PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARDS COHESION AND INTEGRATION
PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARDS COHESION AND INTEGRATION
June 2007 Ipsos MORI The Commission on Integration and Cohesion
This piece of work was commissioned by the Commission on Integration and Cohesion, a fixedterm advisory body set up by the Communities Secretary in September 2006. It is being published alongside the Commission’s final report as a piece of independent thinking. The findings and recommendations are those of the authors, and do not represent the views of Ministers, or of officials within the Department of Communities and Local Government.
© Queen’s Printer and Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office 2007 If you require this publication in an alternative format please email
[email protected] Communities and Local Government Publications PO Box 236 Wetherby West Yorkshire LS23 7NB Tel: 0870 1226 236 Fax: 0870 1226 237 Textphone: 0870 1207 405 Email:
[email protected] or online via the Communities and Local Government website: www.communities.gov.uk June 2007 Product Code 07ELMAT04656(b)
Contents
Introduction
4
Summary of findings
8
Key findings for the different audiences
11
Links with deprivation
14
Attitudes towards neighbourhood
15
Mixing and interaction with others
23
Access to services
29
British values and identity
46
Immigration
52
Appendices
58
Glossary
77
3
Introduction This report presents the findings of research conducted by Ipsos MORI on behalf of the Commission on Integration and Cohesion.
Background and objectives The Commission on Integration and Cohesion was announced by Ruth Kelly, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on 28 June 2006. The Commission is considering how local communities can foster a better sense of cohesion and integration. In particular, how local areas can respond to tensions that can arise due to diversity or population change. The aim of the Commission is to develop practical approaches to help communities resolve issues themselves, including those caused by segregation and the dissemination of extremist ideologies. The objectives of the survey were to explore a number of issues to help inform the Commission’s work. The survey looked at issues that raise tensions between different groups in different areas, and that can lead to segregation and conflict Specifically, the survey looks at: ●
Attitudes towards the local neighbourhood;
●
Identity, barriers to identity and values for living in Britain;
●
Attitudes towards others in the neighbourhood, including levels of interaction with others;
●
Attitudes towards access to public services;
●
Issues facing Britain and attitudes towards immigration.
The analysis also looks at how, if at all, these factors are related.
Methodology The survey was administered face-to-face in respondents’ home, using a paper-based survey. The survey uses a random location quota sampling approach. Quota sampling is used widely in social research. Quotas are set on a number of demographics to ensure that the interviews are conducted to reflect the profile of the population being researched.
4
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
The survey was carried out in five parts: amongst a nationally representative sample together with four ‘booster’ samples of specific sub-sets of the population. 1) A representative sample of 1,014 adults aged 16 and over across England. Interviews were conducted in 104 randomly selected sampling points (Output Areas). Output Areas are the smallest sampling frames used in Census data collection. Strict quotas were set on age, gender, ethnicity and work status. 2) Booster 1: Far right target group (Base 112). This sample was drawn from Super Output Areas (SOAs1) in wards where there had been far right political activity in the local elections in 2006. In addition, interviews were conducted among demographic groups among which far right support is strongest: i.e. of white ethnicity, from social classes C2DE and having educational qualifications of O Level/GCSE/NVQ equivalent or less. 3) Booster 2: A8 impact group (Base 109). This sample is from local authority areas throughout England, which have seen a recent increase in A8 migration. A8 refers to people from the Accession 8 Eastern European countries – Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic. The local authorities from which our sampling points were drawn were supplied by colleagues at the Commission on Integration and Cohesion. Of the respondents in this sample, 95% were White and 5% were from a Black or minority ethnic background. 4) Booster 3: Ethnic minorities living in non-deprived areas (Base 104). This sample was drawn from all Super Output Areas (SOAs) in the least deprived half of the country with a minimum penetration of 10% ethnic minorities. Levels of deprivation were defined by the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) which is a measure devised by Communities and Local Government2 to measure deprivation levels. 5) Booster 4: A general ethnic minority booster sample. This is a representative sample of ethnic minorities in England. Sampling points were selected from Super Output Areas with a penetration of ethnic minorities of at least 10%. In total 225 interviews were conducted as part of this booster. At the analysis stage any ethnic minorities interviewed as part of the general public representative sample (88) were included in this booster. The total size of this booster is therefore (313). The fieldwork took place in between 9th December 2006 and 28th January 2007.
1 Super Output Areas are larger than Output Areas and are often used when interviews with low penetration populations are sought. 2 http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1128440
5
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
Weighting Data for the main sample of 1,014 were weighted according to age, gender, ethnicity, work status, social grade and housing tenure to reflect the profile of the population of England. The ethnic minority sample of 313 respondents were weighted on gender, age and working status.
Presentation and interpretation of data It should be remembered at all times that a sample and not the entire population of England has been interviewed. In consequence, all results are subject to sampling tolerances, which means that not all differences are statistically significant. Only statistically significant differences between sub groups are highlighted in the report. A guide to statistical reliability is provided in the appendix. Where percentages do not sum to 100, this may be due to computer rounding, the exclusion of ‘don’t know’ categories, or multiple answers. Multiple responses mean that residents can give more than one answer to a question; therefore results will total more than 100%. Throughout the document an asterisk (*) denotes any value of less than half of one per cent but greater than zero. In the computer tables and report text, if reference is made to ‘net’ figures, this represents the balance of opinion on attitudinal questions, and provides a particularly useful means of comparing the results for a number of variables. In the case of a ‘net satisfaction’ figure, this represents the percentage satisfied on a particular issue or service, less the percentage dissatisfied. For example, if 40% of people are satisfied with a service and 25% dissatisfied, the ‘net satisfaction’ figure is +15 points.
Analysis of data The data for this survey has been analysed in a number of ways. It looks at: ●
Demographics – such as gender, age, social class, work status.
●
Nature of area – whether views are different by those who live in areas of high and low deprivation and also in areas of high and low ethnic diversity
●
Attitudes – whether certain attitudes are linked to others.
A full list of the way the data has been analysed is detailed in the computer tabulations, which are provided under separate cover. Extra analysis was conducted
6
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
on the questions on immigration. Further details of this analysis are given in the chapter on immigration.
Note on terminology Throughout the report, reference is made to the general public: this refers to the sample of 1,014 people. The general ethnic minority sample refers to the 313 interviews with ethnic minorities (Booster 4). Ethnic minorities living in non-deprived or less deprived areas refer to those in Booster 3. Analysis is also conducted by levels of deprivation and ethnic fractionalisation. Deprivation is derived using the Index of Multiple Deprivation. Ethnic fractionalisation uses Census data to illustrate the extent of diversity in an area; the higher the level of ethnic fractionalisation, the greater the diversity of the area. Throughout the report, ethnic fractionalisation is referred to as diversity i.e. areas with high levels of ethnic fractionalisation are those with high levels of diversity. The report refers to analysis by newspaper readership. This specifically relates to daily national newspapers and is split into three main categories: tabloids (the Daily Star, The Sun and the Daily Mirror), mid-market press (made up of The Daily Express and The Daily Mail) and broadsheets (The Daily Telegraph, The Times, The Financial Times, The Guardian and The Independent).
Publication of data As the Commission on Integration and Cohesion has engaged Ipsos MORI to provide an objective and representative programme of research, it is important to protect the Commission’s interest by ensuring that it is accurately reflected in any press release or publication of the findings. As part of our standard terms and conditions, the publication of the data in this report is therefore subject to the advance approval of Ipsos MORI. This would only be refused on the grounds of inaccuracy or misinterpretation of the findings.
Acknowledgements Ipsos MORI would like to thank David Anderson at the Commission on Integration and Cohesion for his help in developing this project. Special thanks also go to all the respondents who took part in this survey.
7
Summary of findings Local communities are central to fostering a better sense of cohesion This research highlights a number of positive building blocks for strengthening communities. People express high levels of pride about where they live, with four in five people (82%) saying they are proud of their neighbourhood. The key reason for this is the people and neighbours who live in the area (57%). However, the research does show that those living in more deprived areas (and in areas of greater diversity) are less likely to feel as proud. Crime, a lack of community spirit and poor facilities are the main reasons for lower levels of pride. In terms of bringing communities together, people emphasise the importance of friendly neighbours and people. This is followed by stability of the population as well as access to services such as schools and good employment opportunities. This highlights the importance of social and economic well-being in creating successful communities. It does, however, also raise the issue of how to foster a sense of community in areas that have witnessed recent changes in population, as a result of inward migration.
Interaction with those from different backgrounds is key Interaction is fundamental to fostering a better sense of cohesion and community. Mixing with people from different backgrounds also corresponds to more positive views on issues of diversity, and as highlighted in this research, on attitudes towards immigration. Regular mixing with people from different backgrounds is most common in the workplace, schools and colleges and in shops. However, there are still a significant number of people who mix with people from different backgrounds less than once a year. Much of this may relate to the nature of the areas in which people live, for instance, those living in homogenous areas are less likely to meet people from different backgrounds. However, our analysis shows that even in areas of high ethnic fractionalisation (i.e. diversity), a quarter of people (25%) say they mix with people from different ethnic backgrounds at home less than once a year. At work, school or college this figure is 9% and socially outside work, this rises to 14%. This does indicate that there is a core of people who live alongside people from different backgrounds, but very rarely have contact with them. Younger people are more likely to mix with people with different backgrounds. These findings underline the importance of the workplace and educational institutions as environments where people from different backgrounds can interact. It also suggests there is a particular challenge in targeting those who have left school or do not work. People also feel that spaces where people can mix at the local level, such as sharing public resources as well as places where people can socialise are important in nurturing and facilitating interaction.
8
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
There is more that unites us than divides us Much of the literature around cohesion and integration looks at identifying common values that can help bring people together. This research shows that there are number of common values that people across all groups feel are important in Britain suggesting there is more that unites people than separates them. Particularly, respect for the law is seen as important, followed by tolerance and politeness towards others. Indeed, comparisons with other nations show that the British set great store by these values. People also value freedom of speech and expression. Ethnic minorities are perhaps, not surprisingly, more likely to highlight respect for all faiths and equality of opportunity than other groups.
Speaking English seen as important part of being English The most commonly identified barrier to being English is not being able to speak English, mentioned by 60% of people and falls to 40% among ethnic minorities generally. Speaking the same language is also mentioned as being important in bringing communities together among those in the A8 impact group who have seen recent Eastern European migration in their area. This illustrates that being able to speak English is necessary in order to facilitate interaction and cohesion in the community. Indeed, our previous research for the Commission for Racial Equality3 shows there are similar levels of support for new immigrants to Britain to learn English and that this is relatively consistent across ethnic groups.
A need to address competition over public services One challenge this research does underline is how to overcome people’s sense of some groups getting preferential access to public services. Over half of people (56%) feel that some groups in Britain get unfair priority when it comes to public services like housing, health services and schools. Interestingly, when asked whether some groups in the local area get unfair priority over services, this figure falls to 25%. This suggests that perceptions of unfair priority at the national level are perhaps shaped by second-hand information, such as the media rather than personal experience. When asked who gets unfair priority, asylum seekers, immigrants and refugees are commonly singled out, particularly in the case of council housing and welfare benefits. Unsurprisingly, social class has an impact here – and those from more working class backgrounds (those who tend to be heavier users of public services such as council housing and social services) are more likely to express concerns over the issue. The findings suggest that how local services providers communicate with people about public services will be vital in overcoming fears of preferential treatment and freeloading. Overall there is strong support for tailoring public services to the needs of individuals: 70% agree that services should be personalised. This does vary by the different 3 http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/2002/cre.shtml
9
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
samples, with those in the A8 impact group being least likely to support it, perhaps because they feel they may be the likely losers if this is the case and that a universal level of service is more advantageous. There is also strong support for needs-based provision of public services, with 81% supporting this proposition. Interestingly, ethnic minorities living in more deprived areas are least likely to support this. Levels of diversity also play a part here, with those living in areas with high levels of ethnic fractionalisation less likely to support needs-based provision. Again, this may be because these groups are more nervous about losing out or having less influence under such a system.
Tackling concerns over immigration The survey shows that immigration is seen to be the most important issue facing Britain, mentioned by 18% and it is seen as a greater concern than crime. There is a general sense that there are too many immigrants in Britain, and these views are more pronounced in A8 impact group who have seen recent migration from Eastern Europe as well as those living in areas with high levels of far right activity. While there is some feeling that immigrants make Britain more open to new ideas and cultures (58%) there is concern that immigrants take jobs from British people and opinions are divided as to whether immigration is generally good for the economy. Generally, those from lower social classes tend to express greatest concern over these issues, perhaps because they feel they have most to lose in terms of access to public services and employment than others. Those who interact more with people from different backgrounds are more positive about immigration. This suggests a need for greater understanding around issues of immigration and management of migration at the local level.
Conclusions The findings of this research identify much on which communities can be strengthened. Key to fostering a better sense of integration and cohesion will be to tackle some of the concerns that people have, such as competition and fears of preferential treatment over public resources, and build on the factors that all people identify as being important to strong communities: friendly neighbours, good public services as well as the opportunity to interact with others. It will also be important for local service providers to facilitate spaces where people from different backgrounds can mix with each other. In addition, how many of the issues are debated in public, via the media or otherwise, will be important as the rhetoric used in discussing these issues (such as immigration) appear to have an important impact on people’s views. © Ipsos MORI/J29509 Kully Kaur-Ballagan Dr Roger Mortimore Ellie Sapsed
10
Key findings for the different audiences This section summarises some of the attitudes from the booster groups. More detailed analysis of these groups can be found throughout the report and in the marked up questionnaire in the appendices
Booster 1 – The far right target group Almost three-quarters of this group (73%) are proud of their neighbourhood. They are particularly positive about the people/neighbours, good schools, low crime rates and more likely than all other groups to cite always having lived in the area as a factor. Good local schools and affordable housing are also seen as important factors in bringing communities together for this group. However, they are least likely to mention having a mix of different types of people as contributing to a strong community. Respondents in this group are just as likely as the average to mix with people from different backgrounds at work, school or college at least monthly but along with those in the A8 impact group, they are most likely to say they mix with people from different ethnic backgrounds in their homes or socially outside work less than once a year. Like other groups, this group has a strong sense of identification with the immediate neighbourhood. This group feels that respect for the law is one of the most important values for living in Britain. People in this group are also more likely than any of the other groups to highlight the need for everyone to speak English and pride in the country/patriotism. Along with those in the A8 target group, this group is the most likely to think that other people get unfair priority to public services, such as housing, health and education at both the national and local level. In particular, a third (29%) think that asylum seekers/immigrants get unfair priority for both council housing and benefits and welfare payments. One of the key characteristics of this group is their negative attitudes towards immigration. This perhaps is linked to their views on access to council housing and welfare and benefit payments where they feel they may be at competition with (and under threat from) newcomers to the area.
Booster 2 – A8 impact group Similar to the far right target group, three-quarters (75%) of people in this group are proud of their neighbourhood. While people and neighbours are felt to contribute to this pride, so too does good community spirit. Linked to this is the finding that this group is most likely to say they would introduce themselves to a new neighbour.
11
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
This group is least likely to mix with people from a different ethnic background on a regular basis (at least monthly) at home or at work, school or college. This no doubt reflects the nature of the areas where this group lives. In terms of bringing communities together, this group is more likely to highlight the importance of people speaking the same language as well as population stability – perhaps these factors are highlighted because of recent changes they may have witnessed as a result of A8 migration. Indeed, of all the groups, they are more likely to emphasise the importance of English language classes to encourage people from different backgrounds to mix. For this group, tolerance and politeness to others and freedom of expression are the most important values for living in Britain. Despite these views, respondents express relatively negative views on immigration, although not to the same extent as the far right target group. Similarly to the far right target group, this group thinks that other people get unfair priority to public services, such as housing, health and education at both the national and local level. This is particularly the case for council housing, welfare and benefit payments and local job opportunities. Interestingly, in the case of council housing it is single mothers who are most likely to be cited as getting priority whereas for welfare and benefit payments and local job opportunities it is asylum seekers/immigrants.
Booster 3 – Non-deprived ethnic minorities This group expresses the highest levels of pride in the local neighbourhood (86%). When thinking about residential choices, education and schools are particularly important to this group. Similar to the general ethnic minority sample, this group feels that having a mix of different people is important in bringing communities together. This group is most likely to highlight racism and religious prejudice as an obstacle to good community relations. This may be a factor in explaining why this group (along with the general ethnic minority sample) is less likely to say they would introduce themselves to a new neighbour and most likely to say they would wait for the neighbour to introduce themselves. For this group, equality of opportunity and freedom from discrimination are more likely to be highlighted as being important values for living in Britain than others. Given this group is a minority, it is natural that they are very likely to mix with people from different backgrounds on a daily basis in all aspects of their lives be it at home, at work/school or college, at the shops or socially. In terms of encouraging more mixing, they highlight visiting each others’ homes. Unlike the predominantly white booster groups 1 and 2, the ethnic minority groups are least likely to think that other people get priority over them for public services
12
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
such as health, education or housing at both the national and the local level. That said, 17% do think that asylum seekers/immigrants get priority over them in council housing. Along with the general ethnic minority sample, this group is also more likely to say that white/English people are given priority in local jobs. This group is also relatively positive about immigration, although to a slightly lesser degree than the general ethnic minority sample.
Booster 4 – General ethnic minorities While two-thirds of this group (66%) say they are proud of their local neighbourhood, this is the lowest measure across the booster groups. This perhaps reflects the nature of the areas in which this group lives (i.e. more deprived) and also the fact that this group is most likely to say they exercised no choice in where they live. Nevertheless, this group highlights similar factors for being proud (e.g. people/ neighbours) although they are more likely than all other groups to highlight good relations between different racial, ethnic and religious communities. Indeed, similar to the views of ethnic minorities living in less deprived areas, this group feels that a mix of people from different backgrounds can help bring communities together. In terms of what prevents people from different backgrounds getting on well, this group is more likely that others to highlight a lack of understanding and ignorance as well as negative media stories – this is particularly true of younger people in this group. This group is the most likely to mix with people from different groups on a daily basis in all situations (no doubt because they are in a minority). However, despite mixing the most, they are least likely to introduce themselves to a new neighbour and are the most likely to say that an introduction would depend on who the neighbour is. In terms of encouraging more mixing, this group is more likely than others to highlight visits to community centres and places of worship. After the non-deprived ethnic minority group, this group is the least likely to think that others get priority over them in terms of public services at the national level and local level. However, similarly to booster 3, 17% think that asylum seekers/immigrants get priority over council housing and most likely to think that white people get priority over them for local jobs. This group highlights similar values for living in Britain to other booster groups, although they are more likely than others to mention respect for people from different ethnic groups and respect for all faiths. Relative to all other booster groups, this group is most positive about immigration.
13
Links with deprivation Analysis throughout this report looks at the links between attitudes and levels of deprivation. Overall, on a number of measures there appears to be a correlation between attitudes and deprivation levels. In areas of high deprivation, people tend to have lower levels of pride in their neighbourhood. This in many ways is not surprising given that areas of higher deprivation tend to be characterised by issues such as higher crime rates, poorer housing and higher levels of unemployment. Not surprisingly, those living in more deprived areas are most likely to say they did not exercise a choice in why they live where they do than those in less deprived areas. That said, those living in more deprived areas tend to identify more strongly with their immediate neighbourhood than those living in less deprived areas. Not speaking English is seen as a bigger barrier to being English in more affluent areas than in deprived areas. (This may be because many deprived areas may be more diverse). In terms of why some communities get on better with others, those in affluent areas are much more likely to say people speaking the same language (20% in areas of high deprivation compared with 35% in areas with low deprivation). In terms of what prevents people from getting on – people in the most deprived areas are more likely to cite a lack of contact/difference as a barrier (55%) compared with 42% for those in less deprived areas. They are particularly likely to mention a lack of knowledge and understanding, 22% compared with 10% of those in the least deprived areas. Those in the most deprived areas are less likely to say they would introduce themselves to a new neighbour compared with those in the least deprived areas (61% compared with 73%). This is lowest in the general ethnic minority sample (which is likely to fall in more deprived areas). While there is little difference in attitudes by deprivation levels when people are asked whether some groups of people in Britain get unfair priority over public services, deprivation does have an impact when people think about access to services in their local area. Those in the most deprived areas are more likely to agree other people get unfair priority compared with those in the least deprived areas (35% compared with 18%). Those in the general ethnic minority sample tend to be most positive about immigration. However, when looking only at white respondents and their views on immigration, there is a link on some measures between deprivation and views. White residents in the most deprived areas are much less likely to agree that immigrants make Britain open to new cultures than white people living in more affluent areas (47% compared with 61%). Similarly they are least likely to agree that immigration is generally good for the economy (24% compared with 37%).
14
Attitudes towards neighbourhood Levels of civic pride are high, with four in five people saying they are proud of where they live. People and neighbours are the key reasons for feeling proud of the area. Levels of pride are, however, linked to the nature of the area where people live and those living in areas with higher levels of deprivation and greater ethnic diversity tend to be less proud.
Attitudes towards neighbourhoods are positive with four in five (82%) residents saying they are proud of where they live, and only 14% saying they are not proud. Of all the groups, ethnic minorities living in non-deprived areas are the most proud (86%). In contrast, those in the general sample of ethnic minorities are the least proud of their neighbourhood (28% compared with 14% of the general public), closely followed by a quarter of those in the far right target group (24%). Black respondents are also less likely to be proud with 33% responding negatively compared to 23% of Asian respondents. This no doubt reflects the nature of the areas where people live. Overall, almost a fifth of people (19%) who live in areas of high deprivation are significantly more likely to say that they are not proud of their area compared to the average (11%). This pattern is true regardless of ethnicity, with 19% of both white respondents who live in areas with high levels of deprivation, and those from the general ethnic minority sample each saying they are not proud of their area. Findings show that people in the South East and South West of the country are also more positive (92% and 91% respectively) while those in London are less so (65%). Attitudes to neighbourhood
Base: All (1,014), December 2006 – January 2007
15
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
In areas of higher diversity, people are significantly less likely to be ‘very proud’ (16%) than where there is less diversity (27%). Our work in local authorities shows that there tends to be a link between deprivation and area satisfaction. The graph below which plots area satisfaction scores for a number of local authorities where Ipsos MORI has conducted Best Value Performance Indicator Surveys in 2006 (112 authorities) and illustrates how net satisfaction with area decreases as the index of multiple deprivation score increases. The R-squared co-efficient shows that there is a fairly good correlation between deprivation and area satisfaction. Satisfaction with Area versus Deprivation
Base: All Ipsos MORI Local Authorities. BVPI General Survey 2005. Fieldwork September to December 2006
The key reason for being positive towards their neighbourhood is the people and neighbours (57%). This is consistent across all groups. A third of respondents (33%) value peace and quiet and others highlight good community spirit (29%). In comparison to the total (13%), far fewer ethnic minority respondents cite ‘parks/ green spaces’ as a reason to feel proud, perhaps because they live in areas where fewer open spaces exist. Respondents in the far right target group are more likely to highlight familiarity with the area and always having lived there than other groups. This group is also more likely to mention low crime rates and good quality schools and housing than other groups. Among the general sample of ethnic minorities, good relations between different racial, ethnic and religious groups is more likely to be cited as a reason for being proud of the area than other groups, including ethnic minorities living in nondeprived areas.
16
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
Q What makes you proud of your neighbourhood NB – ‘other’ figures less than 1% are not shown here, please see full tables for details. Total
Far right target group
A8 impact group
Nondeprived BMEs
BME general
(837)
(82)
(81)
(89)
(209)
%
%
%
%
%
People/neighbours
57
67
65
45
46
Peaceful/quiet
33
49
40
40
31
Good community spirit
29
26
36
28
19
Don’t know
24
18
21
18
19
Good parks/opens spaces
13
16
14
10
2
Low crime rate
11
20
9
11
5
Feel safe
11
12
14
6
11
Good schools
10
18
6
8
9
Good public transport
8
15
4
8
21
Know the area/always lived here
8
17
11
8
8
Access/transport links to other areas
6
5
5
2
10
Good quality housing
6
12
1
3
6
Good leisure facilities
5
4
9
6
4
Good health services
4
4
9
6
6
Entertainment/lots to do
3
2
6
0
1
Good relations between different racial, ethnic and religious communities
3
0
0
9
15
Cheap/affordable housing
1
5
1
2
2
Good job opportunities
1
2
1
3
3
None of these
*
0
1
0
0
Base: All who are very or fairly proud of their neighbourhood
Source: Ipsos MORI Figures in bold highlight significant differences
Crime (55%) is the biggest reason given by those who are least proud of their neighbourhood. This is followed by a feeling of lack of community spirit (43%) and concern about poor facilities (29%). The type of area people live in plays a part here - (these figures are based on small numbers of respondents so are indicative rather than significant). Around a fifth (22%) of those who are not proud are concerned about high crime rates, but this rises to 44% of those in the general ethnic minority sample, who are more likely to live in deprived areas. Again, the following is based on small base sizes but does illustrate how results can be explained by levels of deprivation. For example, the level of concern for crime in
17
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
general for people in the main sample who are not proud is 55%, rising to two-thirds (66%) of people in the most deprived areas but decreasing to just over a third (36%) for people living in areas that are least deprived.
Residential choices Motivation to move seems to be driven more by personal circumstances than wider considerations about localities and amenities. The need for more space is the primary reason for people moving out of an area; this is true for almost a third (32%) of the public and is also the highest reported factor for all groups. Setting up home/ getting married/moving in with partner (15%) is the second most common reason followed by moving to be near work (13%). That said, education and schools are a high priority for ethnic minorities in less deprived areas (11% compared to only 3% of the main population). This may be because of a desire among these more well off ethnic minorities to move to areas with good schools. In our research across local government, we often find that ethnic minorities highlight education as being more important than other services. Negative experiences such as bad neighbours or being a victim of crime motivate 14% of those in areas with high A8 immigration and an equal number of non-deprived ethnic minorities to move house; however, this only applies to 9% of the general sample of ethnic minorities and fewer people from the far right target group (7%). Residential choices
Base: All (1,014) December 2006 – January 2007
Proximity to family and friends (28%) and being attracted to the area (28%) are the main reasons for choosing to live in a particular area and this is higher for those people who live in areas of low ethnic fractionalisation (i.e. predominantly white
18
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
areas) and high deprivation (43%). Closeness to work is also important (16%) and almost a quarter of ethnic minorities from non-deprived areas highlight education (24%). Only a very small minority (2%) of people admit choosing an area to be near people from similar ethnic groups to themselves. Reasons for choosing area
Base: All (1,014) December 2006 – January 2007
Importantly while 11% overall say they did not choose the area they live in, this figure rises to over a quarter (27%) in the general ethnic minority sample unsurprisingly many more (41%) of this group rent housing compared to the overall population (26%). Deprivation of the area plays a role here as more people living in areas with high deprivation say they did not have a choice (17%) in comparison to those living in less deprived areas (6%).
Bringing communities together Overwhelmingly, friendly neighbours and people (65%) are seen as the most important in helping communities get on well together. Around a third of people say it is good schools (35%), a stable population (34%) and employment opportunities for residents (33%) that help communities to gel. Ethnic minorities, both those in the general sample and those living in less deprived areas, are least likely to highlight population stability as a key factor. Over twice as many people in the general ethnic minority sample as the total population think that having similar religious beliefs are key to better community relations (19% and 8% respectively). Typically, these ethnic minority respondents are more likely to be young people (26% of aged 16-34 year olds compared to only 9%
19
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
of those aged 35–54), female (22% in comparison to 16% of males) and Muslim (24%). A similar pattern can be observed for those who say having the same ethnic background is important; 14% of ethnic minorities compared to 7% of the main sample (for ethnic minorities living in the non-deprived areas, this figure is 18%). However, while the young are still more likely to mention ethnicity, there are no significant differences between the religious beliefs or the gender of respondents who mention it. Q Thinking about local communities generally, for what reasons, if any, do you think that some communities get on better than others? Total
Far right target group
A8 impact group
Nondeprived BMEs
BME general
(1,014)
(112)
(109)
(104)
(313)
%
%
%
%
%
Friendly neighbours/friendly people
65
71
59
50
53
Good local schools
35
46
39
25
28
A stable population i.e. people staying there for a long time
34
26
38
19
20
People having jobs/low unemployment
33
31
28
29
28
People speaking the same language
27
30
39
29
23
Being involved in local decision making
23
24
26
15
21
People having the same interests/outlook as others
22
21
19
21
22
Having a focal point, such as a place of worship/community centre/pub/local shop
22
20
27
19
19
Sports and local community events like fairs and festivals
22
23
26
23
15
Affordable housing
21
27
30
20
19
A mix of different types of people
21
15
27
28
28
People having the same cultural background
16
15
18
22
21
People having the same religious beliefs
8
7
4
10
19
People having the same ethnic background
7
15
6
18
14
Distinct geographical boundaries
4
0
4
0
3
Don’t know
2
1
4
3
6
Other
1
1
5
0
1
None of these
1
0
0
0
*
All of these
*
0
2
0
*
Base
Source: Ipsos MORI
Respondents in the A8 impact group are less likely to highlight having the same religion or ethnicity as being important for successful communities (with only 4%
20
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
and 6% emphasising the importance of these issues respectively). Indeed, they are just as likely as both ethnic minority samples to highlight having a mixing of different types of people (27% for the A8 impact group compared with 28% for both ethnic minority samples). However, despite this, those in the A8 impact group are much more likely to mention language as being a key factor (39%) compared with 27% on average among the general population. Perhaps contributing to this finding is the fact that the A8 impact group included in this sample have seen recent increases in migrants from Eastern Europe.
What prevents people from getting on well together? Factors which are felt to prevent people from different communities getting on well together centre on ‘differences’ and a lack of contact, with almost half (49% overall) alluding to such reasons. Specifically, one in five people (21%) cite different languages specifically as a barrier and this rises to over a quarter (26%) among social classes C1s and C2s. A lack of understanding is also seen as presenting a barrier (17%), as does a lack of social contact/mixing (15%).
Different backgrounds
Base: All (1,014) December 2006 – January 2007
Newspaper readership seems to have an impact on views here, for example, of those who mention different languages, 27% are tabloid readers compared to 21% on average. Likewise for those who mention religion as creating barriers, the figures are higher for tabloid readers than the average (14% compared with 8%). This suggests that the media may play a role in influencing people’s views.
21
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
Among the general sample of ethnic minorities, a lack of understanding and knowledge is seen as much more of a barrier (27%) than among all other groups, including ethnic minorities in less deprived areas (16%). Cultural differences are more likely to be highlighted as barriers among ethnic minorities than the average (24% in both samples of ethnic minorities compared with 13% overall). People in the general sample of ethnic minorities have a more pessimistic view of the media and see it as a barrier to successful integration, with three times as many people in this group mentioning it (12%) than the average (4%). Among the general ethnic minority sample, it is young people (and those born in the UK) who are most likely to mention this over others (16% among 16-34 year olds compared to 9% among 35-54 year olds). Perhaps unsurprisingly, racism and religious prejudice are more likely to be mentioned by ethnic minorities than other groups, (15% among ethnic minorities living in nondeprived areas and 13% among the general ethnic minority sample compared to only 8% of general population). Q What sorts of things prevent people from different backgrounds from getting on well together in this local area within a 15 to 20 minute walk? Total
Far right target group
A8 impact group
Nondeprived BMEs
BME general
(1,014)
(112)
(109)
(104)
(313)
%
%
%
%
%
Different languages
21
26
21
25
25
Lack of knowledge/understanding/ignorance
17
10
17
16
27
Lack of social contact/mixing/people keep to themselves
15
17
18
15
18
Different cultures
13
19
8
24
24
Different religions
8
12
2
13
15
Racism/religious prejudice
8
6
3
15
13
Crime/anti-social behaviour
5
3
2
3
9
Lack of respect/concern for other people
5
5
10
7
8
Lack of meeting places
4
4
4
3
6
Negative media stories
4
3
5
3
12
Base
Source: Ipsos MORI
22
Mixing and interaction with others Levels of interaction vary throughout the country from mixing every day to less than once a year. Where mixing between different groups does occur, this is more likely to happen at work, school or college, or at the shops. Young people mix more in all circumstances than older age groups, particularly in more (voluntary) social situations. Unsurprisingly, people from ethnic minority groups interact more regularly with people from different groups than white respondents. The analysis does, however, show that there are a number of people who live in highly diverse areas but rarely have contact with people from different backgrounds.
The majority of regular interaction between ethnic groups occurs at work, school or college or at the shops. However, there are a large number of people who say they mix with people from different ethnic minorities ‘less than once a year’: almost a quarter of those in the far right target group (24%) and A8 impact group (24%) do not mix at work, school or college, and over half of these groups do not mix with people from different ethnic groups in the home (53% of those in the far right target group sample, and 56% of A8 impact group residents). This may, of course, be explained by the nature of the area these populations live in (i.e. more likely to be homogeneous). In nearly all situations, levels of social mixing are lower among white, older people (49% of people aged over 55 years compared to 42% on average), those from C2DE social classes, and those from areas in the North and South West of England and read tabloid and mid-market press (no doubt there are many overlaps here between the groups). On the occasions where these respondents do mix with other ethnic groups, they are more likely to do so at work and at the shops, rather than at home or in a social capacity. People mixing more regularly in a variety of situations tend to be younger, even when mixing in the home is concerned, with a quarter of 16-34 year olds mixing at home at least weekly with people from different ethnic groups. This figure decreases to 15% for 35–54 year olds and only 8% for those aged over 55 years.
23
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
Regularity of mixing in different circumstances
Base: All (1,014) December 2006 – January 2007
People from ethnic minorities mix more than others in all circumstances apart from at pubs or clubs. No doubt higher levels of mixing among ethnic minorities are because they live in areas of higher diversity (and of course because they are in a minority). Slightly higher numbers of men tend to mix more in most situations, although women mix more at their children’s crèche/nursery and at the shops. Unsurprisingly, Londoners and people living in areas with high diversity levels mix more with people from different ethnic groups than those living in areas with low levels of diversity. However, even in areas of high diversity, there appear to be some people who do not mix regularly with others. Of those living in diverse areas 25% say they mix less than once a year with people from different ethnic backgrounds at home. In the same areas 14% say they mix less than once a year with people from different ethnic backgrounds socially outside work and the figure for mixing less than yearly at work, school or college is 9%. This suggests there is a core of people who live in diverse areas but who lead parallel lives and rarely come into contact with people from different backgrounds.
24
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
Mixing and interaction – at your home or their home
Base: All (1,014) December 2006 – January 2007
People who mix regularly at school, college or work, are also much more likely to mix more often in the home daily (50% in comparison to 33%) and socially (33% at least weekly compared to 15%) indicating those who mix more, are more likely to do it formally and informally. Previous research from Ipsos MORI4 supports these findings. As mentioned above, white people are less likely to mix - this is pronounced within certain social groups. For example, only 21% of white DEs mix with someone from a different ethnic background more than monthly at home (compared to 27% of all white respondents), and 26% mix regularly at work/college/school (in comparison to 50% of overall white population). Mixing and interaction – at work, school or college
Base: All (1,014) December 2006 – January 2007
4 ‘Race Relations’ 2006 report for Commission for Racial Equality.
25
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
Higher levels of mixing tend to correspond with more positive views on diversity generally. Those who mix with others daily at work, school or college are more likely to disagree (42%) that there are too many immigrants in Britain (compared to 33% of the total) and are more likely to agree that immigration is good for the economy (39%). Indeed those people who rarely mix with others from a different background are consistently more negative and less open to the positive aspects of immigration. For example, while only 5% of those who mix daily in their home disagree that ‘immigrants make Britain more open to new ideas and cultures’, this is true of 50% of those who mix at home less than once a year. However, there is one aspect where this does not hold true. Those who work daily with people from different ethnic groups are equally as likely as those who mix less than once a year to think that ‘immigrants take jobs from British people’ (29% in both cases). This view perhaps is based on a general feeling of competition in relation to employment opportunities. Given that older people are less likely to mix, this potentially highlights the need for greater efforts to be made among this group to encourage integration. At the same time, whilst younger people are more likely to mix with others, the importance of facilitating further mixing between young people should not be overlooked in helping to foster a greater sense of cohesion.
Promoting integration Sharing resources, such as the same schools, shops and recreational facilities is felt to be the most effective way of facilitating mixing generally, according to all the sample groups. Almost half of the general public (47%) believe that going to work, school or college together helps encourage people from different backgrounds to mix. Older people are more likely to think that using the same local facilities such as health services and post offices (14%) encourages people to mix as well as visiting each other’s homes. Younger people think working or going to school/college together promotes integration (51% of 16–34 year olds and 53% of those aged 35–54 compared to 31% of over 55s). As with mixing in general, this highlights the importance of education and work settings in fostering a sense of cohesion and when this happens, it can lead to mixing in informal/voluntary settings. Socialising at pubs and clubs (18% of 16–34 year olds) is perhaps not surprisingly more likely to be mentioned by young people than older groups. Indeed under half of older people mention social events as a means of promoting integration overall (48%) compared to 58% each for 16–34 year olds and 35-54 year olds. Nevertheless, this does highlight the desire for places where people can socialise with those from different backgrounds. Language is highlighted as an issue among the A8 impact group where over a third of respondents (36%) think that formal mechanisms bring people together such as
26
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
citizenship classes and English language lessons compared to only 21% of the overall population. This perhaps reflects the change in the population of the areas in which this group lives, where there has been a recent increase in Eastern European migration. Encouraging people to mix
Base: All (1,014) December 2006 – January 2007
When considering mixing on a personal level the vast majority of people are positive with seven in ten people (70%) saying they would introduce themselves to a new neighbour who moved in next door to them. Making friends
Base: All (1,014) December 2006 – January 2007
27
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
People in the A8 impact group are the most likely to say they would introduce themselves (76%). In contrast, ethnic minorities seem to be least likely to say they would introduce themselves (56% of ethnic minorities in non-deprived areas and 49% of those in the general ethnic minority sample). Older, more middle class residents (ABC1s) and white people say they are more likely to introduce themselves while a fifth (20%) of ethnic minorities who live in less deprived areas would prefer to wait for their neighbours to make the first move – this figure is similar for the general ethnic minority sample (17%). This perhaps suggests ethnic minorities are more cautious about introducing themselves than other groups. Results indicate that of those who would wait for their neighbours to introduce themselves first, Black residents (21%) are less forthcoming than Asian residents (13%): however this difference is not significant and the sample group size is small and should therefore be interpreted with caution. Around one in ten people (11%) say introducing themselves to a neighbour would depend on who they are. Responses are higher for Asian and Black respondents (21% and 23% respectively) in contrast to 11% on average. Those living in more deprived areas and where there is a high level of diversity are also likely to say this (these are likely to be the areas in which Black respondents and Asians are more likely to live). The primary factor influencing the decision to introduce oneself to a neighbour is whether the neighbour appears friendly or not, potentially highlighting a lack of confidence and fear of racism among ethnic minorities. Our findings support those from the New Deal for Communities Household Survey 20065, where Black people were consistently less positive about the friendliness of their neighbours, less likely to think their communities are looking out for each other and they also knew fewer people in their neighbourhoods than white people and Asians. A small proportion of respondents (7%) say introducing themselves to a neighbour would depend on their ethnic group, nationality or whether the person was an immigrant. This is twice as high among the general ethnic minority sample (15%), which could highlight a potential fear of racism. Q If a new neighbour moved in next door to you, which of the following best describes how you would behave?
Base I would introduce myself I would wait for them to introduce themselves It would depend on who they are I wouldn’t know if a new neighbour moved in None of these Don’t know
Total
Far right target group
A8 impact group
Nondeprived BMEs
BME general
(1,014) % 70 13 11 2 2 1
(112) % 72 8 15 1 2 2
(109) % 76 13 8 2 0 1
(104) % 56 20 17 2 2 3
(313) % 49 17 19 5 5 4
Source: Ipsos MORI 5 New Deal for Communities Household Survey 2006, Ipsos MORI.
28
Access to services One key issue local government and other public services need to address is anxiety about equity in public service provision. When asked whether other people get unfair priority when it comes to public services and state benefits, 56% think they do, a figure which rises to six in ten (59%) of working class people. This seemingly high level of suspicion is repeated (albeit at a lower level) among ethnic minorities; people are very sensitive to freeloading, and many believe it is widespread – particularly among immigrants and asylum seekers. In a sense, this should not really be surprising, as these groups are most obviously ‘strangers’ to most respondents – no matter what their ethnicity.
National and local service priority A key issue that local government and other public services need to address is anxieties about equality6. More than half of people (56%) feel that some groups in Britain get unfair priority when it comes to public services like housing, health services and schools. Fewer than one in seven (16%) actively disagree with the statement. This is a high level of suspicion, but it is not particularly new; in a 1996 survey, people thought £37 out of every £100 of welfare benefits was being paid out in fraudulent claims7. This finding highlights that people are very sensitive about free-loading and others getting a better deal than them when it comes to certain public services. Feelings of inequity vary somewhat by ethnicity, as the chart overleaf illustrates. Ethnic minorities living in less deprived areas (46%) and ethnic minorities in general (44%), are less likely to agree that certain groups have priority in access to public services than the public as a whole. There are also significant variations here within ethnic minority groups, and Black respondents are significantly more likely than their Asian counterparts to agree that some other groups get unfair priority (51% and 32% respectively). Strikingly, both the A8 impact group and far right target group are much more likely than their ethnic minority counterparts to feel that others get unfair priority in access to public services; 65% of the far right target group, and 68% of A8 impact group respondents feel this is the case. Attitudes towards migration (an issue we know is particularly contentious for the A8 impact group and far right target group) are also important drivers of perceptions. Two-thirds (67%) of those who believe that British people should always have priority over immigrants for council housing also agree that others get unfair priority over them, compared with less than half (47%) of those who do not think that the British should get priority. We can observe a similar pattern amongst those who believe that there are too many immigrants in Britain: two-thirds (65%) of whom also agree that some groups have unfair priority in accessing public 6 For another example of work in this area, see MORI (2004) Can we have trust and diversity? (January), http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/2003/community-top.shtml 7 See MORI (2004) The second death of liberal England (September), http://www.ipsos-mori.com/publications/bp/the-second-death-of-liberal-england.shtml
29
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
services, as compared with 41% of those who do not believe that there are too many immigrants. Looking across other subgroups, responses vary quite widely. The middle classes are less likely to worry about unfair use of services – half of those in social class AB (50%) feel that some groups get unfair priority, compared with 58% of respondents in groups C1 and C2, and 59% in group DE – suggesting that those who are most likely to have most contact with state support services and benefits (and in a sense who have most to lose) exhibit higher levels of concern. There are also strong variations in responses here by newspaper readership (which of course is highly polarised by social class), with under half of broadsheet readers agreeing that access to public services is unfair (47%), compared with two-thirds (64%) of mid-market and tabloid readers, and 55% of local newspapers readers. Priority over services
Base: All (1,014) December 2006 – January 2007
Age also plays a role here – though strikingly, the patterns of response vary between the general public as a whole and the general ethnic minority sample. Among the public, there is only limited variation by age, with just over half of 16–34 year olds agreeing that access to services is unfair (54%), and a similar proportion 35–54 year olds (59%), and those aged 55+ (56%) in agreement. Variation between age groups in the general ethnic minority booster sample, by contrast, tends to be more pronounced: 46% of those aged 16-34 feel that services are distributed unfairly, compared with 44% of 35–54 year olds, and only a third (35%) of those aged 55 and above. This may, of course, reflect the younger age profile of ethnic minorities and greater usage of public services among some ethnic minority groups.
30
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
Perceptions also vary regionally; broadly speaking, those living in the North are more likely than their southern counterparts to express concern about equality of access. Some six in ten (60%) of those in the North believe that some people are given unfair priority, as do a similar proportion of those from the Midlands (61%). Excluding London, 55% and 54% of the South West and South East respectively agree with the statement, whilst respondents in London are the group least likely to agree that certain groups get unfair access to public services, with just over four in ten (42%) in agreement. The chart below shows the extent to which people think some groups in their local area get unfair priority over public services. What is striking here that levels of agreement across all samples are much lower than at the national level. In our work across other public services, we often observe this pattern. People are generally positive about their local NHS or education services, but are much more critical of services at the national level. This perceptions gap in terms of unfair access to public services suggests that people’s view are not informed by first-hand experience, but by second-hand information, such as the media. Looking at responses about the local area, we can see a similar overall pattern emerging. Those in the far right target and A8 impact groups are more likely to feel that others get unfair priority over provision of services than both those in the general ethnic minority sample and ethnic minorities living in non-deprived areas. Overall, those in the A8 impact group are most likely to agree that other people in the local area have priority in public service provision – some 41% agree that this is the case – whilst ethnic minorities in less deprived areas are the group least likely to agree that this is the case – a quarter (25%) agree. Priority over services in your local area
Base: All (1,014) December 2006 – January 2007
31
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
As with the national measure, there are a number of notable differences in responses by subgroup here. Among the general public, there is a higher propensity to agree with the statement amongst the young: 30% of 16–34 year olds agree that people in the local area get prioritised service provision, compared with 23% of those aged over 35. As with the previous question, differentiation by age is less pronounced among ethnic minorities: 29% of 16–34 year old ethnic minorities agree with the statement, compared with 30% of 35–54 year olds and 27% of those aged 55 and above. As with the national measure, the middle classes here are the least likely to feel that others are prioritised for service provision – some 18% of ABs agree that this is the case, compared with 23% of C1s, 27% of C2s and 34% of those in group DE. Again, responses by social class are also reflected in newspaper readership, with 31% of tabloid readers and 27% of mid-market8 readers agreeing that others have better access to public services, compared with 16% of broadsheet readers. Notably, place of birth does not play a significant role in defining responses here: 24% of those who are born in the UK feel that others are prioritised in access to local services, an identical figure to those born outside of the UK (though the relatively small base size should make this finding indicative rather than significant). However, where respondents live, and what they feel about the local area, does have an effect on feelings of equity. Those living in the North are more likely to fee that they are at a disadvantage in accessing public services: 31% agree that this is the case, compared with 21% in the South East, and 22% in the South West. The figure for London is 28%. Moreover, those who are proud of their neighbourhood are less likely to believe that others have priority in service provision than those who are not proud – 41% of respondents who do not feel proud of the local area agree that other locals have priority in access to public services, compared with 22% of people who are proud of the area. As with the national measure, there appears to be a link here between attitudes towards immigrants, and attitudes to local public services. Nearly a third (31%) of those who feel that there are too many immigrants in Britain also feel that others get priority in accessing local services, compared with 11% of those who disagree with the statement9. Similarly, only 17% of those who think that immigration is good for the economy also feel that others get priority in accessing local services, compared with 37% of those who do not feel that immigration is good for the economy. The proportions disagreeing are 29% and 44% respectively.
Specific service areas Council housing When asked to identify the groups most likely to get unfair priority in council housing allocation, single mothers and asylum seekers, refugees or immigrants are the 8 Please refer to the terminology section on page 3 of this report for categorisation of newspapers. 9 Please note that these responses are based on limited base sizes, and so should be taken as indicative rather than significant.
32
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
groups most likely to be spontaneously mentioned (by 19% and 18% of respondents respectively) – though the most common (and encouraging) response overall is that nobody is given unfair priority in council housing allocation. As can be seen throughout this chapter, housing is the only service where there is a perception that single mothers are given an unfair priority over others (19%). Differences are observed between groups as this figure rises to over a quarter (28%) for those in A8 impact areas, but decreases for ethnic minorities with 11% of those from non-deprived areas and fewer still (9%) from the general ethnic minority sample believing single mothers are given unfair priority over council housing. Supporters of multiculturalism can take some comfort from the fact that very few people cite established minorities as having unfair priority. Indeed, we know from our work for the Commission for Racial Equality10 that 86 per cent disagree that you need to be white to be British — which suggests that most people’s sense of Britishness does extend to ethnic minorities. Access to council housing
Base: All (1,014) December 2006 – January 2007
However, looking in more detail at these results, there are some significant variations by social class. Nearly half (46%) of those in social class AB believe that no single group are singled out for preferential treatment in housing allocation, but under a third of those in group C1 (32%), C2 (28%) and DE (32%) feel the same way. In some ways, this result is not surprising, reflecting the relative propensities of different groups to use council houses, and perhaps the sensitivities involved in the ways in which this resource is allocated11. 10 MORI (2002) Race ‘no barrier’ to being British, (May). See: http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/2002/cre.shtml 11 For further reading on the perceptions of council housing provision, see John Lloyd (2002) ‘Poor whites’, Prospect Magazine,
33
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
Also reflecting these class divisions, we can also see a variation in responses between the booster samples. As we might anticipate, those in the far right target group areas (who live in areas where there has been a high level of far right activity) are much more likely to believe that asylum seekers are given priority in housing allocation (29%), as are those living in A8 impact areas (24%). Asylum seekers, by contrast, are seen as less of an issue by both ethnic minorities generally and those living in less deprived areas (17%) – though they still remain the group most likely to be cited as being prioritised unfairly. Benefits and welfare payments While the greatest proportion of respondents (43%) believe that nobody is given priority in accessing benefit payments, a high proportion believe that asylum seekers, refugees or immigrants are given priority (20%), this is in contrast to responses about healthcare, job opportunities or local schools which are discussed further in this section. Benefits and welfare payment
Base: All (1,014) December 2006 – January 2007
Again, there are differences here between groups of respondents by age and social class. One in seven (15%) of those aged 16–34, for example, believe that asylum seekers are given unfair priority in accessing benefit services, as compared with a quarter (25%) of those between 35–54, and one in five (20%) of those aged 55 years and above. Twelve percent of those in group AB believe that asylum seekers are given priority treatment, compared with just under a quarter of those in classes C1C2 (24%), and a fifth (21%) of those in class DE. Issue 75: June http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/printarticle.php?id=5288
34
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
There is less differentiation here by the different samples; however 34% of those in the A8 impact group and 36% of those in the far right target group believe that no single group is given priority in benefit payments – a figure not significantly different from 44% of ethnic minorities in less deprived areas and 39% of those in the general ethnic minority sample. Local job opportunities Again a majority (53%) feel that no single group have priority in searching the job market. Again, refugees or migrants are the group considered most likely to be unfairly favoured, followed by people from Eastern Europe, and white people. Local job opportunities
Base: All (1,014) December 2006 – January 2007
Because of the relatively small base sizes here, detailed subgroup analysis is not possible. Notably, however, those respondents who are of an age to be in the job market are more likely to believe that no discrimination has taken place (53% of those aged 16–34, and 57% of 35–54 year olds). In comparison just under a half (48%) of respondents who are more likely to have retired, just under half of whom (48%) believe that nobody gets priority. As with previous findings, social class appears to be a good indicator of views here, with the middle classes more likely to believe that nobody is given unfair priority in the job market – a figure which perhaps reflects differences in the pattern and structure of the working lives of different social classes. Some two-thirds of those in social classes AB (65%) believe this to be the case, as do 53% of those in group C1. In contrast, under half of those in groups C2 (44%) or DE (48%) believe that
35
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
nobody is given priority in the local job market. Due to the stratification of readers by social class, we can also see a similar pattern emerging by newspaper readership, with broadsheet readers the group most likely to believe that nobody suffers unfair prioritisation in the job market (61%), compared with around half of tabloid and mid-market readers (50% and 53% respectively). There are also some regional variations in responses. Respondents in the South East are the group most likely to believe that nobody gets priority (65%), as compared with 53% in the North, and 59% in the Midlands. Respondents in London and the South West are the least likely to believe that nobody is given priority, however, at 36% and 41% respectively. Looking across the different samples, it is notable that respondents from A8 impact group and far right target group are overall more likely to believe that nobody is given specific priority in the job market (47%) – while the general ethnic minority sample and ethnic minorities in less deprived areas are less likely to believe that no groups are discriminated against (37% and 35% respectively). For ethnic minorities, white people are felt to get priority, which suggests they feel there is a sense of racial discrimination within the labour market. Local schools Perceptions of unfair priority in access to local schools are less pronounced than access to council housing, and a majority (56%) agree that nobody gets priority, though as with council housing, asylum seekers are the group most commonly named as having unfair priority (6%). Places in local schools
Base: All (1,014) December 2006 – January 2007
Again, we can see differences by social class in responses here with those in group AB more likely to believe that nobody is given priority in places at local schools (63%),
36
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
when compared with 53% of those in groups C1 and C2, and 54% of those in social groups DE. Though the small sample size means that these findings are indicative rather than significant, it is also notable here that respondents from the two ethnic minority samples are less likely to feel that nobody has priority getting places at local schools (45% of ethnic minorities in less deprived areas, and 42% of deprived minorities feel this is the case), when compared with the far right target group (56%) and A8 impact group (51%). Access to healthcare Turning now to access to healthcare, six in ten people overall believe that nobody is given priority when accessing services (61%) – and again, asylum seekers, refugees or migrants are the group most commonly cited as having unfair priority (at 8%). As with previous questions, there is some variation in responses here by social class – with two-thirds of those in group AB (67%) agreeing that nobody is given unfair priority in access to healthcare, compared with 58% of those in group C1, 57% of C2s and 62% of DEs. Those born in the UK are also more likely to agree that nobody is given unfair priority (62%), compared with half (49%) of those born outside of the UK. Nationality, in contrast, does not have a significant impact on results, with 61% of Britons, and 57% of non-Britons agreeing that nobody is given unfair access. Interestingly, older people are not significantly more likely than the rest of the population to feel that others get priority in access to healthcare – 60% of those aged 55+ agree that this is the case, compared with 62% of those under 55 – even though as a group they are more likely than anyone else to access healthcare services. Access to healthcare
Base: All (1,014) December 2006 – January 2007
37
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
Turning to the different samples, there appears to be some differentiation, with those in the A8 impact group and far right target group more likely to believe that nobody is given priority in access to healthcare (61% and 59% respectively) compared with the general ethnic minority group and those living in non-deprived areas– 46% and 50% respectively. Should public services be based on individual needs? A considerable majority, some seven in ten (70%), overall agree that public services should be tailored to the needs of the individual – including a quarter (26%) who strongly agree. As the chart below shows, this high level of support is displayed across the four samples – those in the far right target group sample in particular are likely to favour public services tailored to the needs of the individual (76% agree, including 29% who strongly agree), as are ethnic minorities living in less deprived areas, some 73% of who are in favour of tailored services. A8 impact group respondents, in contrast, are most likely to oppose tailored public service provision, and over a quarter (28%) disagree with the statement in the question – perhaps because they feel that uniform service levels are a better protection against getting inferior services themselves than tailored services, especially as people in the A8 impact group (who living in rural areas) tend not to believe that government understands their needs12. Respondents in the far right target group where there has been far right activity, in contrast, are more likely to agree that services should be tailored to the individual (76% agree), as are ethnic minorities generally as well as those living in less deprived areas (67% and 73% respectively). Public services
Base: All (1,014) December 2006 – January 2007
12 For a qualitative look at the view of service provision amongst rural communities, see Ipsos MORI’s work for the Commission for Rural Communities (2005) http://www.ruralcommunities.gov.uk//projects/affordableruralhousingcommission/overview
38
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
Looking across other subgroups, there is a consistently high level of support for tailored services. Seven in ten (71%) people in areas of high diversity support public services that are tailored to the needs of the individual, as do 65% of those in ‘medium’ areas of diversity, and 73% of those in low areas of diversity. Two-thirds of middle class respondents agree (67%) with the idea of personalised services, as do 69% of those in group C1, 75% of C2s and 70% of DEs. Three-quarters (76%) of those aged between 16-34 would like to see public services tailored to the needs of the individual, as would 67% of those aged 35-54, and 68% of those aged 55+. Broadsheet readers are less likely to support personalised services (66% agree, compared with 72% of mid market readers and 75% of tabloid readers) There is a similarly high level of support for the idea that ‘people who need additional public services should receive more than those who do not’ – eight in ten (81%) agree with this proposition and only 7% disagree. Again, there is a relatively consistent level of support here across the different samples. As the chart below shows, 82% of those in the far right target group sample and 80% of those in the A8 impact group agree that people who need additional public services should receive more. A slightly smaller proportion of ethnic minorities agree with the proposition – some 72% of ethnic minorities generally agree with the statement, as do threequarters (77%) of ethnic minorities in the less deprived areas. Notably, however, although a higher proportion of people in the far right target group and A8 impact group agree with the statement, higher proportions also disagree: some 12% of the far right target group and 15% of A8 impact group disagree that those who need additional services should receive more than those who do not. This suggests views are more polarised among these groups. The respective figures for ethnic minorities living in less deprived areas and ethnic minorities generally are 9% and 7%. There are some differences within ethnic groups, with 66% of Asian and 78% of Black respondents supporting needs-based provision. Public services
Base: All (1,014) December 2006 – January 2007
39
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
Support for needs-based provision of public services does not appear to differ according to the extent to which people mix with those of different backgrounds: 83% of those who mix with people from a different ethnic group in their home at least once a month agree with the statement, as do 81% of those who do not. Similarly, 82% of those who mix with different ethnic groups at work, school or college at least monthly support needs-based provision, as do 80% of those who do not interact with different ethnic groups on a monthly basis. Eight in ten of those living in areas with high or medium levels of diversity agree that people in greater need should receive more tailored public services (75% and 82% respectively). A challenge facing local government and other public services is the clear evidence that, even after allowing for deprivation levels and turnover in population, more diverse areas are consistently less positive about a wide range of services than are more homogenous ones. Ipsos MORI’s detailed analysis, published in our Frontiers of Performance Reports in both the NHS and local government13, highlights how managers in more diverse areas may find it more difficult to meet the diverse needs and expectations of local people, compared to those serving equally deprived but more monocultural areas. The variation in demand for tailored services here again reflects the varying expectations and experiences of services users, depending on the level of diversity in a particular area. Looking across other demographic factors, men are slightly less likely than women to believe that those with greater need should receive more – 77% and 84% respectively. There is also a variation in responses across the social classes, with 85% of ABs supporting this proposition, compared with three-quarters (76%) of those in group DE – perhaps reflecting the greater ease with which the middle classes are able to articulate their expectations of public service provisions. There is also some variation in response by place of birth, and 82% of those born in Britain tend to support needs-based provision compared with 73% of those born elsewhere14. Notably, those who believe that British people should have priority in access to council housing are less likely to agree that those in greatest need should be given priority in service access (78%), compared with those who do not believe the British should be given priority, 89% of whom also agree that those in greater need should receive greater support from public services.
13 See MORI (2004) Frontiers of Performance in Local Government III (http://www.ipsos-mori.com/publications/liveability/index.shtml), and MORI (2004) Frontiers of Performance in the NHS (http://www.ipsos-mori.com/publications/bp/frontiers2.shtml) 14 Please note that the small base sizes here make this finding indicative rather than representative.
40
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
Prioritising public services for different groups Questions about the prioritisation of housing and education services were asked in two ways. Two versions of these questions were used, one focusing on people generally with greater needs, and the alternative asking specifically about ‘ethnic minorities’ whose needs are greater15. The following table illustrates how the different respondent groups in the sample were asked the different versions.
Split Questions Main sample*
Question 23 A
✓
Question 23 B
✓
Question 24 A
✓
Question 24 B
✓
Far right target group
✓ ✓
A8 impact group
Non-deprived ethnic minorities
General ethnic minority sample
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓ ✓
Source: Ipsos MORI * Sample points for respondents in the main sample were split with interviewers asking approximately half of respondents Version A questions, and half answering Version B questions.
The different question wordings are also detailed in the following charts. Housing provision Just over half of the public (51%) agree that people whose housing needs are more urgent, such as big families, should receive priority housing allocation, compared with a quarter (25%) who disagree. This question was specifically asked to ethnic minority respondents and as the chart below suggests, ethnic minority respondents in general are more likely to agree that big families should have priority in housing allocation (62%), compared with 56% ethnic minorities in less deprived areas. The level of interaction between minority groups does not appear to be a strong indicator of response here. Just over half (53%) of those who interact with different ethnic groups in their homes on a monthly basis agree with the statement, compared with 51% of those who do not. Similarly, 52% of those who interact socially with other ethnic groups agree with the proposition, compared with 51% of that do who do not.
15 See questions 23 A and B and questions 24 A and B in the marked up questionnaire in the appendices for exact question wording.
41
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
Public services
Base: All who were asked this version (513) December 2006 – January 2007
However, if the wording of the question is altered to ask specifically about ‘ethnic minority’ groups as potentially receiving priority in housing allocation, (as was asked of approximately half of the general public sample), the overall proportion that support the proposition drops by 21 percentage points, to 31%. The proportion disagreeing also increases significantly, from a quarter (25%) to 52%, including 28% of respondents who strongly disagree. Public services
Base: All who were asked this version (501) December 2006 – January 2007
42
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
As the chart above shows, those in the far right target group are the most likely to oppose housing allocation to ethnic minorities: nearly two-thirds (64%) disagree with the policy, including four in ten (39%) who strongly disagree, again reflecting the strength of feeling about allocation of public resources among this group. Those in the A8 impact group are similarly opposed – though slightly less strongly – to the statement: 58% disagree, and a third (33%) strongly disagree. Perhaps unsurprisingly, overall attitudes to minorities have a strong impact on responses here. Those who believe that there are too many immigrants in Britain are more likely than those who do not to disagree with the statement – the figures are 62% and 29% respectively. Similarly, the level of contact with those from different backgrounds appears to have a bearing on responses. Those who mix with people from different ethnic backgrounds in their home at least monthly are more likely to agree than those who do not (41% and 27% respectively), and we can see a similar pattern among those who interact with different ethnic groups socially or professionally, where the level of agreement is 41% and 37% respectively16. Educational support Looking now at schools, just over half of respondents (56%) agree that young people from poorer backgrounds should receive extra support in schools, like smaller classes or extra teachers. Around a quarter of people (23%) disagree with the statement, and 17% are undecided. Ethnic minorities here are somewhat more positive towards supporting poorer pupils; nearly two-thirds of ethnic minorities living in less deprived areas (64%) agree that children from poorer backgrounds should get extra support, as do 68% of ethnic minorities generally. Interestingly, social class does not appear to be a significant driver of response here: 57% of ABs agree that poorer pupils should receive extra support, as do 52% of C1s, 60% of C2s and 58% of DEs. However, those who are more likely to be of an age where they have children in school are somewhat less likely to agree that pupils from poorer backgrounds should get extra help (55% of 16–34 year olds agree with the statement, as do 52% of 35–54 year olds), as compared with older respondents where 62% of those aged 55 and up agree that poorer pupils should be given help.
16 Please note that due to small base sizes, these figures should be considered as indicative rather than significant.
43
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
Public services
Base: All who were asked this version (513) December 2006 – January 2007
As previously, a different version of this question was asked to some respondents. Where the question is phrased to ask about ethnic minorities, we can observe some significant variations in responses. Overall, public support for supporting ethnic minority children from disadvantaged backgrounds drops to under half of the population with 44% agreeing that they should receive extra support, including one in ten (10%) who strongly agree. This compares with an overall supportive figure of 56% when ‘ethnic minorities’ are not mentioned in the question. Public services
Base: All who were asked this version (501) December 2006 – January 2007
44
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
As the chart above shows, there are also significant differences across the different samples. Fewer respondents agree than disagree with this proposition and there are differences across ethnicity and class – only 5% of white DEs strongly agree that young people from ethnic minority backgrounds should receive extra educational support, in comparison to 11% from the far right target group, 17% non-deprived ethnic minorities and 16% general ethnic minorities. Those within the far right target group are the most opposed to providing educational support for ethnic minorities: half (49%) disagree with the policy, including a third (35%) who are strongly opposed. Those in the A8 impact group sample have similar opinions, with half (48%) opposed to the statement – though with a slightly smaller proportion (27%) who are strongly opposed. It is notable that this sort of discrimination in education is higher than in the case of housing. This is possibly because people feel less personally threatened – i.e. it is less obvious that better education for one group implies poorer education for another than allocation of housing, which is seen as more scarce. It could also perhaps be because people see ethnicity as a relevant factor in education rather than in housing. These findings show that although there is a high level of support for needs-based provision of public services, certain groups (especially those who are most likely to feel that others get priority over them in public service provision) are not supportive of tailored services for ethnic minority groups. This is most pronounced among those in the far right target group, which is unsurprising given that much of the campaigning among the far right has centred on access to public services for Britishborn (white) residents.
45
British values and identity Despite some differences between groups, results show that tolerance, respect and fairness encompass the most prominent values in British society. There is strong identification with the immediate neighbourhood that they live in rather than with Britain, England, Wales or Scotland. The inability to speak English is by far the biggest barrier to ‘Englishness’. The extent to which this is the case varies within group,; however it is a priority even for those people born outside of the UK and those from ethnic minority groups.
British values British values and the images that ‘Britishness’ summon have been a widespread topic of discussion in recent years. It seems from this research that the values of freedom, tolerance, fairness and respect override other principles for living in a tolerant Britain. This survey supports other research findings17 that indicate that British people value tolerance as an ‘especially important’ quality; in fact, according to the World Values Survey conducted in 2006, out of approximately 80 countries, Great Britain was the fifth in prioritising this. Values
Base: All (1,014) December 2006 – January 2007
17 World Values survey 2006, www.worldvaluessurvey.org.
46
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
There are some variations by group to note here; the far right target group and A8 impact group are more likely to mention both formal and informal ‘rules’. For example, 71% of the far right target group mention ‘respect for the law’ (compared to 64% of the general population) and two in five of both the far right target group and A8 impact group (40%) mention ‘justice and fair play’ compared to a third (33%) on average. People belonging to social classes DE are less likely to prioritise tolerance and politeness towards others (44% for DEs compared with 54% on average); a similar pattern exists for freedom of speech (33% for DEs compared with 42% on average). They are also more likely to state a preference for everyone speaking English (37% in comparison to 31%). Some differences can also be noted between groups based on newspaper readership. Almost two-thirds (63%) of broadsheet readers prioritise tolerance and politeness towards others. This figure is 60% for those who read mid-market papers and falls to 49% among tabloid readers. Similarly, on valuing the freedom to criticise the views and beliefs of others the figures are 32% for broadsheet readers, 30% for mid-market readers and 22% for those who read tabloid papers. Those who read the tabloid press are more likely to say that everyone should speak English: 36% of tabloid readers say this compared with 34% of mid-market press readers and 26% of broadsheets readers. While still prioritising fairness, people in the general ethnic minority sample are more likely to mention respect for people from different ethnic groups (41% compared with 25% on average) as well as respect for all faiths (51% compared with 34%). Among Black residents this rises to 53% and among Asians it is higher still (69%). Equality of opportunity is also a high priority for ethnic minorities with 38% of those from non-deprived areas, and 35% of the general ethnic minority sample stipulating this as a top priority for living in Britain in comparison to only a quarter (25%) of the main sample. There is little difference between ethnic groups, with 38% of Black respondents mention this and a similar proportion (35%) of Asian respondents. Ethnicity appears to be strongly linked with views here, with 40% of white DEs saying that everyone should speak English, a similar proportion to the far right target group (38%). The figure among the A8 impact group is 28%. In contrast, respondents from ethnic minorities are less likely to mention this (20% of non-deprived ethnic minorities and 19% of the general ethnic minority sample). Ethnic minorities are also far less likely to highlight patriotism; only 5% of those in the general ethnic minority sample and 7% among ethnic minorities in less deprived areas say this is important, in contrast to almost a fifth of general population (19%).
47
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
Q Which four or five of the following, if any, would you say are the most important values for living in Britain? Total
Far right target group
A8 impact group
Nondeprived BMEs
BME general
(1,014)
(112)
(109)
(104)
(313)
%
%
%
%
%
Respect for the law
64
71
58
63
59
Tolerance and politeness towards others
54
54
61
54
43
Freedom of speech/expression
42
40
46
32
32
Respect for all faiths
34
33
31
46
51
Justice and fair play
33
40
40
27
23
Everyone should speak English
31
38
28
20
19
Respect for people from different ethnic groups
25
24
34
39
42
Freedom to criticise the views and beliefs of others
25
22
25
14
20
Equality of opportunity
25
25
19
38
35
Pride in country/patriotism
19
29
22
7
5
Freedom from discrimination
18
16
15
22
14
Freedom to follow a religion of choice
16
15
15
22
20
Everyone has a voice in politics through democracy
14
10
12
15
19
Everyone should vote
11
18
10
17
16
That national policy is not made on the basis of religious beliefs
6
6
9
4
5
Freedom of dress (e.g. can wear religious dress)
5
5
5
12
5
Don’t know
1
0
1
1
2
Other
*
0
2
1
1
Base
Source: Ipsos MORI
Identity In terms of identity, the strongest links appear to be with the immediate neighbourhood (29%) and this is fairly consistent among all groups. After this, people feel a relatively strong sense of association with ‘Britain’ (26%)18. Combined results show a relatively even split between local and national identities with 40% identifying with either England, Scotland, Wales or Britain, but a higher proportion (48%) making the link with their neighbourhood, county or local authority area. It is difficult to conclude here whether this illustrates a decline in a sense of Britishness, as other recent surveys have shown – for instance, the British Social Attitudes Survey 18 It is important not to assume that ‘identity’ is the same as ‘pride’ as the World Values Survey highlighted that whilst Britain’s were the most likely to identify with their country rather than other measures such as Europe, they are only the 12th ‘proud’ nation. World Values Survey 2006.
48
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
does show that identification with ‘Britishness’ has declined but that there has been a rise in identification with ‘Englishness’19. The nature of the area where people live seems to have a bearing on identity. Those who live in areas of low ethnic diversity are more likely to identify with their immediate neighbourhood (39%) than residents in areas with high diversity (17%). People living in more deprived areas identify mostly with their immediate neighbourhood (36% compared to 27% of people in less deprived areas). In contrast, people who live in areas of high ethnic fractionalisation tend to identify more with ‘Britain’ (29%) than with their neighbourhood (17%). However, where both high ethnic fractionalisation and high levels of deprivation exist, people associate with the local area most strongly with over a fifth (21%) of residents identifying with their ‘local authority or London Borough area’ in comparison to only 7% on average. Social class also seems to have an impact on people’s feelings of identity as higher class residents tend to favour a national view (52% of ABs identifying with Britain, England, Wales or Scotland, in comparison to 32% of DEs) whereas working class residents are more likely to identify with their local area (47% saying their immediate neighbourhood or local authority area in comparison to only 23% of ABs). This finding however appears to be truer of white respondents with 41% of white DEs identifying with their immediate neighbourhood more than anywhere else. This is in fact the highest group who mention their immediate location, in contrast with only 18% among the general ethnic minority sample. Identity
Base: All (1,014) December 2006 – January 2007
19 Natcen January 2007, British Social Attitudes Survey. Perspectives on a changing society.
49
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
When looking more closely at the ethnic minority booster samples, more people from both the non-deprived ethnic minority (29%) and general ethnic minority groups (25%) say they identify with ‘Britain’ than those in the far right target group (23%) and A8 impact group (20%). This is consistent with our findings for the Commission for Racial Equality, where race is not seen as being a barrier to being British20. There is some variation in regional views and identity with over a quarter of those in the far right target group identifying mostly with their county (28%); this is also true for people who live in the North of England (18%) compared to the national average (12%). This association with county among those in the far right target group is likely to be explained by the fact that the sampling points for this booster focused on areas with far right activity and a number of the interviews were conducted in Yorkshire and Humberside. As it would be expected, many more people who are born outside of the UK identify with the country that their family is from (15% in comparison to only 4% in the national average).
Lack of English seen as a barrier Although speaking the same language is not in the top five mentions of ways to encourage people to mix, when considering specific barriers to being English, the biggest barrier by far (60%) is the inability to speak English. Although the far right target group are most likely to think this (64%), it is true regardless of which group people are from or indeed how much people mix with other ethnic groups. Although white (61%), British born (60%) people are more likely to consider language a barrier, two in five Asians (44%) and 55% of Black residents consider not being able to speak English as a barrier, as well as almost half (48%) of people born outside of the UK. Likewise the higher social classes (68% of ABs) consider it to be more of a problem, but still 48% of those in the DE bracket say language is a barrier. These results point to the need for language to be addressed in all circumstances to improve cohesion in all sectors of society. This is fairly consistent with Ipsos MORI research findings elsewhere. Our work for the Commission for Racial Equality21 shows there is strong support for immigrants to Britain to learn English and that this is fairly consistent among all ethnic groups. Qualitative research shows this is because people feel learning English is a practical necessity and enables people to interact more effectively with others. Almost one fifth of people (19%) think that being from an ethnic minority or not being white is a barrier to being English; this figure rises to well over a third both for ethnic minorities living in less deprived areas and for the general sample of ethnic minorities (38% and 37% respectively). Our work for the Commission for Racial Equality supports these findings where the majority of the general population do not believe you have to be white to be British. That said, ethnic minorities often feel that 20 http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/2002/cre.shtml 21 ‘Race Relations’ 2006 report for Commission for Racial Equality.
50
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
their colour is seen as a barrier to being British by white people22. Following on from this, while being born outside the UK is mentioned relatively evenly across groups (35% for both far right target group and A8 impact group, 31% for non-deprived ethnic minorities and 36% for the general ethnic minority sample) two in five (42%) who are born outside of the UK think that being born elsewhere is a barrier in itself to being English.
Barriers to being English
Base: All (1,014) December 2006 – January 2007
22 http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/2002/cre.shtml
51
Immigration Immigration is seen as one of the biggest issues facing Britain. The majority of people feel there are too many immigrants in Britain. Negative attitudes towards immigration tend to be most prevalent among those from lower social classes, those in the A8 impact group and far right target group – perhaps because these groups feel they have most to lose in terms of employment opportunities and access to services and have also seen the greatest change in their populations as a result of inward migration. Attitudes here are also closely linked to the extent of interaction with those from different backgrounds; generally those who have more regular contact with people from different backgrounds are more positive about immigration.
In a finding consistent with long-term tracking data from Ipsos MORI23, immigration is seen as the most important issue facing Britain, and is mentioned by nearly one in five (18%) of respondents. Crime and antisocial behaviour takes the second spot, with 15%, followed by defence and foreign affairs. Most important issue facing Britain
Base: All (1,014) December 2006 – January 2007
Overall, some seven in ten (69%) respondents agree that ‘there are too many immigrants in Britain’. Perhaps unsurprisingly, those in the far right target group living in areas where there has been far right activity are the group most likely to agree that there are ‘too many immigrants in Britain’ – 84% agree that this is the case, including 63% who are strongly in agreement with the statement. This is consistent with our research elsewhere, which shows that those who support far right political parties are more likely to be concerned about immigration than others. Those in A8 impact group (living in rural areas with high A8 migration) have similarly high levels of 23 See: http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/trends/issues12.shtml for further information
52
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
agreement, and three-quarters (75%) agree that there are too many immigrants in Britain. Comparing responses here to the general ethnic minority sample, we can see higher levels of concern among white respondents than ethnic minorities around migration – some 47% of Asian, and 45% of Black respondents feel that there is too much immigration into Britain, compared with 71% of white respondents in the overall sample. Nevertheless, concern among minorities is by no means negligible – even among Blacks and Asians, more agree than disagree that there is too much immigration. This is a crucial point of understanding, for it emphasises that opposition to immigration cannot be equated with simple racism against immigrant groups. Indeed, given this evidence that there is a substantial level of antiimmigration feeling independent of racial antipathy to the immigrants, it raises the possibility that immigration (and its consequences) may be a cause of racism to some extent rather than a result of it. It is worth noting when discussing the views of ethnic minorities on immigrants that differences in opinion exist within the ethnic minority sample between those who appear more strongly linked to Britain. This can be shown by the balance of opinion or the ‘net’ agree24 figures of those who believe that there are too many immigrants in Britain. For example, the net agree figure for those who were born within the UK is 35%, and lowers to 24% for those born elsewhere. This change is larger still when considering those ethnic minorities who are British by nationality (net agree 36%) in comparison to those of another nationality (net agree 15%). As we observed earlier, the level of interaction with people from a different background affects responses here; those who mix with people from other ethnic groups in their homes on at least a monthly basis are less likely to agree there are too many immigrants compared with those who do so less than once a year (63% and 69% respectively), and the differences between those who interact with other ethnic groups at work, school or college is even more pronounced: some 62% of those who do so regularly agree that there is too much migration into Britain, compared with 77% of those who interact less than monthly. There are variations in responses by other demographic characteristics. In general, white, older respondents from lower social grades are more likely to agree that there are too many migrants in the country: 76% of those aged 55+ believe that this is the case, compared with 61% of 16–34 year olds and 68% of 35–54 year olds. Middle class people are significantly less likely to believe that there is too much migration into the UK: 57% agree that this is the case, compared with 65% of those in group C1, 79% in C2 and 75% in groups DE. Because it is strongly linked to social class, newspaper readership provides another strong guide to attitudes to migration. Some eight in ten (81%) tabloid readers, and a similar proportion of mid-market readers (82%) agree that there are too many immigrants in Britain, compared to half of broadsheet readers (52%). This does highlight that the media may play a strong role here in influencing people’s views on immigration. 24 For an explanation of ‘net’ figures please refer to the Presentation and Interpretation of data section on page 3 of this report.
53
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
Turning to the extent to which immigrants are perceived as making the country open to new ideas and cultures, overall nearly six in ten (58%) agree that this is the case. Those in the A8 impact group sample are somewhat less likely to agree that migration makes Britain more open, 55% agree that this is the case, and a third (36%) disagree. Perhaps unsurprisingly, ethnic minority respondents are more likely to agree with this statement: three-quarters of the general ethnic minority sample (73%) feel that immigrants make Britain more open to new ideas, as do six in ten (61%) of ethnic minorities living in less deprived areas. Respondents in the far right target group sample, in contrast, are more split on this issue, with 42% agreeing that immigration makes us open to new ideas, and 40% disagreeing. Cultural perceptions of immigrants are strongly differentiated by social class; threequarters (76%) of middle class respondents (ABs) agree that migration makes us more open, compared with 60% of C1s, 47% of C2s and 44% of DE respondents. These perceptions are also driven, intuitively enough, by the extent to which people mix with other ethnic groups; two-thirds (66%) of those who have people from other ethnic groups in their homes at least monthly agree that migration makes Britain more open, compared with 56% of those who mix with people from different ethnic groups less than once a year. Immigrants
Base: All (1,014) December 2006 – January 2007
54
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
While on balance, all groups are positive about the cultural impact of migrants, views about their economic impact are more contentious. Overall, respondents are split on the issue, with 36% agreeing that migration is good for the economy, and 36% disagreeing. However, there are significant variations in responses among the booster samples here. Far right target group respondents are the single group most likely to feel that migrants are not having a positive economic impact (53%), though the proportion of A8 impact group respondents (who live in areas which have recently experienced high levels of inward migration) is also lower than the overall figure, at 41%. Both the general sample of ethnic minorities and those living in less deprived areas, by contrast, are much more positive about the economic effects of migration: 52% and 57% agree that their impact is positive. The overall economic effect of migration on different social groups is a highly complex topic, and still not fully understood – however, there is some evidence that while inward migration has a positive deflationary effect on prices for the middle classes, it also provides greater competition for the low skilled, low wage jobs traditionally filled by the working classes25. The findings here to an extent reflect this thesis – half of middle class respondents are positive about the economic impact of migration (50%), compared with 39% of C1s and a quarter (25%) of C2DEs. Newspaper readership also strongly reflects this trend: a quarter of tabloid and mid market readers agree that migration is good for the economy (27%), compared with over half (58%) of broadsheet readers.
Additional analysis on immigration Further analysis was done on the bank of questions in the survey relating to immigration. Using the questions below an ‘immigration index’ was created which aimed to differentiate people on how positive or negative they are about immigration. On each measure individuals were given a score of 1 to 5, with 1 being assigned to those being most positive and 5 being assigned to those who are most negative. Therefore the highest score is 7 ⫻ 5 = 35 and the lowest score being 7 ⫻ 1 =7. ●
There are too many immigrants to Britain (agree = 5, disagree = 1)
●
Immigrants make Britain more open to new ideas and cultures (agree = 1, disagree = 5)
●
British people should always have priority over immigrants for local council housing (agree = 5, disagree = 1)
●
Immigration is generally good for the economy (agree = 1, disagree = 5)
●
Immigrants take jobs from British people (agree = 5, disagree = 1)
25 See, for example, The Economist (2006) ‘Rich man, poor man: The winners and losers from globalisation’, 17th January. (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=E1_RVVQRTJ)
55
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
●
We need more immigrants to do the jobs that British people don’t want to do (agree = 1, disagree = 5)
●
The most important issue facing Britain (all mentioning immigration = 5, any other issue=1)
Using the scores the following three categories were created: ●
Anti-immigration (those scoring 25 or more points)
●
Indifferent about immigration (scoring between 24 and 18 points)
●
Pro-immigration (scoring less than 18 points)
The table below looks at what proportion of each sample falls into the different categories. As earlier findings confirm, those in the far right target group are the most negative about immigration followed by the A8 impact group. Both ethnic minority samples tend to be pro immigration – with the general ethnic minority sample being most positive, with 63% of respondents in this group falling into the pro-immigration category. Immigration index Proimmigration
Indifferent about immigration
Antiimmigration
Respondent group
%
%
%
Main sample
35
37
28
Far right target group
14
37
49
A8 impact group
31
31
38
Non-deprived ethnic minorities
49
40
11
General ethnic minority sample
63
31
5
Source: Ipsos MORI
Demographic analysis was conducted on the main sample. Consistent with many of the other findings in this report, this analysis shows that young people are more positive about immigration than older groups. One in five (19%) of those aged 16– 34 years fall within the anti-immigration group, this compares with 35% of those aged 35–54 year olds and 28% of those aged 55+ years. There is little difference across the categories by gender, but there is some difference of note by social class. Among those in social class AB, 12% of people fall into the anti-immigration category, this figure rises to 29% for those in social class C1 and C2 and is 31% for DEs. The analysis also explored whether there are any links between views on immigration and attitudes towards unfair access to public services. The analysis (which was conducted on the main sample only) shows that there is a significant positive
56
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
correlation between views on immigration and attitudes towards unfair access to public services. Essentially, this means that the more negative a person’s views on immigration, the higher the probability that the person agrees that some groups of people in Britain get unfair priority when it comes to public services and also that other people in the local area seem to get unfair priority. The table below shows the correlations. The correlation co-efficient can range from –1 to +1. Therefore the figures 0.34 and 0.31 both represent significant positive associations.
Immigration and attitudes towards public services – measure of association Correlation Q14 - To what extent do you agree or disagree that some groups of people in Britain get unfair priority when it comes to public services like housing, health and schools.
0.34
Q15 - Thinking about your local area. To what extent do you agree or disagree that other people in this local area seem to get unfair priority over you when it comes to public services, like housing, health services and schools?
0.31
Source: Ipsos MORI
These findings shows that there are specific demographic groups who are likely to be more negative about immigration and that negative attitudes towards immigration are linked to attitudes towards unfair priority over public services.
57
Appendices
58
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
Commission on Integration and Cohesion Final Topline Results ●
These topline results are based on 1,014 responses from a representative sample of general public respondents in England. Four booster samples were also conducted and results from these are also included. Specifically, the booster samples comprise: – Far right target group (Base 112). This sample was drawn from Super Output Areas in wards where there had been far right political activity. In addition, interviews were conducted among demographic groups among which far right support is highest, such as those of white ethnicity, from social classes C2DE and of lower educational achievement. – A8 impact group (Base 109). This sample is drawn from A8 impact group local authorities throughout England which have seen a recent increase in A8 migration. – Ethnic minorities living in non-deprived areas (Base 104). This sample includes people from ethnic minority communities living in non-deprived wards. – General ethnic minorities (Base 313). This includes a representative sample of 225 British minority ethnic people throughout the UK, plus the 88 ethnic minority respondents from the main sample.
●
Where the base number varies from above, this is noted on the table.
●
Interviews were conducted in home, face to face between 9th December 2006 and 28th January 2007 with adults aged 16+.
●
Data are weighted by gender, age, ethnicity, work status, social grade and housing tenure.
●
Data for Booster 4 (the General ethnic minority booster) is weighted on gender, age and work status to the known profile of the BME population in England.
●
Where results do not sum to 100%, this may be due to multiple responses, computer rounding or the exclusion of ‘don’t know/not stated’ response categories.
●
Multiple responses mean that respondents can give more than one answer to a question; therefore results will total more than 100%.
●
An asterisk (*) represents a value of less than half of one per cent, but not zero.
●
Where base sizes are less than 30, answers are given in absolute numbers rather than percentages. Please note that results based on small base sizes should be interpreted with caution. These results are highlighted in shaded boxes.
●
Results highlighted in bold text denote overall category responses 59
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE FACING BRITAIN Q1. What would you say is the most important issue facing Britain today? SINGLE CODE ONLY DO NOT READ OUT NB – ‘other’ figures less than 1% are not shown here, please see full tables for details.
Base AIDS Animal welfare Asylum seekers/refugees Bird flu/pandemic flu Common Market/EU/Europe/EURO/Constitution Countryside/A8 impact group life Crime/law & order/violence/vandalism/ anti-social (yob) behaviour Defence/foreign affairs/international terrorism Drug abuse Economy/economic situation Education/schools Foot and mouth outbreak/farming crisis GM/GM (Genetically modified) foods Housing Immigration/immigrants Inflation/prices Local government/council tax Low pay/minimum wage/fair wages Morality/individual behaviour National Health Service/Hospitals/Healthcare Northern Ireland Nuclear weapons/nuclear war/disarmament Pensions/social security/benefits Petrol prices/fuel Pollution/environment Pound/exchange rate/value of pound Poverty/inequality Privatisation Public services in general Race relations Scottish/Welsh Assembly/Devolution/Constitutional reform Taxation Trade unions/strikes Transport/public transport Unemployment/factory closure/lack of industry Tsunami/ South East Asia Central Government/Tony Blair Global warming/Climate change Overcrowding/over population Iraq/War in Iraq Lack of community/Social cohesion Other None of these Don’t know
60
Total
Far right target group
A8 BMEs BMEs impact non- representgroup deprived ative areas
(1,014) % 1 0 3 0 1 * 15
(112) % 0 0 4 0 0 0 11
(109) % 0 0 6 0 2 0 14
(104) % 0 0 2 0 0 0 7
(313) % 1 0 3 0 1 0 24
10 2 4 3 0 * 2 18 1 * 1 2 5 0 1 1 1 5 * 2 0 * 3 *
13 0 2 0 0 0 1 41 0 0 0 1 8 0 0 1 0 5 0 1 0 0 2 0
11 0 1 0 0 0 1 23 1 1 1 4 5 0 0 1 1 13 0 1 0 0 2 0
8 0 4 6 0 0 1 8 3 3 0 3 6 0 3 2 0 2 0 2 0 1 8 0
10 2 2 4 0 0 5 7 1 2 0 1 3 0 1 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 5 0
1 0 * 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 7
0 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 4
2 0 1 1 0 5 1 3 1 0 2 0 1
3 0 0 6 0 1 0 0 3 3 3 3 11
2 0 1 3 0 * 0 0 1 * 3 3 9
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
ATTITUDES TO NEIGHBOURHOOD Q2. Taking everything into account, how would you describe your overall attitude towards the local neighbourhood. Would you say you feel…….READ OUT. SINGLE CODE ONLY Total Far A8 impact BMEs BMEs right group non- representtarget deprived ative group areas Base very proud of the local neighbourhood fairly proud of the local neighbourhood not very proud of the local neighbourhood or not at all proud of the local neighbourhood? None of these Don’t know
(1,014) % 23 59 11 3 2 1
(112) % 23 50 20 4 2 2
(109) % 26 49 13 6 6 1
(104) % 35 51 6 2 3 4
(313) % 15 51 19 9 2 4
Q3. ASK IF CODE 1 OR 2 AT Q2. PROUD OF LOCAL AREA. What makes you proud of your neighbourhood? MULTICODE OK. PROBE WITH Anything else? DO NOT PROMPT Base: All who are very or fairly proud of their neighbourhood NB – ‘other’ figures less than 1% are not shown here, please see full tables for details.
Base Access/transport links to other areas Good public transport Good community spirit People/neighbours Peaceful/quiet Good parks/opens spaces Good leisure facilities Entertainment/lots to do Good schools Good health services Good quality housing Cheap/affordable housing Good job opportunities Know the area/always lived here Good relations between different racial, ethnic and religious communities Low crime rate Feel safe None of these Don’t know
Total
Far right target group
A8 BMEs BMEs impact non- representgroup deprived ative areas
(837) % 6 8 29 57 33 13 5 3 10 4 6 1 1 8 3
(82) % 5 15 26 67 49 16 4 2 18 4 12 5 2 17 0
(81) % 5 4 36 65 40 14 9 6 6 9 1 1 1 11 0
(89) % 2 8 28 45 40 10 6 0 8 6 3 2 3 8 9
(209) % 10 21 19 46 31 2 4 1 9 6 6 2 3 8 15
11 11 * 24
20 12 0 18
9 14 1 21
11 6 0 18
5 11 0 19
61
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
Q4. ASK IF CODE 3 OR 4 AT Q2. NOT PROUD OF LOCAL AREA. Why do you say you are not proud of your neighbourhood? MULTICODE OK. PROBE WITH Anything else? DO NOT PROMPT Base: All who are not proud of their neighbourhood NB – ‘other’ figures less than 1% are not shown here, please see full tables for details. Some bases are very small therefore responses are given in numbers rather than percentages. Results for these should be interpreted with caution.
Base LACK OF COMMUNITY Lack of community spirit The people/type of people Problem families/neighbours Poor relations between different racial, ethnic and religious communities LACK OF/POOR FACILITIES Not enough parks/open spaces Poor leisure facilities Not enough play areas Lack of facilities/things for young people/children Poor parking facilities Poor public transport Poor shopping facilities Poor schools Poor health services Poor quality housing Expensive housing POOR ENVIRONMENT Noisy Air pollution Not clean enough/too much litter Too much traffic/speed of traffic Lack of street lighting Shops closed/boarded up CRIME High crime rate Don’t feel safe Too many pubs/drunks/drinking in the streets Drugs/drug dealing Car theft Racial harassment/discrimination Problems of young people hanging around Vandalism/graffiti OTHER Poor job opportunities Poor economic opportunities Lack of/Poor community policing Too many immigrants/foreigners getting all the benefits Poor quality roads/pavements Not a nice/well kept area Lack of respect Poor council services Too much building/development Houses being bought then rented out Other None of these Don’t know 62
Total
Far right target group
A8 BMEs BMEs impact non- representgroup deprived ative areas
(142) % 43 19 17 5 9
(26) N 14 2 9 4 3
(21) N 14 9 6 3 6
(8) N 5 2 3 0 2
(85) % 34 13 11 2 12
29 4 10 4 8 2 3 6 2 1 13 3 27 4 0 16 6 * 6 55 22 13 6 17 3 1 31 14 25 3 1 4 1
8 1 1 1 5 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 8 1 1 7 4 0 0 14 5 2 1 3 1 0 6 5 2 1 2 0 0
6 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 8 0 0 6 3 0 0 10 3 3 1 2 0 1 5 2 7 0 1 0 1
3 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 13 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 3 0 0 0 0
40 3 7 1 13 1 3 1 1 4 19 7 18 6 1 11 2 0 0 68 44 18 2 9 8 10 21 16 18 1 2 0 1
2 3 1 1 2 1 8 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0
0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 2 0 0 7 4 0
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
IDENTITY ASK ALL Q5. SHOWCARD A (R) On this card are a number of different areas or communities. Which one would you say you most identify with? Please read out the letter that applies. SINGLE CODE ONLY Total Far A8 BMEs BMEs right impact non- representtarget group deprived ative group areas Base A B C D E F G
This immediate neighbourhood The local authority or London borough area This county (e.g. Yorkshire, West Midlands, Cambridgeshire, Devon) England/Wales/Scotland Britain Europe The country (or countries) of my family’s origin Other None of these Don’t know
(1,014) % 29 7 12
(112) % 29 3 28
(109) % 33 3 17
(104) % 21 13 3
(313) % 18 14 7
14 26 5 4 2 * 1
13 23 2 3 0 0 0
15 20 4 6 1 0 2
4 29 5 22 1 0 3
8 25 3 18 2 2 1
Q6. SHOWCARD B (R) Which of the following, if any, do you think are barriers to being English? MULTICODE OK Read out all that apply A8 BMEs BMEs Total Far right impact non- representtarget group deprived ative group areas Base A B C D E F
Being born outside the UK Being born in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland Being from an ethnic minority/ not being white Not being Christian Not speaking English Accent/way of speaking Other There aren’t any barriers None of these Don’t know
(1,014) % 29 7 19 4 60 8 2 5 6 4
(112) % 35 4 21 7 64 10 2 3 3 3
(109) % 35 7 17 1 54 6 0 7 6 4
(104) % 31 2 38 2 47 12 1 5 3 3
(313) % 36 2 37 3 40 12 2 6 3 6
63
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
VALUES Q7. SHOWCARD C (R) Which four or five of the following, if any, would you say are the most important values for living in Britain? Just read out the letter that applies MULTICODE UP TO FIVE ONLY Total Far A8 BMEs BMEs right impact non- representtarget group deprived ative group areas
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
Base (1,014) % Tolerance and politeness towards others 54 Respect for the law 64 Everyone should speak English 31 Everyone should vote 11 Respect for all faiths 34 Respect for people from different ethnic groups 25 Freedom to criticise the views and beliefs of others 25 Everyone has a voice in politics through democracy 14 Freedom of speech/expression 42 Freedom to follow a religion of choice 16 That national policy is not made on the basis of religious 6 beliefs Equality of opportunity 25 Freedom from discrimination 18 Pride in country/patriotism 19 Justice and fair play 33 Freedom of dress (e.g. can wear religious dress) 5 Other * Don’t know 1
(112) % 54 71 38 18 33 24 22 10 40 15 6
(109) % 61 58 28 10 31 34 25 12 46 15 9
(104) % 54 63 20 17 46 39 14 15 32 22 4
(313) % 43 59 19 16 51 42 20 19 32 20 5
25 16 29 40 5 0 0
19 15 22 40 5 2 1
38 22 7 27 12 1 1
35 14 5 23 5 1 2
COHESION & ATTITUDES TO OTHERS Q8. SHOWCARD D (R) Thinking about local communities generally, for what reasons, if any, do you think that some communities get on better than others? Read out all the letters that apply. MULTICODE OK Total Far A8 BMEs BMEs non- representright impact target group deprived ative group areas
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O
64
Base (1,014) % Distinct geographical boundaries 4 Affordable housing 21 Good local schools 35 A stable population i.e. people staying there for a long time 34 Friendly neighbours/friendly people 65 A mix of different types of people 21 People having the same religious beliefs 8 People having the same interests/outlook as others 22 People having the same cultural background 16 People having the same ethnic background 7 Having a focal point, such as a place of worship/community 22 centre/pub/local shop Being involved in local decision making 23 People speaking the same language 27 Sports and local community events like fairs and festivals 22 People having jobs/low unemployment 33 Other 1 All of these * None of these 1 Don’t know 2
(112) % 0 27 46 26 71 15 7 21 15 15 20
(109) % 4 30 39 38 59 27 4 19 18 6 27
(104) % 0 20 25 19 50 28 10 21 22 18 19
(313) % 3 19 28 20 53 28 19 22 21 14 19
24 30 23 31 1 0 0 1
26 39 26 28 5 2 0 4
15 29 23 29 0 0 0 3
21 23 15 28 1 * * 6
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
MIXING AND INTERACTION Q9. SHOWCARD E (R) In the last year, how often, if at all, have you mixed socially with people from different ethnic groups to yourself… SINGLE CODE FOR EACH LINE. READ OUT a) TO g) ROTATE ORDER. TICK START. Daily
a)
At your home, or their home
b)
At work, school or college
c)
At a pub or club
d) At a café or restaurant
e)
Socially outside work/ school
f)
At your child’s crèche, nursery or school
g)
At the shops
Total Far right target group A8 impact group BMEs non-deprived areas BMEs representative Total Far right target group A8 impact group BMEs non-deprived areas BMEs representative Total Far right target group A8 impact group BMEs non-deprived areas BMEs representative Total Far right target group A8 impact group BMEs non-deprived areas BMEs representative Total Far right target group A8 impact group BMEs non-deprived areas BMEs representative Total Far right target group A8 impact group BMEs non-deprived areas BMEs representative Total Far right target group A8 impact group BMEs non-deprived areas BMEs representative
Base (1,014) (112) (109) (104) (313) (1,014) (112) (109) (104) (313) (1,014) (112) (109) (104) (313) (1,014) (112) (109) (104) (313) (1,014) (112) (109) (104) (313) (1,014) (112) (109) (104) (313) (1,014) (112) (109) (104) (313)
% 7 8 7 20 16 33 30 31 59 44 4 0 5 4 6 4 4 5 7 7 5 6 10 15 17 8 9 5 16 18 22 18 19 35 41
Less Less than Less Don’t Less than know/ than than monthly but at once a No daily weekly year opinion/ but at but at least Not least least once a weekly monthly year applicable % 9 9 8 17 21 11 18 10 9 14 12 21 13 13 10 11 18 8 15 20 15 12 10 24 18 5 4 6 6 11 25 42 24 38 32
% 14 12 9 25 18 7 4 4 10 9 12 10 14 16 12 19 19 17 18 18 16 13 13 24 18 3 1 4 7 5 13 6 14 19 13
% 15 13 10 14 15 5 4 6 0 3 12 9 10 5 9 15 13 17 15 10 13 11 15 7 9 3 4 1 4 3 7 5 7 2 2
% 42 53 56 15 19 22 24 24 6 9 36 31 45 22 17 33 29 41 18 15 33 39 36 12 13 25 25 22 15 10 22 18 28 2 6
% 13 6 9 8 11 23 20 26 17 22 25 29 14 41 47 18 17 12 26 30 19 20 17 18 25 55 56 62 52 52 11 10 8 5 6
65
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
Q10. What sorts of things prevent people from different backgrounds from getting on well together in this local area within a 15 to 20 minute walk? DO NOT PROMPT. PROBE FULLY. CODE ALL THAT APPLY. NB – ‘other’ figures under 1% are not shown here, please see full tables for details.
Base DIFFERENCE/LACK OF CONTACT Different languages Different cultures Different religions Lack of knowledge/understanding/ignorance Lack of social contact/mixing/people keep to themselves Lack of meeting places Live in separate neighbourhoods Attend separate schools Negative contacts/interactions Racism/religious prejudice Racist/religious attacks Disputes between neighbours Extreme political/religious groups Tension/conflict between ethnic groups Tension/conflict between religious groups GENERAL/OTHER ISSUES Negative media stories Too much immigration Not enough people from my background/ethnic/ religious group Crime/anti-social behaviour Drugs Gangs Young people hanging around Poverty/Unemployment Local services/funding unequal – eg unfair priority/ neglect of some groups/areas Lack of community spirit Lack of respect/concern for other people Fear/Suspicion/Mistrust None/No different groups round here Appearance Other None of these Don’t know
66
Total
Far right target group
A8 BMEs BMEs impact non- representgroup deprived ative areas
(1,014) % 49 21 13 8 17 15
(112) % 53 26 19 12 10 17
(109) % 46 21 8 2 17 18
(104) % 59 25 24 13 16 15
(313) % 64 25 24 15 27 18
4 3 1 14 8 1 2 2 3 2 21 4 3 1
4 3 2 14 6 1 1 1 4 2 23 3 3 2
4 2 1 5 3 1 0 0 1 0 23 5 4 1
3 5 2 25 15 4 4 4 2 4 27 3 8 0
6 1 1 25 13 3 4 2 8 1 37 12 2 2
5 1 1 3 2 1
3 3 4 4 4 6
2 1 0 1 2 2
3 0 1 6 8 2
9 2 3 4 3 2
4 5 1 2 1 4 23 12
4 5 0 1 0 4 20 11
3 10 0 1 0 6 26 13
7 7 0 0 1 0 13 14
10 8 1 * * 4 7 9
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
Q11. SHOWCARD F (R) Which two or three of the following things, if any, do you think encourage people from different backgrounds to mix together? MULTICODE OK UP TO THREE Read out the letters that apply
Base
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O
FORMAL MECHANISMS Citizenship classes English language lessons SOCIAL EVENTS Social events outside of work, school or college Fetes, festivals and fairs Shared hobbies, sports clubs SHARED RESOURCES Going to same health services, post offices Going to work, school or college together Using the same arts and cultural facilities Using same shops and restaurants Using same leisure centres/sports facilities Going to pubs or clubs Travelling together by bus or train VISITING By visiting each other’s home By visiting each other’s community centres By visiting each other’s religious places of worship Other None of these Don’t know
Total
Far right target group
(1,014) % 20 4 17 55 30 14 22 75 9 47 5 19 17 14 8 29 12 13 6 2 1 0
(112) % 23 6 19 54 32 13 22 74 3 45 4 17 21 12 13 30 15 10 9 0 3 0
A8 BMEs BMEs impact non- representgroup deprived ative areas (109) % 32 8 28 55 31 13 23 64 6 44 4 17 14 16 4 31 15 14 6 3 0 0
(104) % 19 5 15 49 21 17 24 73 2 44 9 15 16 8 13 45 20 15 13 3 0 0
(313) % 18 3 17 54 31 18 14 67 10 30 8 14 19 6 11 45 16 24 17 2 0 0
67
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
RESIDENTIAL CHOICES Q12. ASK ALL Thinking about the last time you moved home, why did you decide to move? Is there anything else? PROBE FULLY WITH Anything else? MULTICODE OK. DO NOT PROMPT. NB – ‘other’ figures less than 1% are not shown here, please see full tables for details.
Base Work Living with Partner/Marriage Expanding family/needed more room Needed cheaper place Could afford more expensive home Leaving parents’ home Didn’t like the area I was in Closer to amenities (shops, transport) Didn’t like people in the area I was in Problems with neighbours Too many people of another ethnic group to me Experience of racism Bought/Built own house Landlord sold property Always lived here/never moved Downsized Breakdown of marriage Moved to better area Parents decision Health/mobility reasons Education/Study/schools Near family/friends Quieter area Was victim of crime Other None of these Don’t know
68
Total
Far right target group
(1,014) % 13 11 25 5 6 4 7 3 2 1 1 * 1 1 1 2 3 2 1 2 3 2 1 1 4 8 1
(112) % 12 16 26 7 6 6 4 4 3 3 1 0 1 0 0 4 4 0 0 4 1 3 0 1 1 11 1
A8 BMEs BMEs impact non- representgroup deprived ative areas (109) % 12 7 19 5 5 6 6 6 2 3 0 0 2 1 3 3 2 4 2 1 3 2 0 1 2 11 1
(104) % 13 4 30 2 9 2 8 3 1 2 1 0 2 0 4 1 0 3 3 1 11 3 1 0 3 11 3
(313) % 10 8 21 5 3 6 4 4 * 2 0 1 1 1 1 * 2 * * * 3 1 * * 2 21 3
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
Q13. What were the reasons you chose to live in this area? MULTICODE OK. PROBE FULLY WITH Is there anything else? DO NOT PROMPT NB – ‘other’ figures under 1% are not shown here, please see full tables for details.
Base Did not choose Cost Near work Near schools Near family Near friends Near shops or other facilities Reputation of area People from the same ethnic group as you People from the same religious group as you Nice area Council offered it to me Liked the house Cheap/affordable housing Close to transport Born here/always lived here Lived here before Rural/open environment/quiet /peaceful Good access to London Parents house/decision Marriage/Living with partner Other None of these Don’t know
Total
Far right target group
(1,014) % 9 11 16 13 23 10 10 18 1 * 3 1 3 1 2 3 2 4 1 1 1 4 4 1
(112) % 10 7 16 15 27 4 10 23 2 3 3 1 1 0 2 4 4 1 0 0 1 4 6 2
A8 BMEs BMEs impact non- representgroup deprived ative areas (109) % 13 15 24 6 23 16 12 6 1 1 7 5 1 0 3 5 2 8 0 0 0 2 1 1
(104) % 12 7 15 21 16 6 10 13 3 0 3 1 3 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 9 3
(313) % 23 15 15 11 15 12 12 10 5 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 4 * 1 1 2 4 3
69
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
PRIORITY OVER SERVICES Q14. ROTATE ORDER TICK START. SHOWCARD G (R) To what extent do you agree or disagree that some groups of people in Britain get unfair priority when it comes to public services, like housing, health services and schools? SINGLE CODE ONLY. Total Far A8 BMEs BMEs right impact non- representtarget group deprived ative group areas Base (1,014) (112) (109) (104) (313) % % % % % Strongly agree 25 34 34 16 17 Tend to agree 31 31 34 30 27 Neither agree nor disagree 17 12 12 17 24 Tend to disagree 11 13 14 15 10 Strongly disagree 5 4 5 10 5 Don’t know 11 5 2 12 17 Q15. ROTATE ORDER TICK START. SHOWCARD G (R) Thinking about your local area. To what extent do you agree or disagree that other people in this local area seem to get unfair priority over you when it comes to public services, like housing, health services and schools? SINGLE CODE ONLY Total Far A8 BMEs BMEs right impact non- representtarget group deprived ative group areas Base (1,014) (112) (109) (104) (313) % % % % % Strongly agree 10 21 20 9 10 Tend to agree 15 17 21 16 19 Neither agree nor disagree 23 20 22 30 27 Tend to disagree 22 22 21 17 15 Strongly disagree 13 9 9 13 9 Don’t know 17 11 6 15 19 Q16. Access to council housing in this area. IF NECESSARY: which groups of people, if any, do you think are the most likely to get unfair priority over you when it comes to council housing? PROBE FULLY BUT DO NOT PROMPT. CODE FROM LIST BELOW. Total Far A8 BMEs BMEs right impact non- representtarget group deprived ative areas group Base (1,014) (112) (109) (104) (313) % % % % % Asian people 4 9 0 5 7 Asylum seekers/ Refugees/immigrants 18 29 24 17 17 Black people 3 2 0 3 3 Gay or lesbian people 1 0 0 1 0 Older people 2 1 1 3 3 People from Eastern Europe 5 2 5 6 4 People with learning disabilities 1 1 1 1 1 Physically disabled people 2 0 0 2 1 Poor people/people on benefits 5 4 4 5 4 Single mothers 19 18 28 11 9 Travellers/gypsies 1 1 0 1 * White/English people 2 0 0 2 8 Women * 0 1 0 1 Men * 0 0 0 * Muslims 1 0 0 0 * Other 7 6 13 2 6 No one/no-body 35 31 30 29 25 Don’t know 19 16 12 30 29
70
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
Q17. Places in local schools IF NECESSARY: which groups of people, if any, do you think are the most likely to get unfair priority over you when it comes to places in local schools? PROBE FULLY BUT DO NOT PROMPT. CODE FROM LIST BELOW. Total Far A8 BMEs BMEs right impact non- representtarget group deprived ative group areas Base (1,014) (112) (109) (104) (313) % % % % % Asian people 1 5 0 2 4 Asylum seekers/ Refugees/immigrants 6 7 10 7 5 Black people 1 2 0 2 1 Gay or lesbian people 0 0 0 0 0 Older people * 0 0 1 0 People from Eastern Europe 1 2 1 3 1 People with learning disabilities * 1 0 0 1 Physically disabled people * 0 0 0 1 Poor people/people on benefits 1 1 1 2 1 Single mothers 2 2 1 3 2 Travellers/gypsies * 0 1 2 0 White/English people 1 0 0 3 5 Women 0 0 0 0 0 Men 0 0 0 0 0 Muslims * 0 0 0 * Other 6 4 8 4 4 No one/no-body 56 56 51 45 41 Don’t know 25 25 22 31 34
Q18. Local job opportunities, IF NECESSARY: which groups of people, if any, do you think are the most likely to get unfair priority over you when it comes to local job opportunities? PROBE FULLY BUT DO NOT PROMPT. CODE FROM LIST BELOW. Total Far A8 BMEs BMEs right impact non- representgroup deprived ative target group areas Base (1,014) (112) (109) (104) (313) % % % % % Asian people 3 5 1 4 4 Asylum seekers/ Refugees/immigrants 8 12 19 5 4 Black people 2 2 1 4 1 Gay or lesbian people * 0 0 2 0 Older people 1 0 1 5 1 People from Eastern Europe 4 6 12 7 3 People with learning disabilities * 0 0 0 * Physically disabled people 1 1 0 0 0 Poor people/people on benefits * 2 0 3 1 Single mothers 1 1 1 0 1 Travellers/gypsies 1 0 0 1 0 White/English people 4 4 0 12 15 Women * 0 0 1 1 Men * 1 0 0 * Muslims * 0 1 0 * Other 6 5 8 5 4 No one/no-body 53 47 47 35 37 Don’t know 19 21 14 24 31
71
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
Q19. Access to healthcare IF NECESSARY: which groups of people, if any, do you think are the most likely to get unfair priority over you when it comes to healthcare? PROBE FULLY BUT DO NOT PROMPT. CODE FROM LIST BELOW. Total Far A8 BMEs BMEs right impact non- representtarget group deprived ative group areas Base (1,014) (112) (109) (104) (313) % % % % % Asian people 2 10 0 5 2 Asylum seekers/ Refugees/immigrants 8 8 11 3 4 Black people 2 3 0 2 1 Gay or lesbian people * 0 0 0 * Older people 3 2 2 4 2 People from Eastern Europe 1 4 1 4 1 People with learning disabilities * 0 0 2 1 Physically disabled people 2 1 0 4 2 Poor people/people on benefits 1 3 0 2 1 Single mothers 2 3 3 2 1 Travellers/gypsies 1 0 0 1 1 White/English people 1 1 1 5 4 Women * 0 0 0 1 Men * 0 0 0 * Muslims * 1 0 0 0 Other 5 7 6 0 4 No one/no-body 61 61 59 46 50 Don’t know 16 16 15 28 29
Q20. Benefits and welfare payments, IF NECESSARY: which groups of people, if any, do you think are the most likely to get unfair priority over you when it comes to benefits and welfare payments? PROBE FULLY BUT DO NOT PROMPT. CODE FROM LIST BELOW. Total Far A8 BMEs BMEs impact non- representright ative target group deprived group areas Base (1,014) (112) (109) (104) (313) % % % % % Asian people 3 12 2 2 3 Asylum seekers/ Refugees/immigrants 20 29 23 7 12 Black people 2 4 0 2 1 Gay or lesbian people * 0 0 0 0 Older people 2 2 1 1 1 People from Eastern Europe 3 4 2 2 2 People with learning disabilities 1 0 0 2 * Physically disabled people 1 3 1 1 1 Poor people/people on benefits 5 7 6 4 3 Single mothers 9 7 9 5 6 Travellers/gypsies 1 0 0 3 2 White/English people 1 1 3 3 5 Women 0 1 0 0 * Men * 0 0 0 * Muslims 1 1 0 3 1 Other 6 6 11 2 4 No one/no-body 43 34 36 44 39 Don’t know 18 17 17 29 33
72
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
Q21– SHOWCARD G (R) I am now going to read out some statements and I would like you to tell me to 24 what extent you agree or disagree with each. SINGLE CODE ONLY FOR EACH. Strongly Tend to Neither Tend to Strongly Don’t agree agree agree nor disagree disagree know disagree Base Q21. Total (1,014) 26 44 11 13 4 3 Public services like health Far right target (112) 29 47 12 7 4 2 and education group should be A8 impact (109) 23 38 9 22 6 3 tailored to the group needs of the BMEs non(104) 35 38 14 5 5 3 individual deprived areas BMEs (313) 30 37 13 10 3 6 representative Q22. Total (1,014) 26 55 10 6 1 2 I am happy for people who Far right target (112) 26 56 6 9 3 0 need additional group public services A8 impact (109) 26 54 5 13 2 1 to receive more group than those who BMEs non(104) 20 57 13 6 3 1 do not deprived areas BMEs (313) 26 46 17 6 1 4 representative VERSION A ASKED OF HALF THE MAIN SAMPLE, THE NON-DEPRIVED BME SAMPLE AND THE GENERAL BME BOOSTER SAMPLE Strongly agree Q23. Version A
It is right that people whose housing needs are more urgent, such as big families, receive priority in housing allocation
Total (513) BMEs nondeprived areas BMEs representative (270)
13 13 26
Tend to Neither Tend to Strongly agree agree nor disagree disagree dis-agree 39 19 18 7 42 22 12 8 36
18
12
3
Don’t know 5 3 5
VERSION B ASKED OF HALF THE MAIN SAMPLE, THE FAR RIGHT TARGET GROUP BOOSTER SAMPLE AND THE A8 IMPACT GROUP BOOSTER SAMPLE Strongly agree Q23. Version B
Total (501) It is right that ethnic minority groups Far right target whose housing group (112) needs are more A8 impact urgent, such as big group (109) families, receive priority in housing allocation BMEs representative (43)
5 6
Tend to Neither Tend to Strongly agree agree nor disagree disagree dis-agree 26 14 24 28 21 6 25 39
Don’t know 4 2
8
14
19
25
33
1
9
33
13
28
13
5
73
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
Q24. Evidence shows that some people from poorer backgrounds do less well at school. Version A Given this, to what extent do you agree or disagree that young people from poorer backgrounds should receive extra education support in schools, like smaller classes or extra teachers? SINGLE CODE ONLY. Total NonBMEs deprived representBMES ative Base (513) (104) (270) % % % Strongly agree 27 28 36 Tend to agree 29 36 32 Neither agree nor disagree 17 17 15 Tend to disagree 17 11 4 Strongly disagree 6 8 6 Don’t know 3 1 6
Q24. Evidence shows that some people from poorer backgrounds do less well at school. Version B Given this, to what extent do you agree or disagree that young people from ethnic minority backgrounds should receive extra education support in schools, like smaller classes or extra teachers? SINGLE CODE ONLY. Total Far A8 BMEs right impact representtarget group ative group Base (501) (112) (109) (43) % % % % Strongly agree 10 11 17 16 Tend to agree 34 29 22 48 Neither agree nor disagree 10 10 13 10 Tend to disagree 22 14 21 14 Strongly disagree 19 35 27 11 Don’t know 4 1 0 2
MAKING FRIENDS Q25. SHOWCARD H (R) If a new neighbour moved in next door to you, which of the following best describes how you would behave? SINGLE CODE ONLY Total Far A8 BMEs BMEs right impact non- representtarget group deprived ative group areas Base (1,014) (112) (109) (104) (313) % % % % % I would introduce myself 70 72 76 56 49 I would wait for them to introduce themselves 13 8 13 20 17 It would depend on who they are 11 15 8 17 20 I wouldn’t know if a new neighbour moved in 2 1 2 2 5 None of these 2 2 0 2 5 Don’t know 1 2 1 3 4
74
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
Q26. You said whether you would introduce yourself to a new neighbour would depend on who the person was. What factors would influence your decision? MULTICODE OK Base: All those who said it would depend on who they are at Q25 NB some base sizes are very small and responses are given in absolute numbers rather than percentages. Results should be interpreted with caution. Total
Base What they looked like If they were friendly/unfriendly Their gender Their age Their social class Their job Their ethnic group/nationality/whether immigrant Whether they could speak English Their religious group Other None of these Don’t know
(108) % 18 43 2 5 1 1 7 9 1 5 23 5
Far right target group (17) N 4 7 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 3 0
A8 Non BMEs impact deprived representgroup BMEs ative (9) N 2 5 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 0
(18) N 2 12 2 5 1 1 2 1 2 2 0 1
60 % 16 48 7 15 3 2 15 1 3 2 15 5
Q27. SHOWCARD I (R) Which ethnic, religious or immigrant groups do you think you would be least likely to introduce yourself to? MULTICODE OK. Just read out the letter(s) that apply. MULTICODE OK. Base: All those who said it would depend on their ethnic group, ability to speak English and/ or religion at Q26 NB all base sizes are very small here and responses are given in absolute numbers rather than percentages. Results should be interpreted with caution. Total
Base A B C D E F G
Asian people Asylum seekers/Refugees Black people People from Eastern Europe Travellers/gypsies White English people Muslims Other No one/no-body Don’t know
(18) N 7 4 0 0 2 0 8 2 2 2
Far right target group (3) N 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
A8 Non BMEs impact deprived representgroup BMEs ative (4) N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
(4) N 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0
(10) N 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 0 1 1
75
Public Attitudes Towards Cohesion and Integration
ATTITUDES TOWARDS IMMIGRATION ASK ALL SHOWCARD J (R) I am now going to read out a list of statements and I would like you to tell me to what extent you agree or disagree with each SINGLE CODE ONLY FOR EACH. ROTATE ORDER TICK START. Strongly agree
Q28
Q29.
There are too many immigrants in Britain
Immigrants make Britain more open to new ideas and cultures
Q30. British people should always have priority over immigrants for local council housing
Q31.
Q32.
Immigration is generally good for the economy
Immigrants take jobs from British people
Q33. We need more immigrants to do jobs that British people don’t want to do
76
Total (1,014) Far right target (112) group A8 impact group (109) BMEs non-deprived (104) areas BMEs representative (313) Total (1,014) Far right target (112) group A8 impact group (109) BMEs non-deprived (104) areas BMEs representative (313) Total (1,014) Far right target (112) group A8 impact group (109) BMEs non-deprived (104) areas BMEs representative (313) Total (1,014) Far right target (112) group A8 impact group (109) BMEs non-deprived (104) areas BMEs representative (313) Total (1,014) Far right target (112) group A8 impact group (109) BMEs non-deprived (104) areas BMEs representative (313) Total (1,014) Far right target (112) group A8 impact group (109) BMEs non-deprived (104) areas BMEs representative (313)
% 39 63
Tend to Neither Tend to Strongly agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree % % % % 29 15 9 4 21 9 4 1
Don’t know % 3 2
48 26
27 27
7 23
10 13
6 5
3 6
26 12 7
24 46 35
20 16 17
13 16 25
8 7 15
9 4 1
8 18
47 43
8 20
23 8
13 2
1 9
31 24 28
42 27 33
12 21 13
6 18 20
3 8 7
7 3 0
28 17
29 28
17 20
17 17
7 11
3 7
14
18
23
20
14
11
6 3
30 21
21 17
23 31
13 22
9 5
5 15
28 37
18 18
24 16
17 3
7 11
20 18 26
37 24 32
20 18 14
10 27 18
3 10 5
11 3 4
26 10
28 22
13 17
23 27
8 15
2 9
9 6 4
19 22 16
17 17 14
26 29 28
22 21 35
8 6 3
5 12
27 24
6 23
28 21
34 12
1 9
13
28
20
17
12
11
Glossary
Social Class A
Professional, etc. occupations
B
Managerial and Technical occupations
c1
Skilled occupations – non-manual
c2
Skilled occupations – manual
D
Partly skilled occupations
E
Unskilled occupations
77
