Inclusion through Innovation tackling social exclusion through new technologies

1. Inclusion through Innovationtackling social exclusion through new technologies Richard Turl Social Exclusion Unit

2. ICT Projectobjectives • Making ICT work harder for excluded people • Understanding better how excluded people view ICT and its potential • Bridging the “digital divide” • Enablingservice providers to put information about excluded people to much better use • Tackling the perceived cultural, ethical and legal barriers to ICT support

3. The background Breaking the Cycle showed that: • There has been significant progress in tackling social exclusion in a number of areas eg 700,000 fewer children in poverty -but there’s still work to be done • In particular policy has tended to help those “easiest to reach” and those most likely to be left behind are those with multiple disadvantages. • The most disadvantaged use services less than the rest of society and benefit from them least when they do use them SEU work programme aims to improve life chances for the most disadvantaged – particularly by improving service delivery

4. ICT Progress to date: • Learning from international good practice/NRU research/ IDeA research • Listening to Users • Wide ranging Consultation • Developing the Digital Strategy and Digital Challenge Competition

5. Overarching messages from our analysis of impact of ICT on social exclusion: • Inspirational • ICT enormously adept at delivering services to meet the particular needs of excluded groups • ICT is a enabler for improved social outcomes • ICT the key to joined up delivery of services • Sobering • Social exclusion not yet at the heart of eGovernment strategies • ICT is still not at the heart of social exclusion strategies – often an afterthought • Good innovation is underexploited: too much “innovation” and not enough “delivery”. • Significant cultural problems persist – both in: • ICT leadership - ICT not valued • Resistance to share information • Major failure to use information to join up and plan services – failure of nerve?

6. Promote information sharing without compromising the DP Act Address isolation/companionship Promote independence (assistive technologies) Support educational attainment and promote learning Promote social capital Address softer skills Increase confidence Re-engage/re-integrate Help to reduce fear of crime Support those with complex lives Personalise service delivery Motivate & incentivise uptake of services Reduce stigma/promote dignity Promote self efficacy Empower front line staff Efficiency savings Inspirational:ICTcan enable:

7. Driver of Exclusion Educational Attainment Each year, more than 5% of 15 year olds leave school with no qualifications. Not attending school significantly affects educational attainment. Over 50,000 pupils miss school without permission each day in England and 21% of secondary school pupils truant at some stage. Basic Skills ICT skills are becoming increasingly important in the job market. 90% of new jobs require ICT skills. Acquiring ICT skills can also be beneficial for improving other basic skills such as literacy and numeracy. Health Inequality Girls from unskilled social class backgrounds are more than ten times more likely to become a teenage parent than girls from professional social class backgrounds.Health problems caused by sexually transmitted infections have doubled between 1991 and 2001. Worklessness Worklessness is a major cause of poverty affecting 4.5 million people. 16% of households have no-one in work. In the worst 10% of streets in the UK, 30% of adults are out of work and on benefit. ICT Solutions Impington College, Cambridgeshire, uses ICT to electronically register pupil attendance by scanning pupils fingerprints and notifying the parents of absent pupils via text message or e-mail. The E Learning Foundation computer leasing scheme found that pupils with access to a home computer increased the number of GCSEs they attained by 1.2. ICT can help to deliver information and advice regarding sexual health through new access channels (e.g. Internet, mobile phones). “ Sex Texts” run by Tower Hamlets PCT, uses text messages to provide health information to young people. Better use of information – facilitated by ICT can help policy makers and practitioners tackle worklessness. JobCentre Plus use a Geographical Information System (GIS) tool to identify, monitor and target solutions at worklessness. Inspirational : Driving Social Outcomes - Young and working age adults with multiple/complex needs and ICT solutions

8. The Facts Homelessness causes unfair disadvantage, especially for children, and is a growing problem. Households in temporary accomodation have doubled since 1997 to over 95,000. Housing is closely linked to other policy domains such as health, employment and crime. 90% of homeless people living in hostels are unemployed. Homeless people are likely to experience a range of social problems (emotional poverty) in addition to the need for housing which if not addressed can put people at risk of repeat homelessness. These factors include a lack of social support networks (social capital), isolation and loneliness, low self esteem and a general sense of disconnection from society. 1- 4 homeless people are unable to sustain their tenancy due to loneliness and isolation Around 40% of single homeless people have multiple needs such as a mental health problem plus one or more other issues such as drug or alcohol misuse A recent survey reported that rough sleepers are up to 15 times more likely to be attacked than the general population [Crisis 2004] ICT Solutions Crisis Open Christmas - shows the potential of ICT to engage homeless people. The Crisis Open Christmas Internet Café saw over 100 users a day. ICT is also one of the most popular services on offer at Crisis Skylight where it is used by homeless people to keep in touch with friends, look for work and education opportunities, and access services. Hostels Online:An innovative password protected website for those working with homeless people in London and other funded areas. It provides agencies with up to date information about hostel vacancies for homeless people. NOTIFY:ICT is used to facilitate information sharing between London boroughs to improve service delivery to homeless families and individuals. A secure accessible database enables housing departments, social services, local education authorities and primary care trusts to share information. Inspirational : Case Study: Homelessness and ICT solutions “If you use email to send a job application off, or your CV, they don’t know you’re homeless. There’s no need to include your address” Claire Russell from the Big Issue Foundation points out that: "The interesting thing about the Internet is … It's actually very equalising for the people we work with. They don't need to have a home, can access it at any time, and it's anonymous. It has definitely enhanced the skills and knowledge base of homeless people” Homeless People, SEU Focus Groups The Guardian, 16 July 2001 'Using the Internet to help the homeless'

9. Focus Group Analysis – Headline Results NOP conducted 6 workshops each with 10 participants : asylum seekers, people with disabilities, people leaving institutions, homeless people , gypsies & travellers, young people with basic skills, excluded older people Access and use of ICTs • There was a low take-upof ICTs (computers) but very high take up of mobiles phones (every homeless person used a mobile) • In general ICTs were not used to access government services General Attitudes to technology • ICTs were viewed quite positively. They were seen as: • Providing new sources of entertainment • Allowing more immediate communication with others • Giving people greater independence and freedom • Providing a greater range of channels for accessing services • Usually, those with greater experience of using ICTs had a more positive view of them Barriers to digital inclusion • However, a number of drawbackswere perceived. These included: • High cost • Lack of convenient access • No discernible benefit • Lack of perceived need • Security of personal information • Need for training / support Information Sharing • There was little awareness of what information sharing involved • Information sharing was not a major concern • Most wanted to see greater continuity and efficiency in the way the state dealt with their personal information “I think computers are good for more of the youngsters today, because it’s the future isn’t it? Everything is computers at school. I mean, lots of jobs are being taken over by them.” People Leaving Institutions “You do want to get things done quickly. It’s horrible waiting round, especially when money’s involved. I don’t think people mind if social services share information about you, as long as things get done.” Socially Excluded Older People

10. Consultation: Sharing Information is essential Q It is sometimes said that the intelligent sharing of key personal information about shared clients is fundamental to improving the delivery of services to disadvantaged users. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? Don’t know Strongly disagree More than three quarters (79%) agree that information sharing is essential to improved service delivery Disagree Strongly agree Agree Base: All respondents (151), January-February 2005

11. Consultation: Key Benefits of Information Sharing • Facilitates greater efficiency (26%) • Improved communication between professionals (21%) • More tailored service to clients (17%)

12. Socially excluded groups are the main users and beneficiaries of public services – but are least likely to use them effectively – and many miss out. EG - In 2002/03, between 1.9m and 2.4m eligible people did not claim council tax benefit (GB). The main reason for poor uptake or poor delivery of services is the poor use or absence of information. Excluded groups are ignorant of, or have misconceptions about services, and have difficulty accessing information and communicating with providers. Service providers often have little local information about their client groups – the initiative to access services is often left to the excluded groups alone – who are often poorly equipped to do so. However, the public sector as a whole receives, uses and stores a vast amount of information. Better use/sharing of this information, enabled through ICT, offers the potential to improve the way services are planned, targeted, accessed, experienced and delivered. Good examples of data use/ exchange do exist, but are not widely replicated – barriers exist … Analysis - Information Led Service Delivery :

13. Weak strategic leadership, poor organisational capacity, and cultural barriers to the better use/exchange of information. At senior levels information is often undervalued - and there is a lack of appreciation what better use of information could do. Poor capacity (staff, infrastructure, etc..) to use information and limited use of new technologies. Poor practitioner networks and limited partnership working – silo cultures and hoarding of information. Lack of trust in other organisations. Resistance to change, poor senior ‘buy in’, risk adverse and lack of ‘can do’ attitudes. Misconceptions and uncertainty about the law about sharing personal data – with a tendency to take an over cautious approach. Among practitioners there is serious uncertainty and lack of confidence about what data can be shared. Current understanding of legislation (and existing guidance) makes doing nothing an easier option, where sharing is seen as risky and there is a fear of being sued. Legal concerns are often used as an excuse not to share. Existing legal guidance tends to be negative, lack clarity and can be contradictory. Practitioners continue to seek better legal guidance and support in setting up information sharing protocols. Sobering: Information led service delivery barriers:

14. There are enduring technical issues which prevent better information use and exchange. Inconsistent data definitions, methodologies of collection, spatial scales, geographical boundaries, data quality, accuracy, Perceptions of cost and risk. Cost of obtaining and maintaining appropriate ICT infrastructure, formatting data, staff resources, and managing information overload are perceived to be prohibitive. Risks of data misuse and poor appreciation of the benefits of better information use & exchange. Concerns over safeguarding privacy & the ethics of information sharing act as a further barrier. Strong desire of practitioners to protect the privacy of clients – fear of losing trust, and concerns over the capabilities of clients to make a complaint. Perceptions that some clients may refuse to give consent to sharing personal information. Excluded groups however, already provide much personal information to access services, tend to assume that information is being shared, and are more concerned that the desired outcomes of their dealings with the state are dealt with swiftly rather than their information was carefully protected. Sobering: Information led service delivery - Barriers

15. (1) Implementation no Innovation - Highlight good practice – SEU DI “Whatworks” Unit . Use of case studies and examples of good practice to promote and encourage the better use of information and demonstrate that ‘it’s okay to share’ and show what can be done. E.g.Wigan (2) Better strategic leadership – DCA to investigate. Investigate how to achieve ‘senior buy-in’ to better use/ exchange information to overcome organisational and cultural barriers. (3) Partnership working to facilitate data sharing - NRU. NRU (ODPM) to encourage wider participation in LSPs and promote a higher priority to information use/ exchange & inclusion in performance reviews. (4) Clearer and more specific tailored guidance for social exclusion themes/ groups – DCA. (5) Information sharing protocols (ISPs) – local e-Gov (ODPM). Market and embed ISPs in partnership working to combat legal concerns and give practitioners confidence to share. Investigate production of new specific ISPs for the social exclusion agenda (FAME2 ?). (6) Highlight the business case and sharp invest to save argument for better information use/sharing – SEU DI “Whatworks” Unit . (7) Privacy Impact Assessments – DCA to investigate. Investigate how to better safeguard privacy in context of promotion of wider use of personal data – giving confidence to practitioners. Information led service deliveryDraft Recommendations

16. eOpportunities • Digital Strategy: • Digital Challenge competition to test/set benchmarks/evaluate: • Prospectus – September 2005 • eGU Strategy to Transform Service Delivery (November) • Government Connect (ODPM) • SEU ICT Report (November) • DCA Cross Government Group • LAA’s / Focus on local delivery and empowerment