Toolkit for Generating a Diversity & Outreach Plan
Growing Up in the West Midlands Strategic Forum exists to develop the West Midlands as a region that respects and acts upon the needs, interests and aspirations of children and young people, and the voluntary and community organisations that work with them. The Diversity and Outreach Delivery Group carried out this piece of research; their aim was to ensure that GUIWM and other future regional work meets the needs of the diversity of the sector and that there is wider access to information, support and engagement. The Diversity and Outreach Research engaged with 40 organisations that are currently under-represented within regional and local activity. The research established the organisations’ current levels of involvement in regional and local activity, if/ how they worked to Every Child Matters (ECM) outcomes and the barriers to access and involvement for them as organisation and the challenges they face. The aim of this research is to work together towards greater inclusion. It is hoped that infrastructure organisations will be able to use it as an advisory resource when developing their roles, as well as acting as a guide for future actions of G:up, infrastructure and community grass roots organisations. G:up Diversity and Outreach Delivery Group commissioned research & findings were compiled into G:up Diversity and Outreach Report. The findings outlined in the Report led to the production of The G:up Outreach and Diversity Action Plan The REPORT & PLAN were then condensed into the Report for Local Infrastructure Organisations The G:up Outreach and Diversity Action Plan was derived from the report and sets out how the findings were applied to G:up as an organisation. It identifies: - Key Issues - Recommendations - Immediate Actions - Long Term Actions - Links The over-arching objective of this Action Plan being… - To promote the inclusion of organisations that are currently under-represented in regional and local activity. - To identify and remove barriers to their involvement - To support them in getting the most out of their involvement - To build working relations between organisations which will be beneficial to both sides - To support infrastructure organisations, G:up and where relevant community grass roots organisations to facilitate the above The G:up Outreach and Diversity Action Plan provides an example and/or template for other organisations to refer to in order to achieve similar ends. The third document the Report for Local Infrastructure Organisations is a condensed version of the Report & Plan and acts a practical tool for Infrastructure Organisations to use to attain the same inclusive objectives. This is especially the case with the resource sections in APPENDIX 3— Possible Framework for Action Plan TOOLKIT FORMS: TOOLKIT FORM 1 - ESTABLISHING A BASELINE, CURRENT LEVELS OF INVOLVEMENT AND EVERY CHILD MATTERS TOOLKIT FORM 2 - BARRIERS TO ACCESS (TO INFRASTRUCTURE ORGANISATIONS/ INFORMATION/ NETWORKS ETC) AND CHALLENGES FACED. TOOLKIT FORM 3 - PERCEPTION AND PREJUDICE TOOLKIT FORM 4 - PRACTICALITIES TOOLKIT FORM 5 - RESOURCES
G:up Diversity and Outreach Report
GUIWM Diversity and Outreach Report Index/Contents: - Introduction - "Who are we?" - What the outreach research was asked to do - What we did - Who we talked to - The document you are about to read Part One: Establishing a baseline - “What networks?” - Every Child Matters - Recommendations Part Two: Barriers to access, Challenges and possible improvements - Information - How do we find out about opportunities? - How do we know what the roles of infrastructure organisations are? - How do we find out what to do with information? - Infrastructure organisations - Key Issues - What was said - Recommendations Part Three: Perception and Prejudice - Introduction - Key Issues - What was said - Recommendations Part Four: Practicalities - Physical Access - Language - Childcare - Transport - Recommendations Part Five: Resources - Funding - Human Resources - Office Space and Equipment - Modern Technology - Key Issues - What was said - Recommendations APPENDIX 1—A Glossary of Terms APPENDIX 2—Research Form
Introduction Who are we? Growing Up In the West Midlands Strategic Forum exists to develop the West Midlands as a region that respects and acts upon the needs, interests and aspirations of children and young people, and the voluntary and community organisations that work with them. To this end it received funding through Change Up in September 2005. G:up brings together representatives of organisations and networks in the region that work with children and young people into 8 delivery groups that look after the delivery of specific streams of work. The G:up Management Group support the delivery areas and ensures they support each other to create a coherent whole. The Diversity and Outreach Delivery Group carried out this piece of research; their aim was to ensure that G:upand other future regional work meets the needs of the diversity of the sector and that there is wider access to information, support and engagement. It is central to G:up democratic ethos that the delivery processes are as inclusive as possible thus the research was carried out by a diverse range of community organisations who themselves work with children and young people. The research was drawn together, into this General Report, an Action Plan, and the specific Report for Local Infrastructure, by the arts and education community organisation B Arts. B Arts has 20 years experience of working in the voluntary sector, including extensive work with a wide-range of young people and children and designing, conducting and writing community consultations. One of the main projects they currently run is with young people from the refugee and asylum-seeker community. The company employs staff that are diverse themselves, and many of their workers are under 25. Thus the company understands the challenges that face the sector at this point in time from a variety of perspectives and is particularly aware of diversity issues. top/index
What the outreach research was asked to do: The starting point for this research is that the community and voluntary sector’s activity doesn’t reach everybody. This research was designed to involve organisations that are currently under-represented within regional and local networks and to work together towards greater inclusion. To this end the research has been designed to cover the following areas: Establish a baseline—record current levels of involvement in local and regional activity. Explore if/ how these organisations relate their work to Every Child Matters Outcomes Discuss barriers to access for them as organisations and identify key issues The overall aspiration is that this research will enable us to support and advise infrastructure organisations in developing their roles, and act as a guide for future actions for G:up, infrastructure and grass roots organisations. In this piece of research ‘infrastructure organisations’ refers to second-tier organisations that give support to delivery organisations. In this context infrastructure organisations refer to organisations such as CVS, Voluntary Action, Connexions, Council Youth Services, Local Networks etc. top/index
What we did: We contacted 40 organisations that work with children and/or young people in the West Midlands area. The research was particularly focussed on contacting organisations that are currently under-represented within regional and local networks. Organisations who work with marginalized young people are often marginalized themselves. Consequently, we sought to engage with organisations that work with BME, LGBT, 20-25s, 0-5s, those with special needs and those from rural areas. To carry out this research 8 organisations (who themselves work with children and/or young people) were commissioned to meet with at least 3 organisations from one or more of the under-represented organisations. Thus the research process itself was designed to bring organisations that work in similar areas together, to create a way for them to share information and networks and forge links for possible future work. This engagement took a variety of forms; including one-to-one interview and group lead discussion around the areas outlined above. The key information from this engagement was collected onto a 2-page form an example of which is supplied as an appendix to this document (see appendix 2). This report was then drawn up from the completed forms. top/index
Who we talked to: This is a summary of some of the organisations that were involved in this research. It is intended to give a more accurate impression of the sort of organisations interviewed within the broader categories of ‘BME’, ’20-25s’ etc, it is by no means an exhaustive list: BME organisations included: Groups who work with young people from the African community running sessions on healthy living and cultural integration, groups working with refugees and asylum seekers from Horn of Africa communities running recreational and educational sessions, groups working with young people from all backgrounds helping to empower and raise their aspirations, groups who work with young people from Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Mirpuri community, groups who work with South Asian young people and their families, groups who work with Eastern and Western European Children, and many more. Special needs organisations included: Groups who work with young people between the ages of 15 to 25 with mild mental health issues, groups who provide support, advice, social and leisure activities to young people with disabilities of all ages, and organisations who work with young people with life-limiting conditions and their families. LGBT organisations included: Groups aimed at younger age groups 13-19 running educational and recreational sessions, and some groups open to young people up to the age of 25. 0-5s organisations included: Groups for under 5s and their families from refugee communities, groups who work with under 5s and their parents from all backgrounds offering support, recreation and educational activities. 20-25s organisations included: Groups for Pakistani young women, offering social support and access to further education and training, groups for young people from the refugee community giving them support finding appropriate employment, training or education, groups for young people of all backgrounds supporting them developing their skills and fulfilling their aspirations. Rural organisations included: Drop-in centres for 13-24 yr olds, organisations that work with young people up to 25 across 16 parishes, and sports and gymnastic groups for 5 yr olds upward. Overall the changes people talked about most were: - Greater access to funding opportunities and the resources this will provide. - A greater connection between support agencies and grass roots organisations. ‘We need them to come to us’. - Easy access to understandable, relevant and usable information. top/index
The document you are about to read: This document contains quotes, interpretation, suggestions and comment. The quotes are from workers or participants from the organisations consulted. The individuals’ roles or organisation have not been identified. All of the contributions are anonymous. The question as asked on the form has been included at the relevant point. The report begins with an analysis of the baseline material. First, it looks at the level of network involvement as it stands and any patterns that emerge from this. Secondly, it looks at the awareness and conscious implementation of Every Child Matters and any patterns that emerge from this. The next part of the report responds to the barriers to access, challenges and improvements raised by the organisations asked. This part is divided into three sections. Each section contains: A summary of the key issues Quotes from people interviewed Recommendations: some from the people consulted and others from us. These sections have been roughly divided into 4 areas under the headings, Information, Perception and Prejudice, Practicalities and Resources. To a certain extent the divisions are arbitrary. So many things are affected by and impact upon others. These relational connections have been indicated wherever possible. The Recommendations in this report supply general suggestions for improvement. This report is the basis for the G:up Outreach Action Plan. In the Action Plan the Recommendations will be developed into more concrete, practical actions. top/index
Part One: Establishing a baseline
GUIWM Diversity and Outreach Report
Part One: Establishing a baseline
Quick Links:
- “What networks?”
- Every Child Matters
- Recommendations
“What networks?”
Q. What regional or local networks is the organisation already part of?
Most organisations interviewed were only part of 2 or less regional or local networks.
In the North Staffs area there was a general feeling that there were simply not that many networks around and so this limited local involvement.
A large amount of network involvement across the entire area seemed to be related to workers’ connections. Thus organisations who have links with statutory infrastructure organisations such as NHS facilities, Schools and Colleges and Local authorities tend to be more aware of networks in general.
Having said this some groups affiliated with infrastructure organisations, such as the NHS or local authorities, felt sidelined by these organisations and by networks that perceive them as offering a lower status ‘add-on’ service. Other infrastructure affiliated organisations, especially those based in the same building as infrastructure organisations, felt that although it meant they were well informed on developments within their affiliated body it acted as a barrier to engagement at grass roots level. Organisations who work within the BME community seem to belong to the least number of networks and feel the most isolated. This may be because the organisations met with tended to be smaller, and operated at more of a grass roots level. However, during the interviews many people from BME organisations, especially those working with refugee communities, felt that some infrastructure services were not sensitive to their specific needs and faced cultural and linguistic barriers to involvement.
Every Child Matters
Q. Has the contact person heard of Every Child Matters?
Does he/she know of (any of) the five outcomes?
Out of the 40 interviews 29 of the organisations had heard of Every Child Matters and 11 had not. Of those 11 organisations 9 were working within the BME community. This is of course related to other factors, such as size or remit of the group. It is also related to these groups being most isolated from networks, and infrastructure organisations.
All the organisations interviewed were clearly fulfilling many, if not all, of the Every Child Matters Outcomes, regardless of whether or not they had heard of ECM or were planning towards ECM outcomes. Some organisations expressed their intention to build ECM into their practice from now on.
Awareness seemed to reflect organisations’ level of access to networks and training, those from organisations more involved in local and regional activity tended to be aware of ECM and its outcomes. Similarly organisations that have links with statutory infrastructure organisations such as NHS facilities, Schools and Colleges and Local authorities tend to be more aware of ECM and its outcomes.
Organisations that were previously aware of ECM and most/ all of the 5 outcomes were better able to explain fluently the ways in which their activities related to the five outcomes.
This is placing organisations that are unaware of ECM at a possible disadvantage. It prevents them being able to show the ways in which they are fulfilling these outcomes and thus receive the recognition their work deserves or possible funding opportunities.
One interviewee commented,
“Voluntary sector from BME needs to recognise its own potential in delivering essential service in meeting ECM outcomes and needs recognition from the government”
Recommendations
Where relevant raise awareness of government initiatives such as ECM
Support voluntary organisations getting recognition for the ways in which they are fulfilling these outcomes.
Support voluntary organisations to interpret and present their work in terms of ECM outcomes, raise awareness of the relation this has to funding bids.
Part Two: Barriers to access, Challenges and possible improvements
GUIWM Diversity and Outreach Report
Part Two: Barriers to access, Challenges and possible improvements
Q. What barriers to access (to infrastructure organisations / information / networks / other) does the organisation face? What challenges are there? What would improve the situation?
Quick Links:
- Information
- How do we find out about opportunities?
- How do we know what the roles of infrastructure organisations are?
- How do we find out what to do with information?
- Infrastructure organisations
- Key Issues
- What was said
- Recommendations
Information
The right information, to the right people, at the right time, in the right format.
Organisations working across the voluntary sector cited difficulty in accessing information as a major barrier. They described a range of areas where they had been unable to access the information they needed or where they had been unaware of information and opportunities that could have been beneficial to them.
How do we find out about opportunities?
Organisations felt that they had been missing out on much-needed training, network, and funding opportunities and local activities simply because they were not able to find out about them in time.
There was a general feeling that there is a big gap between the people and organisations who need the information and larger, infrastructure organisations. The information simply is not getting down to grass roots level.
Bureaucracy was felt to be to blame in a lot of cases.
There was a feeling that information ‘had to be chased’; that voluntary organisations had to approach services, infrastructure organisations and networks themselves, and that some organisations were simply not equipped to do this in terms of finance, human resources or just awareness.
This left organisations that are already isolated feeling ‘out-of-the-loop’ with no way of seeing how to break through. It also increases the perceived relationship gap between infrastructure services and ‘grass roots’ organisations.
Organisations that do not have IT equipment, access to web and email and the training to use them found it even harder to keep up with valuable information.
How do we know what the roles of infrastructure organisations are?
There was also some confusion in what could be expected from infrastructure organisations, what support they could get. This prevented small organisations from approaching infrastructure organisations.
How do we find out what to do with information?
If they did get access to information the language it was written or spoken in was often inaccessible due to the large amount of ‘jargon’. Organisations then have to ‘interpret’ the information before it is accessible to them or their participants.
The inaccessibility of the language contributes to many organisations not knowing how best to use the information. Several organisations expressed the need for support in knowing how to make funding bids, or how to best use opportunities they are informed of.
************
It should be noted that, those commissioned to carry out this particular piece of research also found accessing the contact information they needed challenging. Two infrastructure organisations that were contacted in the North Staffs area were unable to offer much support. One organisation contacted was unaware what a ‘BME’ group was, (although the person spoken to did spend some time trying to find a group once this had been explained, although they were not able to find any). Another organisation said they couldn’t give any information with the comment “these sort of groups always need more members so they advertise themselves quite well so you should be able to find them quite easily.”
Infrastructure organisations
Organisations who work at infrastructure level experienced many of the same problems in accessing information. They too felt that they received information too late. They too felt that they had to ‘chase’ information and that this information was often inaccessible due to the amount of ‘jargon’ and ‘policy-speak’. Some infrastructure organisations also expressed concern about the level of information-flow within the organisation itself, several staff being part-time and focussed on different areas was cited as part of the cause.
Key Issues
Sign posting—Knowing what information is out there and how to find it.
Feeling cut off from local and regional activity and infrastructure organisations.
Inappropriate resources, staff, funding, modern equipment to ‘chase’ information.
Bureaucracy and jargon
Knowing how to utilise information effectively
Infrastructure organisations themselves experiencing similar problems and therefore not being able to pass on information.
What was said
“A lot of the time we just don’t hear about things…there are lots of opportunities for training, or information about workshops that would be great for us but we don’t find out about them until it’s too late.”
“It’s a challenge finding out about things, it’s mostly word-of-mouth.”
“You have to approach services, organisations, networks etc. yourself…that takes a level of awareness and confidence…information and partnership opportunities need to be more accessible.”
“Often the information is not user-friendly and full of jargon.”
“We have limited understanding of the role of infrastructure organisation”
“The project workers feel constrained by lack of knowledge of how to get support making funding applications, and finding out about other funding opportunities.”
Recommendations
Accessibility—Information on funding, networks, signposting, training, and support agencies needs to be as accessible as possible, from a range of outlets. Organisations need to be given clear guidelines where information can be found.
Relevant—a system whereby the right information goes to the right people at the right time in an understandable format.
Relationship building between infrastructure, support agencies and grass-roots organisations. More opportunities for information exchange need to be created.
Training—to allow organisations to make as much as possible out of the information, for example training in how to track funding and then make appropriate applications.
Infrastructure organisations need to be given support working towards improved practice on information exchange.
Part Four: Practicalities
GUIWM Diversity and Outreach Report
Part Four: Practicalities
This section looks at the practical barriers and challenges organisations face when attempting to access local and regional activity. These practical barriers also reinforce perception barriers as organisations feel excluded and alienated from activity, services and other organisations as a result.
Quick Links:
- Physical Access
- Language
- Childcare
- Transport
- Recommendations
Physical Access
Organisations whose workers and members have special needs have experienced difficulties accessing services just trying to get in the door when attending meetings, events, and accessing. Mistakes like fitting automatic doors but positioning the button too high for a wheel-chair user to press alienate organisations and individuals.
Language
Many organisations and their workers, especially those working within the refugee community, experience language barriers when trying to engage with local and regional activity. For these groups attending network meetings and events sometimes requires an interpreter. One interviewee commented, “We have to rely on our own interpreters to help us understand and this is not always possible.” Interpreting the often already inaccessible language of funding applications and government policy is even more of a challenge.
Childcare
One organisation explained that their all-female staff were often not able to attend all the activities they would like to because “network meetings and infrastructure organisations don’t always provide childcare facilities.”
Transport
Rural organisations and those with limited funding often find the distance and cost of travelling to centrally, normally city-based, meetings prohibitive.
Recommendations
Network meetings and events should be located in buildings which are special needs appropriate
Where possible interpreters and childcare should be provided, or financial support should be given to organisations to provide their own.
Where possible activities and services should be located to be as accessible as possible, financial support should be provided to organisations for which travel costs would be prohibitive.
Where this is not possible an alternative local provision should be available.
Part Five: Resources
GUIWM Diversity and Outreach Report
Part Five: Resources
"Money, Money, Money"
Quick Links:
- Funding
- Human Resources
- Office Space and Equipment
- Modern Technology
- Key Issues
- What was said
- Recommendations
Funding
This was the barrier most frequently mentioned by all the organisations that took part. Restricted and limited funding had a knock-on effect, creating a range of other barriers outlined below.
Limited funding means that several organisations have to channel all their funding into keeping their programmes running. They simply do not have the money to put time or resources into tracking information, joining networks, or pursuing ongoing partnership work. This creates a chicken and egg situation where organisations do not have the resources to pursue ways in which they could gain more resources.
Furthermore, funding restrictions to delivery rather than capacity building or support often enforces this channelling of resources.
The temporary nature of the funding available to many of the organisations interviewed limits the extent to which they can sustain involvement with joined-up working, therefore limiting the benefits of involvement in the first place.
Several interviewees explained that network meetings and infrastructure organisations being centrally based was a big barrier to them attending. Smaller organisations just cannot spare the money or valuable workers’ time to attend. In addition to these practical barriers, meetings and events always being centrally based can send out a damaging message. Several groups expressed feelings of isolation, that all of the running had to come from them, and that there was a gap in understanding between infrastructure organisations and networks and the reality they experienced at grass roots level.
Human Resources
People’s time is spent in keeping their projects going, supporting their members and volunteers. Workers simply do not have enough time to attend network meetings (especially when these are centrally based), search for opportunities, or fully engage in regional and local activities. Again this is a ‘chicken and egg’ situation. Workers do not have time to find out about opportunities that might create enough funds for more workers.
Several organisations felt that as volunteers did much of the work there was a limit on the amount of responsibility it was fair or appropriate to expect.
Office Space and Equipment
Organisations who do not have a formal office space felt this restricted them from engaging with other organisations as they have no where to bring ‘officials’ for meetings or to show them what they do. The lack of office equipment also limited their ability to keep up with information from web and email and to some extent via post or telephone as it is not always possible to put their details onto shared databases.
Modern Technology
Several organisations, especially those working with BME and refugee communities, lack vital IT equipment which means they are unable to access opportunities and joined-up working made available through web and email.
Key Issues
Limited and restricted funding means organisations cannot spend much time or money in accessing information, services, networks or infrastructure organisations.
Small numbers of paid and voluntary staff mean organisations simply do not have the ‘people power’ needed
Unsustainable funding means unsustainable involvement in networks, partnership approaches. There need to be short as well as long-term benefits to involvement.
Inappropriate work space and equipment
Lack of computers and capacity to use them.
What was said
“The project only has two full-time paid staff and puts all time into supporting volunteers to deliver services, administration and fund-raising”
“There just isn’t the manpower”
“recruiting volunteers to undertake responsibility of paid staff is extremely difficult”
“We have access to limited resources to cover basic running costs, this prevents us from effectively engaging with larger groups on a long-term basis”
“Generally statutory agencies have access to more resources, where as voluntary sector often has to face greater competition amongst themselves and priority is given on service delivery”
“Working from home is a major barrier, we cannot invite officials to see our work…it also means we can’t keep pace with information or be part of a network”
“Staff…do not always have access to computers therefore communication and information seeking/sharing can be difficult.”
Recommendations
Measures need to be taken to make it a lot easier for organisations to access information, networks and opportunities. The support needs to come to them so they do not have to spend money and time they do not have in pursuing opportunities.
A system or network that provides targeted funding opportunity updates
When they are involved in networks, joined-up working etc. they need to receive short-term clear benefits.
Support organisations in identifying and applying for appropriate funding
Fund-raising training
Make available IT equipment and training on how to use it.
APPENDIX 1—A Glossary of Terms
GUIWM Diversity and Outreach Report
APPENDIX 1—A Glossary of Terms
ECM — Every Child Matters: Change for Children. This is a Government initiative, a new approach to the well being of children and young people from 0-19. The Government’s aim is for every child, whatever their background or circumstances, to have the support they need to: Be healthy, Stay safe, Enjoy and achieve, Make a positive contribution, Achieve economic well being. Find out more at www.everychildmatters.gov.uk
LGBT — Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender
BME — Black, Minority-Ethnic
GUIWM — Growing Up In The West Midlands. Find out more at www.growingupinthewestmidlands.info
CVS — Council for Voluntary Services. Find out more at www.nacvs.org.uk/cvsdir
Connexions - Find out more at www.connexions.gov.uk/partnerships/
APPENDIX 2—Research Form
GUIWM Diversity and Outreach Report
APPENDIX 2 — Research Form
You can be as creative as you choose in developing your contact and building your relationships with the organisations and people within them. This 2 page form is to ensure that we collect key information in a way that makes it possible to draw together and share widely through a report. You might want to take it with you to meet people or you may rather complete it after you have been in touch. It’s up to you!
Please complete one form per organisation. The completed forms should be emailed to alison@ncvys.org.uk on or before Friday 16th December 2005.
|
CONTACT INFORMATION
|
|
|
Contact name:
|
|
|
Role in organisation:
|
|
|
Organisation’s name:
|
|
|
Organisation’s address:
|
|
|
Email address:
|
|
|
Phone number:
|
|
We would like to send further information about Growing Up in the West Midlands to this contact, is he/she happy with that?
Is the person above happy for these contact details to be shared with other voluntary sector networks?
|
ABOUT THE ORGANISATION
|
|
|
Brief description of what it does:
|
|
|
Brief description of who it works with:
|
|
|
What regional or local networks is the organisation already part of?:
|
|
|
What regional or local networks have you informed the organisation of?:
|
|
|
EVERY CHILD MATTERS
|
|
|
Has the contact person heard of Every Child Matters?
|
|
|
Does he/she know of (any of) the five outcomes? (please circle each known)
|
1)Being healthy, 2) Staying safe, 3)Enjoying and achieving, 4) Making a positive contribution, 5) Achieving economic well-being |
|
Does the organisation work to those outcomes?
|
|
|
If yes, how?
If no, do these relate to their work? |
|
|
BARRIERS TO ACCESS
|
|
|
What barriers to access (to infrastructure organisations/ information/ networks/other) does the ORGANISATION face? What challenges are there?
|
|
|
What would improve the situation?
|
|
Part Three: Perception and Prejudice
G:up Diversity and Outreach Report Part Three: Perception and Prejudice Quick Links: - Introduction - Key Issues - What was said - Recommendations
Introduction Many organisations expressed a lack of trust and confidence in services, infrastructure organisations and networks. In some cases this was due to organisations and their participants having suffered prejudice. LGBT workers and participants were reluctant to take part in local partnership activity or approach services having received homophobic prejudice in the past. Special needs organisations and participants had also been put off by Council trained youth workers telling them working with them was ‘not part of their job’. Several BME organisations, especially those working with newly arrived refugee communities, felt that there was a lack of understanding and awareness of the specific needs of their organisation and members. Most of the organisations working at grass-roots level felt there was a gap in understanding between them and infrastructure organisations. Several organisations felt that infrastructure organisations and networks should actively try and retain a more diverse range of people to help create a more culturally appropriate human connection to community groups. Some BME organisations who teach the Koran and cultural awareness to children from a diverse range of Muslim backgrounds felt that they were seen by the outside infrastructure as a purely ‘Islamic Organisation’ and therefore excluded from other avenues. There was a feeling that the support they did receive was tokenism, a matter of ticking boxes, and as such more to the benefit of the larger organisation than to themselves. Several organisations felt that they had not benefited from network and larger organisation involvement in the past. Several people commented that the formal nature of network meetings was a barrier and inappropriate for their needs. This formality increased the perception of networks and of Infrastructure organisations as separate and inaccessible—something for other people. Network meetings and infrastructure services being centrally based also increased this feeling of separation and exclusion. Many organisations felt that the relationship between infrastructure and service-delivery organisations was one-sided, that they were doing all the running, this increased feelings of separation. Several organisations felt that their position within the voluntary sector allowed them to be devalued by services, infrastructure organisations and networks. They felt their work was perceived as an ‘add-on’ and could therefore be over-looked as unimportant. Some organisations also spoke about hostility from other voluntary sector organisations, saying that some groups were reluctant to engage in joined-up working. They felt this was due to funding pressure as “everyone is bidding for the same pot of money”. main index / top
Key Issues A sense of separation and alienation from infrastructure organisations, networks and services both physically and in terms of understanding. Inconsistent, tokenistic support. Being passed around from one number to another. One-sided relationship; with grass-roots, community organisations doing all the running. Culturally and/or situation inappropriate responses and prejudice. Inaccessible meetings and events, that alienate both by form and location. main index / top
What was said “We feel access to large organisation for information and networks are not worthwhile as our capacity varies and our involvement has little impact on our organisation” “I feel there’s a gap in understanding between infrastructure organisations and policy makers and people working in ‘the reality of the situation’—it’s why networks are important but it also acts as a barrier” “There is not enough feedback from local infrastructure, networks, the council into the local community especially in a personal accessible way—so the relationship seems forced—there need to be a more diverse group of ‘interpreters’ bridging the gaps.” “Some staff in infrastructure organisations seem to lack an understanding of BME groups” “Network meetings are too dry we want more opportunities for social networking” “Barriers are formed by some statutory agencies [who see us as] an organisation based in the voluntary sector which as such can be overlooked.” “Certain organisations tend to work in isolation with what they do and do not want to share” main index / top
Recommendations Infrastructure organisations need to set up ways of identifying grass roots organisations and responding to their needs appropriately. There needs to be more direct contact between infrastructure organisations and groups. More ‘on-the ground’ support Greater opportunity for organisations in similar fields to meet each other, share information and prevent duplication of services. Network meetings and events should be as accessible as possible in terms of form and location. main index / top
G:up Outreach and Diversity Action Plan
G:up Outreach and Diversity Action Plan Introduction G:up is committed to increasing inclusion of voluntary and community organisations that work with children and young people in regional and local activity. To this end the GUIWM Diversity and Outreach Delivery Group commissioned a piece of research to engage with 40 organisations that are currently under-represented and establish their current level of involvement in regional and local activity, explore if/how these organisations relate their work to Every Child Matters Outcomes and discuss barriers to access to them as organisations and identify key issues. The findings of this research were compiled into the G:up Diversity and Outreach Report. The G:up Outreach and Diversity Action Plan is based on the findings outlined in the Report. It seeks to provide a framework to address the key issues highlighted in the report and to provide concrete ways for the recommendations of the report to be put into action. The actions include suggestions for G:up, regional infrastructure organisations, local infrastructure organisations and community grass roots organisations. The type of organisation for which the recommendation is particularly relevant has been included before the suggested action. The over-arching objective of this Action Plan is… - To promote the inclusion of organisations that are currently under-represented in regional and local activity. - To identify and remove barriers to their involvement - To support them in getting the most out of their involvement - To build working relations between organisations which will be beneficial to both sides - To support infrastructure organisations, G:up and where relevant community grass roots organisations to facilitate the above This Action Plan will follow the format of the G:up Diversity and Outreach Report. Part One addresses the issues that arose from the baseline material, concerning the level of network involvement as it stands and the awareness and implementation of Every Child Matters. Part Two addresses the barriers to access for the organisations. Part Two, as in the Report, is divided into 4 areas, Information, Perception and Prejudice, Practicalities and Resources. Again to some extent these divisions are arbitrary as so many things are affected by and impact upon others. Thus suggested actions may address issues from more than one section. This has been indicated wherever possible. Quick Document Links: PART ONE — Establishing a baseline, current levels of involvement and Every Child Matters PART TWO: Barriers to access (to infrastructure organisations/ information/ networks etc) and challenges faced. - Information - Perception and Prejudice - Practicalities - Resources
PART ONE — Establishing a baseline, current levels of involvement and Every Child Matters
GUIWM Outreach and Diversity Action Plan
PART ONE — Establishing a baseline, current levels of involvement and Every Child Matters
| Key Issues | Recommendations | Immediate Actions | Long-term Actions | Link |
| Most organisations interviewed were only part of 2 or less regional or local networks. | Raise awareness of relevant regional and local networks. | Who: GUIWM What: Distribute via email/ post/ telephone contact details and information about networks that may be useful to organisations interviewed. When: Jan/ Feb ‘06 |
Who: GUIWM ICT delivery group / Change Up Authority Promote the site so it becomes the place to go for information. “The Google of the West Midlands” (Smaller groups may need support accessing IT equipment and knowing how to use it). Develop use of SMS messaging for those who do not have easy access to computers. |
|
| Infrastructure organisations also find it hard to access information about networks. | Establish what networks are out there, what they are for, whom would they be beneficial for. | Who: Local Infrastructure organisations. What: (Continue to) produce and share a guide or database of local networks and what and whom they are for and promote this service. |
||
| BME (often grass-roots) organisations were particularly isolated. | Identify and where possible eliminate the reasons for under-representation. | Who: Regional and local infrastructure organisations. What: Set up Email/ post/ phone system whereby relevant national and regional networks and their roles, actions and ways to be involved are sent to organisations. When: By Jun ‘06 Who: GUIWM Outreach and Diversity delivery group. Who: Infrastructure organisations. Who: Community organisations.
Barriers to involvement in networks and possible actions are explored in greater detail in Part 2. |
||
| Despite all of the organisations fulfilling some, if not all, of the ECM outcomes, approximately 25% of the organisations were unaware of ECM. | Where relevant raise awareness of government initiatives such as ECM | Who: GUIWM What: Email/post organisations interviewed who were not aware of ECM before the interview the link, or print out to ‘Every Child Matters and practice database’ resources. When: Jan / Feb ‘06 |
Who: GUIWM ICT delivery group. What: Set up Email/ SMS system whereby relevant national and regional policy is sent to organisations. Develop and promote GUIWM website as portal, including links on policy. When: By Jun ‘06/ Ongoing |
|
| Lack of awareness places them at a possible disadvantage. As they are less able to show the ways in which they are fulfilling these outcomes and thus receive the recognition their work deserves. | Support voluntary organisations getting recognition for the ways in which they are fulfilling these outcomes. | Who: Local infrastructure organisations. What: Produce a guide to making the most out of policy for grass roots organisations, with useful contacts. |
Who: GUIWM, Children’s and Young People’s Governance Website What: Enable a diverse selection of smaller organisations to case study their work according to ECM, and share these case studies as resource via GUIWM website (and by mail? To GUIWM organisations). Promote the resource especially towards local infrastructure organisations. When: March ‘06 Who: Local infrastructure organisations. Who: Local infrastructure organisations. Fund-raising advice, training and support
Links to ‘Information’, ‘Perception’ and ‘resources’ support actions. |
|
PART TWO: Barriers to access (to infrastructure organisations/ information/ networks etc) and challenges faced.
GUIWM Outreach and Diversity Action Plan
PART TWO: Barriers to access (to infrastructure organisations/ information/ networks etc) and challenges faced.
Quick links:
- Information
- Perception and Prejudice
- Practicalities
- Resources
Information
|
Key Issues |
Recommendations |
Immediate Actions |
Long-term Actions |
|
Knowing what information is out there and how to find it.
Inappropriate resources, staff, funding, modern equipment to ‘chase' information. |
Better publicity of opportunities for organisations and young people within them.
Accessibility—Information on funding, networks, signposting, training, and support agencies needs to be as accessible as possible, from a range of outlets.
Organisations need to be given clear guidelines where information can be found |
Who: Local infrastructure organisations.
What: Encourage and support local infrastructure organisations with sign posting. If they themselves are a sign-posting agency, encourage and support them to promote this service as widely as possible. If possible send out a list of sign-posting agencies, to cover organisations working in the area, funding bodies, projects and initiatives, policy. Have this resource available for organisations who make phone / internet enquiries.
When: Ongoing |
Who: Regional / Local infrastructure organisations / perhaps link into Governance Contacts.
What: Commission young people from within organisations to set up publicity networks (MSN or online magazine), promoting opportunities for the projects they are involved in. Encourage those who already do this to present their work as a good practice case study. This could possibly link in with City Council's Youth Participation Team projects.
Who: GUIWM ICT delivery group. What: Develop an online forum/ query room. Where website users can ‘network' online, share information and post queries and replies. Promote this forum to local infrastructure and community groups. When: Ongoing
Who: GUIWM ICT delivery group. What: Stream information on opportunities, events, funding etc. through the GUIWM website, divide into clear sections, funding for…etc. Promote the website and possibly provide training on how to use it for infrastructure organisations and community groups. When: Aug ‘06
|
|
Feeling isolated from local and regional activity and infrastructure organisations |
Relationship building between infrastructure, support agencies and grass-roots organisations. More opportunities for information exchange need to be created. |
Who: Local Infrastructure. What: Use Report and action plan to support local infrastructure in applying for funding to create outreach workers jobs to bridge gap between infrastructure and grass roots organisations. Weekly/ monthly satellite surgeries/ information-bus, or at least a weekly/ monthly phone conversation.
Who: Regional / local infrastructure organisations and community organisations. What: Set up theme-lead consortiums, involving individuals from infrastructure and community organisations, i.e. a consortium for those who work with 0-5s, those who work with 20-25s etc.
Who: Facilitated by local infrastructure agencies/ networks of community groups. What: Set up monthly Lunch Clubs (or breakfast if more appropriate) rotate venues between infrastructure and smaller organisations if possible where workers from different organisations can meet in an informal setting and share information. (A good case study is the North Staffordshire Afro-Carribean Community Association which runs a lunch group where workers and community members go to eat and talk…The group runs to a profit) |
|
|
Having to search through irrelevant information, finding out about opportunities too late |
Relevant—a system whereby the right information goes to the right people at the right time in an understandable format. |
Who: GUIWM What: Email / post appropriate network, funding, training and policy initiatives to organisations interviewed. When: Jan / Feb ‘06
Who: GUIWM development worker. What: Start to establish a database of useful national /regional/ local websites that GUIWM organisations already use to be built into the GUIWM website as useful links.
|
Who: GUIWM ICT delivery group What: Set up a system whereby organisations fill in questions about their organisation then get sent email updates with relevant up-coming funding bids, events, training opportunities (like graduate jobs.com) via GUIWM website portal. |
|
Knowing how to utilize information effectively.
Jargon
Simply cascading information is not effective. |
Training—to allow organisations to make as much as possible out of the information, for example training in how to track funding and then make appropriate applications.
Support or advice system offering a ‘translator service'
Information and support needs to be co-ordinated and targeted. Regional infrastructure organisations, like GUIWM, need development workers to be very effective. |
Who: Regional/ Local infrastructure organisations.
What: Research or facilitate training programmes for project workers on how best to approach and utilise network involvement etc.
Who: Local infrastructure organisations / online via the GUIWM website. What: Support local infrastructure organisations to facilitate an advice service from key-worker or infrastructure organisations via telephone, email, SMS messaging or in person. An advise forum could also be facilitated through the GUIWM website, where organisations could post queries and responses.
Who: GUIWM ICT delivery group, other regional / local infrastructure organisations who use websites to provide information. What: Investigation and use of ‘instant glossary programmes' incorporated into websites to provide definition in a new window of highlighted ‘jargon' or specialised terms.
Who: Local infrastructure organisations/ community organisations. What: Set-up voluntary organisation (possibly funded) mentoring system, where individual's within organisations with more experience, knowledge, and contacts in certain areas, are paired with less experienced individuals.
Who: Regional Infrastructures like GUIWM / local infrastructure organisations. What: Identification of resources through ‘Change-Up Development Agencies Network' for development worker post(s).
|
Perception and Prejudice
|
Key Issues |
Recommendations |
Immediate Actions |
Long-term Actions |
|
Prejudice and lack of understanding from infrastructure organisations and services.
Confusion as to the role and remit of regional and local infrastructure leading to disappointment when expectations are not met.
|
Infrastructure organisations need to make a public effort to dispel this perception and re-engage with disenchanted community organisations.
Regional and local infrastructure organisations need to be explicit about what support / services they can and cannot provide. |
Who: Local / regional infrastructure organisations.
What: Encourage and support Infrastructure organisations to create the opportunity for community organisations to fully explain their particular needs and create an opportunity to fully explain what they as an infrastructure organisation can and cannot do. Offer the Diversity Outreach Research as a model for how this could be achieved.
When: Ongoing |
Who: Local infrastructure organisations What: Support infrastructure organisations in applying for funding to assign outreach key workers to focus on the needs of specific organisations or situations, and thus target services more appropriately.
Who: Infrastructure organisations. What: Support infrastructure organisations with the contracting of a diverse range of people, (from organisations or peer-workers) to act as an advisory body / or ensure that pre-existing advisory bodies or networks include a truly diverse range of people.
Who: Infrastructure Organisations. What: Support infrastructure to utilise diversity (cultural, special needs) training (not just token amounts) and ensure all frontline staff have received and follow it. |
|
One-sided relationship: with voluntary organisations doing all the running
A sense of alienation and separation from infrastructure organisations, networks and services both physically and in terms of understanding
|
Infrastructure organisations need to set up ways of identifying grass roots organisations and responding to their needs appropriately.
There needs to be more direct contact between infrastructure organisations and groups.
More ‘on-the ground' support |
Who: Local infrastructure What: Support (and apply for sustained funding for) people who already have links with several different groups (both grass roots and infrastructure) (such as Council/ REC / School/ College youth workers) to network for organisations and share information. |
Who: Local infrastructure organisations/ community organisations. What: Support funding applications for local infrastructure organisations to recruit peer-workers, youth-workers etc. to identify and work closely between grass roots and infrastructure organisations. In order to facilitate a more of a personal relationship between organisations.
Who: Local infrastructure/ network organisers. What: Encourage and support infrastructure agencies and networks to carry out satellite surgeries, or set up key-worker schemes.
|
|
Hostility and suspicion between voluntary organisations. (Funding related)
Network meetings too formal |
Greater opportunity for organisations in similar fields to meet each other, share information and prevent duplication of services.
Network meetings and events should be as accessible as possible |
Who: Local infrastructure / local networks / community organisations. Online version facilitated by GUIWM ICT delivery group. What: Set-up voluntary organisation (possibly funded) mentoring system, where individual's within organisations with more experience, knowledge, and contacts in certain areas, are paired with less experienced individuals. GUIWM website forum could be developed to facilitate this informally online.
Who: Facilitated by local infrastructure agencies/ networks of community groups. What: Set up monthly Lunch Clubs (or breakfast if more appropriate) rotate venues between infrastructure and smaller organisations if possible where workers from different organisations can meet in an informal setting and share information. (A good case study is the North Staffordshire Afro-Carribean Community Association which runs a lunch group where workers and community members go to eat and talk…The group runs to a profit)
Who: Regional / local infrastructure and community organisations. What: Encourage and support funding bids and facilitate organisations involvement in events that provide opportunities for people and organisations to meet each other. Promote successful events such as ‘Civic Bang' and GUIWM days and make available as good practice case studies.
|
Practicalities
|
Key Issues |
Recommendations |
Immediate Actions |
Long-term Actions |
|
Physically inaccessible buildings |
Network meetings and events should be located in buildings which are special needs appropriate |
Who: GUIWM and affiliated networks. What: Continue to ensure all network venues GUIWM and the networks it is involved in special needs are appropriate. When: Ongoing |
Who: Facilitated by GUIWM ICT delivery group (website) / local infrastructure / community organisations.
What: Through the website create a space whereby organisations can post recommended venues and thus compile an online database of ‘tried and tested venues' and their facilities, level of disabled access, costs etc to be available for organisations to access and add to. When: By Aug '06 / ongoing.
|
|
Lack of interpreters Lack of childcare |
Where possible interpreters and childcare should be provided, or financial support should be given to organisations to provide their own. |
Who: GUIWM/ Regional / local infrastructure agencies and networks. What: Ensure organisations have a chance to explain specific individual needs prior to events to see if more inclusive action (childcare/ interpreters or financial provision) can be taken. When: Ongoing |
Who: Facilitated by GUIWM ICT delivery group / local infrastructure / community organisations. What: Through the website create a space whereby organisations can post recommended venues and thus compile an online database of ‘tried and tested venues' and their facilities, costs etc to be available for organisations to access and add to.
|
|
Activities, events, and meetings being centrally based |
Where possible activities and services should be located to be as accessible as possible, financial support should be provided to organisations for which travel costs would be prohibitive.
Where this is not possible an alternative local provision should be available. |
Who: GUIWM/ Regional / local infrastructure agencies and networks. What: Choose locations to be as inclusive as possible, where possible provide travel costs for smaller organisations. If this is not possible make an effort to keep those groups who could not attend informed, by phone/ email or satellite event. When: Ongoing |
Resources
|
Key Issues |
Recommendations |
Immediate Actions |
Long-term Actions |
|
Chasing information, networks and opportunities is prohibitively time and money consuming for organisations with limited and restricted funding and resources |
Measures need to be taken to make it a lot easier for organisations to access information, networks and opportunities. The support needs to come to them so they do not have to spend money and time they do not have in pursuing opportunities. |
See INFORMATION actions.
Who: GUIWM ICT delivery group / ICT Hub What: Provide smaller organisations with website packages / links on other websites. Thus allowing them to be known to more individuals / groups networks without spending a lot of time ‘chasing'.
Who: GUIWM ICT delivery group What: Participation Workers Network with the Workforce Development Council and contribute to RAWM's emergent workforce development strategy, co-ordinate sharing of good practice, and link existing participation worker's networks within the region.
|
|
|
Small numbers of paid and voluntary staff mean organisations simply do not have the ‘people power' needed
|
Who: Local infrastructure organisations. What: Support organisations in recruiting appropriate volunteers/ support network and development agencies find appropriate volunteers |
||
|
Limited and restricted funding |
Support organisations in using and applying for funding.
A system or network that provides targeted funding opportunity updates Support organisations in identifying and applying for appropriate funding |
Who: GUIWM (sustainability pilot) / Local infrastructure organisations/ community groups. What: Pilot to work with organisations to develop ways in which they can better use resources, and to develop their own strategy for sustaining funding. Produce a resource and pilot that can be used by other organisations.
Who: GUIWM / Regional / Local infrastructure. What: Encourage and support infrastructure organisations to broker for large scale funding groups such as ‘Change Up'.
Who: GUIWM ICT delivery group. What: Channel funding opportunities divided into relevant categories through the GUIWM website. Promote GUIWM website and explore other modes of alerting organisations such as SMS messaging.
Who: Local infrastructure organisations What: Support and encourage infrastructure organisations to offer support / advice or training sessions on fund-raising.
|
|
|
Unsustainable funding means only temporary involvement in networks etc is possible |
When they are involved in networks, joined-up working etc. they need to receive short-term clear benefits. |
Who: Local infrastructure organisations. What: Support networks in drawing up clear objectives and short and long term actions to be achieved. When: Ongoing. |
Who: GUIWM (sustainability pilot) / Local infrastructure organisations/ community groups. What: Pilot to work with organisations to develop ways in which they can better use resources, and to develop their own strategy for sustaining funding. Produce a resource and pilot that can be used by other organisations.
|
|
Lack of modern technology |
Make available IT equipment |
Who: GUIWM ICT delivery group / ICT Hub What: Supply organisations without modern technology with computers and where possible support them getting training on how to use it. When: By Jun ‘06
Who: GUIWM ICT delivery group / ICT Hub What: Provide smaller organisations with free 1GB email accounts. With the possibility of multi-user access to avoid negative gate-keeping When: By Jun ‘06
Who: GUIWM / Regional/ local infrastructure organisations. What: Explore and use additional forms of information flow, such as SMS messaging, sending emails to mobile phones for those who do not have computer/ web access. When: Ongoing
|
|
|
Inappropriate workspace and equipment |
Support finding and applying for funding for an appropriate work place. |
Who: GUIWM ICT delivery group What: Stream information on funding opportunities and venues through website, encourage sharing of information and advice through forum.
|
G:up Report for Local Infrastructure Organisations
G:up Report for Local Infrastructure Organisations Index / Contents: - Introduction - Who are we? - What we did - The document you are about to read Findings - The Baseline - Recommendations - Possible ways forward Barriers to access, challenges and possible improvements - Signposting — Knowing what information is out there and how to find it - Feeling cut off from local and regional activity and infrastructure - Inappropriate resources to ‘chase’ information - Bureaucracy and Jargon – Knowing how to utilize information effectively - Infrastructure organisations experience similar problems - What was said - Recommendations - Possible ways forward Perception and Prejudice - A sense of separation and alienation from infrastructure organisations, networks and services both physically and in terms of understanding - Culturally and/or situation inappropriate responses and prejudice - Inconsistent, tokenistic support - Inaccessible meetings and events, that alienate both by form and by location - What was said - Recommendations - Possible ways forward Practicalities - Information - Recommendations - Possible ways forward Resources - Limited and restricted funding means organisations cannot spend much time or money in accessing information, services, networks or infrastructure - Unsustainable funding means unsustainable involvement in partnership work; there need to be short-term as well as long-term benefits - Small numbers of paid and voluntary staff mean organisations simply do not have the ‘people power’ needed - Inappropriate work space and equipment - Lack of computers and the capacity to use them - What was said - Recommendations - Possible ways forward APPENDIX 1 — Glossary of Terms APPENDIX 2 — Research Form APPENDIX 3 — Possible Framework for Action Plan
Introduction Who we are Growing Up in the West Midlands Strategic Forum exists to develop the West Midlands as a region that respects and acts upon the needs, interests and aspirations of children and young people, and the voluntary and community organisations that work with them. To this end it received funding through Change Up in September 2005. G:up brings together representatives of organisations and networks in the region that work with children and young people into 8 delivery groups that look after the delivery of specific streams of work. The G:up Management Group support the delivery areas and ensures they support each other to create a coherent whole. The Diversity and Outreach Delivery Group carried out this piece of research; their aim was to ensure that G:up and other future regional work meets the needs of the diversity of the sector and that there is wider access to information, support and engagement. It is central to G:up democratic ethos that the delivery processes are as inclusive as possible thus the research was carried out by a diverse range of community organisations who themselves work with children and young people. The research was drawn together, into a General Report, an Action Plan, and this specific Report for Local Infrastructure, by the arts and education community organisation B Arts. B Arts has 20 years experience of working in the voluntary sector, including extensive work with a wide-range of young people and children and designing, conducting and writing community consultations. One of the main projects they currently run is with young people from the refugee and asylum-seeker community. The company employs staff that are diverse themselves, and many of their workers, including the report writer, are under 25. Thus the company understands the challenges that face the sector at this point in time from a variety of perspectives and is particularly aware of diversity issues. top
What we did: The Diversity and Outreach Research engaged with 40 organisations that are currently under-represented within regional and local activity. Organisations who work with marginalized young people tend to be marginalized themselves. Thus the research focussed on children / young people’s organisations that work with Black Minority-Ethnic (BME), Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT), 20-25s, 0-5s, those with special needs and those from rural areas. The research established the organisations’ current levels of involvement in regional and local activity, if/ how they worked to Every Child Matters (ECM) outcomes and the barriers to access and involvement for them as organisation and the challenges they face. This information was collected onto a 2-page form an example of which is supplied as an appendix to this document (see appendix 2). The aim of this research is to work together towards greater inclusion. It is hoped that infrastructure organisations will be able to use it as an advisory resource when developing their roles, as well as acting as a guide for future actions of G:up, infrastructure and community grass roots organisations. The method of research was designed to start the process of greater inclusion. Thus 9 organisations (who themselves work with children and young people) were commissioned to meet with at least 3 organisations from one or more of the under-represented organisations; bringing organisations that work in similar areas together, creating a way for them to share information and networks and forging links for possible future work. The interviewers felt that this ‘cascade model’ of research was effective and rewarding for both interviewing and interviewed organisations. top
The document you are about to read: This research was written up as a report and then developed into an action plan for G:up . The document you are about to read is a condensed form of these 2 documents drawing out the areas that are particularly relevant to local infrastructure organisations. We hope the contents will support you in making an action plan appropriate to the role and remit of your own organisation. A possible framework for this action plan is included as an appendix to this document (see appendix 3). This document contains quotes, interpretation, suggestions and comment. The quotes are from workers or participants from the organisations consulted. The individuals’ roles or organisation have not been identified. All of the contributions are anonymous. Each section includes: - A summary of the key issues - Quotes from people interviewed - Recommendations: some from the people consulted and others from us - Possible ways forward G:up are in the process of producing a number of resources that, it is hoped, will support infrastructure organisations in implementing some of the proposed actions. Thus these resources have been referred to as a potential support alongside the suggestions made. top
Barriers to access, challenges and possible improvements
GUIWM Report for Local Infrastructure Organisations
Barriers to access, challenges and possible improvements
The right information, to the right people, at the right time, in the right format.
Quick Links:
- Signposting—Knowing what information is out there and how to find it
- Feeling cut off from local and regional activity and infrastructure
- Inappropriate resources to ‘chase’ information
- Bureaucracy and Jargon – Knowing how to utilize information effectively
- Infrastructure organisations experience similar problems
- What was said
- Recommendations
- Possible ways forward
Signposting—Knowing what information is out there and how to find it
Organisations working across the voluntary sector cited difficulty in accessing information as a major barrier. They described a range of areas where they had been unable to access the information they needed or where they had been unaware of information and opportunities that could have been beneficial to them until it was too late.
Feeling cut off from local and regional activity and infrastructure
There was a general feeling that there was a big gap between grass roots and infrastructure organisations and that information was simply not getting down to grass roots level.
Inappropriate resources to ‘chase’ information
Organisations felt that information ‘had to be chased’, that they had to approach infrastructure agencies, networks and services themselves when they simply equipped to do this, in terms of finance, IT equipment, human resources or simply awareness. This left isolated organisations feeling ‘out of the loop’ with no way of seeing how to break through.
There was also some confusion about what support infrastructure organisations could offer.
Bureaucracy and Jargon – Knowing how to utilize information effectively
When organisations did get access to information the language it was written and spoken in was often inaccessible due to the large amount of jargon. This left several organisations feeling in need of further support in order to best use the opportunities they are informed of.
Infrastructure organisations experience similar problems
Infrastructure organisations felt too that they received information too late and that they had to ‘chase’ information that was often inaccessible due to the large amounts of ‘jargon’ and ‘policy-speak’. Some felt that information flow within the organisation itself was an issue, with staff being part-time and focussed on different areas felt to be part of the cause.
What was said
“It’s a challenge finding out about things, it’s mostly word-of-mouth.”
“You have to approach services, organisations, networks etc. yourself…that takes a level of awareness and confidence…information and partnership opportunities need to be more accessible.”
“Often the information is not user-friendly and full of jargon.”
“We have limited understanding of the role of infrastructure organisation”
Recommendations
Information needs to be as accessible as possible from a range of outlets. Organisations need to be given clear guidelines on where information can be found. It needs to be clearly categorised so relevant information can be found quickly.
Organisations need to be given support to use this information effectively. They need a place or a person to go to and get thorough support and advice.
Relationship building between infrastructure, support agencies and grass-roots organisations. More opportunities for information exchange need to be created.
Possible ways forward
Consider seeking funding for outreach key-worker schemes; individuals to work with community organisations and give advice, and information at weekly/ monthly surgeries, outreach visits or by phone. (GUIWM’s Diversity and Outreach Report and Action Plan could possibly be used to support such a funding bid)
Promote sign-posting services as widely as possible. If possible send out a list of sign-posting agencies, to cover organisations working in the area, funding bodies, projects and initiatives, policy. Have this resource available for organisations that make phone/internet enquiries. (GUIWM is in the process of developing the GUIWM website www.growingupinthewestmidlands.info to act as a portal for information. They are also considering developing an online question and answer forum)
Commission young people from within organisations to set up publicity networks (MSN or online magazine), promoting opportunities for the projects they are involved in. Encourage those who already do this to present their work as a good practice case study. This could possibly link in with City Council’s Youth Participation Team projects.
Set up theme-lead consortiums, involving individuals from infrastructure and community organisations, i.e. a consortium for those who work with 0-5s, those who work with 20-25s etc.
Co-facilitate the setting up of a monthly Lunch Clubs (or breakfast if more appropriate) rotate venues between infrastructure and smaller organisations if possible where workers from different organisations can meet in an informal setting and share information.
Consider setting up a voluntary organisation (possibly funded) mentoring system, where individual’s within organisations with more experience, knowledge, and contacts in certain areas, are paired with less experienced individuals.
Perception and Prejudice
GUIWM Report for Local Infrastructure Organisations
Part One: Establishing a baseline
Quick Links:
- A sense of separation and alienation...
- Culturally and/or situation inappropriate responses and prejudice
- Inconsistent, tokenistic support
- Inaccessible meetings and events...
- What was said
- Recommendations
- Possible ways forward
A sense of separation and alienation from infrastructure organisations, networks and services both physically and in terms of understanding
Many organisations expressed a lack of trust and confidence in services, infrastructure organisations and networks.
Culturally and/or situation inappropriate responses and prejudice
Some LGBT and special needs groups had experienced prejudice when taking part in events. Several BME organisations especially those working with refugee communities felt there was a lack of understanding of the specific needs of their organisation and felt infrastructure and networks should actively try and retain a more diverse range of people to help create a more culturally appropriate human connection to community groups.
Inconsistent, tokenistic support
Several organisations felt that the support they did receive was inconsistent and tokenistic, that they were just passed round from one number to another.
Inaccessible meetings and events, that alienate both by form and by location
Some organisations felt the formal nature of network meetings are a barrier and inappropriate to their needs and this added to their sense of separation and inaccessibility. Meetings and services always being centrally based also increased some organisations sense of separation.
Several organisations felt that their position within the voluntary sector allowed them to be devalued and over-looked as an ‘add-on’.
What was said
“I feel there’s a gap in understanding between infrastructure organisations and policy makers and people working in ‘the reality of the situation’—it’s why networks are important but it also acts as a barrier”
“There is not enough feedback from local infrastructure, networks, the council into the local community especially in a personal accessible way—so the relationship seems forced—there need to be a more diverse group of ‘interpreters’ bridging the gaps.”
“Some staff in infrastructure organisations seem to lack an understanding of BME groups”
“Network meetings are too dry we want more opportunities for social networking”
Recommendations
Infrastructure organisations need to make a public effort to dispel the perceived gap in understanding between them and grass roots organisations. They need to set up ways of identifying grass roots organisations and their needs and responding appropriately.
There needs to be more direct, personal contact and more ‘on-the-ground’ outreach support
There need to be greater opportunities for organisations in similar fields to meet each other; meetings and events should be as accessible as possible.
Possible ways forward
Consider seeking funding to assign outreach key workers to focus on the needs of specific organisations or situations, and thus target services more appropriately. (GUIWM’s Diversity and Outreach Report and Action Plan could possibly be used to support such a funding bid)
Consider contracting of a diverse range of people, (from organisations or peer-workers) to act as an advisory body / or ensure that pre-existing advisory bodies or networks include a truly diverse range of people.
Continue to utilise thorough diversity (cultural, special needs) training and ensure all frontline staff have received and follow it.
Create the opportunity for community organisations to fully explain their particular needs and create an opportunity to fully explain what you as an infrastructure organisation can and cannot do. (The model for this Diversity and Outreach Research could be used as one possible way of achieving this)
Consider carrying out satellite surgeries.
Consider developing less formal network events.
Practicalities
GUIWM Report for Local Infrastructure Organisations
Practicalities
Quick Links:
- Information
- Recommendations
- Possible ways forward
Information
Organisations talked about practical barriers, including language barriers, not being able to attend meetings due to lack of child-care, transport costs to central, normally city-based meetings being prohibitive especially for rural groups and even difficulties just getting in the door where a button was fitted too high for a wheel-chair user to press. These practical barriers reinforce those of perception as organisations feel excluded and alienated from activity, services and other organisations as a result.
Recommendations
Meetings and events should be as inclusive as possible, where needed and possible facilities such as interpreters, childcare, should be provided or financial support given for organisations to provide their own.
Activities, events,