Wednesday 6 December 2017

Beyond (Un)Employment - 'The Hack' and its outcome

BEYOND (UN)EMPLOYMENT Ted Ryan – RnR Organisation
Beyond (un)employment is a collaborative learning circle where we will collectively build intelligence and real-time, evidence-based perspectives on the future of (un)employment in our city.”1

Funded by the Robert Bosch Stiftung and delivered by a network of Impact Hubs across Europe, ‘Beyond (Un)employment’ is an international collaborative project exploring the future of employment.
The Birmingham element of the programme recruited individuals from a variety of backgrounds and interests who, over the six months of the programme, have identified specific issues they wish to explore.

BACKGROUND – to this proposal
My focus was not on the specifics of employment but the preparation, education and learning that individuals undertake to participate within a labour market.
I wanted to explore an alternative to the subject-based curriculum offered within education, and investigate if Critical Analysis Skills could form an integral part of a curriculum. In addition to this, I wanted to explore how an individual continued to learn, beyond statutory or institutional involvement. Are we forever bound to accredited learning or are there other ways of learning, lifelong learning, through non-accredited routes?

The activity was segmented into five ‘component’ challenges
  • Exploring the development of alternative ways of facilitating learning, relevant to the needs of gathering and consuming information in the 21st Century.
  • Identifying an environment where children and young people acquire basic knowledge within a process of learning how to learn and how to develop skills, how to make informed choices. (This can have an impact on how they choose the appropriate employment for themselves.)
  • Developing ‘Patch’ learning throughout a life time, acquiring skills relevant and appropriate to your needs and interests.
  • Questioning the role of ‘institutions’ and accredited qualifications, exploring alternative accreditation and ‘standards’ e.g. Open Badges (there are others)
  • Developing an eco-system of simply learning and implementing it.

This proposition was developed during the Beyond (Un)employment Hack in October / November 2017.  As Cllr Ian Cruise, Birmingham City Council, had indicated a willingness to explore the issues outlined above, discussions focused on exploring how some of the components could have a practical implementation within specific areas within Birmingham  
There is a dichotomy of information – one the one hand achievement in Birmingham Schools and FE Colleges is improving, with more establishments being awarded outstanding category yet the LEP and WMCA continually talk about the low skills of the area; City and Region.
Some of the outer ring areas of Birmingham are facing major issues of economic reprofiling. The industries that these estates served are gone, school achievement may be improving but the economy that these communities served and befitted from has been replaced by the new digital economy.
The aspiration of previous generations to work in the major industries has no place now and has not been replaced by a drive towards digital.
Deprivation is hidden in such Wards, Longbridge, for example, is ‘mid-range’ (20/40) within Birmingham. It is within the bottom 10% of deprived wards within the country (2015 Index of Multiple Deprivation)

A more in-depth analysis of Longbridge Statistics indicates some LSOA2 (Lower-layer Super Output Areas) in the Ward are of national average deprivation, between 30-50%. While other areas are ‘well within’ the bottom 10%.
Some of these areas are specific outer ring estates, serving specific schools. The free school meals data from these school as given on https://data.gov.uk/ reinforce this statistic, with all the schools on the estate having free school meals in excess of 50%, with an indication that, over a six year period, it is as high as 70%.
The South West of Birmingham became a focus for discussion during the ‘hack’ days.

During the ‘hack’ days, the initial outline of exploring a non-subject focused curriculum focused on how such a curriculum could be delivered within a mainstream school that is subject to inspection and Progress 8 assessment.
Discussion took place about the development of ‘other learning’, appropriate to the needs and circumstances of the young people, addressing issues that would enable students to develop Critical Analysis Skills, relevant to current and future labour market requirements.
Discussion acknowledged that 30% of students within the school are registered with special educational needs or disabilities (SEND).

Initial issues were agreed as
  • Addressing outer ring post-industrial estate issues – aspirations and expectation of individuals, families and, by implication, the young people. This is related to the closure of the major employer in the area, MG Rover. While this happened over 10 years ago, there is significant evidence from other areas within the UK of long term issues, related to learning and employment issues, in areas where dominant industries have closed.
  • Identifying relevant skills for young people that are relevant to the current and future labour market.
  • Matching the possibility, indeed necessity, of developing different skills with the current or future, non-negotiable, external inspection and assessment process.
  • What is the skills gap that is so often referred to by the GBSLEP and WMCA economic data3 and development literature.
  • Peer learning and support.
  • Family and adult learning provision Developing mentoring / support and inspiring programme for young people
  • Leisure/youth provision.
  • Links to FE, different curriculum provision for 14-16.
  • Research success in schools with similar demographics.
  • Realistic expectation and time line of development and potential delivery – while there can be external discussions and ideas, it is necessary to acknowledge the ability of the schools to not only ‘buy in’ but also to develop a programme including
    • asking staff who are giving 110% to give a bit more.
    • acknowledging the potential lack of ‘wriggle room’ within assessment.
    • funding / finance / budget.
    • potential partners’ silo mentality

In these discussions it was agreed that the school, while potentially leading on these issues, could not undertake such an extensive programme alone, and therefore, additional partners and programmes needed to be identified and nurtured - this would include the identification of successful schools in outer ring estates in comparative areas
Such partners and research would include
  • Birmingham Education Partnership (BEP)/ Birmingham City Council 
  • Whiteheath Centre Rowley Regis nd other home tutoring programmes - Home tutoring service – possible other services to be reviewed.
  • Successes in Outer Ring estate schools - Ongoing success of students from lower socio-economic groups who have succeeded at school, therefore making the school a success, but is it sustainable?
  • South West Birmingham Employment and Skills Board
  • Careers and Enterprise, The Access Project, Gatsby Foundation report Exploring mentoring interventions - Developing peer and role model mentors
  • Knowledge Based Curriculum - Potential impact on alternative provision
  • Widening links to other Education Providers in the area – Bournville FE College, Other training providers, Princes Trust, Prospects, Colmers Farm, Turves Green (Boys and Girls) Kings Arc and St Thomas Schools
  • Other adult and community learning providers and development agencies
  • Youth service, voluntary sector organisations
  • Health and well-being provision, including mental health support issues.


Continued Exploration
  • Curriculum Delivery – potential activity 
  • Wider community learning opportunities 
  • Increasing aspirations / access to work / skills related development


On-going research
  • Identify if a school was willing to explore these issues and become involved in further activity.
  • Identify other / current provision – MATs, BEP,  etc. 
  • Curriculum wriggle room within ‘Progress 8’ defined activities and subjects.
  • Other wider provision – adult provision, out of hours activity, leisure, sport and youth activity. 
  • Staff training requirements and needs.
  • Community engagement - what do the young people and community want in related to skills development and support?; we often develop programmes to address identified issues, perhaps we need to ask the individuals what they want. What quick wins can be developed to impact on some of the issues and engage communities in a dialogue of development?


1 Impact Hub Birmingham Web Site definition and outline of programme
2 LSOAs (Lower-layer Super Output Areas) are small areas designed to be of a similar population size, with an average of approximately 1,500 residents or 650 households. There are 32,844 Lower-layer Super Output Areas (LSOAs) in England. 
3 Greater Birmingham and Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership Economic Strategy and ESIF development plan as well as West Midlands Combined Authority initial proposal both outline a skills gap in the area.  














Saturday 19 August 2017

Basic Skills, General Knowledge and Pedagogy, 2017 and beyond.

Basic Skills, General Knowledge and Pedagogy, 2017 and beyond.
Introduction
As part of the Beyond Unemployment project at Impact Hub Birmingham I set myself the task of defining how individuals choose or acquire employment. What skills do they develop, What expectations do they have, what aspirations, and how do they acquire these ‘skills’?
I simplified this musing to three fundamental questions
    1. What defines new/current ‘basic skills’, what skills and experiences are to be taught, what is underpinning knowledge for ‘everyday’ experience or employment needs?
    2. In today’s ecosystem of accessible and available information, what constitutes general knowledge?
    3. How are we going to modify the pedagogical approach to accommodate how people learn and what they do with that learning?

Taking the long view
Having arrived at these three questions I began to ask myself additional questions. What are basic skills? Is general knowledge a cultural construct? How do we teach learning? Is employment, and the expectation of individuals, always based on where they are educated?
I embarked on an exploration of the roots of learning, skills acquisition and developing expectation. I set parameters of the exploration to ‘state defined learning and provision’, where the learning provision influences or supports employment. I can only describe what follows as a brief romp through education legislation, followed by a personal, political perspective of the intent of the process. I would, however, argue that, if we are to consider how systems change in education impacts on employment, we must first identify the system and the principles of its foundation. This begins in the 19th Century.

19th Century Beginnings – Origin - Definitions
The majority of education-related legislation in the early part of the 19th Century related to factory and employment legislation - children working in factories, children working outside school and the age at which education would be provided to all children.
 The 1870 Education Act created School Boards and set the school leaving age at 12 yrs, although that was not compulsory till 1880. The Act can be argued as being child-focused, and aimed to get children out of factories. While factory owners were initially against the Act, as it removed cheap labour from their employment, there was a change of mind as education began to produce more skilled individuals who could read and write. Increased basic skills had an impact on employment, ability and output.
Elementary education, created because of the 1870 Act, was not a universally equal provision. Chitty, 2007, outlines that some school boards “significantly altered the legislators' original concept of Elementary schooling in terms of buildings, equipment, curricula and age range” by establishing higher classes, or separate higher-grade schools for older pupils who showed ability and commitment. A few Boards went still further and created a new type of evening school for adults. Higher elementary schools often received a higher rate of grant than the ordinary public elementary schools, on condition that they provided a four-year course for promising children aged 10 to 15. The curriculum included drawing, theoretical and practical science, a foreign language and elementary mathematics.

Early 20th Century – setting the scene over 100 years
The 1902 Education Act created the Local Education Authorities (LEA), local and accountable bodies to run education with the new local authority structure. The Act initiated and consolidated the number of schools for specific provision: State aid for endowed Grammar Schools, Municipal or County Schools built upon the tradition of the ‘higher Schools’ for those who were going to remain in education. Elementary education would remain for the rest. “From now on there was to be no confusion: two systems, each with a distinct educational and social function, were to run parallel to each other, and there was to be no place for the higher-grade schools and classes which were deemed to have strayed into the preserves of secondary and higher education. The vast majority of children were to be educated in elementary schools where they would remain until they reached the statutory school-leaving age”. Chitty C (2007) Eugenics, race and intelligence in education identified in Derek Gillard Education in England 2011
The Act can be seen as framework setting, developing an education structure and promoting national efficiency in the increasingly mechanised manufacturing industries. It was focused on developing skills for the world of work, defining curriculum content, especially at post 11 level, to meet employment need and the employment potential of children who would inevitably end up in manufacturing or industry. The higher-grade schools continued to offer a wider range of subjects for those not entering manufacturing but remaining in education, progressing into lower management roles or higher education.
The 1918 Education Act raised the school leaving age to 14 (not enforced till 1921), and continued defining the skillsets and employment potential/direction for school-aged children. This Act consolidated the developmental and social role of education. It reinforced the continued need for craft skills for boys and home craft skills for girls, based on their employment prospects, clarifying the role of ‘Elementary’ education - basic skills for those who would leave and go into service or industry.
Higher skilled individuals, more often from the middle/upper classes, would benefit from the now state funded grammar schools, and benefit from an education system beyond the official school leaving age.
Consolidation had the effect of creating two types of state-aided post 11 school: the endowed grammar schools, which now received grant-aid from LEAs, and the municipal or county ‘secondary’ schools, maintained by LEAs. Many of the latter were established in the years following the Act, and others evolved out of the higher skill schools.
Throughout the 1920s the Hadlow committee reports of 1926, ‘31 & ‘33 continued the refining of the education process, defining the 3-phase system in education: 5-7 infant, 7-11 junior, 11+ secondary.

So the system is set...
From 1918 the education system, and the curriculum offered, was focused on supporting economic activity. Children ‘destined’ for manual labour were provided with the ‘basic skills’ of English and maths but were also provided with an understanding of industrial or housekeeping skills, depending on gender. 
Children from the ‘administrative’ social classes were ‘stretched’, and experienced a wider range of skills suited to their post-education positions within the economy. Even in this system, education for girls still focused on housekeeping skills, in preparation for their position as wives in the male dominated society.
There were some exceptions to the principle of education being preparation for employment/role in society, Henry Morris being but one example. Despite the relative wealth of the University, Cambridgeshire was one of the poorest counties in England. Education provision was in a poor state outside of the City of Cambridge. There was a lack of funding and no separate secondary schools. Children of school age (3-14) were educated in their village school, in one room and by a single teacher. Henry Morris, Secretary of Education for Cambridgeshire in the 1920s and 30s, envisioned integration between secondary and community education, accessible by all those living in the villages and small towns around Cambridgeshire, coining the idea of 'village colleges'. He described this idea as "raising the school leaving age to ninety", and firmly believed that education, both formal and informal, should be a lifelong process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Morris (education)
And so we arrive at the 1944 Education Act, finally distinguishing between primary and secondary schools, equalising funding issues and raising the school leaving age to 15 (with powers to raise it to 16, not implemented till 1973) - a new tripartite system, Grammar Schools, Secondary Modern Schools and Secondary Technical Schools, and introducing Comprehensive Schools, an amalgam of all three. Pupils were allocated to the most appropriate school via the 11 plus, having little impact on the numbers entering the grammar system and girls were allowed to continue in secondary education. The Act also developed an adult education provision, benefiting from the learning and development that had taken place in Cambridge and other authorities.
However, while there had been modifications and widening of access, initiated by the 1944 and subsequent Acts, I would argue that the social purpose of education, and therefore schools, had not changed. It was crucial to the perpetuation of the social and economic order, creating parameters of achievement and by consequence of family engagement, individual aspiration. In other words, a young person’s aspirations within education would be based on parental educational achievement and employment expectation within the family’s social setting. Specific curricula were developed for particular social groups, and, while a ‘general education’ was purportedly offered to all, some had a wider and more focused ‘general education’ than others.
All participants received Basic (fundamental) skills, English and maths, and General knowledge, through a variety of core subjects: history, geography, science, etc. The depth and level of such learning and skills acquisition was influenced by the post-educational expectation and aspiration of the system (institutions), accepted by families and the students. Educational institutions throughout the 3-phase system focused on a varied skill development, cognitive and manual, relevant to: 
    • Manual workers: unskilled workforce. 
    • Skilled workers: manual activity requiring accreditation, predominantly male dominated, remnants of the ‘guilds’, and qualified through an apprenticeship.
    • Middle management: Administrative and management, at a variety of levels.
    • Senior management: leaders within industrial, financial or political fields, who would progress to Higher Education

Education remained gender biased. The above categories were predominantly male focused and girls/women had restricted access to learning and opportunity, receiving basic skills, general knowledge, secretarial or office related skills, with supplementary learning related to home making, housekeeping and maintenance, of a variety of levels, based on class and expectation - work or housewife.

So where does this fit into my initial questions?
For over 100 years education has been influential in the employment opportunities available to people.
Over that period the nature of manufacturing, housekeeping, secretarial and administrative work changed little. Then came the 1980s: Wapping – the News Corporation taking on the Unions, protected practices and old skills, the deregulation of the finance industry, a reduction in manufacturing and the growing impact of computer technology. If we need to choose a time where significant technological change began to impact on employment and the role of education, the 1980s is a reasonable point to start.  
There were some computers in schools in the early 80s, and even more by the end of the decade - none of these were of the level that industry was beginning to use. The segmented curriculum that had been established in the early part of the 20th century began to crumble.
The curriculum which is offered, and which remains as the core provision of schools, is resolutely entrenched in the ‘classical’ subjects developed over that 100 years: Maths, English, Science, foreign language, history, geography, arts activity, some Physical activity. Additional subjects, including computer science, may not be part of the traditional offer, but the pedagogical approach remains very traditional in planning and content (curriculum), if not in delivery.
Schools and learning structure are treated as a palimpsest. A blueprint of delivery, established in the 1870-1901 Education Acts has been built upon and modified, irrespective of exterior processes and influences. The technology personally available to and being used by students and school children at home is far superior to that which they are using at school.  The pedagogical approach has modified over the years, but still remains teacher/institution-lead, with the content and process dictated by external bodies, with some political influence. Access to IT and data means that people today learn in different ways to suit need and circumstance.
While we are aware of student-centric learning, a variety of learning issues and intelligences e.g. Howard Gardner, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences, the process remains focused on restricted research and regurgitation of data and information.
Finally, the nature of employment has changed, not just because of the onset of technology, but also because the nature of employment always changes, influenced by need, market forces, price and access to market. Governments don’t decide what employment is available, business does. The length of time an individual can expect to be in one form of employment has changed.
Education that prepared people for the employment appropriate to their class or status is no longer appropriate to a system that, while existing in elements of social order, does not have the same authority as it used to have. New opportunities and a new economy require new skills.

So back to my initial questions
We cannot define employment. In a society dominated by capitalist principles, employment is created by those that control the wealth and manufacture products and services to be sold. What we can do is provide individuals with skills to survive and live within the process.
Education does not need a system change - it has already done that over the years. It requires a complete redesign. We need to address the questions our ancestors pondered almost 150 years ago. We need to identify a skillset for individuals, acknowledge the social and economic circumstances, as they did then,  
identify solutions, and develop a system, a new system, as they did.
We need to acknowledge that the system they designed fulfilled the role they, and others, intended. But the nature of employment opportunities, and the role of education in furnishing a workforce with relevant skills, and the employment market with appropriately skilled individuals, has changed forever. We cannot legitimately use or internally change an education system that was designed to fulfil roles conceived 100+ years ago if we want to facilitate agency in an employment situation which has changed exponentially, and keeps on changing.
So, my questions aim to begin that process, addressing fundamental skills. Should they be wider than English and maths? What is general knowledge and do we understand how and what people learn? 
  1. What defines new / current ‘basic skills’, what skills and experiences are to be taught, what is underpinning knowledge for ‘everyday’ experience or employment needs?
  2. In today’s ecosystem of accessible and available information, what constitutes general knowledge?
  3. How are we going to modify the pedagogical approach to accommodate how people learn and what they do with that learning?



Ted Ryan August 2017 

Thursday 17 August 2017

Beyond (Un)employment - first thoughts

April 2017 
In the same week as the first session of Beyond (Un)employment the Greater Birmingham and Solihull ESIF subcommittee (European Funded programmes) issues a call for applications under Priority 1.1 Access to Employment for Jobseekers and Inactive People. https://www.gov.uk/european-structural-investment-funds/access-to-employment-for-jobseekers-and-inactive-people-in-greater-birmingham-solihull-oc12s17p0739 
In the outline of the call the specific objective of the priority is clarified as 
“focused on those who are long term unemployed and who are less likely to move back into work than people who have been unemployed for less time. The additional support from this investment priority will help long term unemployed people to tackle their barriers to work and move into sustainable employment. The main result target focuses on moving participants into employment (including self employment) on leaving. There will be a quantified result target set for this result indicator in each category of region”.
This definition is similar to the priorities for employment programme, Government and European funded, I have been involved with over the past 25 years. 
The priority in this programme, and the priorities in other programmes already commissioned, ignores the changes in employment practice over those 25 years.
It ignores the changes on at least three basic levels;  
  • the reduction of people engaged in work that is now mechanised or digitalised, 
  • the skill level of those in digitalised and mechanised employment
  • those in the ‘gig’ economy. 

Unemployment is clearly defined as not being in paid, ‘sustainable’, employment. Such projects and definitions deal with absolutes, you are in paid, ‘sustainable’, employment (over 16hrs per week) or you are not.
Funding programmes and delivery priorities are but conduits through which Governments and societies develop skills and provide access to the labour market. Their purpose focuses on removing an individual from state benefit rather than developing appropriate skills for an individual to choose how they participate in economic activity, activity that may have a social impact as well as a fiscal footprint.  
The thinking we did in our first session was crucial to how we can begin to challenge the entrenched view of ‘employment’ training. Long may it continue. 


While I quoted the current GBSLEP call the purpose of the piece was not to criticise activity in Birmingham, although some analysis of previous activity and impact would be interesting as part of the Beyond (un)employment sessions, I was emphasising the focus on a specific definition of employment. 
Irrespective of GBSLEP’s relationship to DWP, and any previous delivery, an examination of ESIF calls for employment related funding from a variety of ESIF areas will identify the same issue.
Coventry and Warwickshire, Leeds, Lancashire have had calls focusing on improving basic and lower skilled employees as well as market relevance of Education and Training provision.
Other core Cities, Sheffield, Greater Manchester, Liverpool focus on NEETS; intensive support to engage with and compete in the employment market, higher skills and workforce development.
Provision is designed around the funding available and the definition of employment within that funding.

My point remains
“Unemployment is clearly defined as not being in paid, ‘sustainable’, employment. Such projects and definitions deal with absolutes, you are in paid, ‘sustainable’, employment (over 16hrs per week) or you are not.
Funding programmes and delivery priorities are but conduits through which Governments and societies develop skills and provide access to the labour market. Their purpose focuses on removing an individual from state benefit rather than developing appropriate skills for an individual to choose how they participate in economic activity, activity that may have a social impact as well as a fiscal footprint.”

My hope for Beyond (un)employment sessions is that while we explore provision we begin to look at impact and not just output.

Impact on the individual – how they change how they adapt to the new economic world, what are the new basic skills they require.

An analyse of why, having spent millions on employment programmes in some areas, do individuals remain in poverty and unemployed.
How do we provide individual focused programmes, which encourage knowledge and skill development when the funding and measurement says JOB = 16hrs+.

Wednesday 1 March 2017

Data that should be open but 'we' don’t know that it’s there

Draft of presentation I will be giving on Friday 3rd March 2017 at WMODF Open Data Day event at Innovation Birmingham 
After Friday this Blog will also appear on the RnR Organisation website www.rnrorganisation.co.uk 

Data that should be open but 'we' don’t know that it’s there


Asset based community development is capable of generating data into service development to influence and improve service development decision making and I am interested in developing a process that incorporates this.

The first conundrum to be addressed is the fundamental difference between service development and delivery, and asset based community development (ABCD). In very simplistic terms, service provision is measured in what is offered i.e. provision, what is done i.e. delivery, and who it is done for, the patient / user. This is a deficit model addressing identified need.

ABCD, on the other hand, works with communities, neighbourhoods and localities, 
acknowledging the skills and experiences of participants and community members. The process identifies learning and training needs, engages in decision making utilising locally-sourced data and intelligence, and accommodates these resources in a new decision-making process that can have a measurable impact on outputs and outcomesThis difference is clearly outlined in Dan Duncan's New paradigm for effective Community Impact (diagram 1). 
Diagram 1

What fascinates me is the potential ABCD has for generating data, data that is not collected within the current linear decision-making process that dominates public realm funding. This process generates public realm programmes through direct provision or commissioned activity delivered by either private or voluntary sector organisations (diagram 2)

Diagram 2

The data used to inform this decision making, I would argue, is restricted to the data that public realm processes generate. It rarely seeks additional, wider data from wider sources, i.e. community assets. 

Our Three Field Model, which we have written about in the past,  identifies compartmentalised provision within statutory, voluntary and community sector activity (diagram 3)

Diagram 3

This representation of the model explores the potential links between activities within identified 'Fields'.

If we view the 'Three Fields' from another perspective, we can explore how the data generated by activity is circulated and used (diagram 4)

Diagram 4
  
This view begins to explore the pivotal role of Field One in generating and accumulating data and developing services in Field One and Two, and how little of the data in Field Three is assimilated into the process. 

I would argue that the majority of this data is related to community groups being involved with Field Two delivery -  this perpetuates the restricted data collection / analysis / delivery cycle. Very little data is collected from Field Three processes. Is this because of the lack of knowledge or understanding within Public Realm decision makers of the activity and its impact? Is there an inability within the public realm process to measure such activities against set targets?

Too often ABCD, community activity, volunteering, is seen as a solution to austerity and public realm budget cuts. It's not. ABCD utilises peoples values and beliefs in their own communities. 
Activities that aren't known about and aren't measured may have an impact on public realm targets. These activities will continue to take place because there will always be people who care and are willing to do something.

What interests me is how can we introduce the data ABCD has the potential to generate into the decision making process for public realm services without destroying people's enthusiasm and value systems?
     

Wednesday 8 February 2017

Components in Public Service Transformation - Component 2 The Ecosystem (Current and Possible)

In the second of four essays we explore current possible eco systems in public realm funded process and services
Appreciation of these ‘components’ provides us with clarity as to what we are trying to reform and new process / structures that can be utilised in any transformational process.  
This essay is still in draft format, when completed all the essays will be published on the RnR Organisation web site.
These essays will influence the focus and activity of RnR Organisation in the future.


To comment or discuss content please contact RnR.Organisation@gmail.com   
____________________________________________________________________________

Component Two – The Ecosystem (Current and Possible) 
INTRODUCTION
The first part Current process provides a more in-depth interpretation of the current decision making process, a basic outline as to how service decisions are made and current ‘transformation’ activity undertaken within this process.
This second part begins to explore the possibilities of a different view. Expanding on the principle of placing individuals, community activists (assets) at the core of any service provision development by providing an introduction to the concept of Asset Based Community Development (ABCD). ABCD traditionally  operates separately from statutory Deficit / deficiency model provision, focusing on neighbourhood / community need. The fundamental differences are outlined through Dan Duncans diagram and further references are provided.
The final part explores constructs of a Possible Ecosystem identifying two locally [Birmingham] designed models/initiatives to aid asset based involvement in service provision, RnR Organisation’s Three Field Development and Poc Zero’s Ring of Confidence. We appreciate that these initiatives are transferable to other areas, as well as acknowledging that other organisations may have similar processes.
PART ONE Current Process
A Linear Process. (fig1) Expanding on definitions expressed in component one, this part provides a wider exploration of the current process of decision making and service development.
We view the current process as linear in format, fiscally restricted and output driven. The process is initiated through political policy which, in turn is turned into strategic policy, strategic development and finally operational implementation, all developed within fiscal constraints, public funding. 
Delivery of identified ‘programmes’ by non public sector organisations is undertaken through a process of written tenders and commissioned work. Tender specifications and commissioned activity is driven by data - this data identifies the need, but is predominantly collated within public realm data sets and is, therefore, often restricted data and silo focused.
(fig1) Current Model, linear Process   

Commissioning is also fiscally restricted. Policy and process identify the amount of money available to fund services identified through the data.  The term ‘purchaser’  is used to describe functions within a commissioning and tendering process, attracting ‘products’ or services through tender applications, assessed against fiscal constraints and output expectations.
This process purports to encourage product development and innovation and, to this end, it may use these terms within any documentation.  However, because of fiscal and output constraints, any new product or innovation is either assimilated into the process, or fails to convince the ‘purchaser’
The linear process delivers a “we deliver what we can afford” mentality with groups, organisations or companies tendering against these measurements. New ‘products’, ‘innovative products’, have little chance of influencing commissioning if they do not fulfil the criteria of the tender specification which, in itself, is designed through restricted, institutionally based and biased, data.
Transformation in ‘Current Process’ (fig2)
‘Transformational’ activity, within the current process, focuses on the commissioning and tendering process.
There is a greater emphasis on the ‘open market’, the term ‘market’ being used to describe the ecosystem of external, non public sector organisations being involved in provision through the tendering and commissioning process. Delivery and output measures, and evaluation of providers entering this ‘market’ govern the products that enter the ‘market’.
The process assesses the form and structure of organisations who submit tenders, checking their governance, due diligence, cash flow, ability, etc. Funders only contract with regulated ‘incorporated bodies’ that fulfil due diligence tests within the commissioning process.
While this ‘transformational’ process has the potential to widen participation in delivery, community engagement through Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) Organisations, is often restricted through due diligence rules, and the ‘deficiency’ view of their capability to deliver.
The ‘ethos’ of the ‘transformation agenda’ is dominated by a reduction in public expenditure, augmenting a   “more bang for your bucks” philosophy.  VCSE engagement is drawn towards a ‘Big Society’, ‘volunteering’/ community responsibility/management process which posits replacing paid staff with unpaid volunteers.
While the ‘transformed’ current commissioning process has the facility to utilise other processes e.g. co-production and co-design, and to view the impact of funding on other agendas, community cohesion etc., the inability to view the community as ‘assets’ and incorporate support into service development limits its true transformational impact.
Fiscal management remains centrally controlled at a national and local commissioning level. Delivery outputs continue to be derived from restricted, organisational/institutional gathered data. This continued use of restricted data curtails any wider benefit that access to the widest range of data and information available might bring. The current ‘transformed’ process retains the deficiency model and, while some acknowledgement may be given to patient participation/stakeholder engagement, it is still within the linear, fiscal driven, output focused deficiency model.
The current process does not comply with any product development principles - it is not a market, as the funders retain complete control over the fiscal structure, quantity, circulation and therefore project/product delivery. Public realm expenditure, within the current process ‘open market’ principle, has an enormous impact, on other sectors of economic activity. This impact is neither incorporated within the design of services nor managed strategically to support any outcome / output process. This is explored in greater depth in wave impact, component 3,
Current public realm liaison with ‘community partners’
The ‘open market’ principle within the current process entails the development of a supply chain, partnership or community development process within the commissioning and tendering process. This process takes place within the deficiency model - it does not acknowledge the skills within a community or target group that may aid some or all of its objectives and outputs. Instead, ‘capacity building programmes’ are developed and provided in order to ‘ensure’ that VCSE organisations or community groups develop skills to be ‘efficient’ in delivering within the linear process.
 (fig2)- Transformation in ‘Current Process’


Additional community engagement is undertaken in the current process through a variety of ‘customer’/patient, community liaison activities. The majority of these practices, Housing Liaison Boards,  Stakeholder experience consultations, ‘Expert by Experience’ ‘Expert Patient’ activity, Ward Committees etc. are professional-led consultation processes, following an organisational, service or  ‘medical’ model method of engagement. Each of these processes treats the community participant as a recipient of services only, with no cognisance given to any of their skills in their ‘real life’ beyond the consultation process.
The terms co-design/co-production are frequently used to describe wider participation in the development of services but the terms of engagement are strictly within the parameters of the funders. Organisation participation is couched in a consultation process, and as mentioned above, development of community partners is undertaken through ‘capacity building’, a deficiency model process, designed by statutory organisational staff, that aims to enable VCSE organisations, community groups or individuals to increase their ability and involvement in public sector procurement.
The current process, as well as the ‘transformed’ element, retains the deficiency model, resolving issues identified through the closed data linear model. (ref#). Participants in community participation activity are not seen as assets, but rather are expected to ‘buy in’ to the linear model of decision making, fiscally restricted and output driven.
PART TWO  - Asset Based Community Development (ABCD), People and communities
Individuals, and therefore communities, are the core of public realm funded activities. The majority of ‘welfare’ provision perceive such individuals, through their restricted data, as having needs that need resolving, the ‘deficiency model’.
This section explores a different default position for community engagement, that of ‘everyone is an asset’
An ‘asset based’ approach to communities, target groups etc can have a much greater impact, acknowledging the skills and experiences of participants, identifying learning and training needs, engaging in decision making utilising locally-sourced data and intelligence, and accommodating these resources in a new decision-making process could have a measurable impact on outputs and outcomes.    
The welfare element of public sector expenditure, health, care (and education) tend to view, and therefore plan, services for ‘people and communities’ as those with ‘needs’, as only recipients or beneficiaries of services. Services are planned within a deficit model, identifying ‘problems’ to be resolved and skills for the programme participants to learn or acquire. Problems and issues are identified through closed data analysis with services provided for individuals by ‘professionals’ 
An ‘asset based’ model, where communities play a more active role in the design and delivery of services from which they and others will benefit, is potentially far more productive, but this requires a paradigm shift for effective community impact.  Such a model provides an opportunity for statutory services to be enriched and enhanced by acknowledging and harnessing inherent and/or latent skills within communities. It changes a deficit model, of resolving perceived ‘deficiencies and difficulties’ into an asset based model, acknowledging the role that individuals and communities collectively can play in designing, developing and delivering programmes to address mutually agreed issues. (ref##)
As a point of clarification we use the term ‘community’ to describe a common bond of interest, issue, culture or geography. We acknowledge that such ‘communities’ are diverse in skills and engagement as they are broad in interest and culture. They may be organised in ‘constituted groups’ (charities, incorporated voluntary organisations etc.), faith based or unincorporated groups, etc. They may wish to deliver services, be involved in the planning or just to support people in their ‘community’. We believe that all individuals bring some skills, knowledge and experience to any transformation, and that needs to be acknowledged and utilised.
The paradigm shift required by statutory organisations and institutions in modifying their approach to identifying issues and designing an amelioration process requires identification of difference, to the deficit model as well as to potential system models to deliver such activity within.
The first model is provided by Dan Duncan’s ‘ABCD, Toolkit’  - a practical manifestation of Asset Based Community Development. The New Paradigm for Effective Community Impact (ref3).
(ref3) New paradigm for effective community impact, Dan Duncan


This table provides a clear distinction between a Needs/Deficit Based model, as delivered within the Current Provision ‘linear’ model, and an Asset Based process. While this approach is more often associated with community engagement provision, it is not beyond the bounds of reason to believe that such principles can be incorporated into a new design process for public realm services.
Two additional articles provide more insight into the principles of Asset Based Community Development 

Part three of this component outlines two potential models, Three Fields Development and Ring of Confidence, of compartmentalising and clarifying the roles within a new design process; which is itself outlined in Component 5 of this series.
Appreciating the potential role of true asset based development is essential if the paradigm shift required within a change to public realm systems thinking as part of a transformation of service delivery is to be achieved. This appreciation must clarify the role of ‘assets’ (community individuals) within service provision.
While the ‘assets’ will be unpaid volunteers, their role in any development should not focus on the ‘free staff’ that may be available to a service with the potential to fill gaps created by cuts to services. Neither should the emphasis on community engagement focus on the role of community development staff, or staff with a ‘community brief’, as in traditional public realm community engagement programmes; which in themselves have focused on service delivery.
The emphasis should be placed on the development or engagement of individuals who live in, or have a connection to, a community of geography, interest or culture. The process should utilise and acknowledge the skills and knowledge of the ‘assets’ in developing support and activities within communities, neighbourhoods/localities playing an active role in service identification, design and delivery.

PART THREE   - Three Fields Development / Ring of Confidence
ABCD can be, and often is, developed separate to statutory strategic, public realm, service development. In order to facilitate ABCD within service development we have provided an outline of two models that explore two structures that explore the role of community constructively in the development design and implementation of services, compartmentalising specific supports that encircle an individual as they come into contact with support services.
Compartmentalisation of services enables more specific categorisation of activities, enhancing programme planning activity, clarifying the specific role, and constructive role which assets and community organisations can play.
We acknowledge that these two structures are local to our activity and that there may have been other structures designed by other organisations in other areas. In later components we identify baseline processes that should be adopted in developing community engagement processes within an ABCD ethos.
Three field Development – The Three Field process was outlined within a document published by RnR Organisation in July 2015, http://www.rnrorganisation.co.uk/site/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/01-3-Field-Development-July-2015.pdf
The Three Fields (ref4).
Field One formal public sector (statutory sector) intervention - including Health provision, Care, Local Authority Services etc. These are developed and lead by ‘public sector’ professionals delivering statutory provision or essential services.
Field Two – the structured supply chain, including activities and services that support statutory services. Projects receive funding from a variety of sources, public realm  as well as  additional sources e.g. Big Lottery Fund, charitable trusts etc.
·        Projects are delivered predominantly through VCSE organisations.
·        Projects and organisations form part of the statutory service supply chain and support  partners. Projects are not standardised or enveloped by legislation [statutory provision] as are services in ‘Field One’.
·        Additional/external funding is however, increasingly related to needs identified through public sector data and delivered with agreed milestones and outcomes. 
Field Three - community activists and volunteer support, as individual assets, within community organisations or service provision. Individuals are involved as volunteers, providing support to beneficiaries of programmes, and they may also be beneficiaries of a service, linked to and supported by a community focused service provider.
Ring of Confidence(ref 5).  - The Ring of Confidence developed by Poc Zero acknowledges the ‘support’ surrounding an individual at any particular time in their life. In diagram below, the blue circles denote statutory services while the others denote community services.
At any particular time an individual may receive support from a variety of services, or they may receive none at all, but the services are considered to be available.
Such services and support will alter throughout the lifetime of an individual so while the titles attached to the circles (components) within the ‘ring’ may change, the relationship between the components and the support offered to or received by the individuals will not change.

(ref4) The Three Field Model.



Ref 5 Ring of Confidence .  (Diagram to be added) http://www.poczero.com/ 

BOXES OF SUPPORT
Linking these two separate developments are what we call boxes of support. These ‘boxes’ represent statutory and community support identified in both the Three Field and the Ring of Confidence Models.
The boxes of support acknowledge and compartmentalise support available to and /or required by individuals throughout their life or at specific stages within their life. The boxes identify ‘cogs’ to the ‘components’ identified within the Ring of Confidence and a clarity to constituent parts of each of the three fields.
The ‘boxes’ offer the basis of a ‘supply chain’ to be developed  as part of a comprehensive ‘offer’ of support to individual throughout their life. While the Three Field Model and ‘ Ring of Confidence’ represent the nature of support  for individuals the ‘Boxes of Support’ identify specific elements of that support, statutory, community, family or volunteer.
Boxes outlined in fig 6 are not comprehensive but indicative of the type of support that is available. The ‘Boxes of Support’ concept acknowledges that throughout an individual’s life engagement and support with agencies and ‘communities’ differs therefore the content of the boxes changing or undertakes a different role at different or specific stages.
It is crucial, in any development or transformation provision the support to individuals is the acknowledgement of the role of the ‘content’ of all the boxes and the potential co-ordination of some of the boxes and an acknowledgement of communication between the boxes supporting the  individual.

(ref 6 Boxes of support ).


Words and images ©  2017