engagement with the gypsy and traveller community in

—

Engagement with the Gypsy

and Traveller community in

Milton Keynes

July 2014

ITEM 4(b)

OPM ENGAGEMENT WITH THE GYPSY AND TRAVELLER COMMUNITY IN MILTON KEYNES

2 CLASSIFICATION: RESTRICTED EXTERNAL

Client Milton Keynes Council

Title Engagement with the Gypsy and Traveller Community

in Milton Keynes

Date Modified 29 July 2014

Status final

Classification RESTRICTED EXTERNAL

OPM Project Code 9725

Author Oliver Ritchie, Tamsin Hewett, Ingrid Prikken

Quality Assurance by Ingrid Prikken

Main point of contact Ingrid Prikken

Telephone 0207 239 7828

Email [email protected]

If you would like a large text

version of this document, please

contact us.

OPM

252b Gray’s Inn Road 0845 055 3900

London www.opm.co.uk

WC1X 8XG [email protected]



Table of Contents

Executive Summary .................................................................................................. 4

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 6

Context ........................................................................................................................ 6

Purpose ....................................................................................................................... 6

Approach and methodology ..................................................................................... 7

Recruitment ............................................................................................................... 11

Participants ................................................................................................................ 13

Findings .................................................................................................................... 14

Emerging themes .................................................................................................... 14

Identity ....................................................................................................................... 14

Community relations .................................................................................................. 16

Housing ...................................................................................................................... 18

Healthcare ................................................................................................................. 21

Education, children and young people ...................................................................... 21

Relations between the council and the community ............................................ 23

Appendices .............................................................................................................. 27

Appendix 1: Feedback from participants on the events ............................................ 27

Executive Summary

OPM conducted an engagement project on behalf of Milton Keynes council, to

explore issues faced by the Gypsy and Traveller community in Milton Keynes.

The purpose of the engagement process was to create and understand a local

definition of the Gypsy and Traveller community in Milton Keynes, to support the

creation of an evidence base and needs assessment to inform council policy

going forward, and, to build relationships between the council and the Gypsy and

Traveller community in Milton Keynes.

An extensive recruitment process was run, using snowball techniques to promote

the project within a traditionally hard-to-reach group. Contact was made with both

Irish Travellers and English Romany Gypsies and the workshops were attended

by 24 Irish Travellers over 2 days.

OPM ran two half-day workshops (reconvened), with 22 attendees each. The

main emerging themes were:

Identity: Participants’ sense of cultural identity was deeply connected to their

sense of family and community. Being able to pass on to their children traditional

morals and beliefs, including a sense of appropriate gender roles, was seen as

key to preserving their cultural heritage. Being able to meet at traditional

gathering places and participate in traditional sports was also seen as important.

Participants identified themselves as Irish Travellers living in Milton Keynes but

many had completed the 2011 census as “White Irish” leading to a possible

under-reporting of the number of travellers in the area.

Community relations: Participants report high levels of misconceptions about

their community, ranging from mistrust and stereotyping to overt racism. They felt

that there was a poor level of understanding about the differences between

different types of people with a nomadic heritage and a level of hostility form the

settled population. Participants felt that they wanted to be treated as individuals

and not all be punished because of the actions of a few. Relations with the police

were seen as being particularly bad with many participants reporting feeling

discriminated against and targeted by police officers. Relations with council

officers providing specific services were good but participants felt let down by

previous promises not having being fulfilled.

Housing: Participants were unanimous in their desire to live on sites with other

travellers rather than in housing. This is strongly linked to their cultural identify in

terms of living close to family members, keeping children free from other cultural



influences and supporting each other as a community. Participants argued that

there is currently a significant shortage of housing on the sites. Women in

housing in particular reported feeling isolated without the support of an extended

community.

Participants were willing to explore different models from the present council-run

sites in terms of site management, maintenance and ownership. They expressed

a desire to be involved in the design of any new sites. They felt that pitch

allocation for existing and new sites could be more transparent and community

led.

Healthcare: Experiences of healthcare were mixed, with some participants

feeling that they had faced prejudice in accessing health services and others

having not had problems. There was some reported reluctance to seek out

healthcare, particularly among male participants.

Education: Participants welcomed the current work of the council’s educational

support worker. They raised the issue of young traveller people leaving school

early without qualifications because of bullying and cultural differences. They

highlighted some good practice from Ireland around vocational training for early

school leavers.

Relations with the council in the future: Participants welcomed this

engagement and were keen for more engagement in the future. There was some

cynicism about the overall impact of engagement following the change of council

policy in respect of the proposed Fenny Lock site. Participants felt they needed

support to advocate more effectively for their needs with the council, police and

within the settled community and discussed a range of ways in which this could

be delivered.

The report will be presented to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee by

September/October 2014.



Introduction

OPM has been commissioned by Milton Keynes council to design, organise,

recruit for, facilitate and report on an engagement process to explore issues

faced by the Gypsy and Traveller community in Milton Keynes.

The council wants to better respond to the needs and aspirations of Gypsies and

Travellers in Milton Keynes. Through this engagement process, councillors hope

to gain a better understanding of this community, to inform decisions on issues

that might affect them.

Context

Over 10 years ago a Citizens Jury was formed and a report created that outlined

the views and aspiration of the local Gypsy and traveller community1.

In April 2012 the Council decided that, in line with the suggestion made by the

Scrutiny Panel, an engagement process should be set up with the Gypsy and

Traveller community to provide an insight for policy development in terms of

Housing, including a review of the recognised sites in the Core Strategy, Health,

Community Relations and Children and Family Services.

Purpose

The purpose of this engagement process is to:

— Create and understand a local definition of the Gypsy and Traveller

community in Milton Keynes, including their history, culture and identity,

and how this shapes the way they would like to live in Milton Keynes in the

future and how the services the council provides can help them do that;

— Support the creation of an evidence base and needs assessment to

inform council policy going forward, and;

— To build relationships between the council and the Gypsy and Traveller

community in Milton Keynes.

1 Report of Milton Keynes Citizens’ Advisory Group on Travellers, 24 March 1999

http://www.mkiobservatory.org.uk/document.aspx?id=10452&siteID=1026

http://www.mkiobservatory.org.uk/document.aspx?id=10452&siteID=1026



Approach and methodology

Workshop design

OPM have designed and delivered a set of workshops, two half-day (morning)

sessions, the first session was held on Monday 23 June 2014 and the group

reconvened on Friday 27 June 2014. The sessions were held at the offices of the

Milton Keynes Equality Council.

Our approach to deliberation was based on these principles:

— Information: participants need to be provided with good quality information

which quickly gives them a solid grounding in the subject they are being

asked to discuss.

— Discussion: once people have been given this information they need the

opportunity to familiarise themselves with it and discuss it with each other.

These discussions happen in a mixture of plenary and small group

sessions; and

— Review: as people become more familiar with the topic they need to be

given the space to assess all the discussions they have had before

coming to their considered judgement.

To stimulate discussion, a range of clear, accessible and concise stimulus

materials and information were provided, including images, photographs, and

presentations from council representatives.

The process was carefully designed and facilitated to ensure that variant views

are heard and captured. The listening approach to facilitation built confidence

and trust with the participants.



Agenda Monday 23 June

Timing Agenda Item

9.00-9.30 Welcome and registration

9.30-09.45 Introduction

— Purpose of the sessions

— What will happen to their feedback

— Ground rules and housekeeping

— Running order for the day

09.45-11.15 Who are the gypsy and traveller community?

1. Create a picture of your identity

In small groups, participants create a picture of their identity.

Drawing from their tradition in the community of ‘oral histories’ by

describing briefly stories of their lives, their aspirations and what it

is like to live in the area. Participants can use materials, such as

maps, pictures, images and objects to create the picture.

Facilitator prompts about family, children, community relations,

culture, home, music, food, health, education, and special

occasions.

Participants consider:

— What do you want councillors to know about this?

— What do you think non-gypsies and travellers think about

this at the moment?

— What do you wish non-gypsies and travellers understood

about this?

In plenary, table facilitators summarise the group discussions.

2. Jeremy Beake (Equalities and Diversity Officer, Milton Keynes

council) presents on the recent history of the community in the

UK, demographic information, and how they are defined locally by

statutory services. Jeremy explains why it is important to know

the definition for policy purposes.

3. In groups, participants consider what they’ve heard about the



way in which the government describes Gypsies and travellers

and how this information is used by the council to make sure the

people get the right kind of support.

Participants discuss:

— Is the way the government describes Gypsies and

Travellers right?

— How does it match the way you define yourselves?

— Is there a better way of describing Gypsies and Travellers

in Milton Keynes?

11.15-11.30 Break

11.30-12.15 How do you wish to live in the future?

Further group discussions about the emerging themes/key areas

from the 1st session. Participants discuss what they would like to

see in future for these areas.

Participants consider:

— What is already happening in the way you would like it to

be in this area? What would you like to change? What’s

missing? What could the council do to help you live the

way you want to in this area? Is there anything you could

do for yourselves if the council supported you?

— Which are most important areas to you? For what

reasons?

Feedback in plenary

12.15-12.30 Introduction of Friday’s session

— On Friday there’s an opportunity to look in a little bit more

detail at some of the issues that have come through as

most important today.

— In the meantime participant’s encouraged to talk to their

friends and family about the themes coming up at today’s

session.

12.30pm Close



Agenda Friday 27 June

Timing Agenda Item

9.00 –

9.30am

Welcome and registration

9.30-9.45 Introduction

Framing of the day, agenda, and quick recap on day one

— On Monday we heard participant’s views regarding what it

means to you to be a Gypsy or a Traveller in Milton

Keynes, about all aspects of life and experience.

— Jeremy Beake from the Council spoke about the

importance of hearing whether the information they use

about your community is correct.

— We had a conversation about the future, and what

participants would like to see in future, for their kids.

Plenary reflection on the first day

— Have you thought of anything new or important since the

last meeting

— What did participant’s friends, family and colleagues think

about the issues discussed

9.45 -11.15 Housing

Plenary recap of the issues that came up on Monday around

housing.

Paul Gibson, Housing Policy & Development Officer at Milton

Keynes council explains the plans of the council, in the context

of other housing matters the council needs to address.

Questions and Answers session (with Council officer)

11.15-11.30 Break

11.30-12.00 In groups, after council officer has left the room, reflection on the

council’s presentation, and an opportunity to share views, and

discuss what they would like the councillors to know regarding

housing needs. Participants appraise the information they heard,



and what possible solutions there would be

— What works well and less well about housing/pitch

allocations, management of sites and other related

issues?

— What more can be done or done differently?

Plenary round up of main issues

12.00-12.30

How do you want to engage with the Council in the future?

Next steps

12.30 Close

Recruitment

The recruitment process was tailored to accommodate potential challenges with

engaging Gypsies and Travellers. Research studies show that Gypsies and

Travellers communities can be difficult to reach through mainstream services and

is also often distrustful of ‘authorities’ or institutions who it believes are not on

their side.

The target group for this engagement process was people who self-identify as

Gypsies and/or Travellers with an existing connection to Milton Keynes. In our

recruitment process, rather than using traditional forms of recruitment, such as

on-street recruitment by market research agencies, on-line or telephone

recruitment, we adopted an iterative approach, working through public servants

and voluntary sector organisations who work with Gypsies and Travellers in

Milton Keynes. The recruitment process was spread over approximately two

months, using snowball sampling to identify possible participants.

Routes into the community

Our key contacts for recruitment at Milton Keynes Council were the Gypsy Roma

Traveller Co-ordinator (GRTC), Children and Families and the Senior Traveller &

Hostel Compliance Officer (STHCO). The GRTC provided us with contact details

of Gypsies and Travellers who might be interested in participating in the

engagement events which we then followed up with individual meetings and

phone calls. Early on in the recruitment process the Calverton and Willen sites

were visited, accompanied by the STHCO. In addition, they distributed flyers with



key information about the engagement were distributed events on both sites and

liaised with us regarding residents’ questions about the engagement project.

In addition we contacted the following national and local voluntary organisations

who have a history of working with Gypsies and Travellers:

— Milton Keynes Citizens Advice Bureau

— The Traveller Movement

— Friends, Families, Travellers

— Roma Support Group

— Milton Keynes Community Action

— London Gypsy and Traveller Unit

Challenges

A number of challenges had to be overcome in recruiting participants for this

project:

— Securing a firm commitment to attend: We were advised by both those

who worked with Gypsies and Travellers and by community members

themselves that within the community plans often change at the last

minute which could lead to a high drop-out rate.

— Securing a diverse range of participants: When visiting the Calverton site,

where most residents are English Gypsies, no community members were

willing to speak with us about the project. The STHCO subsequently told

us they had stated that they were “not interested” in attending. We were

also advised that it would be difficult to secure attendance from men.

— Pre-existing tensions within the community: During the recruitment

process we were made aware that members of some sections of the

Gypsy and Traveller Community would not attend the workshops if they

knew that members of other sections of the Gypsy and Traveller

Community had confirmed they would attend.

Solutions

We decided to address these challenges by moving from a recruitment process

focused on confirming attendance from specific people towards a promotional

approach, aimed at raising awareness of the events and encouraging a diverse

range of community members to attend. In addition to making targeted phone

calls and peer-referrals we produced a flyer (see appendix 2) which was handed

out on sites as well as being sent to community members and voluntary



organisations. This inclusive approach was useful in reaching a wider range of

potential participants than through snowball sampling alone.

In order to encourage participants to attend both engagement events we offered

a staged incentive, where participants who had attended the first event were

offered an additional incentive if they also attended the second event.

Participants

There were 22 attendees for each of the engagement workshops, with 20

participants attending both events. All attendees were from the Irish Traveller

community in Milton Keynes. We did not collect formal data on participants’

housing status but conversations during the sessions suggest that at least 9

(36%) of attendees were in housing with the remainder living on a site.

Participants by gender:

Number Percentage

Men 9 37.5%

Women 15 62.5%

Participants by age:

Age group Number Percentage

16-20 6 25%

20-40 10 42%

40+ 8 33%

Analysis and reporting

During the workshop all of the discussions were fully captured. Plenary

discussions were captured on flipcharts, and table discussions were noted down

by the table facilitators.

After each event the write ups from the notes formed the basis for an analysis

meeting, where the facilitation team fleshed out the main themes of that day, and

provided interpretation of the findings.

This report provides a summary of the main themes and findings from the two

workshops. Councillors requested this engagement process and will consider

and respond to the findings from the workshops. The report will be presented to

the Overview and Scrutiny Committee by September/October 2014. Participants

in the workshops can see a copy of the report if requested.



Findings Emerging themes

This section of the report contains the main themes and learning points that

came out of the two events. The findings have been organised thematically.

Identity

One of the aims of the workshops was to develop a better understanding of the

identity of the Gypsy and Traveller communities in Milton Keynes.

It was felt by many participants that members of the wider public have

misconceptions about the identity of Irish Travellers. These misconceptions can

lead to racism, and can also lead to non-travellers feeling threatened by Irish

Travellers, when they do not need to be.

Family

Family relationships were repeatedly stressed as the single most important

foundation for participants’ identities as Irish Travellers. They talked about the

importance of looking after family members, and spending time with them. They

also stressed the importance of sharing their values as a family unit, and passing

these down through the generations.

Community

In addition to close family relationships, participants also commented on the

central importance of safe, close knit communities. These communities provide

support for all individuals, and especially those who have extra needs, such as

the elderly. They also provide a safe environment for young people to grow up in.

Because a child’s parents know that other members of the community can be

trusted, the children are able to roam freely, and have plenty of adults to look

after them. It is through these communities that values and traditions can be

effectively passed on.

An important aspect of this type of community is that members live close to one

another. For many participants, the most important thing about living on a site

(rather than in housing) was that on a site you are both able to maintain this

community group and have a degree of control over who enters the site (which

seen as particular importance in keeping children safe).



Heritage and culture

Participants talked about the importance of preserving their way of life. They

wanted to be able to continue to pass down their traditions and values to their

children. Being able to have pride and dignity as a community were considered

by some participants to be particularly important.

Events like horse fairs, which bring Gypsies and Travellers together from

different parts of the country, were really appreciated by some participants.

These events provide an opportunity to confirm community values as part of a

wider group. They also provide a safe space in which to avoid prejudice and

cultural misconceptions and to be yourself: “You can meet other people, and

you’re all the same, you feel comfortable because you don’t feel judged, people

don’t assume the worst”.

Some participants described how their current circumstances can make it hard to

partake in traditional activities. For example, limits on the size of sites can make

it hard to go and visit family members and friends for celebrations, as there may

not be room for additional caravans, and guests who arrive with their caravan

may be moved on by the authorities. In the absence of other sleeping

arrangements, bringing a caravan is often the only way that people are able to

attend these events.

It was also mentioned that certain activities some of the community are

traditionally engaged in, such as hunting rabbits with dogs can be difficult to

do within the law, due to legislation around blood sports, and due to a lack of

common land on which to hunt.

Participants at the event described a strong set of values which they held as

a community, which they wanted to be able to preserve and to pass on to

their children. These values include politeness, respect for elders, going to

church, and support for family members. They also talked about having

differing roles for men and women in the community, with men traditionally

earning money while women take a more domestic role.

Self-identification

When discussing the local definition of the Gypsy and Traveller community in

Milton Keynes, participants seemed very comfortable using the term ‘Irish

Travellers’ to describe their community. However, some participants said that in

the 2011 census, they would have put themselves down as ‘White Irish’ rather

than ‘White Gypsy or Irish Traveller’. This is because they felt that their Irish

heritage was a very important part of their identity. This observation suggests

that census data may underestimate the number of Irish Travellers living in Milton

Keynes.



One participant estimated that there are approximately 200-300 Irish Travellers

living in the Milton Keynes area, plus additional English Travellers. It was

suggested that many of these people may go unnoticed in official statistics

because they are constantly being moved on from places where they try to settle,

making them difficult to keep track of. Some group members said that these

people often have difficulty accessing council services such as education,

because they are not officially recognised as ‘existing’ in the area.

Community relations

Misconceptions about travelling communities

One issue that some participants raised is that members of the public and the

council seem to have a poor understanding of their culture. In addition to lacking

an awareness of the positive aspects of their culture, participants also felt that

there were unwanted negative attributes attached to their community. For

example, both men and women in the group described being aware that

members of the settled community feel intimidated by them.

They also felt that people lack awareness of the differences between different

Gypsy, Traveller and Roma communities. In Milton Keynes the two main Gypsy

and Traveller communities are Irish Travellers and English Roma. Participants

felt that Irish Travellers, English Roma, and other travelling groups are often

treated as though they are all the same, despite distinct differences in their

respective heritage and culture.

Media representations such as My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding were seen as very

unhelpful in this regard, because they can strengthen incorrect stereotypes and

in particular because they focus on more well-off members of the community

leading to a distorted perception of the lifestyle of average travellers.

The desire to be treated as individuals

Some participants commented on the fact that they are often referred to and

judged as a whole community, rather than as individuals. Some emphasised that

they want to be treated as an individual person who has a Traveller heritage.

This comment is relevant in the context of community relations, for example if

one Irish traveller gets drunk and rowdy in a pub, then other Irish travellers will be

made unwelcome.



This also came up in discussion about council policy and policing, in which there

was a desire among members of the group to be treated as individuals, rather

than a homogenous group.

Relations with the police

A particular area of concern for some participants was the way that the police

treat members of their community. There was a strong concern among

participants that they are likely to be disproportionately punished by the police,

and that they are treated with a higher level of suspicion than other people.

Examples of these concerns include:

— Participants felt that when driving, they were pulled over by the police

disproportionately often. They report that once pulled over, a police officer

will commonly go through everything they can to try to pin an offence on

them. One participant gave the example of being taken to a police station

on the assumption that his (Irish) driving licence was a fake, and it was cut

in half in the process of verifying its validity. While a replacement was paid

for, the participant felt victimised that such a procedure had taken place

when there had been no good reason to suspect that it was a forgery. He

was also left without a driving licence while waiting for the replacement to

arrive.

— Participants reported that it is common to receive rude and/or racist

remarks from police officers, such as being told to go back to Ireland.

— Participants reported disproportionate responses from police officers to

their actions. Participants felt that an Irish Traveller would often be

arrested and taken to the police station in situations where a different

person might just be asked to stop what they are doing. One example of

this is being loud and raucous in a pub.

Low levels of trust in in the council and wider society

Participants often expressed distrust towards other members of society, towards

the council and other authorities such as the police. They report often feeling

judged by other groups. Some participants felt that others in society get much

more from public services than they themselves get. Participants also report

being told promising things by the council, but these not being acted on. There

was a sense that to restore trust, it is necessary for the council to put some of

their words into action, rather than just saying the right things.

Participants said that they don’t judge others, and wished that others would not

judge them in return.



Participants also gave plenty examples of positive experiences, for example

some participants reporting getting on well with their neighbours, or getting good

support from their GP. In particular participants were very positive about their

relationships with a local educational support worker and the traveller site

manager, both of whom work for Milton Keynes Council.

Housing

Finding suitable accommodation is one of the major challenges that participants

reported facing at the moment.

Participants felt that an important part of their culture is living in tight knit

communities with other travellers. This is currently only felt to be possible on a

site, where people are able to live together in close proximity, and without

strangers passing through. Additionally, it was mentioned that their families have

lived on the Willen site for a few generations now, and the site has become part

of their heritage.

Participants argued that there is currently a significant shortage of housing on the

sites, meaning that the Willen site is overcrowding, and some people are

excluded from living on the site altogether due to lack of space. In addition, some

of the groups are expanding, for example through people getting married and

wanting to move into a new home together. This can leave people with the

difficult decision between staying with their family and community in an

overcrowded setting; or trying to find space to move elsewhere and having to

leave the rest of the family behind.

Isolation when living in houses away from the sites

Participants reported that it can be very difficult for Irish Travellers who are living

in council housing, rather than on a site. One reason for this is that this can lead

to social isolation. Examples include older people living alone and not being able

to visit their families, who may not be living particularly nearby. Participants also

gave examples of elderly or disabled relatives who they would like to be able to

look after on a site, but who are currently in housing with social support. This was

felt to be a less good solution.

For parents with young children, living in council housing can lead to the children

becoming isolated. Participants report being unwilling to let their children play in

the street, or even the garden unsupervised due to a worry about the types of

people who they may meet. On a site, this is not a worry, because it is gated, so

everyone on the premises is known, and would look after the children, and have

the same values as the child’s parents.



Living in a house can also be isolating for a mother bringing up children, as they

may not feel able to leave their houses and children to visit friends. One female

participant explained that on a site, domestic chores can take place alongside

sociable activities, and the children are able to mix freely. In a house, women do

not have other people around to share their work with. They also have additional

pressures for childcare because it is much harder to share childcare

responsibilities with other family members and friends. One participant explained

that away from a site she cleans just to keep busy, because there is nothing else

to do.

One participant who is currently in council housing said that they did not want to

be in the housing themselves, and felt like they were taking up a place that could

be being used by others who do want to live there.

Site management, design and maintenance

There was some appetite among the group to help to self-run the sites. From a

management perspective, some participants said that there was no reason why a

member of their community could not run the site as well as someone from the

council. Others felt it is better that the council runs the site, they would want to

have someone of authority to run it, so they can speak to them when there are

any problems.

Some participants, who are currently living on a site, said that maintenance of

site buildings is an issue. They commented that it often takes a long time for

repairs to be made, and many of the buildings are currently in a very poor state.

Participants said that they would be happy to do much of the maintenance work

on their site. They said that currently the way that repairs are done by external

contractors is too inefficient for the site residents, and costs more than it needs to

for the council. One solution which was proposed was that site tenants should be

allowed to complete the repairs themselves, and then receive compensation for

costs from the council.

Participants also said that they wanted to be more involved in the design of new

sites. Some participants had strong views about how each individual pitch ought

to be laid out, and thought that if members of gypsy and traveller communities

were involved earlier on in the planning process, then the design of sites could

be significantly improved.

New sites

Faced by a shortage of sites, some participants questioned why they were not

allowed to build their own sites, or to buy the sites that they are currently living

on, to protect them from possible future closure.



Some participants were of the understanding that a lack of funds is stalling

renovations and building of new sites. Some questioned what happened to

funding previously allocated to development of sites.

It was explained by the council representative that previous engagement from the

council with the Gypsy and Traveller community in the past specifically around

pitch allocation resulted in a bid for central government money to develop Fenny

Lock as a potential site, however, restrictions on the use of the money were

removed and a cabinet decision overruled the allocation, the funding was used

elsewhere.

Participants felt that the council is not doing enough to get the promised Newton

Leys site built. Their understanding of the situation is that the housing contractor

has promised to build the site in addition to a new housing development, but is

not doing so. Participants are concerned that once people start moving into the

houses, it will become impossible to build the site, due to the impact that this will

have on house prices, and due to anticipated opposition from new residents.

Participants argued that the council needs to be much more forceful at this stage

in forcing the contractor to start work on the site before it is allowed to continue

work on the houses.

Allocation of pitches on existing sites

Participants reported that the decision making process for allocating people to

pitches on the sites is not always clear, and can feel unfair. It is a council

decision that they don’t feel they can influence. One participant said that they had

thought they were first in line for a pitch on the Calverton site, but when the pitch

became available, it was given to someone else. Their perception was that they

had not been allowed on the site because they are Irish Travellers, and the site is

predominantly an English Roma site.

Participants wanted to see a fair, transparent system, so that everyone could be

sure that pitches were being given out appropriately, and could understand

where they were likely to be able to get a pitch.

In a discussion about how the allocation system ought to work, some participants

felt that having a particular connection to a site could be one of the criteria for

allocation. Some drew a distinction between smaller ‘family’ sites, and larger

sites. They felt that it was right that in a smaller ‘family’ site, such as the Willen

site, there should be some way of limiting access to a certain group of people, in

order to keep the community together. They felt that larger sites such as

Calverton ought to be open to anyone with the right needs, and pitches should be

allocated through a clear, equal process.



Healthcare

Some participants discussed healthcare services. There were mixed views; some

participants said that they had had experienced discrimination in a health

context, and felt that they get lower quality care because they are travellers.

Some also said that heath care professionals had been rude or racist towards

them, for example one participant said that a nurse had referred to her newly

born child as ‘it’, rather than ‘he’ or ‘she’.

In contrast, other participants said that they had not had any bad experiences of

healthcare, and were not so concerned about this area.

Some participants expressed a reluctance to go to the doctors, and said that

members of the community would sometimes only find out about serious

illnesses too late to do anything about it. Their view was that ‘when God says it is

it is time to go, we will go’. This attitude appears to have been held by male

participants in particular.

Examples of good practice

Some participants referred to the example of a traveller site in Wakefield

(possible the Heath Common site), where health visitors (and beauticians) come

on to the site on a regular basis to meet with residents. They thought that this is

an example of something that they would like to see.

Education, children and young people

One concern that members of the group had about sending their children to

school was that they are worried that children may learn values, or be put into

situations which are not consistent with their way of life. For example, some

members of the group felt that it was inappropriate for girls to spend time with

boys after the age of puberty. This rule is hard to enforce if children are going to

a mixed school.

Bullying

Bullying in schools was felt to be a major issue. Participants often cited this as a

reason why children are sometimes pulled out of school at a younger age, mostly

when they are 14 years of age. Participants said experiences in primary school

are usually fine, but the bullying usually starts in secondary school.

Participants talked about the need for more awareness of gypsy and traveller

communities in schools. Some thought that it would be a good idea to have talks

about Gypsy and Traveller culture, so that children at the school are better



understood by their peers. However, a small number of participants thought that

talks explicitly about gypsy and traveller communities need to be handled very

carefully, to avoid drawing further attention to members of these communities,

and making them feel more isolated.

Some group members thought that problems with bullying often stem from the

parents of non-traveller children, rather than the children themselves. Therefore

an effective approach to tackle bullying might be to educate parents, rather than

schoolchildren.

An alternative suggestion from some participants was that racism in schools

should be dealt with more firmly, with the police being involved if necessary.

There was a general feeling that where a school has a number of gypsy or

traveller children (rather than just one or two), this is better for the children

involved, as they can be part of a group. One concern that some participants had

about council housing is that it can mean that children end up in in a different

catchment area from other members of their community.

Work and employability

Participants talked about how it can be hard for travellers to get jobs because

they often leave school at a young age, without qualifications. When asked how

their training is then provided, some participants mentioned home schooling,

where the girls are usually trained in household and mothering skills and the

boys go out to work with their fathers.

They talked positively about a local educational support worker who helps young

traveller women into opportunities. For example, through this worker, one

participant had been involved in working on a fashion show, had been trained in

planning weddings, and had learned about childcare. However, even when there

are opportunities sometimes fathers won’t let girls go to things. One participant

told a story about an opportunity for training that the support worker had offered

her. The participant’s father said she could only go if another girl went too, and

that girl’s family wouldn’t let her, so she couldn’t go in the end.

In order to challenge this sort of difficulty, participants suggested that training

might take place in a neutral location, maybe somewhere in central Milton

Keynes, where traveller women could meet other traveller women, and maybe

access training in that context. They felt that their parents would be more likely to

be accepting of this.



Examples of good practice

Participants reported really valuing the work of a local educational support worker

who provides 1:1 support to help the children progress. This worker also gives

talks in schools to help reduce the problems associated with bullying, which

many participants welcomed. Some felt these talks had helped to build

understanding with the other children and teachers, and reduced the problems.

However, as mentioned above, some thought that the strategy of giving talks

might not always be appropriate.

Participants spoke about a larger site in County Offaly, Ireland

(http://tinyurl.com/ksnbjv6), which has an on-site school. There was some feeling

that something similar to this might be a good idea. They also spoke about an

initiative in Ireland called Youthreach (http://www.youthreach.ie/) specifically for

young people who leave school early. This provides opportunities for young

people to learn IT skills, cooking, how to fix cars “for the boys” and they can earn

a small wage for attending.

When asked about other things which would help them in their aspirations for

their families participants talked about the play bus which used to come around

to the sites – which they felt was a great resource. They also talked about a site

in Latimer Road London (the Westway Travellers Site) where they have heard

that council provides mums and children with day trips – they spoke about a

coach trip which was organised to Disneyland Paris.

Relations between the council and the community Engagement with the council

Participants wanted to take part in more regular and direct engagement with the

council in Milton Keynes.

It was suggested that the approach that might work best would be to have key

contact people in the community and in the council who could meet on a regular

basis (it was suggested that monthly would be about right), in order to discuss

issues as they arise, and in order to share information. The participants would

appreciate more contact, meetings, and also more feedback on what has

happened after the meetings.

Participants liked the model of having one trusted person in the council to liaise

with and who would be able to explain things to them and support them in



accessing services and making their views known. This person should ideally

stay in post for a long period of time in order to be able to build a strong

relationship.

They also felt that it was important for this person to be senior enough to make

decisions, and to influence change in the council. Some participants mentioned

the Development Manager for Gypsies and Travellers at the Royal Borough of

Kensington and Chelsea as a possible model.

It was suggested that Gypsy and Traveller communities in the area should each

chose a representative to go along to these meetings. Some participants

suggested that it might be good for communities to send one male, and one

female representative, because of differences in gender roles within the

community.

Participants suggested that the following themes should be discussed at the

meetings: housing issues, equality, keeping Gypsy and Traveller communities

together, “our culture”, and anything else that is relevant.

Participants did not want these meetings to be overly formal or process driven.

Instead, they wanted them to be informal and honest. One piece of feedback on

previous engagement was that they would prefer to know the truth, even if it is

not agreeable, rather than constantly being kept in the dark, or given vague

assurances. For example, they would prefer to know if a particular site is unlikely

to be built, rather than be kept under the illusion that it might be at some point.

The need for advocates within the council

Some participants argued that there is currently not a strong enough voice in the

council advocating for their needs and rights. They argued that because they are

a long-standing part of the community, they ought to be given appropriate

representation.

Some participants suggested that a member of their community ought to sit on

the council, in order to promote their interests. Others thought that it should be

part of the portfolio of an existing councillor.

Engagement with the police

As discussed above under ‘community relations’, many participants feel that their

community is treated unfairly by the police. It was felt that this is an institutional

problem, and would be tackled most effectively by developing a better

relationship with senior police officials. Some participants said that they would

welcome an opportunity to go into a police station and meet senior officials to talk



about some of their concerns, and to discuss how the police can act more

sensitively in the future. In discussions about who to speak to, participants felt

that it would be important to speak with people who are senior enough to make

changes and have a genuine impact. Senior members of the police team, or the

elected police commissioner were given as possible examples.

In addition to meeting senior police officers, some participants said that it would

be valuable to have access to a regular contact person in the police, so that

concerns could be aired as and when they arise, and so that misunderstandings

can be cleared up.

On a separate note, participants said that they did not always know how they

could complain if they believed that they had been treated unfairly by police

officers. There was some agreement that having access to a regular police

contact person might be one way to help address this.

Community engagement

One participant had recently attended an event in London, where the cultures of

Roma, English and Irish Travellers were publically celebrated and shared as part

of the Gypsy, Traveller and Roma history month. Participants thought that

something similar in Milton Keynes would be a helpful way to try to dispel some

of the misunderstanding and prejudice that they face. Some participants said that

they would be happy to help organise something along these lines, given

appropriate support from the council.

Another suggestion was that a member of the community could do a Question

and Answers session on the radio, perhaps with someone from the council as

well.

Engaging with different traveller groups

In discussion about identity and service needs, participants had mixed views

about whether different groups of travellers (e.g. English Roma, Irish Travellers,

etc.) should all be treated in the same way, or whether each group had its own

particular needs.

Some participants were keen to emphasise that members of these different

groups share a common cultural background, and that the similarities between

them are more important than the differences. However, participants also

sometimes said that there were important differences between the groups which

need to be accommodated. There was also a sense that relations between

different groups might not always be simple, and that conflict between groups

could sometimes cause a barrier to effective engagement processes.



As a general rule, it seems to have been the feeling of the group that the support

needs different groups of travellers are broadly similar. For example, they are all

likely to need similar things from their accommodation, and would appreciate

similar support in areas like education and further vocational training. However,

when it comes to engagement with the council, it may be the case that different

groups would want to work differently, and may need to be engaged with

separately from one another.

Examples of Good Practice

Participants mentioned the Development Manager for Gypsies and Travellers at

the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea as a possible model for

engagement with the council.

They also highlighted celebrations which had taken place in London for Gypsy

Roma Traveller History month further details of which can be found on the GRTH

London website here: http://www.grthmlondon.org.uk/

Participants mentioned that in London the London Gypsy and Traveller Unit

(http://www.lgtu.org.uk/) played a helpful role in providing travellers with advice

on legal issues which can be difficult to understand without specialist help.

http://www.grthmlondon.org.uk/

http://www.lgtu.org.uk/



Appendices Appendix 1: Feedback from participants on the events

Verbal feedback from participants both during and after the workshops was

broadly positive. They were particularly pleased that officers from the council had

attended and showed themselves willing to listen to their views. Some

participants were hopeful that change would result from this whereas others were

less convinced that the process would lead to real change for them and their

community, based upon their perceptions of having had hopes raised and then

not fulfilled in the past. At the end of the second workshop we asked participants

to indicate their responses to two statements, using a visual feedback method,

and asking for any additional written comments:

I feel that my views were taken seriously and I feel confident that

things will change.

The first statement was designed to assess their reaction to the engagement

process itself. All the responses to this were positive (please see comments

below). The second statement was designed to assess their confidence that the

engagement would lead to further action. Fewer people answered this, and the

results were less positive, mirroring the verbal feedback from throughout the

workshops.

I feel that my views were taken seriously

12 participants responded to this statement and all agree with it. Specific

comments included:

— Yeah, very much.

— Yes, very good and nice.

— Yes, all the way.

— Very good, enjoyed everything about it.

I feel confident that things will change

3 people responded to this statement with a more muted reaction. Comments

included:

— Hope things will change.

— Hope so.

— No, not at all.

engagement with the gypsy and traveller community in

Documents