Criminal courts should take account of age and lack of maturity when imposing sentences on people between the ages of 18-25. Guidelines say that young adults should be treated less severely when their level of psychological development makes them less responsible for a crime or increases the impact of punishment on them.
But what about the decisions courts make prior to sentence – in particular whether a defendant should be remanded in custody awaiting trial? Should age and maturity be relevant factors here?
A new report I’ve written for the T2A (Transition to Adulthood) argues that more should be done to keep young adults out of pre-trial detention. For one thing a spell in prison on remand can be just as damaging as a prison sentence – sometimes more so. Earlier this month inspectors sharply criticised the treatment of young adults in prison and, separately, argued that increased time spent on remand as a result of court delays will inevitably add to the anxieties and frustrations of individual prisoners of all ages. “A growing, and increasingly-frustrated remand population has the potential to have a serious adverse effect on the stability of prisons”. The remand population as a whole grew by 24% during 2020.
It’s also the case that defendants should only be remanded to custody if they are likely to receive a prison sentence in the event of conviction. As sentencing guidelines make prison terms less likely for under 25s than over 25s, maturity should be taken into account at the remand stage too. But it seldom is.
As the Sentencing Council has recognised, many young people who offend either stop committing crime, or begin a process of stopping, in their late teens and early twenties. Therefore, a young adult’s previous convictions may not be indicative of a tendency for further offending. This is an important consideration for courts to take into account when considering risk.
Young Adults on Remand finds that – until the pandemic at least – the last ten years have seen a welcome fall in the use of custodial remands. But there is scope for both the CPS and judiciary to incorporate a greater recognition of maturity factors in relevant guidance on remand decision-making for practitioners. Courts in particular should adapt their ways of working to ensure a fairer and distinct approach to young adults at the remand stage.
Magistrates who routinely deal with children in the youth court may place a higher weight on maturity on the occasions when they sit in the adult court. But youth magistrates (about 15% of JPs) may not always be able to persuade their adult court colleagues of its significance. The view that “he’s 18, he’s old enough to know what he’s doing” is still heard.
Pre-trial arrangements are very different for under 18s and today’s report argues that the welcome policy of further restricting the use of custodial remands for children should be extended to young adults. In the shorter term, there is a case too for removing young adults, as well as children, from the remit of the emergency law extending custody time limits during the pandemic.
If custodial remands are to be reduced, sufficient services will be needed to support and supervise young adults on bail, whether from the probation service, local government, NHS or voluntary organisations. And bail information schemes need to ensure that courts are made aware of non-custodial options in individual cases.
The local authority may have continuing responsibilities for young adults who have been in their care and may be able to contribute support which could help secure bail. The report suggests that transferring budgetary responsibility for young adult defendants to a more local level – as is the case for under 18s – could stimulate better provision of community-based measures, including suitable accommodation. Current bail hostel arrangements are inadequate.
The report also recommends that more is done to monitor bail and remand decision-making in respect of young adults to inform efforts both to reduce custodial remands overall and tackle any disproportionate use for black and minority ethnic defendants.
Thanks in large part to the determined and longstanding work of the Barrow Cadbury Trust, recent years have seen a growing consensus that young adults aged 18-25 require a distinct and tailored approach from the justice system. Making the necessary changes to law, policy and practice has been a slow and chequered process. Remands are an area where the pressures of the pandemic could help to accelerate progressive change.
This blog on racial justice in the VCS comes from Jeremy Crook OBE, Chief Executive of BTEG. It was planned as one of our 2020 centenary blogs. December’s Covid-related events pushed it into January – but it’s much too good to miss.
The Trust has had a strong involvement in racial justice issues over many decades. But this is a challenge to our own governance and management, and we are very aware that our board and senior management team are not sufficiently racially diverse. In a majority family governed foundation, racial diversity is an issue, and working with a small staff team we can only make new appointments when posts become vacant. The board has not been monochrome over the past five years and we are committed to increasing our Black and Minority Ethnic membership in the coming year. This has been written into our performance objectives as a Chair and a Chief Executive and we are currently working on it.
Erica Cadbury and Sara Llewellin
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Black Training and Enterprise Group (BTEG) was set up 30 years ago. We focus on helping children and young people succeed in education, employment and minimising their involvement in the criminal justice system. As one of the longest serving chief executives of a national charity, I want to reflect on how the conversation on race equality has changed in the voluntary and community sector (VCS).
I joined the VCS in the early 1980’s by volunteering for the Afro-Caribbean Youth Council, a charity in Walsall. The driver for its creation was social exclusion of black youth from mainstream organisations, school exclusions, lower educational attainment, youth unemployment, access to housing and police racism.
Race equality always felt like a peripheral issue in the VCS and was only supported by a handful of charitable trusts. The VCS was content to support race inequality initiatives if it did not reduce the resources available to the mainstream sector.
Last year an explosion of global anger was ignited by the killing of George Floyd in broad daylight on a public street by a group of police officers. Many parts of the world were awakened to how people of African origin are treated by the police, at work, on the streets, in the media, in the justice and political systems. The Black Lives Matter movement gave voice to more black people, many of whom have suffered in silence and/or been under-valued in the workplace for many years.
Reinvigorated scrutiny of the VCS highlighted that the presence of black and Asian people at senior levels in the VCS is extremely poor. There are some black and Asian individuals leading large charities and charitable trusts but, overall, their representation at senior levels is inadequate. According to ACEVO only 3% of charity CEOs were from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds (2017).
It has also brought into focus what it means to be anti-racist in the VCS. Unacceptably, we still find race equality conversations in the VCS taking place without any black or Asian people present.
In the VCS the conversation shifted to discussions about the distribution of opportunities, the distribution of resources and the control of those resources. Whilst this is not the first time these issues had been considered it did feel for the first time that there was a cross-sector impetus, and more people are demanding more from their own leaders and organisations.
For much of the last thirty years [some] national VCS leaders engaged in discussions about racial inequalities but did not improve their own organisational performance. Equalities policies were adopted but there was no change in the ethnicity of those making decisions.
Young black, Asian and white people have demonstrated for change and are rightly rejecting tokenistic change in the VCS. It has been difficult, traumatic and uncomfortable, but it has provided a sense of hope that there will be change.
The issue of institutional racism has re-emerged with the usual denials that it exists in many large organisations. Structurally it would be easy to say that race equality never really featured in the core policy conversations within the VCS and, at best, it was a marginal issue often characterised with tokenistic gestures, e.g., the lone black or Asian individual employed to deliver the time limited ‘ethnic minority’ project.
In 2020 black and Asian colleagues in the VCS sector have demanded change. I think there are white leaders in the VCS that are prepared to listen and change their behaviour. They are prepared to use their influence and levers to tackle racial inequality. But there are leaders in large or influential organisations who are oblivious to the need for any change in the VCS. We all need to challenge and support these leaders to do better.
The conversation in some parts of the VCS has not changed – race equality is still not discussed. In other parts of the VCS what has changed is that the treatment of black people has been elevated up the management agenda. However, there is a risk that many white colleagues and leaders in the VCS view this as a moment and not the start of a transformation process.
Charitable trusts have also come under pressure to look at themselves and the equity of grant making decisions. Some have embraced this and have had a serious look at their organisation cultures, ethnic representation, and their relationship with black, Asian and minority ethnic organisations. Charitable trusts also have the lever of their grant making and must use this to drive change in the charities they support.
Government too has its procurement lever but has been reluctant to drive change. Large charities receive millions of pounds per year to provide public services and they should be held to account for bringing about change. For too long they have been dismissive of the need to reflect the ethnic diversity of their service users within their hierarchy. All too often black and Asian organisations have been excluded from the real decision making.
Today more importance is being placed on intersectional considerations – black and Asian individuals want to be respected and treated fairly for all their characteristics and not only in relation to ethnicity and colour. Black and Asian communities are demanding that they are not treated as a one-dimensional monolithic group.
We must be careful not to aid an inclination among leaders in the VCS to state the race equality box has been ticked now – “we’ve reviewed our policies so let’s move on now”.
Jeremy Crook OBE
In the spring we began a programme of publishing centenary blogs. We covered the Funder Commitment on Climate Change and the successful campaign for marriage equality in Ireland in February. Gender equality followed in March, and finally, in April, a blog on the anniversary of the Strangeways Riot – which led to the Woolf Report and its radical changes to the prison system. In the months that followed it seemed inappropriate to continue the focus on centenary blogs when all around us was so chaotic and with so much else that we needed to address.
When lockdown began in March trustees and senior staff put their heads together and resolved to carry on doing what we know from talking to our partners that we’re good at, rather than venturing into new territories or approaches, or throwing our doors wide open to meet huge emergency needs. As a small foundation we don’t have the resources to respond with financial support as others did.
But we immediately contacted all our partners to find out how they were faring, what their immediate needs were, and how they thought we could help them. We also wanted to reassure them that our support was secure for the long term and we wouldn’t be reassigning those funds for emergency support elsewhere. What remains important to the Trust is addressing structural inequalities through alignment with partners, advocacy, and influencing policy. None of that has changed, although the way we and our partners do that work has of course shifted and adapted.
Our programmes concentrate in the main on policy, campaigning and public opinion, and so we do not substantially fund frontline services. For this reason, we haven’t seen an enormous rise in new or emergency applications, nor have we thankfully experienced a drop in our endowment income – though this may of course change depending on numerous factors including the Brexit transitional process and economic downturn.
Like the majority of the social justice sector, we have all moved to home working and online trustee meetings, and the events held in our meeting rooms – part of our offer as a trust with meeting rooms in central London – have all moved on line. Using Zoom and Teams is now almost second nature but that is of course challenging for our relational model and we would all much prefer to meet in person and will hopefully return to that in the coming months.
In October we delivered £5m of National Lottery Community Fund (NLCF) emergency funding to organisations working with refugees, migrants and asylum seekers whose work had been affected by COVID-19. Nearly 200 organisations across England were given emergency grants up to £50k to use before April 2021. These were mainly service providing bodies, which are not our usual partners. Their work spanned grassroots community groups in Leicester helping abused and abandoned women with no migration status, to a London organisation providing bicycles to refugees and asylum seekers, run on a shoe string primarily by volunteers.
So, what have we learned from these past months? That the values we share with our partners are constant, but that we cannot be complacent about progress around inequality. Economic, gender, and race inequalities are not going away. On a positive note – public and political awareness about those issues and how they might be addressed and tackled has undoubtedly increased. The will to challenge institutional and structural racism is gaining ground and we hope to see that momentum translated into concrete changes. The ‘hostile environment’ is in lots of ways more hostile, but the strength of resistance challenging some of the hatred is palpable, however it manifests itself.
Examining our own house has been part of that process; in July I wrote a blog about the origins of our endowment, scrutinising the early commercial activities of Cadburys in relation to the labour which produced cocoa and sugar. You can read about what we found out here.
The Kruger report on civil society could be a useful tool to address some of the fall-out from the pandemic, though many of the ideas contained in it are reworked ones, and we are conscious that the government might be hoping the foundation sector will make up for the civil society funding gap which is inevitably approaching.
The sector is jittery and understandably so. Who knows how the next twelve months will pan out? For now our sights must be set on the nearer term recovery period rather than the next 100 years I alluded to in the January blog. Yet the climate crisis must remain front of mind as we cannot afford to lose any momentum on that. As the year ends, we are all utterly convinced that the need for a strong civil society is greater than ever.
The Barrow Cadbury COVID-19 Support Fund is one of nine expert partnerships, funded by The National Lottery Community Fund, to ensure almost £59m of National Lottery funding reaches communities most vulnerable to the impact of COVID-19.
The 198 organisations which have been awarded funding are working tirelessly in straitened circumstances to relieve hardship caused by the pandemic among refugees and migrants, many of whom were finding it difficult to access services.
Initially open for a three week period, the application ‘window’ was extended as was the eligibility criteria to ensure it reached those organisations that provided services and support targeted at refugees and migrants which they were seeking to maintain. Our funding panel was made up of trustees and senior staff from the Trust alongside people with lived experience and knowledge of the migration sector.
Out of almost 200 charities it is impossible to give a comprehensive overview of such varied work covering a range of ages, mainstream and specialist organisations, regions, and those led by refugees and migrants themselves. However, here is a snapshot of just four which might give a flavour of the cross-section and extent of the amazing work being undertaken.
Fairbeats Music is a charity based in Lewisham operating across a number of South London boroughs. It believes that every child, including the most marginalised, has a right to a creative life, so provides music-based activities, working with about 170 per year. Activities include music-making, instrument lessons, song-writing, ensemble playing and performances. Its £13,200 grant will enable it to increase its capacity to respond during this pandemic, including additional hours for existing staff and freelancers, and new equipment to ensure it can continue to provide its activities. It will also allow Fairbeats to undertake recorded video activities, provide care packs and paper resources for children with no internet access and live on-line music sessions for those who do, undertake a special song-writing project in a distanced way, and continue to promote the importance of music-making.
Europia is a registered charity and community development organisation established in 2008. It is the only organisation supporting and empowering European nationals who have come to live and work in Greater Manchester. The charity aims to help people feel at home, connect them with their local communities and give them the knowledge and skills they need to make their hopes and dreams a reality. Europia provides a legal surgery, welfare advice, EUSS application assistance and emergency funds for the most vulnerable, as well as facilitating community development groups including an art collective, a Roma Project and a Women’s Group. The £25k they were awarded will enable them to work with community leaders and community navigators to develop appropriate public health information about COVID-19 in Polish, Roma, Romanian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Slovak, Czech and Hungarian. It will collaborate with community networks, consulates, High Commissions, cultural bodies, supplementary schools and East European businesses to disseminate the resources.
Love146 aims to end the trafficking of children globally. It runs a Survivor Care Programme for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who have been trafficked to the UK or are potential trafficking victims. This involves providing specialist supported accommodation, wrap-around support, a rapid response placement service and outreach support. The organisation rents shared houses in London and Hampshire for young people, and supports individual care leavers who it has helped into independent accommodation, or who have been referred to it for specific support by a local authority. Love146 also runs an Outreach Programme, providing training for individuals involved in safeguarding. It operates mainly in London and the South East, and supports approximately 40 beneficiaries each year. £8940 will enable Love146 to continue to respond to the needs of young people at risk of going missing, and/or of being trafficked.
Zinthiya Ganeshpanchan Trust (ZGT) is a Leicester charity established in 2009, working to alleviate poverty and reduce all forms of abuse. It has received several local awards for its work. Originally set up to support disadvantaged women from any background, it has found itself increasingly supporting migrant and refugee women fleeing domestic abuse. It is one of the few providers of support for women affected by domestic abuse and FGM in Leicester. £40k will enable ZGT to provide emotional support, help with reporting abuse to the police and obtaining injunctions, referrals to housing providers, and assistance with housing benefit and welfare claims, access to legal aid to enable women with NRPF to pursue status independent of their abuser, money and debt advice, provision of emergency supplies including food and period products for women and girls fleeing abuse.
Zinthiya Ganespanchan, CEO of the Trust said: “We are delighted to have received support from this Fund to support migrant women, including refugee and asylum seekers, not only to provide advice and guidance but also to provide practical support such as emergency food and clothing. Through this funding we have already been able to transform the lives of many women.”
A new report: Stories of Injustice: The criminalisation of women convicted under joint enterprise laws, prepared jointly by authors from MMU and the national campaign group JENGbA, highlights new and disturbing evidence of the hidden and ongoing injustice of Joint Enterprise in England and Wales. Drawing on personal testimonies the research uncovers over 100 girls and women convicted as secondary parties, most serving long and life sentences for convictions of murder or manslaughter, who have not committed violence.
The research examines the process of criminalisation, revealing there are a number of critical moments, decisions and actions, or omissions that lead to these wrongful convictions. This begins with the early actions of the police and the CPS and their decisions to charge women with serious violent crimes. Significantly, once in a trial as a defendant, the findings then reveal a range of strategies drawn on by the prosecution teams to support the conviction of women regardless of their lack of involvement, lack of violence or presence at the scene.
This involves a dual process, simultaneously obscuring the context and silencing the immediate and longstanding experiences of violence that many women have experienced, yet over highlighting their ‘involvement’ or ‘role’. To construct the women’s role or culpability the prosecution draw on a number of lines of argument: her presence was encouragement; she should have foreseen what would happen; she intended the violence to occur for X reason; her non-action during and / or after the event indicates a common purpose.
These arguments rely heavily on a number of myths, stereotypes and gendered narratives. These can draw on, echo and feed on and into wider mediated narratives and often draw attention to the ways in which they have failed as girls or women. Importantly, the findings show how defence teams are complicit in silencing by failing to introduce important contextual factors or engage in adequate challenge to these gendered narratives.
The report highlights critical concerns, calls for intervention, and asks us to reimagine justice and what this means for girls and women marginalised and criminalised by the continued injustice of the legal principles underpinning joint enterprise legislation.
In this year of unprecedented challenges for charities, we asked two of our trustees, Esther McConnell and Cathy Pharoah, to tell us about their experiences of being trustees of Barrow Cadbury Trust during the pandemic, what’s made a difference, what was difficult, and what might be round the corner.
Esther McConnell
Esther is the great great granddaughter of Barrow and Geraldine Cadbury. Esther became a Trustee in 2016. She currently works at the East European Resource Centre as the Deputy CEO. Previously, she worked at the Anti-Trafficking and Labour Exploitation Unit (ATLEU) and volunteered with Stop the Traffik. She studied Global Migration at UCL with a focus on community responses to migration and change.
“I don’t believe our risk register or strategy embraced the possibility of a pandemic or a national lockdown, though we had included the fallout by other means. Being a Trustee over the past eight or so months has meant grappling with this fast-changing and ever-complicating landscape – a landscape which has affected our charity, our people, and our partners.
Working with a grant-making charity often gives you a marvellous overview of the work and profile of a sector. From this viewpoint – it has been clear that COVID-19, the lockdown, and the associated economic fallout, have exacerbated existing inequalities and created new ones. Across our programmes there has been a whole lot of hardship and, at times, this has felt overwhelming. But there has also been a good amount of hope. Hope sprung, primarily, from the hard work and dynamism of our partners in all their different guises, and their staff.
But what of the finer details of governance operations? We have adapted ourselves to work remotely – with a simplified meeting structure and regular updates. We have missed speaking in person and sharing thoughts in that easy way we took for granted. But our staff have supported us to recreate a sharing environment by enabling small discussion groups within our agenda.
It has certainly been a very strange and disrupted year – but the consistency and steadfastness of BCT staff and fellow Trustees has meant that being a trustee has felt like a calm and steady ship in the storm”.
Cathy Pharoah
Cathy has been a non-family trustee since 2015. She is Visiting Professor of Charity Funding and co-director of the Centre for Charitable Giving and Philanthropy at Cass Business School. She is an expert on voluntary sector funding, specialising in research on philanthropy. She is a founder of Voluntary Sector Review, and presents widely on giving and philanthropy.
“The pandemic has brought challenge, change, privilege and opportunity to trusteeship. In a future of continuing uncertainty, it will continue to do so. Looking back to the anxieties of March the Trust might breathe a sigh of relief. Operations have been moved successfully to online and home working, a substantial programme of emergency and other grant-making has been delivered in a timely way, finances are still afloat, thankfully few staff and trustees have suffered from COVID19 infection, and Zoomed Board meetings have been efficient. And Board and staff are all still allies and friends.
However, none of the effectiveness in responding to the impact of the pandemic can be taken for granted. In the case of the Trust, it has been – and will continue to be – underpinned by the principles and ‘capital’ of good charity governance already in place. This includes high standards of financial and risk monitoring and oversight, clarity and unity around the charity’s mission and purposes, efficient managerial processes, regular detailed Board reporting and an organisational culture of learning. We have been able to draw on a well-oiled machine to develop rapid-fire, flexible approaches to the fast-changing landscape of grantee and beneficiary need. CEO and Chair leadership in steering the organisation through change, and supporting staff through the personal and professional challenges of the pandemic, have been vital. Trustees have had a key role in recognising the need to work differently, and providing fit-for-purpose oversight to enable staff to get on with the job in a timely way.
Most importantly, however, and critical in holding all the initiatives together, are the strong relationships of trust between staff and board members. From the perspective of a Trustee, these build up over time, through face to face engagements in Trustee meetings, events and joint project visits, not to mention invaluable, informal opportunities to get to know staff and other Trustees better at social occasions. We have lost these to the pandemic, and they are sadly missed. In the process, however, it is important also to recognise that trustee boards and staff have been sharing new experiences and partnerships together around fighting the impact of the pandemic and responding to calls for greater equality and diversity in the sector. These are providing the new platforms on which to build future governance, and more effective programmes for social change.
http://www.barrowcadbury.org.uk
We recently hosted a conversation for small charities with those who fund and support them, to explore their social change role over the next 12-18 months. This was partly to build on our recent publication of Small charities and social change, a study which describes the approaches of 11 small charities to advocacy; and partly because through our work in response to Covid-19, we’re hearing a lot about the need to strengthen the sector’s collective voice: ‘We have to have some real conversations. We’re lots of voices, collective voices, but we’re being drowned out with all the noise’.
The pandemic has presented many and varied challenges for small charities – and uncertainty is now part of the new normal. Alongside this, we have all been affected by the events that followed the killing of George Floyd – the protests, the debates, the anger, the pain, the calls to action. Profound questions are being asked about diversity, equality and inclusion – these need to be front of mind as we turn our attention to the process of recovery and renewal out of the crisis that we have been living through.
We were privileged to hear from four people with different experiences of social change: Raheel Mohammad, Director of Maslaha; Christopher Stacey, Co-Director of Unlock; Debbie Pippard, Director of Programmes at Barrow Cadbury Trust; and George Barrow, Civil Servant at The Ministry of Justice.
Seven things stood out from their reflections and the discussions that followed:
- ‘Covid-19 has pulled back the curtain and demonstrated the number of people that have been marginalised’ by previously unfair and closed decision-making processes. Small and medium charities undertaking social change work have to look at ways in which they can link up with other groups who are led by and/or represent individuals and groups whose voices and experiences are going unheard.
- ‘Majority white-led organisations do not have the specialist knowledge or expertise to understand how certain social issues affect communities of colour.’ Work to unpack and respond to the experiences of communities of colour must be led by or run in partnership with them so that it ‘registers emotion, vulnerability, heritage, culture and religion’. If this social change work is being carried out ‘through partnerships between black and brown-led and white-led and organisations’, it is most effective when based around something tangible: ‘it’s in the action that you open up new parameters and new horizons’.
- Ensure that you are actively and demonstratively accountable to the individuals, groups and communities you are advocating on behalf of. We must avoid being the creators or perpetuators of ‘artificial examples of good practice’, only putting forward solutions for policy and practice that are based on the genuine experience and voice of those you represent Always ask yourself: ‘Do you know what good looks like?’ for a particular group or community.
- Collaboration is essential, particularly between large and small charities. Larger charities are often more likely to have a seat at the table and have their voices heard, and they have the time and capacity to engage in decision making processes. But small charities tend to have the proximity to lived experience and in-depth knowledge of how policy and practice plays out on the ground.
- We must continue to work both inside and outside of the system. For example, building relationships with local and national government, but also being willing to mobilise and challenge where necessary. Recognise that it’s about understanding what is the most appropriate and effective strategy for the change you are seeking to influence at a given point in time.
- When attempting to influence central government policy or legislation, there are three things it is useful to keep in mind. First, develop personal relationships with key civil servants, or work in partnership with an organisation who can build or has these relationships. Second, work together in loose networks: ‘If you’re all on the same page we do get the message’. Third, understand that government moves slowly, so being able to commit and be in it for the long term is important. Small charities also have a very important role to play in being able to bring the ‘corporate memory’ on certain social policy issues and previously tried and tested solutions.
- More funders need to commit to funding social change work and understand what it takes to fund this kind of work. Be willing to fund over an extended period of time, stick with social change processes for the long term, and allow those doing social change work the freedom and opportunism to act in a responsive and adaptive way. More work may need to be done with trustees of trusts and foundations to help them to understand the importance of investing in social change work alongside service delivery.
You can read more about how and why small charities are challenging, shaping and changing policy, practice and attitudes here.
A statement from Erica Cadbury, Chair of Barrow Cadbury Trust
The killing of George Floyd in the US, together with the spotlight on the origins of philanthropic capital, taken up around the world by the Black Lives Matter movement, has prompted Barrow Cadbury Trust to scrutinise more closely the early commercial activities of Cadburys, specifically in relation to the labour which produced cocoa and sugar. We have asked ourselves “how was the wealth of the business, and therefore the endowment of the Trust, created?” The wealth which ultimately provided the endowment which funds, and has funded, the Barrow Cadbury Trust’s work for a century.
In the spirit of transparency, we want to answer honestly any questions our partners and colleagues, and the organisations we support, might have about the origins of funds of the Trust. We also recognise that governing a family foundation is both public service and a great privilege in equal measure. Although our board is still comprised mainly of family, we do also recruit non-family trustees who bring complementary skills and perspectives.
For those not familiar with the Barrow Cadbury Trust, it is celebrating its 100th anniversary of social justice work this year. Our founders, Barrow and Geraldine Cadbury, were very different from other philanthropists in that they didn’t believe in helping only the so-called ‘deserving poor’. True to their Quaker convictions, they believed that all humans were of equal value and entitled to equal treatment. Though our focus today has shifted from that of Barrow and Geraldine Cadbury in 1920, there are many elements which remain the same, particularly the focus on inequality and the importance of structural change.
The religious denomination known as Quakers was founded in the middle of the seventeenth century. The involvement of individual Quakers in the eighteenth century slave trade is problematical. Eric Williams, in his groundbreaking book ‘Capitalism and Slavery’ (first published in 1944) found that: “Quaker non-conformity did not extend to the slave trade. In 1756 there were 84 Quakers listed as members of the [West India] Company trading to Africa, among them the Barclay and Baring families. Slave dealing was one of the most lucrative investments of English as of American Quakers.”. In the course of the eighteenth century both American and British Quakers sought to outlaw the ownership of and profit from slavery amongst individual Quakers. In 1774, in America, after the campaigns of John Woolman and Benjamin Lay, any Quaker owning slaves was expelled from the community. At the beginning of the 19th century in Britain, as the abolitionist movement gained traction, many Quakers were involved in campaigning for it and supporting William Wilberforce. During the civil war American Quakers were active in the “underground railroad” which enabled slaves to reach freedom through networks of safe houses.
This, however, pre-dates the Cadbury cocoa business which was started in 1824, 17 years after the 1807 Slave Trade Act. By 1833 slavery had been formally abolished under the Slavery Abolition Act, though it is common knowledge that it was many years before slavery truly ended, and there was considerable political and commercial resistance for decades. The common view was that as pro-abolitionists, the Cadburys did not knowingly do business with plantations which used enslaved or indentured labour. And, for the most part, it appears they did not.
In the early 20th Century William Cadbury, Barrow’s brother and fellow board member of Cadbury Brothers discovered that the firm was buying cocoa from plantations in the Portuguese colonies Sao Tome and Principe, where there were indentured labourers – as good as slaves. The matter was investigated over several years, but the issue it does not seem to have been pursued with great haste although eventually the firm moved their business elsewhere. An investigative journalist Henry Nevinson took up the issue but it was successfully challenged in court by William Cadbury as a libel. You can read more here. Other than that, we can find no evidence of any support of the slave trade itself – direct or indirect – in the commercial activities of Cadburys. But we cannot be 100% certain.
So, how has the Barrow Cadbury Trust’s endowment been used for a century? The concern of Barrow’s uncle, George Cadbury, in addressing the fundamental causes of poverty, was a huge influence on Barrow. To this end George Cadbury had created Bournville, a model village for the workforce and other residents , with decent housing, gardens, and green spaces. He also argued strongly for effective intervention from central and local government to do something about the shocking poverty of late Victorian society. For the Cadbury family, a better, fairer society could only be achieved by a combination of state action and individual effort. With their increasing wealth and influence Barrow and Geraldine Cadbury were in a position to encourage both and address the root causes of social problems. The introduction of welfare reforms during the Liberal government of 1906 were wholly supported.
This continued with the foundation of the Barrow and Geraldine S Cadbury Trust in 1920 (renamed as Barrow Cadbury Trust in 1994) and throughout the following century.
Undoubtedly in the present there is still a huge amount of work to be done on structural and racial inequality, and these have been areas of the Trust’s work for many decades. As a relatively small foundation we are involved in policy, advocacy and campaigning, rather than service delivery. And we are strong supporters of BAME-led and other equalities infrastructure, as well as working on migration issues with migrant organisations. We are committed to tackling racism in all its forms and believe that the best way to do this is by building alliances. There is still so much to do, we welcome this renewed focus on such vital issues and are by no means complacent about what it will take to move the dial.
Erica Cadbury
July 2020
Over the last eight years, our Economic Justice programme has been on a journey. In the early days of working with others to reduce the growing gap between rich and poor, we looked at economic inequality through both ends of the telescope. Macro level research on the characteristics of fairer financial systems sat in a portfolio alongside local work on implementing the Social Value Act in Birmingham. We went wide as well as deep, exploring the ways in which people end up with problem debt, how the demographics of urban poverty are changing, and how local authorities and communities were working creatively to minimise the impacts of austerity. We supported colleagues at Scope, to look at the extra costs experienced by disabled people, the Women’s Budget Group and Runnymede Trust to look at the disproportionate impact of government cuts on women and BAME communities; and Fawcett on how gender had been considered (spoiler alert – hardly at all) within devolution policy.
Looking at our back catalogue for this blog has been immensely rewarding. We were asking the right questions – where does power lie; why do some people fall through the gaps; how do you challenge financial systems wired for risk and short term profit; why is it so hard for those in work to build up savings; who needs the most help; what is our impact? But, we were also asking a lot of questions.
Our relationship with Birmingham and the Black Country has, over the last 100 years, provided local connections and networks through which to listen, test, adapt and respond. When, back in 2016, we were considering how to tighten up and progress the programme, we talked with partners in the city and considered how our local grant-making had reduced poverty in communities and influenced those with power.
Although in its early stages at that time, the Birmingham Poverty Truth Commission, convened by Thrive Together Birmingham, was already building a reputation. A listening model designed to create safe connections between those with lived experience of poverty and/or lack of voice, with those in positions of influence and power in city institutions, was immediately valued both by those sharing experience and those with the sway.
Another project, led by the Birmingham & Solihull Social Economy Consortium (BSSEC), was achieving steady progress in assisting Birmingham City Council to implement the principles of a welcome, but rather nebulous Social Value Act. Commissioning as a tool for social good was picking up momentum in the city. An earlier piece of research delivered by the Centre for Local Economic Strategies (CLES), sought to measure the resilience of the public, social and commercial sectors in North Walsall, and how the strength of the relationships between these contributed to the resilience of the place. The local authority embraced the findings, using them to strengthen sectors and partnerships and allocate resources more collaboratively.
What could we take away from these three initiatives? Accountability feels different if you shorten the distance. Residents’ voices convey gravitas to policy makers if they are local ones and if those listening have a connection with them through locality. Contractors, however large and often isolated from the geography in which they work, always have a local impact – and it is not always positive. There is social, economic and environmental benefit to be had beyond the bottom line. Places becomes more resilient if services and sectors work together with a shared goal of improving the lives of everyone, and crucially, of listening to everyone.
The principles of thinking and being local, of sharing wealth, of co-design and partnership, and using all your assets for the public good, are ones the Trust has embraced within the Economic Justice programme and where we are seeing real leadership and change in Birmingham and the Black Country.
We were thrilled when CLES and senior leaders at Birmingham City Council established an anchor institution network in the city, now in its fourth year, and when the West Midlands Combined Authority in 2018, announced its commitment to growing the social economy sector. And earlier this year we learned that Birmingham City Council will be setting up its own Birmingham Truth Commission, focusing in its first year on housing. It will use the methodology of the Birmingham Poverty Truth Commission to ensure that the process has integrity and is open, safe and accountable. This is a real testament to the city’s desire to hear and learn from the experiences of all its citizens.
With local authorities and many households now crushed financially by COVID-19, and structural inequalities laid bare for all to see, the adoption of such principles – local partnership, listening and involving all communities, and ensuring that investment and money flows benefit all those in an area will be vital for recovery. The salami slicing of budgets is long gone and public services will need to be resourced and delivered in completely new ways. In the coming years, the Trust will be focusing on supporting the principles and practice of ‘community wealth building’, inclusive economies, sustainable local economies – call it what you will – to flourish and grow.
In the last three months we’ve seen the vital importance of community and of local support networks, and the dire consequences of the low wage, low value “just in time” model of building an economy. Community wealth building and inclusive economic approaches provide a structured alternative to those approaches. By supporting the development and spread of new ideas we can help ensure that together we #buildbackbetter.
Public understanding of social care is low. Many people are unsure what it is – never mind how to get it, or who pays – until they or someone close to them comes to need support beyond what friends and family can provide. A lot of care work goes on behind the closed doors of people’s homes, hidden from view. When it happens in public places, it’s unlikely to have a social care hat on: a dance workshop inclusive of disabled people or an arts club for isolated older people are not ‘social care’ to those involved – they are just a dance workshop and an arts club.
Because of this, the sheer scale of social care can be a surprising fact. The workforce is made up of 1.5 million people, bigger than the NHS. It is a major sector of the economy and a foundational sector too, essential to millions of people. By supporting them in diverse ways, social care provides the ‘invisible scaffolding’ they need to live the life they want, regardless of age or disability.
It is, nonetheless, overlooked by economic policy makers. An obsession with GDP does not favour social care: it’s hard to measure productivity in a sector where outcomes, not outputs, are what counts. The purpose and value of the service gets lost, and it’s treated as a cost rather than an investment. More fundamentally, the people who stand to benefit from public investment in social care are not wealthy. The means test restricts access to those on low incomes, while care workers themselves are generally paid close to the minimum wage. Inequalities in power are central to the undervaluing of care.
The oversight by policy makers is huge, not least because there is vast scope for improvement in social care. The system is failing on many fronts. A market approach incentivises providers to compete to win business, scrambling to undercut each other. Chain companies, whose business models are suited to short-termist, cost-driven, competitive tendering, gain market share. Care worker jobs become more precarious and care itself can resemble a ‘factory production line’, with people needing support having little say or control.
Locally, there are glimmers of hope. A small but growing number of social care commissioners are trying to shift away from the status quo. Other policymakers in local government are developing strategies to build more inclusive local economies. They should join the dots. As a sector rooted in the everyday lives of millions of people, social care has the potential to drive creative new approaches to economic development. The objective of meeting care needs is connected to a lot of other objectives: building local wealth, lifting up job quality, reducing unemployment, improving health and wellbeing, and supporting more connected, resourceful and powerful communities, to name a few.
Our report, published today, explores the benefits to local economies of one particular approach to care. Community micro-enterprises are small social businesses that provide support in diverse ways. In places like Somerset, where they have been promoted by the local authority, they have proliferated – with numbers jumping from around 50 to more than 450 over five years. We find that micro-enterprises can enable personalised care, by devolving decision making to people at the frontline. They also spread an accessible form of entrepreneurship, create roles that offer more autonomy and control than a typical care job, and build resilience, creativity and diversity in social care. In doing so they help to draw people into the sector and encourage them to stay. A third of the micro-entrepreneurs we surveyed doubt they would be working in social care if they hadn’t set up their micro-enterprise. Two thirds expect to continue running their micro-enterprise for five years or longer.
Local authorities have a crucial role to play in supporting the development of ventures like these. They can encourage the spread of micro-enterprises as part of a family of care models that promote inclusive economic development, such as co-operatives, social enterprises and user-led organisations. These models are often locally rooted, they are driven by social purpose, and they generally seek to be accountable to the people they support. Policymakers should not see this as a marginal endeavour: the goal should be a bottom-up rejuvenation of communities and the economies that serve them. This will require long-term public investment, along with willingness to collaborate, experiment and learn.
