Collaborate For Inclusion


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Collaborate For Inclusion

  1. 1. Collaborate for Inclusion Elizabeth Gray-King Gray-King & Gray Ltd GKG Collective
  2. 2. Why inclusion? – The Carrot <ul><li>Why Inclusion? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Power not disempowerment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Engagement in societies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Embedded transformation </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Why Collaboration? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Less isolation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Stronger results </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Model of community </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. Why inclusion? – The big stick <ul><li>White Paper, Strong and prosperous communities – Duty by April 2009 </li></ul><ul><li>Duty to ensure people have greater opportunities to have their say </li></ul><ul><ul><li>aspiration is to embed a culture of engagement and empowerment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>By information provision, consultation and involvement across all LA functions </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. A group passionate about inclusion <ul><li>The GKG Collective </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ We’re the GKG Collective, gathering around the achievable vision of inclusion, involvement and engagement.” </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. NEP <ul><li>National Empowerment Partnership </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Government partnership to share good practice about involvement at local, regional and national levels </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In first few operational months of longer initiatives </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Needed quick appraisal to move forward </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. NEP Eval Collaborative inclusion <ul><li>Created a multi method plan of data collection </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Interviews </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Survey Monkey questionnaire </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Teleconference </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Learning Exchange </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>NEPeval website </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. Key collaborations <ul><li>Teleconference </li></ul><ul><li>NEP eval web 2 website </li></ul><ul><li>Learning Exchange </li></ul>
  8. 8. Teleconference <ul><li>From initial findings, slide design of core questions </li></ul><ul><li>Booked telephone conferences, with each participant looking at the same set of slides </li></ul><ul><li>Teleconference host recorded conversations </li></ul><ul><li>Linked people across the country </li></ul><ul><li>“ The most involved I have ever felt!!!” </li></ul>
  9. 9. One of the questions: There are some fairly strong feelings about using NI4 as an indicator: “ The potential for interpretation makes it (NI4) utterly invalid. It depends on what side of bed you got out of ….. I don’t think its going to drive any real work on community empowerment, it will drive a whole marketing campaign to get people to think they have influence ” You need a combination of different types of approaches. There is a lot of discussion about NI 4 which is one measure of perception and its probably the best proxy. Measuring is definitely difficult. There are two further questions – what are the proportion of decisions that are influenced by local people and secondly whether that is a better decision or not . Question: How can the different views on evaluation been accommodated in the partnership?
  10. 10. NEP Eval Website <ul><li>Web 2 format </li></ul><ul><ul><li>upload easily from </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Flickr </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Scribd </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Slideshow </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>YouTube </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Comment easily in real time </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Prototype for evaluation updates, learning exchanges, good practice </li></ul></ul>
  11. 11.
  12. 12. Learning Exchange <ul><li>“ The power is in the analysis” </li></ul><ul><li>Started with group ground rules: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>On post its – what could get in the way of a constructive group environment today? Cluster and turn into positive principles </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Moved to milling around data sources </li></ul><ul><li>Subject analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Finished with Opinion Lines </li></ul>
  13. 13. Other Examples <ul><li>The Big Boost </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Trained Award winners to collect own data </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>On – line survey </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Participation at BB events </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Interviews </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Learning Exchange </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Where Next </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Started with Associates </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Then moved to Trustees and staff facilitated exchange </li></ul></ul>
  14. 14. ICT Collaboration <ul><li>Communities of interest as well as geography </li></ul><ul><li>Involvement at appropriate levels </li></ul><ul><li>No replacement for tangible relationships </li></ul><ul><li>Immediate input/updates in real time </li></ul><ul><li>Potential to gather evidence easily (event, photos, upload – done!) </li></ul>
  15. 15. Collaborative inclusion <ul><li>Those affected by decisions/information/services help design them and then </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Use </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Champion </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>change </li></ul></ul>