Agenda item

The Head of Participation and Engagement presented a report on Working with Faith Communities in Barking and Dagenham.

The Committee were advised that Barking and Dagenham was one of the most ethnically and culturally diverse communities in London with a rich diversity of faiths and beliefs. Over 75% of

residents had identified as having a faith in the 2021 census. Faith organisations were regularly and increasingly working outside of their “traditional” functions, to become a hub for community activity, social action, and to deliver essential services to the most vulnerable people in our communities. Working with faith communities was a core part of the Councils community and engagement aims.

A multiphase action plan was built to directly link the principles and themes that were explored in the Faith Builds Community Policy and to strengthen the progress made so far. As part of the action plan, the Closed Collective otherwise known as the Faith Leaders Network was established under BD Collective.  The Faith Leaders Network was publicised on BD Collective website.

In response to a question on who the current 18 members of the Faith Leaders Network were, the Director of Community Participation and Prevention advised the committee that an open invite was circulated to all faith groups across the Borough. There were 18 faith groups who chose to come together to form the Faith Leaders Network. The membership of the Faith Leaders Network included Barking Churches Unite, Powerhouse International, Al Madina Mosque, St Chad’s Church and, Lifeline Faith Action. Lifeline Faith Action worked as a facilitator for the network, which had funding to do so.

The report suggested that there were ten areas within the Borough in which residents with no religion had been the second highest group. A question was asked if residents with no religion were represented within the faith groups. The Faith Network was open to all including Atheists and Agnostics. There had been work undertaken on the locality of the organisations for residents to know where they can go for support. There were networks such as BD Collective which brought together voluntary and community organisations across the borough that can service both the broader community and individual communities.

One suggestion from the report was to invite faith groups to give awareness training to LBBD staff to help promote inclusion. The Council could invite faith organisations to take up the training opportunity to staff, and in response to a question advised that this would also be extended to Councillors.

In response to a question regarding youth faith communities and schools, the Participation Manager (Partnerships) responded that there was not currently a focus on the youth faith communities within the action plan. However, there was a wide range of faith organisations that had provisions for youth services. It was proposed for the Director of Community Participation and Prevention to hold a discussion with members of the Youth Forum regarding the engagement of youth faith communities.

The Borough had many faith organisations, a concern was raised on whether the Council was working only with the Faith Leaders Network, or if it maintained a good working relationship with all faith organisations. The Committee were advised that there was a broad range of work that included other faith organisations with contact to faith leaders daily. The 18 members within the faith leaders’ network were those that wanted to join the network. There was a desire to increase the membership of the faith leaders’ network to 30 members through the health funding.

A question was raised on whether there was a criteria that faith organisations needed to meet to join the faith leaders’ network. The Committee were advised that there was no set criteria, constitution or governing documents needed for a faith organisation to join the network. It was an open invitation to all faith organisations to join the Faith Leaders Network. There were procedures in place to monitor the participation of Faith Leaders within the network.

There was no exact definition of faith only definitions of faith. In terms of charity law, there was a definition of religious benefits and religious beliefs. In a wider dialog, faith forums and SACRE had a wider representation from many different faith groups.

In response to a question regarding the guidance on tackling health and inequalities given to faith organisations, the Head of Participation and Engagement advised the committee that working closing with faith leaders allowed better communication and engagement of messages from the council to being within the faith organisations. The main function of the health and inequalities fund was to address health and inequalities within the borough and to deepen the understanding of health and inequalities.

The Council offered a wide range of support around managing tensions. There was an urgent communications WhatsApp group that involved the faith leaders across the borough. There was also a tension reporting tool available on the Council’s website in which faith leaders were encouraged to use if there are tensions arising within the faith communities. SACRE actively engaged with schools across the borough and offers advises on how to deal with tensions between faith communities.

The Engagement Champions Program was a program in which senior Council officers were working with officers across the Council to improve better improve engagement with residents and faith organisations. There was around 79 members of staff that were a part of the engagement champions program.

Training was already in place to encourage a working relationship between children’s safeguarding services and faith communities. In terms of foster care, the children’s safeguarding services would attempt to match the child with carers of the same faith. For instances in which the foster carer would not share the same faith as the child, the safeguarding service would facilitate a wider network of carer connections that would match with the child’s faith.

The report referred to £40,000 from ringfenced council funding given to the Faith Leaders Network. A question was asked if the fund was discretionary and what the implications would be if the fund was to be removed. In response to the question, the Participation Manager (Partnerships) advised the committee that removing the fund would lead to underfunding of work undertaken for health and inequalities including the loss of the network and social value.

The Faith Leaders Network was formed to improve coordination between faith groups. A question was raised on the metrics that the Council would use to determine if the new vehicle succeeded in its aim. Qualitative data, narratives and connections that had been formed between faith organisations would be reviewed in due course.

The Chair requested for a meeting to be arranged for the Committee to meet with the Faith Leaders Network

The Committee noted the report.