisational cultural shift .

-An approach that is focused on all. Integrated into local overall development strategy

-A move away from patriarchal perspectives and language.

-Recognition of the need to support greater understanding of the history and practice in

-Recognition of the need to support greater understanding of the history and practice in respect to the community engagement of local groups living in the city as an approach for promoting greater solidarity.

-Housing has to be removed as a sector in which financial speculation is allowed

-Development of agreed rules for responsibility and enforcement .

-No to hate crime with a focus on supporting people to not just be “bystanders”

-Effective and easy to access routes for recognition of previous qualifications.

-A more participative, challenging and problematic relationship between local authorities and civil society .

-Localisation of services and goods

-Less anger and frustration

(b) how would progress be measured?

-De-privatisation of public services(energy, education, health, social care , waste management, mass transport, etc) and the reclaiming of common space, goods and services.

-Measurable outcomes in respect educational attainment and employment rates with real contracts and liveable pay levels .

-Monitoring impact of climate change on excluded groups .

-Reduction of highly segregated neighbourhoods.

-The number of online and face to face services provided in languages that reflect local needs.

-Use of new social media solutions.

-High level of recycling of consumer goods...less consumption.