POSITION STATEMENT

Social Inclusion in Hampshire

1. Social Exclusion & Social Inclusion

Social exclusion is a problem experienced by some people within society. It has been defined as what happens when individuals or areas suffer from the negative effects of unemployment, poor skills, low income, poor housing, crime, bad health, family problems, limited access to services and rurality, e.g. remoteness, sparsity, isolation and high costs.

From the above definition it can be seen that social exclusion can be experienced by a diverse range of people, and that there are geographic as well as socioeconomic elements. Poverty is generally regarded as the strongest determinant of social exclusion.

Social inclusion is the term used to describe the process by which efforts are made to ensure that everyone, regardless of their background, experiences and circumstances, can gain access to the services and facilities they need to achieve their own potential in life.

2. The European Union (EU)

The problems of social exclusion have long been recognised within EU and a so called `poverty' programme was set up by the European Commission as early as the end of the 1970's. At that time some Member States expressed their opposition arguing that it was a matter for individual countries. That argument was consequently tested and endorsed by the European Court of Justice. However subsequent to the decision of the European Court, and due to the changes of political landscape that occurred in some Member States, the opinion gradually gained ground that the EU did in fact have a contribution to make in fighting social exclusion.

The contribution and role of the EU in relation to poverty and social exclusion was agreed in a series of high level conferences. Most notably in Lisbon (March 2000), which agreed the global aim of eradicating poverty within the Member States by the year 2010, and in Nice (December 2000), where common objectives on poverty and social exclusion were agreed by all Member States.

The setting of common objectives and the decision to co-ordinate actions in the fight against poverty and social exclusion led to a complex political debate on the definitions of poverty and social exclusion, as well as the most relevant objectives to follow. The divergences were in large measure due to different traditions in the societies and cultures of the Member States.

Because of the divergences it was agreed that each individual government should determine its own priorities within the common set of objectives (known as the Open Method of Co-ordination), but with a requirement to produce their own action plans to combat social exclusion by June 2001.

Member Sates of the EU have now accepted a definition of poverty which can be considered as common since it emanates from the EU, i.e. "by poor we mean families or groups of people for whom resources (material, cultural and social) are so limited that they are excluded from the minimal standards of living recognised as acceptable in the member states where they live".

The above definition has been made operational by Eurostat (the statistics office of the European Commission) for use in a European context by relating it to the notion of income as a reference threshold. The notion is that a household is considered poor when its income places it beneath a certain level, known as the poverty line, which stands at 60% of the median income. This definition links in concrete terms the identification of poverty with low income. Poverty is therefore defined on the basis of income distribution, which has the apparent advantage of simplicity of use and comparison. The main problem with this is that while a poverty rate can be established quantitively it is thought impossible to be so precise about the rate of exclusion.

3. The United Kingdom (UK)

In 1998 the UK Prime Minister had set up a Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) under the auspices of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM). The aim of the unit was to improve Government action in the field of social exclusion by producing, `joined up solutions to joined up problems'. It was this unit which was charged with the production of the United Kingdom National Action Plan (UKNAP).

In response to the agreed common objectives the U.K. Government determined its priorities and produced its first action plan as required by June 2001. This was then subsequently reviewed to produce the current plan which covers the period 2003 - 2005.

The Plan of each of the Member State is `examined' by the Commission. The first UKNAP was generally well received, in particular for its, "clear expression of the Government commitment to tackling poverty and social exclusion, and for its strong analytical focus". The current UKNAP builds upon the original and identifies main groups of people at risk of social inclusion, i.e. children, large families, people from ethnic minorities, disabled people and older people. It also identifies key risks and other priorities, i.e. living in a jobless household, inter-generational transmission of poverty, living with persistent low income, living in a deprived community.

In a keynote speech on 5 March 2003 Barbara Roche, Minister for Social Exclusion and Equality in the ODPM identified four strands to the Governments overall approach to social exclusion and poverty. These were to:

- ensure decent family incomes

- ensure high quality public services for everyone

- prevent social exclusion happening in the first place

- reintegrate those who become excluded back into society

Two specific projects were also identified, the first to help people in the most deprived areas in England to move into jobs, and the second to address social exclusion among adults with mental health problems.

4. Hampshire

In an area such as Hampshire, while there are recognised pockets of deprivation the County is generally affluent (Hampshire is ranked as the eleventh least deprived counties or unitary authorities in the country out of a total of 149) and as a consequence it has been argued, by some, that we have little experience of social exclusion. However, within Hampshire there is a wide disparity in levels of deprivation (as evidenced by the Indices of Deprivation 2004 (ID2004), from a rank average score of 354 in Hart, to a rank average score of 122 in Havant). Havant is therefore the county's most deprived district followed by Gosport and New Forest. Hart is the least deprived followed by Winchester.

The levels of disparity evidenced in ID2004 are also reflected within the districts and as a consequence it can be argued that in addition to the recognised pockets of deprivation there are many examples of relative deprivation, i.e. areas where people below, at, or close to, the poverty line live in close proximity to those with very large incomes. This experience of `relative deprivation' can lead to feelings of social exclusion as people in that position are faced in their day to day life with the evidence of the differentials and there is a lack of identity with a wider reference group.

Also, due to the nature of the county, we find evidence of many of the problems which can be experienced in rural areas, i.e. those associated with remoteness and sparsity such as poor access to services. It is also a fact that, because of the criteria used for the allocation process, areas of general affluence do not attract funding streams aimed at addressing issues of social exclusion, e.g. structural or urban regeneration funds. In that sense people within the County who already feel excluded may feel themselves doubly disadvantaged.

5. Local Strategic Partnerships & Community Plans

The UKNAP suggests that, "The multidimensional nature of social exclusion requires a broadly based response" and stresses the importance of building a dialogue with NGO's, local government and others. It goes on to identify the duty placed upon local government to produce community strategies, and the power to promote the social economic and environmental well-being of their communities as crucial to the promotion of social inclusion, i.e. local strategic partnerships (LSPs) and community strategies are seen as an important means of delivering to the NAP.

The pivotal role to be played by LSPs and community strategies in combating social exclusion has been recognised in Hampshire and is an important element in the various plans. In the partnership working it has been widely acknowledged that social inclusion is a cross cutting issue and should therefore be addressed in every element of consideration and at every level of planning. However, it has also been acknowledged that specific initiatives are required. The Hampshire Strategic Partnership (HSP) for example has identified six main priorities and these include three aimed directly at promoting social inclusion, i.e.

- Priority 1. Tackling Deprivation

- Priority 3. Improving Accessibility

- Priority 4. Reducing Inequalities

Each of the LSPs has also addressed issues of social exclusion and these are being worked upon in a variety of ways appropriate to the particular area. Most have established sub-groups on the subject, or which encapsulate the subject, and in all of the plans to date (both draft and published) there are clear statements and strategies to tackle identified concerns in the areas of poverty, exclusion, access and isolation.

6. The County Council

Social inclusion is regarded as an important cross-cutting issue by Members and Officers alike within the wider County Council as well as within the HSP. This commitment is evidenced both corporately and across individual departments in a variety of ways. The framework is importantly provided by the Corporate Strategy, "Developing Quality of Life for Everyone". This is a statement of the County Councils aims and how it intends to achieve them. The six key aims are:

- Maximising life opportunities

- Stewardship of the environment

- Achieving economic prosperity

- Building strong and safe communities

- Improving services

- Developing councillors and staff

Although the strategy is inevitably `broad brush' social inclusion is a theme which demonstrably underpins it. Key statements within each aim evidence the corporate commitment.

Another key initiative is that on Sustainable Development, one of the aims of which is to, "Create a more inclusive society where everyone shares the benefits of increased economic prosperity." The policy, amongst other things, sets a number of new corporate targets aimed at improving performance on sustainable development.

Statistical analysis helps enable effective planning and the targeting of resources. For instance the Indices of Deprivation published by the ODPM is analysed on a county basis, enabling the identification of the least and most deprived areas (see Section 4). This enables the complex pattern of deprivation found at local authority district level and county level to be used to identify `hot spots' of deprivation and to plan accordingly. The fact that the national mapping is carried out every four years also enables changes to be identified between the dates of the mapping (the most recent is this current year, ID2004).

An important element in addressing issues of social inclusion is the commitment to regular research amongst the population. The main surveys are commissioned by the County Council but to ensure objectivity are carried out by an independent body (currently MORI) on a three year cycle, but in recognition of special need other more focussed surveys have been commissioned amongst older people, young people, those suffering deprivation, and people from ethnic minority groups. The findings inform the development of corporate and departmental policies, strategies and plans. Critically the findings also inform partnership working with other local authorities and organisations.

The County Council has also worked vigorously in its various departments to ensure user, and where appropriate carer, involvement in the planning and delivery of services. Across the organisation there are many examples of initiatives in this area stemming from both professional and organisational cultures. Examples such as: the inclusion of people with a Learning Disability, and those with a Mental Health problem as members of the respective Partnership Boards; a Care Action Team for young people involved in the care system; active Youth Council and School Councils, the Hampshire Trailblazers Scheme for children.

Hampshire also employs a Corporate Equalities Advisor and a Race Policy Advisor. The latter is an officer within the Social Services Department but both play an important role in relation to social inclusion by advising and supporting departmentally and corporately, and in partnership working.

Also to enhance its learning, and to offer examples of its practice up to scrutiny, the County Council has become a member of RETIS (the European Transregional Network for Social Inclusion) which is a network aimed at learning from, and disseminating, best practice in the field of social inclusion on a pan European Union basis. The Executive Member for Community Development is a Vice President of the network and a part-time officer has been appointed to support the work.

7. Conclusion

Although issues of exclusion and inclusion are not as great in Hampshire as they are in some parts of the country they are of concern to the Members and Officers of the County Council and partner organisations. It can be argued that where those at risk of exclusion are fewer in number it is even more important to ensure that their voices are heard in order that they are not lost amid the often more vocal majority.

In a county as large and as diverse as Hampshire major cross cutting issues such as social inclusion can only be addressed by a partnership approach and cannot be regarded as the responsibility of a single authority. The partnerships, both inter and intra organisational, must also include partnerships with those who are at risk of exclusion.

Using the frameworks provided by the Corporate Strategy, the Hampshire Strategic Partnership, and the Local Strategic Partnerships various initiatives are already under way and it is likely that these will increase as the partnerships become more robust, and as action plans are implemented. The introduction of Area Committee's, albeit on a pilot basis, may also provide yet another opportunity for joined up thinking and joined up working.

Mike Gardiner

Social Inclusion Co-ordinator

October 2005