2018 Nottingham African Communities Research GAIN Diaspora

GAIN Diaspora African Communities in Nottingham Research – 2018

Mapping African Communities living in the city of Nottingham, England, United Kingdom January to November 2018 Supported & Guided by:

Funded By

1|Page

GAIN Diaspora African Communities in Nottingham Research – 2018

Table of Contents Table of Figures and Tables 3 Introduction 4 PART A: PERSONAL INFORMATION 5 1.1) Country of Origin 5 1.2) Residence or Migration Status 6 1.2.1) Residence or Migration Status per Country of Origin 7 1.3) Living arrangements 9 1.4) How long have you lived in Nottingham?

9 1.5) How long have you lived in the UK? 10 1.6) Current Situation 10 1.6.1) Current situation per country of origin 11 PART B: OTHER INFORMATION 14 2.1) Have you experienced any of the following whilst living in Nottingham? 14 2.2) Have you experienced any of the following whilst on your journey to the UK? 15 2.3) If you answered YES to any of the above, would you like to provide more details?

15 2.4) Which of the following best describes your needs or those of your family? 16 2.5) In your opinion, how do you think this need can be met?

16 PART C: DEMOGRAPHICS 20 3.1) Postcode and Population per Ward Id 20 3.1.1) Ward Id per country of origin 24 3.2) Gender 27 3.2.1) Gender per Country of Origin 27 3.3) Marital Status 29 3.3.1) Marital Status per Country of Origin 30 3.4) Religious belief 32 3.5) Sexual Orientation 32 3.6) Age Group 33 3.6.1) Age Group per Country of Origin 33 3.7) Do you suffer from any disability? Presence of disability in the group 36 3.8) What Level of Academic Qualification have you attained?

36 3.8.1) Academic Qualification per Country of Origin 37 Conclusions 40 Limitations and recommendations 40 References 41

2|Page

GAIN Diaspora African Communities in Nottingham Research – 2018

Table of Figures and Tables Figure 1.1: Country of origin Figure 1.2: Overview of the Residence or Migration Status Figure 1.3: Residence status per country of origin Figure 1.4: Living arrangements - Do you live in a shared house?

Figure 1.5: Living arrangements - Who do you live with?

Figure 1.6: Time of residency in Nottingham Figure 1.7: Time of residency in the UK Figure 1.8: General overview of the current situation of the community Figure 1.9: Current situation of the community per country of origin Figure 2.1: Individuals’ experiences in the city of Nottingham Figure 2.2: Individuals’ experiences in the United Kingdom Figure 2.3: Overview of the main individuals’ needs Figure 2.4: Percentage of the community belonging to a community group Table 2.1: Desired benefits from a community group Figure 2.5: Percentage of individuals willing to join a group Table 3.1: Classification of the wards using the first part of the postcodes Figure 3.1: Map showing the location of the wards in the city of Nottingham Table 3.2: Number of Individuals that provided the first section of the postcode Table 3.3: Number of individuals per each ward in Nottingham Figure 3.2: Percentage of individuals per each ward in Nottingham Figure 3.3 Ward distribution per country of origin Figure 3.4: Percentage of individuals per gender Figure 3.5: Distribution of gender per country Figure 3.6: Percentage of individuals per marital status Figure 3.7: Distribution of marital status per country of origin Figure 3.8: The religious beliefs among the population Figure 3.9: Sexual orientation among the population Figure 3.10: Distribution of age range among the population Figure 3.11: Distribution of age range per country of origin Table 3.4: Distribution of the represented countries by age range Figure 3.12: Presence of disability in the group Figure 3.13: Distribution of the level of academic qualification among the group Figure 3.14: Level of academic qualification per country of origin Table 3.5: Countries classified according to their level of academic qualification

7 8 9 11 11 12 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 21 21 22 23 24 24 25 27 28 29 30 32 33 33 34 36 37 37 38 39 40

3|Page

GAIN Diaspora African Communities in Nottingham Research – 2018

INTRODUCTION The scope of the research was to have an initial picture of the African Community living in the city of Nottingham, England. For this purpose, a physical questionnaire and an online questionnaire were developed. The physical questionnaires were used in the field research that was carried out to map the community across the city. Using the wards as guidance, the team walked through the main roads of every ward approaching people in the streets, and the results were very variable in quality and quantity. In the case of the online survey, a Google link was made available and sent to partner organizations for diffusion among their African partners. Once they had submitted the answers, the team was able to collect the data online. All data collection was finished on 30th June 2018.

Since individuals cherish their privacy very highly, and because the postcode of every interviewee was necessary to map them on the wards, collecting data was challenging due to an initial mistrust when members of the community were approached by the team.

It is fair to state that this process was made easier when the team approached the community in places where they felt secure, such as religious spaces like churches or specific African events that the community freely attended. However, when considering that the number of online responses was considerable lower than the ones obtained with the physical questionnaires, it can be said that the biggest limitation of the research was the low level of compliance from the community.

The nature of the questions was developed by having a qualitative and quantitative approach, which can be observed on each section of the survey. Part A of the survey considered Personal Information and it consisted in six questions mainly regarding country of origin and migration issues. Part B considered Other Information and its 10 questions were focused on acknowledging the living experiences of individuals in the UK and in the city. Finally, the eight questions of Part C considered Demographic data from the population. This report was conceived once the data was processed, and the main findings obtained by the team are going to be exposed using charts and tables to sustain each result, with the aim of contrasting them with current literature regarding Black Minorities and Ethnic (BME) communities living in the city of Nottingham, and at a national level. From a total population of 326 individuals interviewed, 299 have an African background (n=299) and therefore they represent the targeted population from which the team extracted the information that is going to be exposed in the present report.

4|Page

GAIN Diaspora African Communities in Nottingham Research – 2018

PART A: PERSONAL INFORMATION 1.1) Country of Origin With n=299, the team identified two main majorities of the African Community living in the city of Nottingham. The first top three countries were Nigeria, representing 29.4% of the population; Ghana with 14.4%; and Zimbabwe with 12%. The second majority was represented by Kenya with 9.7%, Sudan with 6%, and Angola with 3.7%. The following African countries were not represented in the interviewed population, namely Morocco, Tunisia, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Western Sahara, Burkina Faso, Togo, Benin, Gabon, Djibouti, Lesotho, Swaziland, Mozambique and Madagascar. The rest of the nations were majorly represented in percentages that averaged 1% (please, see fig. 1.1).

Figure 1.1: Country of origin.

5|Page

GAIN Diaspora African Communities in Nottingham Research – 2018

1.2) Residence or Migration Status When analysing the residence status and the country of origin, it was found that much of the interviewee population had a residence status, representing 48.8% of the total (n=299). The next main group was the one with a limited leave to remain, with 22.4% of the population. Then, 18.1% of the interviewees preferred not to disclose their migration status and 1.7% chose other as answer. The percentage of refugee corresponds to 6% of the cohort, representing Sudan 77.7% of this variable in the population. Finally, it was found that only 3% of the population identified themselves as asylum seeker (please, see fig.1.2).

Figure 1.2: Overview of the Residence or Migration Status.

6|Page

GAIN Diaspora African Communities in Nottingham Research – 2018

1.2.1) Residence or Migration Status per Country of Origin

Figure 1.3: Residence status per country of origin.

In fig. 1.3 it is showed the migration/residence status per each country of origin. The analysis revealed that Algeria was represented by one (1) individual who preferred not

7|Page

GAIN Diaspora African Communities in Nottingham Research – 2018 to say. Libya had three (3) individuals with limited leave to remain. Egypt was represented by one (1) individual with limited leave to remain. Niger had one (1) individual as permanent citizen. In the case of Senegal, it had three (3) individuals divided in 33.3% as permanent citizen and 67% who preferred not to say. Gambia was represented by six (6) individuals, divided between 67% as permanent citizens, 17% with limited leave to remain and 17% who preferred not to say. Guinea-Bissau was represented by one (1) individual that is a permanent citizen. Guinea had three (3) individuals divided in 33.3% as citizens and 67.7% who preferred not to say. Sierra Leone was represented by one (1) individual who preferred not to say. In the case of Liberia, there was one (1) individual with limited leave to remain. Côte d'Ivoire was represented by four (4) individuals divided in 50% who were citizens and 50% who preferred not to say. Ghana had forty-three (43) individuals divided in 70% as a citizen, 14% limited leave to remain and 16% who preferred not to say.

Nigeria had eighty-eight (88) individuals divided in 48% as citizens, 40% limited leave to remain, 2% asylum seeker, 9% preferred not to say and 1% who chose other as response. In the case of Cameroon, it was represented by four (4) individuals divided in 75% as citizens and 25% as refugee status. Congo had one (1) individual that was a permanent citizen. The Democratic Republic of Congo had four (4) individuals who were permanent citizens. Rwanda was represented by one (1) individual with citizen status.

Sudan was represented by nineteen (19) individuals, where 74% selected refugee status, 11% asylum seeker, 11% were citizens and 5% had limited leave to remain.

South Sudan was represented by three (3) individuals divided in 33.3% as asylum seekers, 33.3% as citizens, and 33.3% who chose other as response. Uganda had five (5) individuals, divided in 40% as citizens and 60% with limited leave to remain. Ethiopia was represented with one (1) individual as a permanent citizen. Kenya had twenty-nine (29) individuals divided in 3% as refugees, 3% as asylum seekers, 41% as citizens, 14% with limited leave to remain, and 38% who chose not to say. Somalia was represented by three (3) individuals divided in 33.3% as asylum seekers, 33.3% as citizens and 33.3% who chose not to say. In the case of Eritrea, it had seven (7) individuals divided in 43% as citizens, 14% with a refugee status and 43% with a limited leave to remain.

The United Republic of Tanzania had two (2) individuals, having one a citizen status and the other one a limited leave to remain. Burundi was represented by one (1) individual who chose not to say. Malawi had eight (8) individuals distributed in 63% as citizens, 13% that preferred not to say, and 25% that chose other. In the case of Zambia, it was represented by two (2) individuals that are permanent citizens. Angola was represented by eleven (11) individuals distributed in 9% as asylum seekers, 18% as citizens, 18% with limited leave to remain, and 55% who preferred not to say. In the case of Namibia, it was represented by two (2) individuals that are permanent citizens. Botswana presented one (1) individual who chose not to disclose the migration status. South Africa was represented by three (3) individuals that were divided in 33.3% citizens and 67.7% who preferred not to say. Zimbabwe had thirty-six (36) individuals distributed as follows: 3% asylum seekers, 3% refugees, 56% citizens, 14% limited leave to remain, 3% other, and 22% who chose not to say. Finally, Mauritius was represented by one (1) individual with limited leave to remain.

8|Page

GAIN Diaspora African Communities in Nottingham Research – 2018

1.3) Living arrangements The charts in figures 1.4 and 1.5 represent the living situation of the African community in Nottingham. From the data collected, 70.5% of the population live in a shared accommodation with either their partners, friends or family members; and the remaining 29.5% on their own. Within this same population that live in a shared accommodation (70.5%) , 38.5% stated that the lived with their partners, 25.5% with family members, 22.6% with their children, and 13.5% with friends.

Figure 1.4: Living arrangements - Do you live in a shared house?

Figure 1.5: Living arrangements - Who do you live with?

1.4) How long have you lived in Nottingham?

The chart below represents the number of years each interviewee have lived in Nottingham either as an immigrant or a citizen. Of 299 respondents interviewed, 88 (26.7%) reported having lived in Nottingham for more than 10 years, 142 (43.2%) between 5-10 years, 39 (11.9%) between 1-5 years, and the remaining 60 (18.2%) for less than a year (please, see fig. 1.6).

9|Page

GAIN Diaspora African Communities in Nottingham Research – 2018

Figure 1.6: Time of residency in Nottingham.

1.5) How long have you lived in the UK? The chart below represents the number of years each interviewee has lived in the UK, either as an immigrant or as a citizen. Of the 299 respondents, 42.3% reported to have lived in the UK for more than 10 years, 28.7% between 5-10 years, 17.6% between 1-5 years and the remaining 11.4 for less than a year (please, see fig. 1.7).

Figure 1.7: Time of residency in the UK.

1.6) Current Situation Regarding the current situation of the community, it is necessary to state that many of the interviewees are enrolled in more than one category, which explains why n=347 is superior to n=299 of the total population. From the totals, there is 38% that was studying full-time, 19.6% that was employed full-time, 6.3% that was studying part-time, 15.3% that was employed part-time, 6.3% that was self-employed, 3.7% that was volunteering, 2.9% that was seeking employment, 0.9% that was not seeking employment, 3.7% that was a business owner, 1.2% that was a minister of religion, 0.3% that was retired, 0.9% that was unable to work due to illness or disability, and finally 0.9% that was caring for family members (please, see fig. 1.8).

10 | P a g e

GAIN Diaspora African Communities in Nottingham Research – 2018

Figure 1.8: General overview of the current situation of the community.

1.6.1) Current situation per country of origin In fig. 1.9 can be seen the analysis of the current situation when considering the country of origin. It was found that the individual from Algeria was studying full time. In the case of Libya, the three individuals stated that they were studying full-time. The response from Egypt stated that it was studying full-time, as well as the ones from Niger and Senegal.

In the case of The Gambia, six (6) responses were divided in 50% as studying full-time, 17% as employed part-time, and 17% as self-employed. The response from GuineaBissau stated that it was employed part-time; while the ones from Guinea and Liberia stated being studying full-time. CĂ´te d'Ivoire had two (2) responses, divided in 50% studying full-time and 50% employed part-time. In the case of Ghana, were found fortynine (49) responses divided in 35% studying full-time, 4% studying part-time, 24% employed full-time, 14% employed part-time, 10% self-employed, 2% not seeking employment, 4% business owner, 1% unable to work due to illness or disability, and 4% caring for family members. The largest group correspond to Nigeria, with one hundred and fourteen (114) responses divided in 39% as studying full-time, 4% as studying parttime, 17% employed full-time, 15% employed part-time, 8% self-employed, 6% volunteering, 3% seeking employment, 2% not seeking employment, 4% business owner, 2% minister of religion, 1% retired, and finally 1% unable to work due to illness or disability. In the case of Cameroon, 6 responses were divided between 17% studying part-time, 50% employed full-time, 17% self-employed, and 17% as business owner. The response from Congo stated that the person was employed full-time. On the other hand, the nine (9) responses from The Democratic Republic of Congo were divided in 33% studying full-time, 11% studying part-time, 11% employed full-time, 11% employed parttime, 11% self-employed, 11% minister of religion, and 11% unable to work due to illness or disability. Rwanda had one response stating that the person was employed full-time.

Sixteen responses from Sudan were divided in 25% studying full-time, 44% studying part-time, 19% employed full time, 6% seeking employment, and 6% as business owner.

11 | P a g e

GAIN Diaspora African Communities in Nottingham Research – 2018 South Sudan had four (4) responses divided in 25% studying part-time, 50% employed full-time, and 25% seeking employment. In the case of Uganda, the six (6) responses were divided in 83% studying full-time and 17% employed part-time. The response from Ethiopia stated that the person was studying full-time. Kenya had thirty-five (35) responses, that were divided in 37% studying full-time, 6% studying part-time, 20% employed full-time, 20% employed part-time, 6% self-employed, 9% volunteering, and 3% minister of religion. In the case of Somalia, one interviewee responded being employed full-time and one interviewee employed part-time. While the eight (8) responses from Eritrea were divided in 25% studying full-time, 13% studying part-time, 13% employed full-time, 25% employed part-time, 13% seeking employment, and 13% caring for family members. The United Republic of Tanzania had one (1) response stating that the person was employed part-time; while the person from Burundi was employed full-time. Malawi had eleven (11) responses, with 9% of them studying fulltime, 27% employed full-time, 27% employed part-time, 9% self-employed, 18% volunteering, and 9% seeking employment. In the case of Zambia, two responses were divided in 50% studying full-time and 50% employed full-time. Angola had twelve (12) responses, divided in 50% studying full-time, 17% employed full-time, 25% employed part-time and 8% as business owner. The four (4) responses from Namibia were divided in 25% studying full-time, 25% employed full-time, 25% self-employed, and 25% seeking employment. From Botswana, two responses were divided in 50% studying part-time and 50% employed part-time. In the case of South Africa, three (3) responses were divided in 33% studying full-time and 67% seeking employment. Meanwhile, the forty (40) responses from Zimbabwe were divided in 48% studying full-time, 5% studying parttime, 28% employed full-time, 10% employed part-time, 3% self-employed, 3% volunteering, and 5% as business owner. Finally, the response from Mauritius stated that the person was studying full-time.

12 | P a g e

GAIN Diaspora African Communities in Nottingham Research – 2018

Figure 1.9: Current situation of the community per country of origin.

13 | P a g e

GAIN Diaspora African Communities in Nottingham Research – 2018

PART B: OTHER INFORMATION The second part of the questionnaire contemplated the collection of qualitative information to find about the living experiences of the community in the UK in general and in the city of Nottingham in particular. The findings are going to be presented in the following section.

2.1) Have you experienced any of the following whilst living in Nottingham?

Figure 2.1: Individuals’ experiences in the city of Nottingham.

The graph in figure 2.1 represents the experiences of the interviewees whilst in Nottingham. These experiences range from racism to cultural barrier, contemplating issues such as integration, trauma, sexism, isolation, hate crime and exploitation. Some interviewees identified with more than one issue, while others did not state if they experienced any. Based on this, the number of responses collected varied when compared to the total number of individuals surveyed (n=299). A large majority of the population reported to have experienced racism at some point during their stay in Nottingham (30.4 % of the responses). This was followed by 20.7% of the population that identified cultural barrier as a major issue. 13.5% of the population identified with language barrier as an issues, 11.1% integration, 10.5% isolation, 6.5% hate crime, 4.3% trauma, and finally 3.1% sexism. None of the participants identified exploitation as an issue in Nottingham.

14 | P a g e

GAIN Diaspora African Communities in Nottingham Research – 2018

2.2) Have you experienced any of the following whilst on your journey to the UK?

Figure 2.2: Individuals’ experiences in the United Kingdom.

The graph in fig. 2.2 represents the experiences of the interviewees whilst in the UK. As in the case of the ones experienced in Nottingham, these experiences ranges from racism to cultural barriers, integration, trauma, sexism, isolation, hate crime and exploitation. The findings showed that a large majority of the population reported having experienced racism at some point during their stay in the UK (22.8% of the responses).

This was followed by 20.5% of the population that identified cultural barriers as a major issue and 16.8% with language barriers. 13.1% experienced isolation, 11.8% integration problems, 6.0% hate crime, 3.7% trauma, 2.9% exploitation, and finally 2.4% sexism.

2.3) If you answered YES to any of the above, would you like to provide more details?

Some of the interviewees further elaborated on their experiences while in the UK and Nottingham. The survey highlighted their responses regarding their personal experiences with challenges such as racism, hate crime, exploitation, isolation, cultural barriers and sexism. Below are some examples of such responses: ● ● ● ● ●

Workmate used racist language when we had an argument.

Was called names due to my colour.

An egg was thrown at me.

Was criticised due to my cultural beliefs.

Lack of support due to few members of the same tribe, experiencing cultural barriers and misunderstandings because of this. I also faced racial attacks as a student, but also in other realms of my environment, such as work and public areas.

15 | P a g e

GAIN Diaspora African Communities in Nottingham Research – 2018 ● ● ● ● ●

Experienced racism at bars and in clubs.

It was difficult living with people of another ethnicity.

Couldn’t understand the language.

Ignored by white neighbours whenever I greet.

Someone calling me out negro in the street.

2.4) Which of the following best describes your needs or those of your family?

From the data collected, 14% of the population wanted academic study opportunities and 11% employment opportunities, 5.4% want access to healthcare, 6.7% careers guidance, 4.0% childcare, 2.1% counseling, 2.2% debt management, 7.2% education for children, 3.1% emotional/psychological assistance, 3.0% english language classes, 6.0% further training activities, 4.8% housing advice, 1.2% interpretation and translation, 5.1% legal advice, 3.5% meeting people from the 'host' community, 5.2% meeting people of similar background, 4.5% provision of sport facilities, 3.0% mentoring, 4.1% volunteering, and finally 3.6% welfare advice. There was no response in the other category (please, see fig. 2.3).

Figure 2.3: Overview of the main individuals’ needs.

2.5) In your opinion, how do you think this need can be met? listed below are the responses given by the interviewees when asked how their needs can be met.

● ● ● ● ●

Seeking support.

Awareness projects on law, rights and opportunities.

Making networks and forming community groups.

Forming community professional groups.

More opportunities and favourable migration policies for Africans in the UK.

16 | P a g e

GAIN Diaspora African Communities in Nottingham Research – 2018 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Education, trainings, mentorships and seminars for students and members of the community.

Help from GAIN. Dialogue between the government and the African community.

Membership programmes and trainings in different sectors across the area.

Getting informed about any resources available.

Helping the poor, addicts and homeless.

Support by local authorities.

Recognising people's needs.

More visa availabilities for undergraduates and postgraduates.

Flexibility and proximity from the authorities.

Subsidies for sport facilities and child care.

2.6) Do you belong to a community group?

When asked if they were part of a group, only 32.7% of the population responded positively to this; while the majority 67.3% said they did not belong to a community group (please, see fig. 2.4).

Figure 2.4: Percentage of the community belonging to a community group.

2.7) If YES, what group?

From the 90 interviewees that identified themselves as belonging to a community group, we were able to draft out a list of this groups which can be seen below; ● ● ● ● ● ●

Sudanese community group.

Mojatu.

Anioma group.

Ghana Union.

Eritrean community group.

Yoruba community.

17 | P a g e

GAIN Diaspora African Communities in Nottingham Research – 2018 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Christian community group.

URHUOKE Progressive Union.

Zimbabwe group.

KNWA. Kenya community group.

Senegal.

Guinea community group.

Ivory community group.

African Pentecostal Christian community.

UCKG Help Centre.

African-Caribbean community.

The Redeemed Christian Church of God. KENWA group.

Refugees Women group.

2.8) What benefits do you access from your group?

From the report, they interviewees stated that this groups provided them with the support needed to carry out their daily activities such as going to school, work, getting groceries, taking care of their children and so much more. It gave them a sense of belonging; opportunities to meet people from their area; free counselling and legal support; spiritual support; moral support; economic support; social support; emotional support; financial support; fellowships; and finally, effective integration and knowledge about the British culture as well as a reminder on the African culture.

2.9) What benefits would you like the group to provide?

Table 2.1 represents the benefits the community would like to access and/or like to be provided with to equip them with all they need for their day to day activity.

PRINCIPAL DESIRED BENEFITS TO BE PROVIDED BY A COMMUNITY GROUP Meeting people to similar background Counselling To know more about your culture and promote, improve our culture To support each other where help is needed More contact and concerns Social and economic support Sharing information on employment opportunities All kinds of Support and advice Spiritual and Social Support Integration Legal representation Improving language More opportunities and training Table 2.1: Desired benefits from a community group.

18 | P a g e

GAIN Diaspora African Communities in Nottingham Research – 2018 2.10) If answered NO in 2.6, would you like to join a group?

From the results collected, a large majority of the population (68.9%) declined the offer of joining a group. On the other hand, 31.1% of the population were open-minded and eager about joining a community group seeing the benefits accessed by the others. (please, see fig.

2.5)

Figure 2.5: Percentage of individuals willing to join a group.

19 | P a g e

GAIN Diaspora African Communities in Nottingham Research – 2018

PART C: DEMOGRAPHICS 3.1) Postcode and Population per Ward Id The team walked the streets of Nottingham to carry out the research, going to each one of the 20 wards that belong to the city (please, see table 3.1 and fig. 3.1). Some wards presented no African communities during the hours that the fieldwork was carried out, as it was the case in Clifton North and South, Wollaton West, and Dunkirk and Lenton.

However, when collecting the data, some postcodes were identified belonging to some of these wards. It is also important to state that the number of responses diminished from n=299 to n=234 because a big percentage of the interviewees declined to prove their full six-digits postcode, which limited the team’s ability to classify them across the city (please, see tables 3.2 and 3.3).

WARD ID ARBORETUM ASPLEY BASFORD BERRIDGE BESTWOOD BILBOROUGH BRIDGE BULWELL BULWELL FOREST CLIFTON NORTH CLIFTON SOUTH DALES DUNKIRK AND LENTON LEEN VALLEY MAPPERLEY RADFORD AND PARK ST. ANN´S SHERWOOD WOLLATON EAST AND LENTON ABBEY WOLLATON WEST

POSTCODE NG1 - NG7 - NG80 NG8 NG5 - NG6 - NG7 - NG8 NG5 - NG7 NG5 NG3 - NG7 - NG8 - NG80 NG1 - NG12 - NG13 - NG2 - NG7 NG6 - NG8 NG5 - NG6 NG11 NG11 NG1 - NG3 - NG4 NG2 - NG7 - NG80 - NG90 NG7 - NG8 NG1 - NG3 - NG5 NG2 - NG7 NG1 - NG2 - NG3 NG3 - NG5 NG7 - NG8 - NG9 NG7 - NG8

Table 3.1: Classification of the wards using the first part of the postcodes (Source: Nottingham City Council, 2018).

20 | P a g e

GAIN Diaspora African Communities in Nottingham Research – 2018

Figure 3.1: Map showing the location of the wards in the city of Nottingham (Source: Nottingham City Council, 2018).

21 | P a g e

GAIN Diaspora African Communities in Nottingham Research – 2018

POSTCODE

QUANTITY

NG1 NG2 NG3 NG4 NG5 NG6 NG7 NG8 NG9 NG11 NG12 NG13 NG14 NG15 NG16 NG 80 NG 90 BLANK TOTAL

40 19 51 7 33 18 64 27 11 6 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 46 326

Table 3.2: Number of Individuals that provided the first section of the postcode.

22 | P a g e

GAIN Diaspora African Communities in Nottingham Research – 2018

DISTRIBUTION PER WARD WARD

INDIVIDUALS

PERCENTAGE

Arboretum

30

12,8%

Aspley

2

0,9%

Basford

15

6,4%

Berridge

20

8,5%

Bestwood

12

5,1%

Bilborough

29

12,4%

Bridge

28

12,0%

Bulwell

1

0,4%

Bulwell Forest

7

3,0%

Clifton North

4

1,7%

Clifton South

3

1,3%

Dales

27

11,5%

Dunkirk & Lenton

1

0,4%

Leen Valley

9

3,8%

Mapperley

2

0,9%

Radford & Park

5

2,1%

St. Ann's

21

9,0%

Sherwood

6

2,6%

Wollaton East & Lenton Abbey

10

4,3%

Wollaton West

2

0,9%

234

100%

Table 3.3: Number of individuals per each ward in Nottingham (based on individuals providing their full postcode).

23 | P a g e

GAIN Diaspora African Communities in Nottingham Research – 2018

Figure 3.2: Percentage of individuals per each ward in Nottingham.

As it can be seen in fig. 3.2, the wards with the higher density of African communities were Arboretum with 12.8%, followed closely by Bilborough with 12.4% and Bridge with 12%. Dales had a representation of 11.5% and St. Ann’s of 9%. Meanwhile, the wards with the lowest density were Dunkirk and Lenton, Bulwell - both with 0.4%; followed by Wollaton West, Mapperley and Aspley, the three of them with 0.9%.

3.1.1) Ward Id per country of origin In fig. 3.3 are showed the findings per country regarding each ward. In the case of Algeria, 100% of them lived in Basford; while 100% of Libya lived in Leen Valley. The population from Egypt lived in Bridge. One half of the community from Senegal was living in Bridge, while the other half in Leen Valley. In the case of The Gambia, 25% lived in Basford, 25% in Bilborough, 25% in Dales and 25% in Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey.

Berridge was home for the population from Guinea-Bissau; and in the case of Guinea, 50% of its population lived in Basford and 50% in Radford and Park. The person from Liberia lived in Sherwood. Regarding the individuals from Côte d'Ivoire, 20% lived in 24 | P a g e

GAIN Diaspora African Communities in Nottingham Research – 2018 Berridge, 20% in Bestwood, 40% in Bridge and the remaining 20% in Dales. The Ghanaian residents were divided in 10% living in Arboretum, 3% in Basford, 6% in Berridge, 6% in Bestwood, 16% in Bilborough, 13% in Bridge, 3% in Bulwell Forest, 6% in Clifton North, 3% in Clifton South, 16% in Dales, 3% in Leen Valley, 3% in Mapperley, 3% in St. Ann’s, 3% in Sherwood and 3% in Wollaton West.

On the other hand, the Nigerian community was divided among the following wards: 20% lived in Arboretum, 3% in Aspley, 6% in Basford, 6% in Berridge, 4% in Bestwood, 10% in Bilborough, 12% in Bridge, 1% in Bulwell, 6% in Bulwell Forest, 1% in Clifton South, 7% in Dales, 1% in Dunkirk and Lenton, 3% in Leen Valley, 1% in Radford and Park, 9% in St. Ann’s, 7% in Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey, and the remaining 1% in Wollaton West. In the case of Cameroon, half of the population lived in Leen Valley and the other half in St. Ann’s. Basford was home for the population from Congo. Half of the community from the Democratic Republic of Congo lived in Clifton North, while the other half in Radford and Park. The population from Rwanda lived in Bridge. The Sudanese community was divided as follows: 10% was living in Arboretum, 10% in Basford, 30% in Berridge, 20% in Bilborough, 20% in Bridge, and the remaining 10% in Leen Valley.

On the other hand, one half of the community from South Sudan lived in Bestwood while the other half in St. Ann’s. In the case of Uganda, 25% lived in Berridge, 50% in St. Ann’s, and 25% lived in Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey.

The Ethiopian community lived in Bridge. The Kenyan community was distributed in the following wards: 6% lived in Basford, 22% in Berridge, 11% in Bilborough, 6% in Bulwell Forest, 6% in Clifton North, 6% in Clifton South, 11% in Dales, 6% in Radford and Park, 11% in St. Ann’s, 11% in Sherwood and 6% in Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey. In the case of Somalia, 33% lived in Bestwood and 67% in Dales; and in the case of Eritrea, the community was divided in 50% living in Arboretum, 17% in Bridge, and 33% living in Dales. Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey hosted 100% of the United Republic of Tanzania’s population; while Dales was home for the Burundi community. The Malawi community was divided in 17% in Bestwood, 17% in Bilborough, 17% in Dales, 33% in St. Ann’s, and 17% in Sherwood. Half of the Zambian population lived in Radford and Park, and the other half in St. Ann’s. The population from Angola was based on the following wards: 14% in Arboretum, 14% in Basford, 14% in Berridge, 14% in Bridge, 14% in Dales, and the remaining 29% in St. Ann’s. The whole community of Namibia lived in Arboretum; while the community of Botswana resided in Leen Valley. Half of the population from South Africa was based on Basford, and the other half on Sherwood.

Finally, the population of Zimbabwe was divided in the following wards: 19% in Arboretum, 7% in Basford, 11% in Berridge, 4% in Bestwood, 22% in Bilborough, 11% in Bridge, 4% in Bulwell, 7% in Dales, 4% in Leen Valley, 7% in St. Ann’s, and 4% in Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey.

25 | P a g e

GAIN Diaspora African Communities in Nottingham Research – 2018

Figure 3.3 Ward distribution per country of origin.

26 | P a g e

GAIN Diaspora African Communities in Nottingham Research – 2018

3.2) Gender With n=299, most of the population identified themselves as male, reaching 55.9% of the population. Females were represented by 41.1%, while 3% of the interviewees preferred not to disclose their gender (please, see fig. 3.4).

Figure 3.4: Percentage of individuals per gender.

3.2.1) Gender per Country of Origin From the results, it can be extrapolated that some countries have an exclusive population of either males or females. Those countries with an exclusively female population were Algeria, Egypt, Niger, Guinea-Bissau, Ethiopia, Burundi, Zambia and Mauritius. In the case of those countries with only male representatives, the results presented Senegal, Sierra Leone, Liberia, CĂ´te d'Ivoire, Congo, Rwanda, South Sudan and the United Republic of Tanzania (please, see fig. 3.5).

27 | P a g e

GAIN Diaspora African Communities in Nottingham Research – 2018

Figure 3.5: Distribution of gender per country.

The following are the findings per country when analysing the gender of the population.

In the case of Algeria, Niger, Guinea-Bissau, Ethiopia, Burundi, Zambia, Mauritius and Egypt, 100% of the community was female. On the other hand, the population from Congo, Senegal, South Sudan, Liberia, CĂ´te d'Ivoire, Rwanda, The United Republic of Tanzania and Sierra Leone was 100% male. Half of the population from Cameroon,

28 | P a g e

GAIN Diaspora African Communities in Nottingham Research – 2018 Malawi, Namibia and the Democratic Republic of Congo was male while the other half stated female.

Libya was represented as 67% male and 33% female. The Gambian community was divided in 83% male and 17% female; while the Guinean community was divided in 50% female and 50% that preferred not to say. Ghana was divided between 48% male, 48% female and 4% that preferred not to say. In the case of Nigeria, 54% was male, 43% female and 3% preferred not to say. Sudan was divided in 89% male and 11% female.

In the case of Uganda, 80% was male and 20% preferred not to say. In the case of Kenya, 38% was male, 59% was female and 3% preferred not to say; while in the case of Somalia, 67% was male and 33% was female. The population from Eritrea was divided in 71% male and 29% female; while the one from Angola was divided in 56% male and 44% female. The individuals from Botswana preferred not to disclose their gender. In the case of South Africa, the population was divided in 33% male and 67% female; while in the case of Zimbabwe, it was divided in 60% male, 37% female and 3% that preferred not to say.

3.3) Marital Status Regarding the marital status of the cohort, most of the population was single, with 56.9%; those who were married represented 30.4% of the population. Civil partnerships represented 2.7% of the group, while widowed represented 0.3% and those who preferred not to say 8% (please, see fig. 3.6).

Figure 3.6: Percentage of individuals per marital status.

29 | P a g e

GAIN Diaspora African Communities in Nottingham Research – 2018

3.3.1) Marital Status per Country of Origin These are the findings per country when analysing the marital status of the population (please, see fig. 3.7). Those interviewees that stated being single were from Libya, Egypt, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Liberia, Uganda, Zambia and Mauritius. Those who stated being married were from Niger, Cameroon, Rwanda and The United Republic of Tanzania. Those individuals who decided not to disclose their marital status were from Algeria, Burundi and Botswana. In the case of Senegal, Namibia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, 50% was single and 50% was married. The population from The Gambia stated as follows: 33% single, 50% married and 17% that preferred not to say.

Half of the population from Sierra Leone was single and the other half was divorced. In the case of CĂ´te d'Ivoire, 80% was single and 20% was married. The Ghanaian community stated their marital status as 61% single, 30% married, 2% in a civil partnership, 2% divorced and 5% who preferred not to say. In the case of Nigeria, 49% was single, 46% was married, 2% was in a civil partnership, 1% was divorced, and 2% preferred not to say. The community from Congo was divided in 67% single and 33% in a civil partnership. In the case of Sudan, the community was divided in 50% single, 44% married and 6% divorced; while the one from South Sudan stated in 67% being single and 33% as being married. The person from Ethiopia was widowed. In the case of Kenya, 55% was single, 10% was married, 7% was in a civil partnership, 3% was divorced, and 24% preferred not to say. 67% of the population from Somalia was single, while 33% preferred not to say; while in the case of Eritrea, 71% was single and 29% was married.

When analysing Malawi, 63% of the community was single, 25% married and 13% preferred not to say. Most of the population from Angola was single, with 89%; while 11% was married. The individuals from South Africa stated in 67% being single and in 33% being in a civil partnership. Finally, the interviewees from Zimbabwe were single in 61%, married in 17%, and 19% preferred not to disclose their status.

30 | P a g e

GAIN Diaspora African Communities in Nottingham Research – 2018

Figure 3.7: Distribution of marital status per country of origin.

31 | P a g e

GAIN Diaspora African Communities in Nottingham Research – 2018

3.4) Religious belief Regarding religion, most of the population stated belonging to a Christian belief (representing 76.9%); followed by those with a Muslim background, representing 16.4%.

On the other hand, 0.7% stated their religion was Hindu, and 6% declared other religious belief. There were not individuals from a Jewish background in the cohort (please, see fig. 3.8).

Figure 3.8: The religious beliefs among the population.

3.5) Sexual Orientation Most of the community declared themselves as Heterosexual, with 96.8%; while those who declared themselves as Homosexual represent the remaining 3.2%. There are no individuals who refer to themselves as Bisexual (please, see fig. 3.9).

Figure 3.9: Sexual orientation among the population.

32 | P a g e

GAIN Diaspora African Communities in Nottingham Research – 2018

3.6) Age Group Most of the population is an age range between 16 to 44 years old, being the majority in the range between 16 to 24 years (28.4%), followed by the range 25-34 with 27.4%.

Finally, the rank between 35 to 44 years represented 25.8% of the cohort (please, see fig. 3.10).

Figure 3.10: Distribution of age range among the population.

3.6.1) Age Group per Country of Origin These are the findings per country when analysing the age group of the population (please, see fig. 3.11 and table 3.4). In the case of Algeria, the individuals were between 25 and 34 years. Those from Libya were divided in 67% between 16 and 24 years; and 33% between 25 and 34 years. The interviewees from Egypt were between 35 and 44 years. Those from Niger were between 45 and 54 years; while those from Guinea-Bissau were aged between 25 and 34 years. In the case of Senegal, half of the population belonged to the 16-24 years age range, while the other half belonged to the 55-64 years range. The Gambia was represented with 17% of the community being under 16 years, 17% between 16 and 24 years, 50% between 35 and 44 years, and finally 17% between 45 and 54 years old. Half of the individuals from Guinea were aged between 16 and 24 years, and the other half between 35 and 44 years old. On the other hand, the individuals from Sierra Leone were over 75 years; while those from Liberia were between 25 and 34 years old. Those individuals from CĂ´te d'Ivoire were divided in 20% between 16 and 24 years, 40% between 25 and 34 years, 20% between 35 and 44 years, and the final 20% was between 45 and 54 years. In the case of Ghana, 31% of the population were between 16 and 24 years, 24% between 25 and 34 years, 27% between 35 and 44 years, and the remaining 18% between 45 and 54 years old. The population from Nigeria was

33 | P a g e

GAIN Diaspora African Communities in Nottingham Research – 2018 segmented in the following age ranges: 27% between 16-24, 19% between 25-34, 26% between 35-44, 22% between 45-54, and 5% between 55-64 years. One quarter of the population from Cameroon was aged between 35-44, while the remaining three quarters were between 45-54 years old. In the case of Congo, 100% was between 25 and 34 years old. Half of the population from the Democratic Republic of Congo was aged between 16 and 24 years, while the other half was between 25 and 34 years old. All the interviewees from Rwanda, The United Republic of Tanzania and Ethiopia were between 35 and 44 years old. The interviewees from Sudan were classified in 25% between 16 and 24 years, 50% between 25 and 34 years, and 25% between 35 and 44 years old; while those from South Sudan were between 25 and 34 years old. In the case of Uganda, 40% of the community was between 16 and 24 years, 40% between 25 and 34 years, and 20% between 35 and 44 years old. The responses from Kenya stated that 37% of the interviewees were between 16 and 24 years, 43% between 25 and 34 years, 10% between 35 and 44 years, 7% between 45 and 54 years, and 3% between 55 and 64 years old. One third of the individuals from Somalia were classified in the 25-34 age range, the second third in the 35-44 age range, and the final third in the 45-54 years range. The community from Eritrea was classified in 14% between 16 and 24 years, 57% between 25 and 34 years, and 29% between 35 and 44 years old. In the case of Burundi, the interviewee was between 55 and 64 years old. Half of the interviewees from Malawi were between 25 and 34 years, while the other half was between 35 and 44 years old.

The interviewees from Zambia and Botswana were between 16 and 24 years old. The Angolan community was composed in 56% with individuals ranging between 16 and 24 years, and 44% ranging between 35 and 44 years old. Half of the community from Namibia was ranged between 25 and 34 years, and the other half between 35 and 44 years old. One third of the South African community was between 16 and 24 years, a second third between 25 and 34 years, and the last third between 35 and 44 years old.

In the case of Zimbabwe, 3% was under 16, 30% between 16 and 24 years, 22% between 25 and 34 years, 27% between 35 and 44 years, 14% between 45 and 54, and 5% between 55 and 64 years old. Finally, the interviewee from Mauritius was between 25 and 34 years old.

34 | P a g e

GAIN Diaspora African Communities in Nottingham Research – 2018

Figure 3.11: Distribution of age range per country of origin.

35 | P a g e

GAIN Diaspora African Communities in Nottingham Research – 2018

COUNT RY

UNDER 16

16-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

The Gambia Zimbabw e

Libya Senegal The Gambia Guinea Côte d’Ivoire Ghana Nigeria DR Congo Sudan Uganda Kenya Eritrea Zambia Botswan a Angola South Africa Zimbabw e

Algeria Libya GuineaBissau Liberia Côte d’Ivoire Ghana Nigeria Congo DR Congo Sudan South Sudan Uganda Kenya Somalia Eritrea Malawi Namibia South Africa Zimbabw e Mauritius

Egypt The Gambia Guinea Côte d’Ivoire Ghana Nigeria Cameroo n Rwanda Tanzania Ethiopia Sudan Uganda Kenya Somalia Eritrea Malawi Angola Namibia South Africa Zimbabw e

Niger The Gambia Côte d’Ivoire Ghana Nigeria Cameroo n Kenya Somalia Zimbabwe

Senegal Nigeria Kenya Burundi Zimbabw e

65-74

75 AND MORE

PREFER NOT TO SAY

Sierra Leone

Table 3.4: Distribution of the represented countries by age range.

3.7) Do you suffer from any disability? Presence of disability in the group Most of the population (98.3%) did not suffer from any disability, which means only 1.7% of the cohort did suffer from a disability (please, see fig. 3.12).

Figure 3.12: Presence of disability in the group.

3.8) What Level of Academic Qualification have you attained?

Regarding this topic, the scenario presented varied outcomes. It is important to state that much of the community had some type of education (being Degree 24.1% of the

36 | P a g e

GAIN Diaspora African Communities in Nottingham Research – 2018 total), and only 4.1% of the responses stated that the individual had no educational level (please, see fig. 3.13).

Figure 3.13: Distribution of the level of academic qualification among the group.

3.8.1) Academic Qualification per Country of Origin In this subject, the considered population was n=345 because many of the interviewees selected more than one category. These are the findings per country when analysing the academic qualification of the population (please, see fig. 3.14 and table 3.5).

37 | P a g e

GAIN Diaspora African Communities in Nottingham Research – 2018

Figure 3.14: Level of academic qualification per country of origin.

38 | P a g e

GAIN Diaspora African Communities in Nottingham Research – 2018

COUNTR Y

NONE

GCSE / OLEVEL

A-LEVEL

CERTIFIC ATE

DIPLOMA

DEGREE

MASTER' S DEGREE

DOCTORA TE/ PhD

Senegal The Gambia Sierra Leone Côte d'Ivoire Ghana Sudan Kenya Somalia Zimbabw e

Libya The Gambia Côte d'Ivoire Ghana Nigeria Cameroon DR Congo Sudan Uganda Kenya Eritrea Malawi Zambia Angola South Africa Zimbabwe

The Gambia Côte d'Ivoire Ghana Nigeria DR Congo Sudan Uganda Kenya Eritrea Malawi Zambia Angola Zimbabwe

Senegal Guinea Ghana Nigeria DR Congo Sudan South Sudan Ethiopia Kenya Eritrea Angola Namibia Zimbabw e

Côte d'Ivoire Ghana Nigeria Cameroon DR Congo Sudan South Sudan Uganda Kenya Somalia Eritrea UR Tanzania Angola Namibia Botswana Zimbabwe

Egypt Niger The Gambia GuineaBissau Guinea Ghana Nigeria DR Congo Rwanda Sudan South Sudan Uganda Kenya Eritrea Malawi Zambia Angola Zimbabw e

Algeria Libya The Gambia Liberia Ghana Nigeria Cameroo n Kenya Somalia Burundi Malawi Zambia South Africa Zimbabw e Mauritius

Ghana Nigeria Zimbabwe

Table 3.5: Countries classified according to their level of academic qualification.

39 | P a g e

GAIN Diaspora African Communities in Nottingham Research – 2018

Conclusions Based on the undertaken research, we had 299 respondents who belong to the targeted African Community. The highest population in terms of country of origin was Nigeria, followed by Ghana and Zimbabwe. Some of the questions had a lower level of compliance, such as the postcode and the sexual orientation, being the former the most important since it was needed to map the community in one of the respective wards.

Most of the respondents were residents, with about 88% living in shared accommodation.

Additionally, most interviewees had stayed in the UK for more than 10 years, having been in full-time study. In overall, most of the community had at least one type of educational degree. This was especially evident in individuals from countries such as Nigeria and Ghana.

It is worthwhile noting that many of the respondents stated living in Arboretum, Bilborough, Bridge, Dales and St Ann’s. On the other hand, the wards with the lowest number of members were Mapperley, Wollaton West, Aspley, Bulwell, and Dunkirk and Lenton. This was also in concordance with what the team experienced when approaching neighbourhoods in the mentioned wards because no individuals from the community were seen in those areas.

Limitations and recommendations There were certain limitations with the study, such as limited amount of time and interviewers to collect the required data. Moreover, the research was carried out during working hours, which signified that the team could not approach the community in their homes, where the level of compliance could have been better. Therefore, the research did not reach what it can be called its absolute optimum. Consequently, an ideal scenario would be where the research could be done on a wider scale with more partner organisations to maximise the information gotten and hopefully meet the needs of the African community in Nottingham.

The research has the potential to open more opportunities for minority groups in the community, investigating the needs of their population and aiming to boost economic growth and personal development for the individuals of that society. We would also recommend more opportunities and trainings to be made available to better equip the population, which can only be achieved when the community partners itself with different stakeholders, such as policy makers, professional and statutory bodies, the local and national government and other members of the community to bring their dreams to life.

Nevertheless, for us as a team the research was a success because it gave us the possibility of understanding some of the issues that the African community in Nottingham is facing nowadays, providing the team with practical guidance on how they can be addressed.

40 | P a g e

GAIN Diaspora African Communities in Nottingham Research – 2018

References Nottingham City Council (2018). Council Wards and Ward Maps. [online] Nottingham City Council. Available at: http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/about-the-council/councillors-andleadership/council-wards-and-ward-maps/ [Accessed 1 Aug. 2018].

41 | P a g e