Introduction

This volume has so far traced patterns of ethnic disadvantage as they are experienced in a number of aspects of life in modern Britain. A number of key themes are evident. First, it is possible to identify both continuities and significant changes in patterns of advantage and disadvantage, within and between groups. Second, the key role of socioeconomic status, or class, has been revealed on a number of occasions. Third, despite the evidence of upward social mobility for members of at least some minority ethnic groups, persistent evidence remains of an ‘ethnic penalty’ mediated by discrimination and racism.

In this chapter, the focus changes somewhat to an aspect of the lives of Britain's minority ethnic population that relates not simply to material well-being in its various guises but to what is in some ways a more intangible question: the experience of a sense of full, substantive citizenship. Nowhere is such a sense more palpable than in relations with key state institutions, and few such institutions can be said to have had such a consistently significant impact than the criminal justice system as a whole, and the police in particular. This is not to say that socioeconomic status is irrelevant to experience of the criminal justice system. There is a long history of research demonstrating the significance of class for the patterning of recorded crime and for the organisation of policing. What will be argued in this chapter, however, is that ethnicity mediates experiences of the criminal justice system in specific ways, and that the police play a key role in shaping that mediation. A key mechanism, this chapter argues, is the process by which differential ethnic marking of groups takes place in and through the process of policing. It will also be argued that there are both continuities and changes in the way this process has developed over recent years. In particular, we shall see that the fact that the criminal justice system operates differentially on different racialised groups with different effects is not a new feature of the way that law and order is implemented in Britain. Indeed, the civic disturbances that marked a number of England's northern towns in mid-2001 were evidence of a continuing differential marking of populations. However, a novel feature of that marking process concerns the shift of target from African-Caribbean to Asian Muslim males.

Introduction

In Britain, the groups commonly referred to as ‘ethnic minorities’ did not ‘just happen’ to migrate and settle recently in Britain, nor do they ‘just happen’ to suffer racism in Britain. Rather, they are groups whose identity in British society is shaped by migration and ‘race’ as well as distinctive ethnicities. They are ‘racialised ethnicities’ (Modood et al, 2002; see also CMEB, 2000). Hence, themes of ethnicity, ‘race’ and migration shape the choice of groups under discussion here and frame the presentation offered. The groups in question have many features in common with the rest of British society such as the determining character of social class; but our concern here is with what distinguishes them from the rest of society and the interaction of the differentia and the commonalities.

From diverse beginnings

The educational qualifications profile of the non-white minority groups at the time of migration and now are quite diverse. Some minority groups are proportionally less qualified than their white peers, and some much more so. This is true when we look at the population as a whole or those who have recently finished their education. Broadly speaking, the ethnic minority population can be divided in two:

• • Caribbean, Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnic groups have lower average qualification levels than white people;

• • Indian, African Asian, Chinese and African ethnic groups are more likely than white people to have a higher qualification (A-levels and above).

Among the critical factors in explaining the qualification levels of these groups today is the qualification profile at the time of migration. This can be seen in Figures 4.1 and 4.2. Figure 4.1 shows the proportion among the minority groups without qualifications divided into three ‘generations’, as well as the qualification levels of white people for the most recent two generations. The source of the data is the Policy Studies Institute (PSI) Fourth National Survey of Ethnic Minorities, which was conducted in 1994. Beginning with the migrant generation, we see that the six minority groups covered by this survey fall into two groupings. The Caribbean, Pakistani and the Bangladeshi groups had high proportions without GCSE or equivalent qualifications (60-75%). On the other hand, only about 45-50% of Indian, African Asian and Chinese migrants were without this level of qualification.

Introduction

In Chapter Four, we saw that significant changes were occurring in the experiences of minority ethnic groups in the education system. The pattern of upward mobility revealed in that chapter runs counter to many taken-for-granted assumptions, including those surrounding the supposed persistence of ‘educational underachievement’ (see Mason, 2000, pp 62-78). This is not to deny, of course, that significant inequalities persist. They relate to two key themes of this book: the increasingly differentiated experiences of Britain's minority ethnic citizens and the persistence of disadvantage relative to the ‘white’ population.

It is arguable that labour market position and employment status are central issues in understanding differences in the experiences of Britain's minority ethnic groups. This is because the resources that derive from employment are keys to accessing a range of other desired goods and services. The extent to which this is so is illustrated by the analyses of both health and housing presented in Chapters Six and Seven of this volume. It is no surprise then, to find that members of minority ethnic groups identify labour market success as key aspects of their life strategies. In this context, Modood's analysis in Chapter Four emphasised the extent to which the apparent drive by young minority ethnic people to acquire qualifications is a response to the labour market experiences of their parents and their own perceptions of the patterning of opportunities open to them. In this regard, education can be seen, in some respects, as representing an investment in labour market futures. As we shall see, the patterning of that investment is, to some degree, reflected in the labour market experience of different groups. Yet at the same time, it is clear that the returns on that investment are not equivalent for all groups. There is, as we shall see, evidence of a continuing ethnic penalty that operates notwithstanding substantial occupational mobility among members of at least some groups. This penalty relates not only to the kinds of jobs that can be accessed. It also has implications for financial returns to employment in the form of incomes.

This last point is crucial because, as we shall see, employment patterns interact with other aspects of individual and family strategies, shaping significant differences between the household incomes of different groups.

Introduction

The housing experiences of minority ethnic households are very varied, and negative stereotypes of segregation into so-called ‘ghetto’ life tell us little about the meanings or shifting characteristics of home and community. Diverse trajectories have become more visible in recent years between and across specific minority ethnic groups, and there are many housing success stories. Yet there is also a continuity of shared disadvantages for communities, affecting opportunities, resources and housing choice. Furthermore, patterns associated with socioeconomic differentiation, gender and disability may cross-cut or reinforce those associated with ethnicity.

This chapter draws on a review commissioned in 2001 by the then Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, designed to appraise the evidence base in the field of housing for black and minority ethnic households in England (Harrison with Phillips, 2003). In reviewing the ‘state of the art’ for housing research, we noted the richness and extensiveness of existing empirical materials, but also many gaps in knowledge. Analysis by policy makers and scholars has often relied on anecdotal or very localised findings. This is partly because housing conditions and decisions are so complex and particular, and large-scale surveys can rarely cater for the detail. Not only do dwellings vary in age, affordability, type and tenure, they are the focus for activities by a wide range of organisations in private and non-profit spheres, with local and regional variations in markets, costs and capital values. The housing options open to people from a specific minority ethnic group may differ from place to place, reflecting factors such as house prices or the availability of social rented dwellings, as well as labour market opportunities. Thus, differences in location can connect to differing patterns in the housing circumstances of specific minority ethnic groups. For instance, Howes and Mullins (1999) have noted that, while Bangladeshi people in London were found to be particularly likely to be council housing tenants (58%), this appeared much less the case for those living elsewhere in Britain (only 15% of whom were apparently local authority tenants). At the same time, housing supply complications may be paralleled by variations in household circumstances and strategies linked to gender, community or settlement histories, religious or kinship affiliations, age, disability, health, or incomes. Thus, the housing scene is a highly complicated mosaic of varying conditions, resources and opportunities.