Social Care and Civic Engagement in the London Methodist District:

A report prepared for the Social Care and Civic Engagement Commissions of the London Methodist District

Eva Neitzert Sociology Department LSE Professor Jane Wills, Geography Department, QMUL

plan

Background to the researchKey findings: social careKey findings: civic engagementThe mapThinking ahead?

Background to the research

Sept 2006 new Methodist London District

Commissions: Social Care; Civic Engagement

What is the current position?From there to strategy ...

What was done?

Questionnaires sent via Superintendents to cover all 267 Churches in the District

Response rate of 42% (102 Churches)Follow up interviews to explore good

practice with 24 respondentsAnalysis of data; production of an

electronic map; completion of the report.

Key findings: social care

1. Directly provided services on site2. Provided but off-site3. Provided but at Circuit level4. Hosted on site.

Direct provision on site?

Table 1: Does your Church offer anyservices, activities, or groups for/around …

Percentageanswering ‘Yes’

Children and young persons? 63.3Elderly? 52.0Parents and families? 43.0Other 28.6Healthy living, fitness, or sport? 23.2Homelessness? 11.0Migrants and refugees? 9.0Alcohol and drug addiction? 9.0Counselling or advice? 9.0the unemployed? 4.0People with disabilities? 4.0

Numbers of users in the report, but significant that there are few paid workers

Only 13 had no provision on site10 of these would like to but suffered

lack of funds, facilities, volunteers and leaders.

As many as 70% would like to provide more ...

Off-site and at circuit level?

34% involved often through partnerships with others.

33% involved with Circuit level provision - but only 15% wanted to do more at this level.

Table 3: If participating in activities,services, or groups OFF-premises, are theyfor/around …

Percentageanswering ‘Yes’

Children and Young People? 29.4Elderly? 26.5Homeless? 17.6Community? 17.6Counselling and Advice? 5.9Parents and Families? 5.9Mental Health? 5.9Holiday Club? 2.9Adult Education? 2.9Music/Choir? 2.9Volunteering? 2.9

Table 4: If participating in activities,services, or groups at the circuit level, arethey for/around …

Percentageanswering ‘Yes’

Children and Young People? 64.5Elderly? 22.6Homelessness? 16.1Community? 12.9Housing? 6.5Charity? 6.5Other? 3.2

Hosting activities?

90% were hosts to others (and the average number per church was 7)

egs. CAB, playgroups, AA, refugee groups

Key findings: civic engagement

1. Involvement in faith/community forums

2. Frequency of meetings with local civic and political leaders

3. Direct involvement in local institutions

Faith/community forums

63% of Churches participateAnd, concentration: 29 involved in two

or more forums; 36 not involved in any

Table 5: If participating in a forum, is it … Percentageanswering ‘Yes’

Interfaith? 49.2Other civic forum? 36.1Non-denominational Christian? 27.9Community issues group? 18.1

Meetings with civic and political leaders

Table 6: Do you or members of your Churchmeet with …

Percentageanswering ‘Yes’

Councillors? 48.0Local MPs? 36.7GLA representatives? 8.2Other local office holders? 3.2

58% meets at least one councillors most regular (half every month

or quarter) often ad hoc but many of the ‘regulars’

host the councillor or MP at Church

Involvement in local institutions

Table 8: Are you or any members of yourChurch …

Percentageanswering ‘Yes’

School Governors? 32.3Holders of other civic offices? 8.8Councillors? 8.6Representatives on PCTs? 7.5Members of the GLA? 3.2MPs or MEPs? 3.2

49% have at least one congregation member involved as elected or appointed office holder

Community issues?

Table 9: Issue Percentageidentifying thisas a concern in

their communityPoverty and/or poor housing 50.5Anti-social behaviour 32.6Crime 31.6Needs of asylum seekers/refugees/migrants 30.5Provisions for young people 29.8Drug and alcohol abuse 28.3Traffic and/or pollution 20.2Unemployment 13.7Education 10.9Homelessness 6.4

Tackling these?

People positive about engaging with civic leaders/politicians; An increased campaigns focus (one respondent called on the

Church to be an ‘irritant to a complacent society’); Facilitating understanding and dialogue, particularly between

different faith and ethnic groups; Working in partnership with other faith and community

organisations; Informing, sharing expertise, and providing spiritual leadership; Supporting other groups and organisations to do ‘good’ work

(eg., by letting out space to emerging community organisations) Having an ‘open doors’ policy to support people of diverse

backgrounds.

The map

Available at http://www.londonmethodist.org/admin/Map.aspx

Thinking ahead

2/3rds want to do more especially for young people, migrants and refugees, those suffering substance abuse.

Many want a more campaigning approach

Parallel with national survey of 49 congregrations (Roehampton study 2006): church better at ‘in-ward’ than ‘outward’ activities.

How on social care?

Collating/disseminating information about good practice

Developing London-wide strategy - mindful of three key barriers:

1. facilities2. staffing/volunteers3. funding

challenges

Facilities: help with funding/grants; managing projects/planning.

Staffing: need to employ people but again raises issue of money.

Funding: often short-term; often for start-ups - and Churches need their own money.

Good practice

Parchmore Centre, Thornton Heath (1700 users, 45 groups, 20 staff, 120 volunteers)

Harold Road Centre, Newham (10 office spaces; 2 staff; community centre)

HIV Chaplaincy (78 people for face to face support)

Asylum ministry, King’s Cross (2000 use services every year)

How on civic engagement?

Challenges: time; engaging the congregation; links beyond the Church

Solutions: integration in worship; joining broad-based organisations and campaigns; co-ordination across the District (egs. Make Poverty History; TELCO; Methodist campaigns? eg on immigration)

And theology ...

Where does social care and civic engagement fit theologically?

Another area for partnership, information sharing and District strategy?

Thanks!

Queen Mary for facilitating the project

Eva Neitzert, LSE, ResearcherEd Oliver, QMUL, CartographerPaul Regan and the other leaders of

the two Commissions