Towards a framework for Local Regional Action Plans for Social Inclusion 8th 10th February 2006 Prag

1
Towards a framework for Local/ Regional Action
Plans for Social Inclusion 8th 10th February
2006Prague

• Peter Ramsden

2
Why do we need Local Action Plans for Inclusion?

• The local level is the key terrain for action to
  combat exclusion
• The first two rounds of national plans have had
  weaknesses in vertical and horizontal
  partnerships
• Not enough people know about the NAPs Inclusion
• The beneficiaries have not been actively involved

3
Where are we starting from?

• There have already been two round of National
  Action Plans Inclusion starting in 2001
• Based on Common Objectives agreed at Nice
• To facilitate participation in employment and
  access by all to resources, rights, goods and
  services
• To help the most vulnerable
• To mobilise all relevant bodies
• To prevent the risks of exclusion

4
Five Priorities for European Inclusion Policy

• 1. Promoting investment in and tailoring of
  active labour market measures to meet the needs
  of those who have the greatest difficulties in
  accessing employment
• 2. Increasing the access of the most
  vulnerable and those most at risk of social
  exclusion to decent housing, quality health and
  lifelong learning opportunities
• 3. Implementing a concerted effort to prevent
  early school leaving and to promote smooth
  transition from school to work
• 4. Developing a focus on eliminating social
  exclusion among children
• 5. Making a drive to reduce poverty and
  social exclusion of immigrants and ethnic
  minorities

5
Other Action Plans at local/Regional level

• Territorial Employment Pacts strong employment
  focus
• Emdas economic inclusion framework

6
Territorial Employment Pacts

• A reaction to the European Employment crisis in
  the late 1990s.
• 88 Pacts launched
• Each with technical assistance of 250,000 for 3
  years
• Charged with putting together a strategy and
  action plan

7
Positives from the TEP

• Make the action plan a formal document that
  Partners sign up to in public
• Involve the private sector, they bring resources,
  expertise and most of the economy
• A multi agency approach that recognises
  complexity
• Experiment to test ouit solutions

8
Weaknesses Territorial employment pacts

• Weakness in conception design and delivery
• Huge variation in size of areas from big
  regions (3 million) to small communes of 15,000
• No Piloting - 88 TEPS launched simultaneously
• National support in principle but not in practice
  not our baby weak vertical partnership
• Timescale of 3 years too short
• Lack of resources 250,000 only paid for
  coordination
• Sometimes led by organisations that were good but
  did not have enough power (e.g. NGOs in Ireland)
• Lack of quantification of targets
• Emphasis on process rather than results
• Many resorted to piloting projects that were
  never mainstreamed

9
Emdas economic Inclusion framework

• A regional approach (4 million people)
• Economic inclusion is the use of economic tools
  (employment, enterprise, development) to combat
  exclusion
• Strong focus on different types of disadvantaged
  areas
• Inner cities
• Outer estates
• Mining communities
• Coastal towns
• Poor rural areas
• Single agency approach
• Strong board support
• Detailed strategy

10
Positives from emdas approach

• the policy has survived 5 years it is embedded
  in emda thinking
• It is regarded as best practice within the RDA
  community
• It is pursued energetically by the unit
  responsible
• It has succeeded in creating new institutions and
  policies e.g. local alchemy and Social Enterprise
  East Midlands
• It relates to the new equality and diversity
  agenda

11
Weaknesses of emdas approach

• Single agency approach that did not involve other
  initiatives in region such as New Deal for
  Communities controlled by other departments
• Led from the unit level in emdas hierarchy and
  lacked clout
• Quantified data not reported in annual reports
• Tended to focus on three catalysts rather than
  core business
• Difficulties in mainstreaming, but some successes
  (e.g. selection criteria for projects)

12
Common Indicator Framework level 1Income
poverty, employment, health and education

• Low income rate after transfers with low-income
  threshold set at 60 of median income
• Distribution of income (income quintile ratio)
• Persistence of low income
• Median low income gap
• Regional cohesion
• Long term unemployment rate
• People living in jobless households
• Early school leavers not in further education or
  training
• Life expectancy at birth
• Self perceived health status

13
Common Indicator Framework Level 2 Income
poverty, employment, health and education

• Dispersion around the 60 median low income
  threshold
• Low income rate anchored at a point in time
• Low income rate before transfers
• Distribution of income (Gini coefficient)
• Persistence of low income (based on 50 of median
  income)
• Long term unemployment share
• Very long term unemployment rate.
• 8 Persons with low educational attainment

14
Common Indicator Framework Level 3

• To be developed in next phase of the LAP RAP in
  partnership with the participating areas

15
360 degree approach to consultation on LAP
Inclusion  
Funders and Policy Makers
Horizontal partners Other departments of local
authority
Horizontal partners other agencies
Lead organisation on LAP
Poor and socially excluded groups
 
16
Principles for building the action plan

• Research what has worked elsewhere
• Map what agencies are doing now
• Identify what is working and what is not working
  or contributing to the problem
• Develop (in consultation) a list of actions that
  hang together not a shopping list or wish list
• Organise these in an Action Matrix
• Be concise no waffle or blah blah
• Cost the actions
• Estimate Outputs and impacts based on resources
  available.

17
Structuring the Action Plan

• Key Challenges, Objectives and targets
• Including data on the baseline situation of
  groups, who, what and where?
• Governance and partnership
• The preparation of the plan, policy coordination,
  mobilisation, mainstreaming, and marketing
• One Key Policy Area
• -Policy Measures
• -Resource allocation (from existing and new
  sources)
• - Indicators for measures

18
The Framework for actions in measures
   
19
Conclusions

• Making a difference at local and regional level
  will require political leadership, imaginative
  planning, technical detail, strong partnership
  and commitment to delivery