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?