A conduit for social inclusion Linda Phipps St William's Foundation ...

N E W C O M M U N I C A T I O N S T E C H N O L O G I E S

A conduit for social inclusion

Linda Phipps

St William’s Foundation, York

A b s t r a c tThere has an outpouring of energy and creativity into ways of using informationand communications technologies (ICT) and the information society (IS) to createinclusion, as an opportunity to tackle, reduce and even prevent social exclusion.This article is based on examining over 40 projects which constitute positiveexamples of applications of new technologies, by public authorities, privateagencies and community groups, to reduce the disadvantage experienced by themore excluded groups in our society.

K e y w o r d s

social exclusion, information and communications technologies(ICT), the information society (IS)

I N T R O D U C T I O N

This article is based on examining over 40 projects which constitute positiveexamples of applications of new technologies, by public authorities, privateagencies and community groups, to reduce the disadvantage experienced by themore excluded groups in our society. The paper endeavours to:

� Set out some issues for this debate, to set it in a broad policy context; � Examine a range of positive initiatives which have used new information and

communications technologies (ICTs) to mitigate disadvantage and createopportunity; and

� Consider the extent to which strategies – for learning, training, communitysupport, partnership, etc. – can anticipate and reduce the risk that the‘information society’ may exacerbate disadvantage, so that the potentialbene� ts of the information society are maximized and shared.

The article concludes that social exclusion is a complex and multi-facetedcondition, and must be recognized as a long-standing social problem which existedand exists irrespective of the development of ICTs and the IS. Electronic

Information, Communication & SocietyISSN 1369-118X print/ISSN 1468-4462 online © 2000 Taylor & Francis Ltd

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals

Information, Communication & Society 3:1 2000 39–68

communications are not inherently a cause of social exclusion but lack of access to the means of communication, increasingly used by the rest of society,has the potential to worsen the relative position of excluded individuals andgroups. As new ways of learning, working and engaging with others develop,those whom we do not enable to have access will be additionally excluded. Theincreasing trend toward use of electronic communications may exacerbate socialexclusion, but in many ways offers opportunities for social inclusion, especiallyfor less mobile groups and for social discussion, exchanging information, foreducation and training. But this is not an inevitable outcome. Choices around howand where access to ICT is provided, why and for whom, and designed by whom,will govern the extent to which, and the speed with which, ICTs can enableinclusion and social participation. Our society can consciously choose to give thisconduit an inclusive role.

I S S U E S

There are many enthusiasts for opportunities to use ICTs to mitigate disadvantageand create opportunity – to combat social exclusion and promote social inclusion.There are many positive examples of applications of ICTs by public authoritiesand community groups to tackle/reduce/prevent exclusion and disadvantage.Much effort has been expended by the European Commission (EC) and by ourgovernment in using exhortation and funding mechanisms to encourage pilotingof applications of ICTs, as well as innovative approaches.

Many, however, see risks in their role in the IS – the possibility of exacerbatingexclusion (Devins and Hughes 1995: 3, 11). There are also concerns abouttechnological determinism. Concerns have also been raised about social andcultural in� uences on the use of technology. Attention should be paid to socio-cultural factors, ‘since it has been suggested that factors such as age, gender,ethnicity and working status can lead to divides between those included in andthose excluded from any future Information Society’ (CoMPRIS 1998: 40).

Commentators are divided over whether the impact of ICTs, in public servicedelivery, public policy and democratic processes, is a transformational role(Margetts 1996: 70, 82; 1999: 5, 162, 186; Barber 1997: 212, 220; Becker andSlater 1999: 1, 2). Many are concerned that the proliferation of means ofcommunication and the growth of electronic communications are creatinginformation overload. Many are talking but few are listening! To a large extent,the transformational model is an aspirational one, portraying ICTs as the solutionto many of society’s problems or as the cause, or a potential cause. There has beena growing concern about ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’, with frequent references to the

L I N D A P H I P P S

4 0

concepts of ‘information rich’ and ‘information poor’ – the knowledgerich/poor.

Are these the real issues? While future scenarios, such as a ‘virtual economy’(based on electronic networks) and a ‘knowledge economy’ (based on informationflows) are postulated, links between patterns of ICT adoption, economicperformance and social cohesion are unproven and subject to debate (CoMPRIS1998: 47). However, a risk is acknowledged that ICT developments may reinforcepolarization and create additional divisions through people and communities who are ‘information rich’ or ‘information poor’, whereby ‘the failure to getplugged-in leads to a downward spiral of . . . economic activity with associatedsocial fall-outs’ (CoMPRIS 1998: 46). ICTs can be seen as neutral in themselves,as an enabler. Positive and beneficial applications, enhancing democracy andaccountability, are an active choice and responsibility for our society.

In this context of divergent views, some key issues are:

� How are we de� ning social exclusion? Of excluded individuals or communitiesor groups?

� How does the information society exacerbate the position of already excludedand disadvantaged groups?

� Does the information society create new forms of exclusion?� How can the ‘information society’ provide opportunities to create inclusion?

Should inclusion rather than reducing exclusion be the focus of our thinking?� How can ICTs be applied to achieve inclusion?

The IS may be de� ned as our modern communities in which we communicate andexchange information electronically using a variety of equipment in variousapplications, including use of the telephone, mobile phones, faxes, computers,the internet, World Wide Web, e-mail, e-commerce, CD ROMs, multi-media,video-conferencing, touchscreen information kiosks, smart cards, digital/cableTV with set-top boxes and the information superhighway. The IS applies ICTs tonew ways of communicating, learning and working, such as ‘distance learning’,‘teleworking’, and ‘knowledge networking’. To consider the potential impact ofICTs, a de� nition of social exclusion must � rst be established.

D E F I N I T I O N S

What is social exclusion?

There is still uncertainty about what social exclusion is, and how it should be addressed.Although it was used in France in the 1980s, the concept really came into vogue across Europe

N E W C O M M U N I C A T I O N T E C H N O L O G I E S

4 1

during the 1990s . . . Exclusion has been expanded to become a wider concept than poverty.Poverty is usually de�ned mainly in terms of low income and material want; social exclusion. . . emphasizes the ways that people are locked out of the social, economic and politicalmainstream.

(Parkinson 1998: 1)

Traditionally, in the UK, the agreed measure of ‘social deprivation’ has been the ‘index of local conditions’, developed by the old Department of the Environment and based on family breakdown, poverty, joblessness, andeducational under-achievement. A relatively high level of poverty in Britain,compared with other developed Western countries, has been reported, with 15 per cent of the UK’s population living in poverty (United Nations 1998). Thiswas based on four measures:

� Deprivation in income;� Life expectancy;� Deprivation in knowledge; and� Social exclusion.

With specific categories including numbers of long-term unemployed,educational attainment and levels of literacy. This links social exclusion directlywith related issues around knowledge and income.

It is important to make two conceptual distinctions, firstly between poverty and social exclusion, and secondly between process and outcome(Chapman et al. 1998: 2; Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) 1998). Whilst the research for the report relates to rural areas, its diagnosis is relevant for all areas of Britain. Our conceptual framework for social exclusion has been developing over the last two decades (Townsend 1979). The EU’s Poverty1 and 2 Programmes and the Council of Ministers in 1984 de� ned ‘the poor’ aspersons, families and groups of persons whose resources (material, cultural andsocial) are so limited as to exclude them from the minimum acceptable way of lifein the member states in which they live. In contrast, the subsequent Poverty 3 programme was concerned with the integration of the least privileged and by the time the programme was launched, the focus had shifted to ‘socialexclusion’.

The shift in the distinction between poverty and social exclusion has a numberof key elements (Chapman et al. 1998: 3; Room 1999: 167):

� The shift in focus from income or expenditure to multi-dimensionaldisadvantage;


4 2

� The shift from a static account of the state of disadvantage, to a dynamic analysisof processes; and

� The shift from focus on the individual or household, to recognizing the localcontext.

The new focus is therefore on multi-dimensional, dynamic processes of socialexclusion, within the context of local communities.

One’s sense of belonging to society – of social inclusion – depends on foursystems (Chapman et al. 1998: 3; Commins 1993):

� Civic integration means being an empowered citizen in a democratic system;� Economic integration means having a job and a valued economic function;� Social integration means having access to the state’ support, without stigma; and� Interpersonal integration means having family, friends, neighbours and social

networks.

These system failures, failures of the housing market, failures of the labourmarket, as well as global and national changes, can be seen to create the pathwaysto social exclusion.

Hence the conceptual distinction is this:

Poverty is an outcome, denoting an inability to share in the everyday lifestyles of the majoritybecause of a lack of resources (often taken to be disposable income). Social exclusion is a multi-dimensional, dynamic concept which refers to a breakdown or malfunctioning of the majorsocietal systems that should guarantee the social integration of the individual or household. Itimplies a focus not only on ‘victims’ but also on the system failures and processes which createadvantage and disadvantage.

(Chapman et al. 1998: 3)

The concept of social exclusion places these issues � rmly in the context of socialand political systems. This is because the concepts of poverty and social exclusionare different. While the notion of poverty is primarily focused upon distributionalissues (the lack of resources at the disposal of an individual or household), thenotion of social exclusion focuses primarily on relational issues (inadequate socialparticipation, lack of social integration, powerlessness) (Room 1995a: 3; 1999:169). Whilst these issues and differences are highly important for approaches toresearch, they also point to models for developing solutions and criteria forevaluation. ‘Social exclusion can be analysed in terms of the denial or non-realization of . . . social rights’ (Room 1995b: chapter 1) and this can inform thede� nition of indicators for monitoring the effectiveness of policies for combating


4 3

social exclusion. It is also postulated that a catastrophic discontinuity may beexperienced by the socially excluded – ‘of such duration, and reinforced by suchmaterial and cultural degradation of the neighbourhoods in which they live, thattheir relational links with the wider society are ruptured to a degree which is tosome considerable degree irreversible’ – as distinct from the more generalconcept of social exclusion as disadvantage (Room 1999: 171).

In the UK, social exclusion has been set � rmly at the heart of national policydevelopment, with a strategic focus on tackling this complex, ‘cross-cutting’issue. A Social exclusion unit (SEU) was established at the centre of governmentand its role will be considered in the national policy context below. In the contextof bearing in mind the conceptual shift and framework described above, how doesthe SEU de� ne social exclusion? ‘What can happen when individuals or areassuffer from a combination of linked problems such as unemployment, poor skills,low incomes, poor housing, high crime environments, bad health and familybreakdown’ (SEU 1998b: ‘so you’d like to know more’ web page). This de� nitionre�ects some helpful perceptions. It can happen to people and areas; they are notnecessarily ‘to blame’. ‘Social exclusion is about income but it is about more. It is about prospects and networks and life-chances. It’s . . . more corrosive forsociety as a whole, more likely to be passed down from generation to generation,than material poverty’ (Blair 1997: 1).

These de� nitions of social exclusion logically raise the question of, who are thesocially excluded? Both for individuals and groups, the definitions link to lifesituation and opportunities, and opportunities for inclusion. Hence the sociallyexcluded may be those individuals and communities who are relatively isolatedand under-resourced, lacking the capacity, capability and chance to participate;they may be in rural or inner-city areas; and they may involve individuals morelikely to be drawn from those who are young, old, disabled, those with learningdifficulties, unemployed, or from ethnic minorities. Some examples may bedrawn from the SEU’s � rst phase priorities, which included truants and thoseexcluded from school, rough sleepers, ethnic minorities, young people, teenageparents, and those living on the ‘worst estates’ (SEU 1998a: 11 (5.5); SEU 1998b:‘So you’d like to know more’ web page). Much current work is progressing tode� ne further the ‘socially excluded’, particularly research by the SEU. Hencethis issue is not further addressed in this article.


4 4

M O D E L S O F T H E I M P A C T O F I C T S O N M O R E

E X C L U D E D G R O U P S – A N D B E L I E F S

Turning now to the information society (IS), how is the IS seen as an importantdimension of social exclusion? People living in poor neighbourhoods are much lesslikely to have access to information and communications technologies. In somehousing estates, well under 50 per cent of households have a telephone, comparedto a national average of over 90 per cent. Ownership of, and access to, personalcomputers is also much lower than the national average (SEU 1998a: 1.27, 5.39).

Lack of access to information may lead to cumulative disadvantage (SEU 1998a:5.41). For children, not having access to computers at home or in the communitymay make it hard to keep up at school. For adults, computer literacy can beimportant in re-entering the labour market. Competence and con� dence in usinginformation technologies is seen as likely to become increasingly crucial to bothindividuals and areas. It will link them into many services, including education,and foster skills necessary for work. For the community as a whole, better accessto communications networks can improve the quality of services and make iteasier to access opportunities in other areas. There is also the potential for ICTto enhance community connectedness. ‘Social inclusion rather than exclusionbecomes more likely although is not guaranteed by computer usage’ (Gibson1998: 7).

An inclusive vision for our society may comprise a society for all citizens basedon equality, opportunity, independence, self-determination, social integration,opportunity to participate fully in and contribute to social and economic life,realization of personal potential, and an optimal quality of life (Ballabio 1998: 2).While the ‘design for all’ concept could be a central feature of the design anddevelopment of services and products for inclusivity, there are barriers to applyingICTs in support of this vision (Ballabio 1998: 5):

� Availability;� Accessibility;� Affordability;� Awareness; and� Appropriateness.

The IS promises much (Margetts 1996: 70, 71, 1999: 1,48). But its promise ofnew levels of empowerment will not come about without strategies forcommunity involvement and basic capacity-building among community groups(INSINC 1997: 5). Information and access to technology enable participation insociety, in the decision-making processes which affect people’s daily lives, through


4 5

contact with authorities and through online consultation procedures: communitynetworks can play a major role as intermediaries and enablers in this process.

The role and influence of technology is not a magic solution to multipledisadvantage such as poverty, unemployment and poor housing. However,‘technology can engender interaction and participation, and this has enormouspotential for enhancing networking and communication at a local level’ (INSINC1997: 2). For ordinary citizens, ‘Computer technology can help to reduceisolation; enable more informed contributions to local management and politics;and stimulate the sharing of knowledge and experience’ (INSINC 1997: 1).

In responding to the growth of the IS, much of the concern of public authoritiesin policy-making and action has been around creating access to electronic servicesand on-line information. However, it appears that to a large degree, these policiesand actions have been driven by beliefs, concerns and assumptions. They havenot been based on a model of accountability to the more disadvantaged and sociallyexcluded groups which might be based on approaches to consultation aroundneeds, wants and preferences, and on active participation by these groups in thedesign, development and operation of these services.

What beliefs, concerns and assumptions underlie the policies and programmesdeveloped by public sector and voluntary bodies (Talbot and Newman 1998:10–11)? Many of these are based on a belief in equality of access (Day and Harris1997: 7) – in equalization of opportunity for access to support the moredisadvantaged people in society and a belief in the potential of new ICTs to solvethese problems – albeit that they have social and societal as well as technicaldimensions. In many cases, the commitment to a technical solution is linked tothe assumption that the public sector should control the delivery of the technicalsolutions. This is either because alternative approaches such as partnership ordelivery through a community agent have not been considered or favoured, orbecause of concerns that the market-driven private sector will operate to thedisbenefit of the more excluded members and groups in our society. Somecommentators have proposed distinct roles for the different tiers of government.With a central government emphasis more on infrastructure and regulation, therole of local authorities and local public agencies would focus on influencing the design and development of the information superhighway to meet the needsof their communities, and alleviating inequalities (Devins and Hughes 1995: 11, 14). This would mean support for those marginalized by developments inthe market. Appropriate policy interventions would include developingpartnerships to share and promote information, such as bulletin boards anddatabases. More recently, the government has proposed that local authoritiesshould attempt to harness the potential of new and interactive technologies, while


4 6

avoiding disadvantaging those who have no access to, or dif�culty using, suchfacilities (DETR 1998: 4.26).

In summary, much of the effort in action and initiatives by public and voluntarysector bodies, explicitly or implicitly, targeting ICTs on bene�ting those who are relatively disadvantaged, has centred on access and hardware. Is this effectiveenough, for ICTs to have a real and signi�cant impact on the lives and oppor-tunities of disadvantaged groups? There is a wide range of interesting initiativestaking place, or being developed. Some incorporate additional factors, such ascommunity- and participatory-based approaches; developing capacity to use ICTsand the motivational aspect of the content of information and communications.Are they able to deliver effective outcomes against the criteria outlined in thedefinitions above? In particular, an improvement in relational rather thandistributional measures? Are these projects evaluating and sharing good practice?Are they replicable? Are they part of a larger picture or strategy? Social exclusionis recognized as a cross-cutting issue. So how does the policy context, for debateand for action, interlock at European, regional and local, as well as national,levels?

A E U R O P E - W I D E P E R S P E C T I V E

Social exclusion is very much a Europe-wide concept and issue. It has been notedpreviously here that social exclusion is a complex and multi-faceted issue, whichis related to the social and cultural influences on the use and adoption oftechnology (CoMPRIS 1998). A changing focus of concern can be perceived at aEuropean, as well as national, level.

The European Commission (EC) has for some time been promoting policies and initiatives to develop a European IS. Reports from the early to mid-1990s viewed the IS as a powerful engine of employment growth and for the development of regions (European Commission 1993, 1994a, b). But theypointed out that ICT usage may not automatically lead to enhanced cohesion, butcould lead to greater centralization of jobs and services, and to a ‘fast’ and ‘slow’track IS, both in terms of marginalized individuals and peripheral, less-favouredregions (European Commission HLGE 1995,1996).

The reports posed the questions (CoMPRIS 1998:11):

� What are the regional and urban consequences of disparities in infrastructureprovision and service levels? What can be done to assist less well-equippedregions and areas?

� How do different levels of provision affect social cohesion at both regional and


4 7

urban levels? What can be done to increase the accessibility of these newessential services; to secure access to a reasonable service level at a reasonableprice for different service groups?

� How can regions and towns be helped to optimize their use of the newpossibilities of ICT services?

� How can ICTs be used to improve the quality of life in the towns and regionsof Europe, by allowing innovation in urban government and greateraccessibility of services?

� How can social policy receive at least equal consideration with economic policyin formulating a European approach to the IS?

These are the core issues for the IS and social exclusion, and to them should beadded, how can ICTs empower communities? An integrated, strategic approachwould not happen automatically (European Commission 1996). Emphasis wasplaced on:

� Socio-economic as opposed to technological processes: � learning;� cultural change; � institutional reorganization;� use of ICTs to respond to user needs and develop applications;

� Transfer of experiences and best practice;� Public/private partnerships and regional partnerships;� Movement from a technical, technology-centred perspective to an

applications- and users- oriented perspective, to support demand and theneeds of users;

� Pilot applications and supporting local initiatives and innovations;� Integration of policy initiatives on the IS (and better use of regional, national

and European resources, including Structural Funds); and� Particularly, active policies and strategy development at various levels, both

to attract infrastructure investments, and to stimulate demand for newinformation services. This is a crucial point which is developed in more detailin the next section.

Regi ona l s t ra teg ies

These emphases spawned initiatives such as the EC’s RISI – Regional InformationSociety Initiative – with 22 programmes, of which three are in the UK (Yorkshireand Humber, North Wales and the North of England). The task of each RISI


4 8

project was to develop a regional partnership and a regional IS strategy for thechallenges and opportunities of the IS. The methodology of the Yorkshire andHumberside RISI – CoMPRIS – has been to create benchmarks, and to set up localsupport centres on ICT for businesses; it is also developing demonstration projectsand working groups, for example, on distance learning.

Much of the emphasis of current and established ICT policies is on infra-structure provision (the ‘Information Highway’) and to encourage employmentgrowth, education and skills supply, and business innovation. A SWOT analysisof the Yorkshire and Humber region’s characteristics, in relation to the IS lookedat people issues, as well as demand, supply and the institutional context(CoMPRIS 1998: 48). It identified the main drivers for change in deliveringbene� ts from ICTs as:

� Demand factors include access to ICTs, user skills and the regional presence of‘information rich sectors’;

� Cultural factors include public use of ICTs and community and social networks.� Supply factors include providers and suppliers; and� The role of government and public agencies includes regulation, facilitation and

stimulation.

These change factors impact not only on economic but also on social outcomes.Key ‘people’ issues were seen as:

� Awareness of risks as well as opportunities;� Engagement and involvement of ordinary people in designing useful

applications;� Capacity building: skilling people to access opportunities such as lifelong

learning;� Learning communities – ICT as a facilitator of community development;� Inclusivity of social groups, ‘especially socially excluded and disadvantaged

groups who are marginalized from access to ICT for on-line services’; and� ‘An early start: universal access to basic, on-line services such as public

information, education, and health services could be stimulated now’.

In exploring the nature and role that a regional strategy for the IS would play –recognizing that, ‘to date, many individuals and groups known to be at a particulardisadvantage have not been explicitly addressed, such as women, the elderly, ruralareas and people with disabilities’ – some fundamental questions were raised,starting with, who should be the bene�ciaries of the implementation of a regional


4 9

strategy? ‘How can we address the issue of social inclusion through all aspects ofthe RISI – what action is necessary to ensure that people, business and groups arenot excluded from influencing society by developments in technology?’(CoMPRIS 1998: 55, 57).

The dilemma is this: should a strategy aim to address economic or socialobjectives? Whilst noting that achieving economic progress is increasingly seenas dependent on tackling social exclusion, and vice versa, there is a choice. Theemphasis can either be on business support to achieve a market-based IS, or onresidual parts of the economy which under-perform and those groups in societyperceived as the ‘information poor’. The strategic issue concerns objectives: arethe intended beneficiaries being targeted because this will achieve economicimpacts (investment, profitability, competitiveness), or to address socialproblems? As an example, is teleworking to be promoted to facilitate � exibilityin the labour market, or to support social cohesion and opportunities to reduceisolation in rural communities? (CoMPRIS 1998: 56)

At a national level in the UK, the government is creating RegionalDevelopment Agencies (RDAs) to promote sustainable economic developmentand social and physical regeneration, and to co-ordinate the work of regional andlocal partners in areas such as training investment, regeneration and businesssupport. RISIs like CoMPRIS will feed into the strategies being developed by theRegional Assembly and the incipient RDA.

T H E N A T I O N A L P O L I C Y C O N T E X T

The UK’s central government has created a strong focus on disadvantage, and thiscan be seen to build on growing concerns about social justice and equity, the costs of welfare state support, and the resource inefficiency of under-using the potential of excluded groups. ‘If our future lies in employing the potential of our people, then we cannot tolerate a society which in effect writes off 30 per cent of its potential workforce, through poor education or social exclusion’(Blair 1998).

There are cross-cutting issues around costs to the state and society, and bene� tsto the state and society. Traditional approaches by government have tended tofocus more on economic performance, skills for employability, and jobs, than onsocial and community development. The established focus of regional policy hasbeen to stimulate job creation. Under previous governments, regenerationprogrammes aimed at the more deprived areas have evolved from the UrbanProgramme (1969), through the Urban Development Corporations, Task Forcesand Community Development Programmes of the 1980s, to competitive bidding


5 0

for the City Challenge Funds and subsequently the Single Regeneration Budgets(SRBs).

An early initiative by the UK’s Labour government was to set up a SocialExclusion Unit (SEU 1998b: ‘so you’d like to know more/what’s the unit for’page). The aims of the unit are:

� To improve understanding of what social exclusion is and the impact ofgovernment policies on it; and

� To promote solutions by establishing indicators of social exclusion,encouraging co-operation, disseminating best practice, and seeking changes inpolicies and delivery mechanisms.

The government saw the key as being linkages: linked problems and ‘joined-up’working, ‘Joined up problems demand joined up solutions’ (Blair 1997: 2). Thegovernment had an array of policies targeted at reducing individual aspects of social exclusion but it was less effective at tackling the interaction of these problems; or at preventing them from arising in the � rst place (Mandelson1997: 3).

A priority for the SEU was to look at developing innovative, integrated andsustainable strategies for the ‘worst housing estates’ – deprived neighbourhoodswith multifaceted problems. It has posed the questions:

� How can outcomes be measured? � What are the key ingredients of success? � What are the barriers?

Its key report on the state of ‘two nation’ Britain described widening inequalityin incomes, and the crumbling of forgotten ghettos of deprivation (SEU 1998a).In response to this divide between the ‘worst estates’ and the rest of the country,and the report’s call for a national strategy for tackling poor areas, the focus of funding from the £1.3 billion SRB programme has been reshaped. To an extent, tackling social exclusion is about where public sector money is spent. Yet interestingly, the first attempt to track the flow of where the money is spent, against geographical area and deprivation, is very recent (Bramley 1998).Concurrently with this strategy, in September 1998, the government launched athree year £800 million ‘New deal for communities’, to fund intensive regen-eration of small neighbourhoods. ‘Path� nder’ (pilot) districts under the ‘Newcommitment to regeneration’ will act as long-term models of demonstrableimprovement, testing models of integrated service delivery. The aim is to bring


5 1

together people, communities and voluntary organizations, public agencies, localauthorities and businesses, in an intensive focus on solving problems.

The SEU has set up eighteen special Action Teams (PATs) to tackle problemsunder such themes as:

� Getting people into work: maximizing the potential of the ‘New deal for theunemployed (welfare to work), and including action team 2;

� Tackling the place: dealing with housing, crime, anti-social neighbours;� Building a future for young people: the ‘Sure start’ programme for 0–3 year

olds, motivating children at school;� Improved access to services including shopping via IT, and including action

team 15;� Making government work better: strategic integration, sharing best practice

and developing integration beyond the neighbourhood; and� ‘investigating innovative approaches’.

Two teams are of special interest in developing opportunities for ITs to combatsocial exclusion: action team 15 on IT and action team 2 on skills (SEU 1998a:62). Action team 2 on skills, led by the Department for Education andEmployment (DfEE), is looking at:

� Key skills gaps for those in poor neighbourhoods;� How well education and training institutions, schools and libraries are meeting

these needs;� How well alternative methods – informal learning, outreach units, IT and

distance learning – can help re-engage adults in education and training, andhow to spread good practice.

The team will report its � ndings in July 1999.Action team 15 on information technology, led by the Department of Trade

and Industry (Dti), is looking at:

� Best practice in providing access to IT, and IT skills, for people living in poorneighbourhoods;

� Lessons learnt about how effective shared access points are, like kiosks incommunity centres such as schools, libraries and post offices; and greateraccess to the internet; and

� Models for strengthening community ties by better access to communicationsnetworks.


5 2

The role of the SEU is very much about developing solutions across agencies anddepartments. A prime example is the strong link perceived between socialexclusion and education/training: ‘knowledge and skills are now the mostprecious resource we have to secure future prosperity and social cohesion’(Blunkett 1998a, b). ‘Education, training and employment policies are central. . . these are the best tools we have not just for tackling social exclusion but forpreventing it in future generations’ (Blunkett 1999: 6). The government puttackling social exclusion at the centre of its drive to raise school standards,focusing on a ‘literacy hour’, class sizes, and nursery provision. Its strategyincludes education action zones, each with £1 million, a truancy and exclusionaction programme (of £500 million), piloting educational allowances for 16+year olds staying on in schools, and the Sure start programme (£100 million) toimprove early years education, health and family support.

The concept of distance learning underlies the new ‘University for industry’(Lucraft 1999), which is to harness new technologies and be ‘for everyone’ (DfEE1998a: 4,9). Increasingly, distance learning materials are based on use of ICTs.This is both an opportunity for inclusion and potentially a force for exclusion forthose without access to ICT equipment. The government is also investing £700million in a National grid for learning (NGFL) (DfEE 1998b ‘The government’scommitment’; DfEE 1999). The NGFL is both a structure of educational contenton the internet and a programme for developing means to access this content, in schools, libraries, colleges, universities, workplaces and homes. Equipment,software, supply ‘lines’, teacher training materials, curriculum support,broadcast programming and on-line content will be required on a massive scale.The content of the NGFL will eventually be accessible through television setsequipped for digital interactive broadcasting and the long-term aim for the gridis to be a world leader in creating learning tools for all ages. Investment in suchelectronic means of communications also helps to deliver the government’scommitment to delivery of 25 per cent of public services electronically by 2002.This commitment is aimed at ‘bringing the benefits of the IT revolution toeveryone’ (Kilfoyle 1998).

L O C A L P O L I C Y C O N T E X T

At a local level, the stakeholders include local authorities and agencies, voluntarygroups and communities. The wide array of government-generated initiativesdescribed above, such as local regeneration partnerships, education action zones(EAZs) and health action zones (HAZs) are targeted – both on an area and topicbasis – on disadvantaged groups and, effectively, the socially excluded. Local


5 3

authorities have led, or played a very extensive role, in these initiatives. However,the structures of these programmes, and the criteria for their evaluation, are laiddown centrally and most are very much focused on job outputs.

There are many other ways in which local authorities have engaged with andsupported socially excluded groups in accessing information and communi-cations, including encouragement for community activities, and some of these areoutlined here later. Of course, the special features of local government are thatit is rooted both geographically in its local community and in its democraticaccountability to all its local citizens.

Probably the most relevant of local government initiatives in combating social exclusion arose from the development of anti-poverty strategies and theadvent of community planning, particularly where these have focused on solutions– beyond simply understanding better the problems, needs and concerns of disadvantaged groups. Conceptually, social inclusion is about ‘bringing in’disadvantaged individuals, groups and communities, and involving them indecision-making, enabling and empowering them to develop and fulfil theirpotential in the full range of their social, community and work activities.

Community leadership will lie at the heart of local government. ‘Councils are the organizations best placed to take a comprehensive overview of the needsand priorities of their local areas and communities and lead the way to meet those needs and priorities in the round’ (DETR 1998: 8). The government alsoproposes a new duty – as a legal requirement – for councils to promote theeconomic, social and – environmental well-being of their areas. Councils lead anddevelop a comprehensive strategy for promoting the well-being and sustainabledevelopment of their area – to initiate a community planning process. Keyelements of this planning include (Local Government Associate 1998b: 3–4):

� A shared assessment of the immediate and future needs of the area (economic,social and environmental) and the connections between them;

� Creating an ‘umbrella’ or framework for integration of strategies andpartnerships;

� Developing capacity building within local communities and organizations; and� Improving the co-ordination and accessibility of services to the public.

Under ‘best value’ local authorities will also have a duty to consult local peopleand demonstrate that this consultation has been effective in involving local peoplein local decision-making, in ‘deciding together’ (Wilcox 1998: 7). Electroniccommunications may have a role to play both in the consultation process and inthe outcome – the means by which the community want to be involved in the


5 4

future. This has particular implications for socially excluded individuals andgroups, who may lack access to IT, user capacity and skills.

Now that 70 per cent of contact with public authorities is by telephone,authorities are looking closely at the role of the telephone, call centres, and waysto handle telephone enquiries (MORI 1999: 53–5, 97). Excluded groups have theleast access to telephones in their own homes. Hence, systems and processeswhich use ‘intelligent networks’ to improve the distribution of calls and reducequeuing times, whilst improving the prioritization of calls and speedy access tothe right parts of the authority, are potentially bene�cial to these groups.

There is a fast-growing recognition among local authorities of the benefits of adopting a ‘one-stop shop’ approach to providing information and access toservices. Greater use of modern, electronic means of communication, such asinformation kiosks, council web-sites, the internet, call centres, and video-conferencing, can increase individuals’ access to information signi�cantly, withoutthe need for often lengthy and costly trips to a central council office location(Local Government Association 1998c: 34). This approach is usually targetedparticularly on the bene� ts to those with least access to mobility, by reason of costand circumstances, and is therefore of particular potential value to the moreexcluded groups. It is also linked to the issue of choice: electronic communicationscan be part of a strategy to increase choice and convenience for the customer,rather than simply to substitute and replace. There are cost implications fromincreasing the range of choice of means of communication but also some evidencethat strategies which encourage the most appropriate means of contact – be it face-to-face or electronic – can be cost-effective.

Better reception/contact services generally is a current strategy for public services in the UK. There has been a development of an integrated ‘frontend’ for access to services, both within local authorities (led by innovativeauthorities such as the London Borough of Lewisham (Mousalli 1998)) and across‘boundaries’ with central government and its agencies – the concept of ‘seamlessaccess’. Examples of pilot projects include the DSS Bene�ts Agency pilots withthree local authorities including Lewisham. There has been �exibility in the choiceof locations for public access points, including not only council of� ces but alsolibraries, community centres and public access kiosks.

Linked to the policy emphasis on lifelong learning, there is a new interest inthe future role of libraries. Libraries already play an important role in many urbanand rural communities. They have a key developing role in the delivery of trainingopportunities and learning, as major information providers, referral and accesspoints, and as providers of ICT services. Libraries – or other service points suchas post offices, GP surgeries – could increasingly be used to access remote


5 5

resources using ICT. ‘The development of ICT in libraries has established a stockof expertise and skill, and an understanding of how new technology can be usedto benefit communities. By harnessing this expertise, the library service cancontribute to the enhancement of the quality of . . . community life’ (LocalGovernment Association 1998a: 25).

However, the role of libraries raises the issues over charging. Whilst in Suffolk,the county council is providing free internet access in all its libraries, Leeds doesnot provide access, and Wake�eld raises a charge (Local Government Association:34). A charge of £4 per hour may be reasonable for access to the internet andavoids the library budget from being stretched further – or effectively reducedin other areas but charges will clearly be another barrier for the socially excluded.

C O M M U N I T Y N E T W O R K S – A S T R A T E G Y A N D

R E S O U R C E

One means by which more excluded groups have gained access to the bene�ts of ICTs is the development of community (information) networks, which have operated particularly in the area of promoting community inclusion. Thisdevelopment has also been facilitated by the support of a number of localauthorities and by organizations such as Communities Online and PartnershipsOnline, set up to serve community and voluntary interests and developcommunity networks for ‘real and virtual communities’ within the informationsociety (Communities Online 1998, Partnerships Online 1998).

Community networks are a way for local communities to use the new ICTs to network together (Mulquin 1997: 1–2; Walker 1998: 2), and are characterized by:

� Providing public space in cyberspace – open to all;� Emphasizing communication rather than information: involving e-mail, news

groups and e-mail discussion groups, rather than just informational websites;� Local focus; and� Comprehensiveness.

Community Networks not only demystify the technology, they also aim ‘givepeople immediate and obvious bene� ts from developing their IT skills’ (Mulquin1997: 2) – however, evidence of this is needed from evaluative research.

There is a need for models of how ICTs impact on communities, whether thesebe communities of interest, locality, information, power or in� uence (Wilcox1998: 1, 5). For communities to gain bene�ts of inclusion and empowerment,


5 6

from applications of ICTs, access alone – public access points, convenientlocations – is not suf� cient. ‘Citizens must be able to use the technology and havethe capability to use the information. Because these are skills that most people still do not possess, the issue of access should be linked to training, education and learning’ (Day 1998: 2). Motivation to learn about and use IT skills is also necessary (Walker 1998). This in turn depends on the acquisition byindividuals, groups and organizations of ‘information capability’ – the capacityand opportunity to access, acquire and use information for their own purposes(Devins and Hughes 1995: 5).

These dimensions effectively indicate a more complex and dynamic model ofimpact for more excluded groups, linked to wider factors than access. Public,community and voluntary bodies have contributed to building capacity andopportunities to use ICTs. The actual content of electronic information andcommunication sources must be interesting and relevant to community needs –as well as fully and easily accessible to members of those communities. This canbe seen as part of a cycle, potentially a virtuous circle, of increasing access, useand usefulness (Figure 1).

Essentially, groups which become connected, ‘plugged-in’ – especially thosepreviously unfamiliar with using new technologies – need to �nd this a useful andpositive experience – in accessing and exchanging information andcommunications. The issue of � nding suf� cient relevant content to help build thenetworking experience is an important one and one which community networkshave themselves recognized and an area which public and voluntary bodies needto address to support access by community groups in particular.

Areas in which the information superhighway can help meet community needsinclude (Devins and Hughes 1995: 8):

� Participation in community activities;


5 7

content

demand access

training

usage

Figure 1 Virtuous circle of increasing access.

� Education and training; and� Accessing services.

These areas represent further criteria on which to base evaluation.Community networks and resource centres (CRCs) are generally targeted on

being enablers for local people and communities – ‘using IT as a way of catchingand involving people who have never been involved in community activity before’(Sheeran 1998). ‘Ordinary’ people can do ‘extraordinary’ things with computers,electronic networks, etc., if given access, training and support (McDonald 1998:2). It can reasonably be assumed that those who currently lack awareness, capacityor means to participate in the IS are to a large extent the socially excluded,although this is a thesis which requires testing in research. However, manycommunity networks and similar bodies recognize that in practice the sociallyexcluded form a subset of those who are merely unfamiliar with the technology;therefore, their approach is to target speci�cally the socially excluded.

The enthusiasm and commitment of practitioners has needed to be groundedin practical evidence for credibility and replicability. Noting the lack of evidenceand evaluation of the impact of community computing projects and communityIT resource centres in developing social inclusion, INSINC commissioned a studyto identify factors critical to their success, with which to in� uence policy makersand practitioners (Day and Harris 1997: 2). This described a number of ‘bestpractice’ projects, and de� ned the key issues of the ongoing debate about socialinclusion and the IS as including:

� The increased information intensiveness of everyday life and work;� Radical new options for communication;� Public access and inequality of access; and� Implications for developing personal and community con� dence and skills.

CRCs are seen to ‘have featured only � tfully in social policy’ but their role is ‘ofsuch fundamental importance for the development of a socially inclusiveInformation Society that they should be established across the country and theyshould be publicly funded’ (Day and Harris 1997: 8). Crucially, through theobjective of community responsibility for the resource, CRCs empowercommunities: ‘Such facilities should no longer be experimental . . . they should beintegrated, like schools and libraries, as a basic device to promote social inclusion’(Day and Harris 1997: 8). Demand on CRCs to help local groups has tended toresult in CRCs encouraging self-help solutions – encouraging groups to help eachother through networks – and this has helped to spawn community networks.


5 8

A new evaluation, of how the internet and ICTs can contribute toneighbourhood renewal, has featured what can be achieved in disadvantagedcommunities, particularly by reference to ‘� agship’ projects (Shearman 1999).Based on research and seminars, the research evaluated:

� In what ways ICTs can be used to support neighbourhood renewal;� What are the factors that make for success at both the project and community

level; and� The implications of this for society (Shearman 1999: 7).

Local competitiveness can be improved by linking up policy, funding, andprojects, the key factors being (Shearman 1999: 21):

� Concepts (ideas, imagination and innovation);� Competencies (skills, knowledge and experience);� Connectedness (links and the ability to look outwards); and� Community (social ‘glue’).

A very wide range of initiatives is examined, with regard to their development,and particularly their results to date, insights gained, success factors, and futureplans. Whilst there are many differences between the projects in terms of historyand approach, a number of common success factors have emerged. These include(Shearman 1999: 24):

� Use of technology as a means to a social end, not an end in itself;� Strong community involvement or ownership;� A clear vision and objectives;� The development of local partnerships; and� A strong focus on local jobs.

These characteristics may constitute a useful prioritization for possible evaluationcriteria, as well as demonstrating the range of ways in which participation byexcluded and disadvantaged groups is a successful characteristic of these projects.

I M P L I C A T I O N S

ICTs are essentially an enabling device, a facilitator and vehicle – enablingoutcomes through their convenience, speed, locations reached, accessibility,novelty, fun and their interactive nature. The policy and strategic context for


5 9

application of ICTs to mitigate social exclusion or create opportunities has beenexplored at European, regional, national, local and community levels. Do ICTshave a role in promoting social inclusion? What must we ask? Key questions mustinclude:

� Do ICTs work – are they effective? As a corollary, how would we measureoutcomes – what criteria do we use to evaluate this?

� Do they address the relational as opposed to distributional issues set out in thede� nitions above?

� Are they sustainable? Is this by economic self-sufficiency or support fromcentral/local government?

� Are they replicable and how can this be analysed?� As a corollary, posing the SEU’s own questions:

What were the success factors?What were the barriers?How is ‘best practice’ being nurtured and shared?Do these questions constitute a framework for evaluation?

� What policy context underlies the initiatives and strategies addressingexclusion and disadvantage? Is there an explicit targeting of excluded groupsgenerally, or of specific groups such as older people, young people, thedisabled, carers, ethnic minorities, as beneficiaries? Is there a consciousrecognition of the risks and opportunities posed by ICTs in the distribution ofresources, a de� nition of bene�ciaries as individuals or groups or communities?What sorts of communities are recognized?

� Is the application of ICTs part of a wider strategy?

The SEU posed a key question – how can outcomes be measured? To measureeffectiveness, criteria and principles may be deduced including:

� Use and popularity of ICTs among the target excluded and marginalizedgroups;

� Development of community capacity, in terms of acquisition and applicationof new (IT based) skills; development of applications useful to a communityin terms of accessing information, sharing information, and development ofactivities; independence; interaction and engagement within the community;involvement of ordinary citizens in designing useful applications; developmentof learning communities; autonomy and control of resources;

� Rate of social participation;� Impact on feelings of social isolation and powerlessness;


6 0

� Sufficient use and relevance to excluded groups to generate (economic)sustainability; and

� Replicability, exchange of process issues and involvement in de� ning ‘goodpractice’.

Given the community context of social exclusion, it follows that indicators ofcommunity resources need to be developed which may be more than simpleaggregation of individual and household resources (Room 1999: 169).

What examples of real strategies, initiatives and projects demonstrate andelucidate these principles? Where, why and how are ICTs being applied effectivelyto mitigate social exclusion and, in particular, to address social and relational as opposed to simply distributional aspects of disadvantage? It appears clear thatthis issue can only be addressed by a deliberate strategy of targeting the communitycontext within which excluded individuals and groups experience disadvantage– noting that these communities may be communities of interest as well as ofplace. Strategies may be for economic regeneration, for learning, for training –practical and user-need-driven, for partnership, for community developmentand building community capacity. From the consideration of a wide range ofinitiatives from which this paper is drawn, examples relating to these principlesmust include:

� A cross-cutting strategic approach: the on-going and cross-cutting work ofthe SEU, linked to a wide range of national strategies for neighbourhoodrenewal, education and training; regional strategies (CoMPRIS 1998); localstrategies (Batt and Kirby 1996; Mousalli 1998);

� Evaluation by popularity of use among excluded groups: (Talbot and Newman1998: 14–19, 34–44 (CINNI project); Pavilion 1998; Peabody Trust 1998and SEU 1998a: 51 (computer gym));

� Developing social participation (Artimedia 1998; Chell and Matarasso 1997:iii, 10–11, 13; CoMPRIS 1998: 17, 43 (Telecities project); CWN 1998; Dti1998a: 24, 1998b; SCIP 1998; Trimdon Digital Village 1998; UHI 1998);

� Reducing feelings of social isolation and powerlessness (Artimedia 1998; BelleIsle Foundation 1998; Chell and Matarasso 1997: 27; COMMA 1999; Taylor1998);

� Achievement of sustainability through value to the community such as relevantcontent, training and internet service provider services (CODA 1998;Grimethorpe Electronic Village Hall 1998; MCIN 1998; Brixton Online1998); and others sustained by Local authority support (Day and Harris 1997:9; Walker 1998); and


6 1

� Replicability: comparative analysis of pioneering projects suggests thatcommon success factors, which can be incorporated into future projects, are:a deep involvement with the community, application of ICTs as a means toachieve wider social and economic objectives, developing communitycon� dence, and linking social inclusion to economic regeneration (Shearman1999: 18, 24). Mechanics for determination and exchange of ‘good practice’include the databases of bodies such as the Local Government Association, theExchanging Information with the Public group, the CONet email discussiongroup, conferences like the IS Communications/Communities Onlineconference ‘ICTs and the Regeneration Agenda’, London, 18 January 1999,and the current work of PAT 15 of the SEU.

C O N C L U S I O N S

Many levels of policies, programmes and initiatives have been developed to tacklesocial exclusion – a concept which has expanded from that of ‘poverty’, toembrace the concept of role in society. Information is only a part – but an integralpart – of our understanding of social exclusion, and how to promote inclusion.Information is necessary to communicate, to access services, to exercise rights,to access benefits, to participate in the democratic process and ensure itsaccountability. ICTs in the IS have the potential, not only to facilitate employmentand contribute to the economy but also to contribute to quality of life, feeling ofinclusion, and empowerment of citizens. There is the possibility that ICTs maycreate further social/economic inequalities, or convergence.

The UK is a European leader in developing area-based programmes to addresssocial exclusion. Area-based programmes are a valuable way to address theproblems of social exclusion once they have emerged, but ‘prevention, ratherthan cure, is the more intelligent strategy’ (Parkinson 1998: 34). There needs tobe an effective integration of area-based programmes, urban partnerships, publicsector services and cross-service working, and regional strategies. In promotingsocial inclusion, partnerships are needed across the public sector, the privatesector and voluntary agencies. To develop a more empowering culture, ‘we mustensure that we are providing services as a step towards increasing people’sindependence’, not perpetuating dependency (Holmes 1998).

Tackling social exclusion has most particularly been de� ned in economic terms,in terms of job outputs. Increasingly, the link and interdependence between socialand economic factors is being recognized but more weight could still be given tothe development of skills as a non-work objective – as prerequisites for greaterengagement within and across communities, as well as to enhance employability.


6 2

Many people in excluded groups may not be seeking employment by virtue oftheir age, circumstances, disability, etc. Agencies seeking to tackle social exclusionneed to facilitate access to skills for social purposes, self-respect, independenceand to build ‘community capacity’, as well as to grow ‘employment’ skills.

Evaluation and assessment of the impact of initiatives and programmes will clearly be crucial. Yet there has been little systematic evaluation of the designand operation of area based programmes (Parkinson 1998: 2; Joseph RowntreeFoundation 1998: 3). What the policies are actually trying to achieve must be clear, in determining measures of success, including outcomes such as‘empowering the community’, increasing community capacity, racial integration,economic development, job creation, reduced isolation and environmentalimprovements. Partnerships are needed but this is not a suf� cient condition forimpact on social exclusion. Real community empowerment is necessary: theimpact must be seen over the long-term and hence programmes and initiativesmust be sustainable.

Our society has a ready tool for this, by choosing to enable all its members to have access to the skills and equipment of new ICTs, for inclusion in the IS. Concerns have rightly been expressed on risks around security, con� dentiality,privacy and technological determinism. Given appropriate safeguards, appli-cations of new technologies in the IS give us the means to contribute to tacklingmany of the concerns and opportunities which arise from social exclusion. Theseinclude raising educational standards, developing lifelong learning, health,reducing isolation, reducing crime, increasing access, developing communitycapacity and confidence, consulting communities, securing participation,empowering communities, democratic renewal, integrated services and ‘joined-up government’.

Social exclusion must be recognized as a long-standing social problem whichexisted and exists irrespective of the development of ICTs and the IS. Electroniccommunications are not inherently a cause of social exclusion which, as we haveseen, is a complex and multi-faceted condition. But lack of access to the meansof communication increasingly used by the rest of society has the potential toworsen the relative position of excluded individuals and groups. As new ways oflearning, working and engaging with others develop – such as distance learningand e-mail discussion groups – those whom we do not enable to have access willbe additionally excluded.

The increasing trend toward use of electronic communications may exacerbate social exclusion but in many ways offers opportunities for socialinclusion, especially for less mobile groups and for social discussion, exchanginginformation, for education and training. But this is not an inevitable outcome. The


6 3

speed and extent to which ICTs can enable inclusion are to a signi� cant degreebased on societal choice – around how and where access to ICT facilities isprovided. For example, the London Borough of Newham, pursuing its aim to bethe most wired local authority in the UK, plans to give all its citizens set-topboxes, so that they can access services, information and communicate from theirown homes. The big issue is how we use the opportunities of new ICTs, and thisis a choice for our society.

There has an outpouring of energy and creativity into ways of using ICT and the IS to create inclusion, as an opportunity to tackle, reduce and even prevent social exclusion. Key questions for us: are they replicable? Oropportunistic and localized? Do they amount to a strategy? Are they effective –do they work? for whom? What (more) should be done? Much has been claimed for the impact of ICTs (Margetts 1999: 162). Whilst the success factors of ‘� agship’ projects are being analysed and networks to exchange ‘goodpractice’ are being developed, many projects are isolated and few have beenevaluated in terms of their effectiveness, particularly from the standpoint of excluded groups themselves. This issue is the subject of a further paper, onevaluation of six initiatives, being prepared by the author for a forthcomingconference.

Meanwhile, does the range of initiatives amount to a strategy? Clearly, thereare a number of strategies at local and regional levels. Is there a strategy for ICTsand the IS at a national level? It is clear that IT is a key strand in all of thegovernment’s major policy development. The potential of applications of ICTs isbeing closely examined by the Social Exclusion Unit’s Policy Action Teams.Applied to enhance access, choices, and social participation, new communicationstechnologies can be a conduit for social inclusion – resting on our societal andstrategic choices. Our society can consciously choose to give this conduit aninclusive role.

Linda Phipps Deputy Director

St William‘s Foundation5 College Street

York YO1 7JF UK

[email protected]

R E F E R E N C E S

Artimedia (1998) Web-site – projects. On-line. Available HTTP: http://www.artimedia.co.uk/projects/index.html (14 December 1998).

Ballabio, E. (1998) Research and Technological Development for Older People: EUActivities and Strategies, paper to STOA (The Scientific and Technological


6 4

Options Assessment) Programme Workshop 17 (1), 23–24 March, Brussels:European Parliament Directorate General for Research (Directorate B).

Barber, B. (1997) ‘The New Telecommunications Technology: EndlessFrontier or the End of Democracy?’ Constellation 4(2): 208–28.

Batt, C. and Kirby, H. (1996) CLIP: Croydon Libraries Internet Project, BritishLibrary Research & Innovation Report No 13. On-line. Available HTTP:http://www.croydon.gov.uk/cr-cliphtml.htm

Becker, T. and Slaton, C. (1999) How the internet is transforming representativedemocracy, paper to the Second International Congress on Electronic Mediaand Citizenship, Helsinki, January 1999.

Belle Isle Foundation (1998) Belle Isle On-line project. On-line. Available HTTP:http://www.belle-isle.co.uk (14 December 1998).

Blair, T. (1997) Bringing Britain Together, speech at Stockwell Park School,Lambeth, 8 December. On-line. Available HTTP: http://www.cabinet-of� ce.gov.uk/seu/index/more.htm.

Blair, T. (1998) ‘Annual Guildhall speech 16 November’, Guardian, 17 November.

Blunkett, D. (1998a) ‘Strength through skills’, Education Guardian, 3 November.

Blunkett, D. (1998b) ‘If you want to get a life, get a job . . . ’, Observer, 1 November.

Blunkett, D. (1999) Tackling Social Exclusion: Empowering People and Communitiesfor a Better Future, 30th Anniversary Lecture to the National Centre forSocial Research, 16 June.

Bramley G. (1998) Where does public spending go? Pilot study to analyse the � ows ofpublic expenditure into Local Areas, DETR.

Brixton OnLine (1998) Brixton Online project. On-line. Available HTTP:http://www.brixton.co.uk (14 December 1998).

Chapman, P., Phimister, E., Shucksmith, M., Upward, R. and Vera-Toscano,E. (1998) Poverty and Exclusion in Rural Britain: the Dynamics of Low Income andEmployment, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation/Arkleton Centre for RuralDevelopment Research.

Chell, J. and Matarasso, F. (1997) Essential Oils: The Social Impact of BatleyCultural Fund, Comedia/The Social Impact of Arts Programmes.

CODA (1998) Homepage. On-line. Available HTTP: http:www.emnet.co.uk/coda (14 December 1998).

COMMA (1999) European Community Archive, Storyville Archives/HumanFactor Solutions. On-line. Available HTTP: http://www.polkaville.com/comma (17 April 1999).

Commins, P. (1993) Combating Exclusion in Ireland 1990–1994: A Midway Report,Brussels: European Commission.

Communities OnLine (1998) Web-site. On-line. Available HTTP: http://www.communities.org.uk (9 December 1998).

CoMPRIS (1998) The Information Society: Issues and Opportunities, Yorkshire &Humberside, RAYH (Regional Assembly for Yorkshire & Humberside/


6 5

GOYH (Government Of� ce for Yorkshire and the Humber). On-line.Available HTTP: http://www.compris.co.uk

CWN (1998) Coventry & Warwickshire Network. On-line. Available HTTP:http://www.cwn.org.uk (14 December 1998).

Day P. and Harris, K. (1997) Down-to-Earth Vision – community based IT initia-tives and social inclusion, IBM/Community Development Foundation.

Day, P (1998) The community bene� ts of electronic networking. On-line. AvailableHTTP: http://www.communities.org.uk

DETR (1998) Modern Local Government: in touch with the People, White Paper,DETR.

Devins, D. and Hughes, G. (1995) Down the Superhighway and Urban InformationInequality, Paper to BSA Contested Cities Conference, University ofLeicester, 10–14 April, Leeds: Policy Research Unit, Leeds MetropolitanUniversity

DfEE (1998a) University for Industry: Engaging People in Learning for Life, DfEE.On-line. Available HTTP: http://www.open.gov.uk/dfee/u� /index.htm

DfEE (1998b) National Grid for Learning: Open for Business, DfEE. On-line.Available HTTP: http://www.dfee.gov.uk/grid/index.htm

DfEE (1999) ‘£400M to overcome divide between haves and have nots’, Pressrelease 113/99, 11 March, DfEE. On-line. Available HTTP: http://www.dfee.gov.uk/news/news.cfm?PR_ID=113

Dti (1998a) IT for All – The latest � ndings concerning attitudes to IT, Dti.Dti (1998b) IT for All News – Don’t miss IT, DtiEuropean Commission (1993) The Delors White Paper, Brussels: European

CommissionEuropean Commission (1994a) The Bangemann Report, Brussels: European

CommissionEuropean Commission (1994b) Europe’s Way to the Information Society, Brussels:

European CommissionEuropean Commission (1996a) Living and working in the IS: People First, Green

Paper, BrusselsEuropean Commission (1996b) The Implications of the IS for European Union

Policies: Preparing the Next Steps, BrusselsEuropean Council HLGE (1995) Forum on the Information Society and High

Level Group of Experts (HLGE), Working Document of the Social and SocietalAspects of the Information Society, Brussels

European Council HLGE (1996a) Building the European IS for us all: Re� ectionsof the HLGE, Brussels

Gibson, F. (1998) Opportunities and Obstacles in the Information Society: the Older Person’s Perspective, paper to STOA (The Scienti�c and TechnologicalOptions Assessment) Programme Workshop 17 (1), 23–24 March,Brussels: European Parliament Directorate General for Research(Directorate B).

Grimethorpe Electronic Village Hall (1998) Homepage. On-line. AvailableHTTP: http://www.barnsley.org.uk (14 December 1998).


6 6

Holmes, C. (1998) ‘Hitting homelessness’, Guardian, 7 October.INSINC (1997) The Net Result: Social Inclusion in the Information Society: report of

the National Working Party on Social Inclusion, IBM/Community DevelopmentFoundation. On-line. Available HTTP: http://www.uk.ibm.com/comm/community/uk117.html

Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) (1998) Poverty and Exclusion in Rural Britain:the Dynamics of Low Income and Employment, York: JRF Findings

Kilfoyle P. (1998) ‘Speech to CITU “25% and Beyond” conference, London, 2 November’. On-line. E-mail: brie�ng@ publicnet.co.uk (4 November1998)

Local Government Association (1998a) Behind the Scenery – the Real Issues in theCountryside, London: LGA

Local Government Association (1998b) Community Leadership and CommunityPlanning: Developing a Comprehensive Strategy to Promote the Well-Being of theArea, London: LGA

Local Government Association (1998c) Tackling Rural Poverty and SocialExclusion: the Role of Local Authorities, London: LGA

Lucraft, I. (1999) The U� Vision – a new way of learning, paper to CLIP/DfEEconference ‘Making lifelong learning a reality in Coal�eld Communities’,30 June 1999.

Mandelson, P. (1997) Tackling social exclusion, Speech at the Fabian Society, 14 August 1997.

Margetts, H. (1996) ‘The Implications for Democracy of Computerisation inGovernment’, in P. Hirst and S. Khilnani (ed.) Reinventing Democracy, ThePolitical Quarterly Special Issue, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 70–84.

Margetts, H. (1999) Information Technology in Government – Britain and America,London/New York: LSE/Routledge.

McDonald, A.(1998) Craigmillar – a community development approach to cyber-space. On-line. Available HTTP: http://www.partnerships.org.uk

MCIN (1998) Manchester Community Information Network Homepage. On-line.Available HTTP: http://ftp.poptel.org.uk/ftp/mcin and http://www.communities.org.uk/articles/MCIN1.html (14 December 1998)

MORI (1999) The Government Gateway, Public Access to Electronic Service Delivery,Desk Research, Research Study for Post Of� ce Counters Ltd, 3rd Edition,MORI.

Mousalli, A.(1998) London Lewisham takes up the challenge – an outline ofLewisham’s contribution to the Bangemann Challenge, London: LewishamBorough Council.

Mulquin, M. (1997) People First: the role of Community Networks in putting the newinformation and communications technologies into the hands of ordinary people,paper to Council of Europe Conference on local and regional informationsociety in Eastern and Central Europe, Romania. On-line. Available HTTP:http://www.communities.org.uk/articles/�rst.html

Parkinson, M. (1998) Combating Social Exclusion; Lessons from Area-BasedProgrammes in Europe, York: JRF.


6 7

Partnerships Online (1998) Web-site. On-line. Available HTTP: http://www.partnerships.org.uk (9 December 1998).

Pavilion (1998) ‘Switched On’ Business Plan, Leeds: Pavilion.Peabody Trust (1998) Action for London: Annual Report and Accounts 1997/8,

London: Peabody Trust.Room, G. (1995a) ‘Poverty in Europe: competing paradigms of analysis’, Policy

and Politics 23 (2): 1–11.Room, G. (ed.) (1995b) Beyond the Threshold: the Measurement and Analysis of

Social Exclusion, Bristol: The Policy Press.Room, G. (1999) ‘Social exclusion, Solidarity and the Challenge of

Globalization’, International Journal of Social Welfare 8: 166–74.SCIP (1998) Sussex Community Internet Project. On-line. Available HTTP:

http://www.scip.org.uk (14 December 1998).Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) (1998a) Bringing Britain together: a national strategy

for neighbourhood renewal, London: Cabinet Of� ce. On-line. AvailableHTTP: http://www.cabinet-of�ce.gov.uk/seu/index/report.htm

Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) (1998b) Web-site. On-line. Available HTTP:http://www.cabinet-of�ce.gov.uk/seu/

Shearman, C. (1999) Local Connections: Making the Net Work for NeighbourhoodRenewal, Communities Online.

Sheeran, A. (1998) ICTs and social exclusion. On-line. E-mail: demoprog1@

btinternet.com (11 December 1998).Talbot, C. and Newman, D. (1998) Beyond Access and Awareness – Evaluating

Electronic Community Networks, The British Library Board: British LibraryResearch and Innovation Centre Report 149/Queens University Belfast.On-line. Available HTTP: http://www.qub.ac.uk/mgt/cicn/beyond/

Taylor, M. (1998) ‘Wansfell College – local outreach for older women’,personal Communication, 22 November 1998.

Townsend, P. (1979) Poverty in the UK – a Survey of Household Resources andStandard, Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Trimdon Digital Village (1998) Homepage. On-line. Available HTTP:http://www.daelnet.co.uk/trimdon/survey/index.htm (14 December1998).

UHI (1998) University of the Highlands & Islands – Homepage. On-line. AvailableHTTP: http://www.uhi.ac.uk (14 December 1998).

United Nations (1998) Annual Human Development Report, UN.Walker, G (1998) Newnet and community networking in Newcastle upon Tyne. On-

line. Available HTTP: http://www.partnerships.org.ukWilcox, D. (1998) What are communities looking for?, presentation to FITLOG

conference ‘Community leadership – using IT to develop LocalGovernment’, 19 November 1998. On-line. Available HTTP: http://www.partnerships.org.uk/pres/� tlog/index.htm.


6 8

A conduit for social inclusion Linda Phipps St William's Foundation ...

Documents

Transcript of A conduit for social inclusion Linda Phipps St William's Foundation ...