Better Policies, Better Outcomes - Combat Poverty Agency

BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMESPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social InclusionA PROJECT SUPPORTED BY THE EUROPEAN COMMISSIONISBN: 1 905485 0 50Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion

BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMESPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social InclusionA European Union project supported by the European Commissionunder the Transnational Exchange Programme, Community ActionProgramme to Combat Social ExclusionPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 3

CONTENTSForeword 8Acknowledgements 11List of Figures and Tables 16Abbreviations 17Executive Summary 21Mainstreaming 23Development of Public Policy 24Participation of the Relevant Actors 26Evaluating Mainstreaming Social Inclusion 28Website 291 Introduction 31The Mainstreaming Social Inclusion Project (MSI) 32Scope of Phase II 33Phase II – Methodology 35The Structure of the Book 382 Understanding Mainstreaming 41What is Mainstreaming? 42Gender Mainstreaming 44Principles for the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 49National Action Plans, Joint Inclusion Memoranda andJoint Inclusion Reports 53Understanding Mainstreaming Social Inclusion 59Conclusion 594 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

3 From Poverty to Social Cohesion 63Introduction 64Poverty 64Social Exclusion 68Social Inclusion 70Social Cohesion 71Conclusions 73Definitions 754 Social Inclusion as a European Union Issue 83Background to Social Inclusion in the European Union 84Open Method of Co-Ordination (OMC) 91A Focus on Policy Indicators 94Streamlining 97National Action Plans, Joint Inclusion Memoranda andJoint Inclusion Reports 101Conclusions 1045 Poverty, Social Inclusion and Public Policy 111Introduction 112What is Policy? 112The Challenge of Policy-making 114Features of Policy-making 116Mainstreaming Social Inclusion into Policy-making 123Transparency and openness 124The Structure of Government 124Resources 136Preparation of the NAPs/inclusion 140Conclusions 143Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 5

6 Participation of the Relevant Actors inPublic Policy Making 147Introduction 148Defining Involvement 152Benefits and Barriers of Participation 155Local Partnerships 158Participation and Social Inclusion 160Involvement and Participation in MSI Partner Countries 163Participation in the NAPs/inclusion 178Conclusions 1817 The Development of an Evaluation Framework for theMainstreaming of Social Inclusion 187Introduction 188Evaluation in the Policy Cycle 188Evaluating Mainstreaming Social Inclusion 192Evaluation Design 197Measuring Mainstreamed Policies 204A Methodology for the Evaluation ofMainstreaming Social Inclusion 206MSI Scale 209Conclusions 2118 Conclusions and Main Findings 2136 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

Appendix 1: Mainstreaming Social Inclusion, Phase I 219Appendix 2: Social Protection Committee Indicators 225Appendix 3: Questionnaire for an Evaluation Study ofMainstreaming Social Inclusion into Public Policies 231Appendix 4: Evaluation of Survey Data – The MSI Scale 261Bibliography 271Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 7

FOREWORDThe Governments of the EU Member States pledged in Lisbon in2000, ‘to make a decisive impact on the eradication of poverty’ by2010. What could have been more appropriate, as we took our firststeps into a new century and a new millennium, than to cometogether to commit to decisive and targeted action to make povertyand social exclusion history.To support and advance the achievement of the Lisbon pledge,Member States adopted the open method of co-ordination (OMC), akey part of which is the preparation by Member States of NationalAction Plans against poverty and social exclusion (NAPs/inclusion).To date three action plans have been prepared by the preenlargementMember States and one by the ten new MemberStates. The plans detail national strategies and programmes totackle poverty and promote social inclusion.The EU Social Exclusion Community Action Programme wasintroduced to support the NAP/inclusion process by providingMember States with the opportunity to compare policies, actionsand ‘good practice’ and to learn from each others’ experiences. Thisbook, on the subject of mainstreaming social inclusion, is a directresult of that programme and is an example of effective cooperationat EU level. It considers the important challenge of howMember States seek to integrate poverty and social inclusionobjectives into all areas and levels of policy-making, therebyensuring that the impacts of policies on those at risk of poverty areproperly taken into account. The book shows the differentapproaches taken by Member States, each with their differentforms of Government, to address this challenge. In Ireland, forexample, a process of poverty proofing was introduced in 1998 as a8 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

means of ensuring that policies, at the design and review stages,are assessed in relation to their impact on poverty and inequality,with the intention of reducing poverty and social exclusion.The European Commission has frequently stressed the importance ofmainstreaming social inclusion and, because of this, I welcome thisbook which examines both mainstreaming as a process and how itcan be measured. Having the tools to measure how social inclusionis mainstreamed into public policies allows us to benchmark wherewe are now and to use this to determine how much progress we aremaking in achieving the goals of the Lisbon strategy.I wish to thank all those involved in this research project from thenine partner organisations in six countries, the EuropeanCommission for its financial support and, in particular, the CombatPoverty Agency in Ireland for co-ordinating the project and bringingit to a successful conclusion.If we are to make poverty and social exclusion history, then projectssuch as this, that bring together organisations from across the EU toshare their knowledge and experiences and to work together ininnovative and practical ways, have a valuable and central role to play.Séamus Brennan T.D.,Minister for Social Affairs,Ireland,February 2006Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 9

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe Mainstreaming Social Inclusion project was funded by theEuropean Commission, DG Employment, Social Affairs and EqualOpportunities, through the Transnational Exchange Programme, aspart of the Community Action Programme to Combat SocialExclusion, and with additional financing from the partnerorganisations. We are grateful for this financial support and,indeed, other support and encouragement from colleagues in theEuropean Commission.The success of a project of this scale and complexity depends onthe commitment and contributions of many people. There were nineorganisations involved in Phase II of the project. The followingpeople from these organisations played key roles and madeimportant contributions to the work of the Steering Committee:Zuzana Zajarošová (Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, CzechRepublic); Michel Legros (École Nationale de la Santé Publique,France); Gisela Matos (Institute of Social Security, Ministry ofLabour and Social Solidarity, Portugal); Olaf Tvede (Directorate forHealth and Social Affairs, Norway (as an European Economic Areacountry)); Gerry Mulligan and Pauline Millar (who replaced HarrietFerguson during the project), Office of First Minister and DeputyFirst Minister (OFMDFM), (Northern Ireland); Fintan Farrell(EAPN–Europe).Many of their colleagues were also involved in participating inspecific aspects of the research and in contributing to the overallwork of the project, in particular: Czech Republic – Hanka Velecká,Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs; Czeslaw Walek, GovermentalCouncil for Roma Community Affairs, and Klára Filipová, The Unionof Towns and Municipalities; France – Patricia Loncle, ÉcolePromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 11

ordinated the pilot phase of the project in 2003 and who brought thestudy of mainstreaming social inclusion to a level which providedPhase II with a solid basis on which to build.Kevin P. O’Kelly, Project Co-ordinator, andIzabela Litewska, Research AdministratorPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 15

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLESFigure 1.1 Structure of the Project 37Figure 5.1 Effective Policy Development 122Figure 6.1 Involvement Spectrum 153Figure 7.1 The Policy Cycle 190Figure 7.2 Infrastructure for Evaluation 200Figure 7.3 ‘Theory of Change’ 202Figure 7.4 The Nature of Outcomes 204Figure 7.5 A Mainstreaming Scale 207Table 2.1 References to Mainstreaming 54Table 3.1 List of some definitions at EU and 75International levelsTable 3.2 List of some definitions at National level 78Table 4.1Table 5.1Evolution of EU Policies on Employment andSocial Inclusion since 1992 105Ten Features of Modern ParticipativePolicy-Making 117Table 5.2 Stages of Policy Development 12116 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

Table 5.3 Forms of Governance and Devolved 125Policy-Making on Social Inclusion in MSIPartner CountriesTable 5.4Government Structures and EuropeanCommission Comments 141Table 6.1 Barriers to Participation 157Table 6.2Dialogue and Involvement of Social Partners,NGOs and Social Service Providers 162Table 6.3 Participation of Socially Excluded People 178Table 7.1 Questions for Evaluation 199Table 7.2 Mainstreaming of Three Policy Options 207ABBREVIATIONSBEPGCPADACDDASSDHSADRASSBroad Economic Policy GuidelinesCombat Poverty Agency (Ireland)Development Assistance Countries (OECD)Ministry of Solidarity, Health and Family,Département Offices, (France)Directorate for Health and Social Affairs (Norway)Ministry of Solidarity, Health and Family, RégionalPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 17

Offices, (France)EAPNECHPEOCEGENSPESFESRIEUHURISTILOISSJIMJIRLEEDMoLSAMSINAPSEuropean Anti-Poverty NetworkEuropean Community Household PanelEqual Opportunities Commission (UK)Employment GuidelinesÉcole Nationale de la Santé Publique (France)European Social FundEconomic and Social Research Institute (Ireland)European UnionHuman Rights Strengthening Programme (UNDPand UNHCHR)International Labour OrganisationInstitute of Social Security (Portugal)Joint Inclusion MemorandumJoint Inclusion ReportLocal Enterprise and Economic DevelopmentProgramme (OECD)Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (CzechRepublic)Mainstreaming Social InclusionNational Anti-Poverty Strategy (Ireland)18 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

NAPs/inclusion National Action Plans against Poverty and SocialExclusion or National Action Plans on Social InclusionNESCNESFNew TSNNGONMSOECDOFMDFMOMCOSIPROGRIDEPSISPCTEPUNDPUNHCHRNational Economic and Social Council (Ireland)National Economic and Social Forum (Ireland)New Targeting Social Needs (Northern Ireland)Non-Governmental OrganisationsNew Member States of the EUOrganisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopmentOffice of the First Minister and Deputy FirstMinister (Northern Ireland)Open Method of Co-ordinationOffice for Social Inclusion (Ireland)Inclusion and Social Development Programme(Portugal)Promoting Social Inclusion (Northern Ireland)EU Social Protection CommitteeEU Transnational Exchange ProgrammeUnited Nations Development ProgrammeUnited Nations High Commission for Human RightsPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 19

EXECUTIVESUMMARY

In the light of the growing importance given to tackling socialexclusion and poverty in EU Member States by the European Counciland, in particular the goals adopted for the Lisbon Strategy, thisbook sets out to explore how social inclusion might be brought into acentral role in the formation of EU and Member State policies. Themain objective of the book, therefore, is to add to the understandingof how social inclusion can be mainstreamed into policies at anumber of different levels within the EU and the Member States.This study is based on research undertaken by a partnership of nineorganisations from six EU Member States that explored the growingimportance of poverty and social exclusion within the EuropeanUnion policy framework and how policy development can beassessed in relation to the way governments mainstream socialinclusion into public policies. In the context of drafting the NationalAction Plans against poverty and social exclusion (NAPs/inclusion)and the implementation of policy commitments to eradicatingpoverty and promoting social inclusion, the work has developed aproposed framework for the evaluation of how Member States givea poverty perspective to their policy objectives.There are two products from this study, a book and a website. Thebook reviews the peer process adopted by the European Council,including national action plans and the co-ordination of nationalsocial inclusion policies. In doing this, it explores two key factorsthat are central to mainstreaming social inclusion:The process of developing policyThe involvement of all relevant stakeholders in the formation ofpublic policy.22 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

It also explores the inter-connection between these two factors.Finally, the book explores how the mainstreaming of socialinclusion might be evaluated and proposes a framework for suchevaluation, including possible indicators for the measurement ofmainstreaming social inclusion.MainstreamingIn the first instance it was considered essential to understand whatis meant by mainstreaming in the context of the MSI project. Froman analysis of the relevant literature it is established thatmainstreaming is now very much part of the European agenda forthe eradication of poverty and social exclusion and it is gainingsupport among the Member States in the development of policiesfor the promotion of social inclusion.Having examined the application of mainstreaming to other policyareas, for example gender, the following definition was adopted forthe purpose of the MSI project:Mainstreaming social inclusion is the integration of povertyand social inclusion objectives, including an equalityperspective, into all areas and levels of policy-making andthat is promoted through the participation of public bodies,social partners, NGOs and other relevant actors.The use of mainstreaming, as a policy process, is dependent on anumber of national factors, such as the involvement and participationof all relevant bodies and actors, the political and administrativestructures within Member States and the resources allocated toensure that social inclusion considerations inform national and localPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 23

policies. These factors are inter-dependent and all are essential forthe successful mainstreaming of social inclusion.Development of Public PolicyMainstreaming is important in the policy cycle as it providesopportunities for the involvement of people, leading to better use ofresources and services and the targeting of public funds. The policycycle progresses from the conception of the idea, through thedesign of a policy, its implementation, an evaluation of its impactand effectiveness, to the modification of the policy. How the publicpolicy cycle functions is dependent on the structure of government.In more centralised structures, such as found in Ireland, Portugaland Norway, policy design is mainly at the national level,implementation is devolved to the local administrations and theydeliver services within the overall national policy framework.On the other hand, in more decentralised or federalistadministrative arrangements, as in the Czech Republic, France andNorthern Ireland (as a region of the UK), the power of policymaking(within a national framework) is transferred or devolved tothe regional and local levels. At these levels, responsibility forpolicies on many of the key social policy areas is found – housing,health, education, social security, etc. Depending on the localsituation and on the commitment of local communities, asexpressed through the political mandate, and of administrators, theemphasis on and allocation of resources to dealing with socialexclusion will vary between regions, local authorities andmunicipalities. Regional and local administrations guard their rightto make policy decisions within their devolved or transferred areas24 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

of competence, regardless of the national policy, in particularwhere the implementation of the policy is funded out of locallygenerated revenues.The allocation of resources, whether financial or personnel with therelevant knowledge and skills, to the different stages of the policycycle is important for the success of mainstreaming socialinclusion. If few or inadequate resources are allocated to theimplementation of the policy, it will not be effective. In morecentralised administrative arrangements, funding is provided fromthe State budget while the personnel involved in the service deliveryat the local level are usually found within the regional/localauthorities’ own resources. However, in countries whereautonomous responsibilities for policy making and the provision ofservices are transferred or devolved to the lower levels ofadministration, funding can be fully or partially provided from localtaxation sources to finance projects and services, for example,social housing, resulting in diversity of approaches and in thetargeting of resources to achieve social inclusion at the local level.Within the context of these two systems of government, threecommon forms of policies relating to mainstreaming socialinclusion can be found:■■■Policies targeted at specific social problemsBroad social policies designed to promote social inclusionOther public policies which are not directly related to socialinclusion but can impact on people at risk of poverty.This demonstrates how complex policy-making, and the differentgovernance systems and traditions in the Member States can be.Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 25

However, whatever the approach or governmental structures, toplevelpolitical and administrative commitment is necessary for thesuccessful implementation of a desired policy.The mainstreaming of social inclusion is a particularly challengingarea of policy- making, requiring commitment across all the organsof State, as well as the involvement and co-operation of NGOs andrepresentative organisations of vulnerable groups. The challenge isto find ways of incorporating mainstreaming, as a policy process,into the existing political and administrative structures and theneed for ongoing commitment to social inclusion at all levels ofgovernment. Consequently, the mainstreaming of social inclusioninto all national policy areas is crucial to the success of achievingthe goal of eradication of poverty and social exclusion.Participation of the Relevant ActorsAn important development in governance and in the formulation ofpublic policies in recent decades has been the trend towards amore consultative approach to policy-making. Increasing the levelof involvement of local communities in the development of nationaland EU-level policies is one of the key social objectives of theEuropean Union.Involvement can take a number of forms, from the simple provisionof information through consultation, participation and jointdecision-making/co-determination, each form building on theprevious one. Therefore, there cannot be consultation withoutinformation, there cannot be participation without consultation andthere cannot be joint decision-making without participation.26 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

While there are still a number of obstacles to using a participativeapproach to policy-making, there are also many benefits showinghow involvement of all the stakeholders can enhance a policy, forexample the wider pool of knowledge resulting from greater publicparticipation and outcomes that are more appropriate to the needsof the community and greater social equality. Increased politicalinvolvement at the local level is also an important benefit fromparticipative policy-making and this is seen in the emergence oflocal partnerships in many Member States, providing mechanismsfor the adaptation and implementation of national policies at thelocal level.This trend in governance has also had an impact on howmainstreaming of social inclusion into public policy-making isundertaken. Involvement provides an opportunity to capture theviews and priorities of excluded people and ensures that nationalpolicies meet their needs and do not just reflect politicalpreferences. This is demonstrated in the preparation of andagreement on the NAPs/inclusion, as consultation and participationof stakeholders has emerged as one of the four EU CommonObjectives in the fight against poverty and social exclusion and as apreferred way of addressing key social inclusion issues.Consequently, participation is referred to in the NAPs/inclusion ofall the EU Member States. Each country has establishedmechanisms to engage with relevant NGOs in the preparation of theaction plans and there are indications that this participativeapproach increased when comparing the first round ofNAPs/inclusion to the second round. On the other hand,mechanisms for engaging directly with individuals experiencingpoverty are less common.Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 27

There are also different approaches to the provision of resources tofacilitate involvement mechanisms in the preparation of theNAPs/inclusion. There is a perception that the participation of allthe key actors is not always realised through the existing structuresnor are the resources available to ensure full participation in thepreparation of the NAPs/inclusion and in public policy-making.However, the more involvement there is at the local, regional andnational levels in the formulation of a NAPs/inclusion, the greaterthe aggregation of expertise, leading to a consensus on socialpolicy and providing a common focus on combating poverty andsocial exclusion across the EU.Evaluating Mainstreaming Social InclusionFinally, a key part of the policy cycle is the monitoring andevaluation of policies. This part of the process is essential forestablishing how effective policies have been and in identifying theneed for changes to existing policies or the development of futurepolicies. Undertaking an evaluation study also providesgovernments with the evidence on which to prioritise the allocationof resources across the range of policy areas. To undertake aneffective evaluation study, it is necessary to have a number oftargets and indicators incorporated at the design stage so as toprovide benchmarks or criteria for the measurement of policies andthe level of their effectiveness at the end of the policy cycle.The mainstreaming of social inclusion is a new concept and,consequently, to date there has been little experience in evaluatingor of instruments available to measure the impact of MSI on publicpolicy-making. However, while there are a number of technical,28 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

logistical and design challenges to be overcome, the MSI researchprovides a framework (the MSI Scale) for the evaluation ofmainstreaming social inclusion which can have an impact on howpublic policy is formulated.WebsiteThe research partners have also developed a websitewww.europemsi.org which complements this book. It is intended asa tool to assist those involved in public policy-making and tocontribute to the formulation of policies. It provides a practicalguide for the application of the various elements of mainstreamingsocial inclusion – the development of public policies; involvement ofall the actors; policy evaluation; and cross-departmental workingarrangements. The contents of the website are based on thefindings of the research and the information gathered during anumber of on-site study visits to the participating Member Statesand to Northern Ireland.Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 29

1 INTRODUCTION

1 The Mainstreaming Social InclusionProject (MSI)The Combat Poverty Agency, Ireland, along with eight other partnerorganisations from six European countries, undertook a three-yearresearch project to advance the understanding of mainstreaming asa policy tool in social inclusion, during 2003 to 2005. The projectwas funded by the European Commission through the TransnationalExchange Programme (TEP), 2002-2005, DG Employment andSocial Affairs.The objectives of the MSI project were to:develop the conceptcontribute to a wider understanding of how mainstreamingsocial inclusion might be integrated into national policiesprovide an operational guide for policy actors, such asadministrators and service providers responsible for theimplementation of policies and for non-governmentalorganisations which are representative of people experiencingsocial exclusion and poverty.The knowledge gained through this project will contribute to thedevelopment and implementation of strategies across the EuropeanUnion to tackle poverty and promote social inclusion.There were two phases to the project and the objectives of thesewere as follows:Phase I (2003): to establish how mainstreaming is understoodin each partner country or region and determine the keyfeatures of mainstreaming (see Appendix 1)32 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

Phase II (2004-2005): to investigate the potential ofmainstreaming for achieving positive outcomes for peopleexperiencing poverty and the benefits that mainstreaming cangenerate; and to develop a framework for the evaluation of howsocial inclusion is mainstreamed into government policies.2 Scope of Phase IIAt the Lisbon European Council the Member States committedthemselves to tackling poverty and social exclusion and to put inplace the structures and mechanisms to achieve this objective.Taking into consideration and building on the work of Phase I, theMSI study focused on the following four features, as a way ofcontributing to the further development of the Open Method of Coordinationand to achieving the Lisbon goals:Policy development (including budgetary decisions): Themainstreaming of poverty and social exclusion into all publicpolicy-making is central to achieving social inclusion and, asnoted in the report of Phase I, the partner Member States are‘attempting to shift existing policy and deliver paradigms toproduce positive outcomes for people experiencing poverty’. 1Phase II explored how this shift could be applied, so that apoverty perspective is taken into account in all public policymaking.Stakeholder involvement and participation: The challenge inpublic policy-making is how to engage those experiencingpoverty or their representatives in the process. Phase Iidentified the need for:Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 33

– resources to develop greater levels of participation– the use of participative techniques in policy-making- greater consistency and autonomy in the funding of NGOsto allow them to develop their role in consultation andparticipation.Phase II sought to explore how existing structures ofgovernance could be utilised and developed as part of theprocess of mainstreaming social inclusionEvaluation framework for measuring the impact ofmainstreaming social inclusion on the policy process, includingthe development of criteria and indicators that might be used.The Phase I report notes that it is not clear from the studiesundertaken to date ‘whether or not specific monitoring anddata collection systems were put in place that would allow forsuch evaluation … it is difficult to measure change and difficultto tie actions to outcomes …’. One objective of Phase II was toaddress these difficulties and develop an evaluationmethodologyCross-departmental working arrangements (including formaland informal approaches): Influencing the policy-makingprocess is the structure of the public services and theinteraction across the wide range of policy areas. Thesestructures and their impact on the evolution of all policies –social, employment, economic, environmental andinfrastructural – are central to this study.34 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

3 Phase II – MethodologyThe project addressed these four main features through threethematic sub-groups:Policy Development for Social InclusionInvolvement and Participation Monitoring and Evaluation Methodology. 2On the basis of the results from Phase I and working through thesethematic sub-groups, the approach followed in Phase II focused on:how to ensure the effective mainstreaming of social inclusioninto policy-makinghow people experiencing poverty might be involved and havethe opportunity to participate in all elements of the policymakingcycle – conception, design, implementation, monitoringand evaluationthe design of a framework for the evaluation of mainstreamingsocial inclusion.Figure 1 sets out how the project was organised. The threethematic sub-groups, with experts from the participatingorganisations, addressed the issues involved in the features ofmainstreaming social inclusion listed above. The work of each subgroupwas led by one or more of the partner organisations:Institute of Social Security, Portugal, took responsibility for theInvolvement and Participation sub-group, supported by theNational Economic and Social Forum, IrelandThe Policy Development sub-group was led by OFMDFM,Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 35

Northern Ireland, and supported by the Office for SocialInclusion (OSI), IrelandThe Combat Poverty Agency took responsibility for the subgroupwhich developed the Framework for Evaluation, supportedby École Nationale de la Santé Publique, OFMDFM NorthernIreland and the Czech Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs.The work of the three thematic sub-groups was brought together bythe Steering Committee, which provided overall co-ordination andguidance for the project. The members of the Steering Committeealso discussed, made comments on and suggested changes to eachdraft of this book and on the text for the project website. Eachpartner organisation was represented on the Steering Committee.Following the research undertaken by each thematic sub-group, aseries of visits was organised to some of the participating MemberStates and to Northern Ireland, to study how social inclusionpolicies operate in practice. The results of the sub-groups and thefindings from the study visits formed the basis for the nationalsystems in the core chapters of this book and the website.In co-ordinating the project, the Combat Poverty Agency undertooka literature review and carried out research into the developmentsof EU social policy, the theories of policy development, participativearrangements in governance and evaluation methodology. Theanalysis of this research provided the structure into which thecontributions of the sub-groups, partner organisations and learningfrom the study visits were incorporated. The Combat PovertyAgency also provided organisational and secretariat back-up for theSteering Committee and the three thematic sub-groups.36 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

Figure 1.1: Structure of the ProjectProjectPartnersThematicAreaCPA (IE)MoLSA (CZ)ENSP (FR)NESF (IE)OSI (IE)OFMDFM NIPolicyDevelopmentInvolvementandParticipationSteeringCommitteeDHSA (NO)ISS (PT)EvaluationMethodologyEAPN-EuropePromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 37

4 The Structure of the BookThe book reviews the peer process adopted by the European Council,including national action plans and the co-ordination of nationalsocial inclusion policies. In doing this, it explores two key factors thatare central to the success of mainstreaming social inclusion – theprocess of developing policy and the involvement of all relevantstakeholders in the formation of policy. Finally, the book exploreshow the mainstreaming of social inclusion might be evaluated andproposes a framework for such evaluation, including possibleindicators for the measurement of mainstreaming social inclusion.Chapter 2 draws on the problems encountered in other‘mainstreaming’ mechanisms at all administrative levels. It looks tobring ‘added value’ to the development of an evaluation frameworkfrom existing mainstreaming approaches by building on otherdefinitions of mainstreaming, in particular those explored in PhaseI. In doing this, other existing mainstreaming approaches, such asgender, ethnicity, race and employment, are explored and theagreed definition of mainstreaming social inclusion is outlined.There are two chapters which set the scene for the study. Chapter 3explores a range of definitions of the term ‘social inclusion’ andrelated terms which are often interchanged with social inclusion orare used in different contexts, while Chapter 4 reviews how socialinclusion and policies for the eradication of poverty evolved withinthe European Union and the Member States.The three core chapters of the book, outlining the researchfindings and the country data, follow. First, how policy at all levelsof administration integrate poverty and social inclusion issues intothe different levels of the policy process – concept, planning,38 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation – is the focusof Chapter 5.Chapter 6 explores the mainstreaming mechanisms for theinvolvement/participation of stakeholders (including peopleexperiencing poverty; employers’ and workers’ organisations;NGOs; political actors; administrative personnel; and serviceproviders) in the different levels of the policy process mentionedabove and which impact on poverty and social inclusion.Finally, Chapter 7 explores the concept of evaluation and how anevaluation study might be constructed. The sub-group on EvaluationMethodology devised an evaluation framework that could be used ina comparative evaluation of how Member States mainstreampoverty and social inclusion into their policy processes. Thisframework includes a methodology designed to examine the impactmainstreaming social inclusion has on government policies and thedevelopment of criteria and indicators that might be used tomeasure this impact. The framework was tested by a pilot studycarried out in the partner Member States, subsequently revised andis outlined in this chapter.Footnotes1 Mainstreaming Social Inclusion, Research report, Phase I. Combat PovertyAgency, Ireland (2004).2 Cross-departmental working arrangements were taken into considerationby each of the three sub-themes.Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 39

2 UnderstandingMainstreaming

1 What is Mainstreaming?In Phase I of the MSI project, it emerged that ‘mainstreaming’ wasnot generally understood or has different meanings across thepartner countries. Indeed, in many languages there is no equivalentterm. ‘It is a term which is increasingly used but not wellunderstood.’ 1 However, it is an expression which is growing incommon usage, with references to it as a process in much of theEuropean Commission documentation, in particular with referenceto gender and equal opportunity issues.Mainstreaming has been widely used in education in the UnitedStates for thirty years, culminating in the Public Law Act, 1975(Public Law 94-142), which is known as the ‘Mainstreaming Act’,on the integration of education. Prior to the 1970s, self-containedclassrooms were the usual educational environment for childrenwith disabilities, even those with mild disabilities. In the 1970sseveral court cases resulted in the integration of students withdisabilities into general education. As legal suits were broughtagainst the educational system for fair and equal treatment, theUnited States Congress passed laws which extended these rightsto children throughout the US. Finally, the Public Law Act waspassed which legislated that children with special education needsbe educated in the least restrictive environment available. Theterm ‘mainstreaming’ was used to describe the primaryimplication this law had for schools even though the word is notused in the legislation. 2The use of the term has extended and is now found in a wide rangeof other policy areas, for example by the United Nations agencieswith reference to public health, disabilities, water distribution andthe environment. The Office of the United Nations High42 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR) makes numerousreferences to mainstreaming human rights into UN developmentprogrammes, gender policies and regional economic, social andminority issues. 3 Under the UN Secretary-General’s reformprogramme in 1997, the High Commissioner was given a mandateto facilitate ‘the mainstreaming of human rights in UN developmentprogramming and to act as a catalyst for human rights integration’.In particular, the UNHCHR and the UN Development Programme(UNDP) jointly sponsored the Human Rights StrengtheningProgramme (HURIST) in 1999-2000 with the specific objective ofmainstreaming human rights into sustainable human development. 4The UNDP supports several other programmes that focus onmainstreaming human rights into all its work areas and goals. Itprovides support for institutions of governance and human rightsbodies, with an emphasis on building their human rights capacity,and it has also developed a human rights approach to sustainablehuman development. 5The mainstreaming of poverty reduction is linked to thismainstreaming of human rights into policy areas. It is also a policycommitment of the UN and its development agencies. In particular,the UN Economic and Social Council sets out the framework for themainstreaming of poverty reduction strategies within the UNMillennium Development Goals and observers that:Mainstreaming the goal of poverty within the MillenniumDevelopment Goals will require the Public Administration to be– (a) more engaging and receptive; (b) more skilled andvisionary; (c) more open and transparent; (d) more facilitatingand guiding; and (e) more just. 6Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 43

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development(OECD) also focuses on poverty reduction strategies in itsDeveloping Assistance Countries (DAC) guidelines. Among theprinciples underpinning these guidelines is the acknowledgementthat poverty is multi-dimensional and that there must be politicalwill from all partners to reduce poverty. The guidelines set out theelements that are required for effective mainstreaming of povertyreduction and provide a useful definition:Mainstreaming poverty reduction means integrating it as acritical consideration in agency policy formulation, planning,decision making, implementation and evaluation processes. 72 Gender MainstreamingIn Europe, however, the use of the term ‘mainstreaming’ came toprominence in the context of gender equality and the adoption ofequal opportunities as a key policy objective, in particular throughthe action programmes on equal opportunities, during the 1990s.Early references to gender mainstreaming emerged from a UNdebate on the role of women in development, where it was viewedas a means of integrating women’s values into development work.In the European Union, the concept has been applied to all the mainpolicies and programmes. Moreover, the Treaty of Rome provided alegal basis for the concept of ‘equal pay for work of equal value’,while the Amsterdam Treaty (for example, Articles 2, 118 and 119),strengthens equal opportunities by adding articles covering theelimination of inequalities and discrimination on the grounds ofgender and other areas of discrimination.44 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

While there is no exclusive definition of gender mainstreaming, alldefinitions are comprised of a number of common elements. Theseare:the goal of gender equalityan understanding that mainstreaming is a means to achievingthat goala new way of developing and implementing policya new knowledge and skills base for actorsa change in cultural and institutional traditions and thinking ofactors.There has been some progress to date in establishing a gendermainstreaming culture in policy-making in Europe. A recent reportstates that there have been commitment and valuable gains so far.However, the ‘ambitious’ goal of mobilising all services remains‘largely unachieved’; that gender mainstreaming has not beenapplied in a coherent and effective way; and that the main barriersto mainstreaming were the lack of political will, of resources – bothhuman and budgetary – and of appropriate expertise, all interrelated.8Mainstreaming, therefore, is a relatively new approach to policydevelopment in which equal opportunities principles, strategies andpractices are integrated into every aspect of the work ofgovernment. To date, it has focused on gender equality but, morerecently it has been applied to other dimensions of discriminationand disadvantage. As well as addressing equality issues,mainstreaming can be seen as an important element of strategyaimed at improving the quality of public policy and governance:Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 45

Mainstreaming means transformation: it can be defined asintegrating equal opportunities into all systems, structures,actions, policies, programmes and projects – into ways ofthinking and doing. 9However, mainstreaming can be confusing and imprecise.Professor Woodward refers to this confusion in relation to gendermainstreaming. First, gender mainstreaming demands a top-downapproach from policy-makers and it is not always rooted among the‘grass-root’ activists.The second source of confusion is the definition ofmainstreaming itself. This confusion is based on both linguisticconcerns and conceptions. Related to this is the third source ofmuddle: who or what is supposed to be responsible formainstreaming? 10Taking these observations into consideration, there are a number ofdefinitions of ‘gender mainstreaming’ from a range of internationalorganisations, such as the UN. For example, following the WorldConference on Women, Beijing, in 1995, the UN Economic andSocial Council adopted draft conclusions on mainstreaming thegender perspective into all policies and programmes in the UNsystem. This document defines gender mainstreaming as:the process of assessing the implications for women and menof any planned action, including legislation, policies andprogrammes, in all areas and at all levels. It is a strategy formaking women’s as well as men’s concerns and experiencesan integral dimension of the design, implementation,monitoring and evaluation of policies and programmes in allpolitical, economic and societal spheres so that women and46 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

men benefit equally and inequality is not perpetuated. Theultimate goal is to achieve equality. 11The European Commission also adopted a definition of gendermainstreaming which recognised that there should be norestrictions on EU efforts to promote equality and to implementspecific measures to help women, but alsoMobilising all general policies and measures specifically for thepurpose of achieving equality by actively and openly taking intoaccount at the planning stage their possible effects on therespective situations of men and women (gender perspective).This means systematically examining measures and policiesand taking into account such possible effects when defining andimplementing them. 12This Communication goes on to outline the basic feature of‘mainstreaming’ as ‘the systematic consideration of the differencesbetween the conditions of women and men in all Communitypolicies and actions’. To implement a gender mainstreaming policy,a number of elements need to be put in place:Gender proofing of all policiesMobilising all the relevant servicesAnchoring responsibilities for implementationTraining and awareness raising, in particular of frontlineservice providersMonitoring and benchmarking – collating data and statisticsPutting in place structures to facilitate mainstreamingPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 47

Impact assessment to ensure that there are no unintendednegative consequences from the policy and to improve thequality and efficiency of the policy.The International Labour Office says that ‘mainstreaming is notabout adding a woman’s component or even a gender equalitycomponent into an existing activity. It goes beyond increasingwomen’s participation; it means bringing the experience,knowledge and interests of women and men to bear on thedevelopment agenda. The goal of mainstreaming gender equality isthe transformation of unequal social and institutional structuresinto equal and just structures for both men and women.’ Theprocess may require changes in goals, strategies and actions sothat both men and women can influence, participate in and benefitfrom developmental processes. 13The Scottish Executive Social Research Unit examined howmainstreaming equal opportunities can be integrated into the workof government and public bodies by looking at good practice inother countries. The research made a number of observations:Mainstreaming is a social justice-led approach to policy makingMainstreaming aims to transform the organisational cultures ofgovernment and public bodies and to improve the quality ofpublic policy and governanceMainstreaming complements lawful positive action designed toaddress the historic and current impact of discriminatingstructures and practicesMainstreaming is a strategy that can, without care, degenerateinto tokenism where public commitment is given in principle48 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

ut where in practice little is achieved – strong and sustainedpolitical will is probably the single most important factor forsuccessful implementationConcrete examples are crucial for governments and otherpublic bodies seeking to ‘learn’ mainstreamingExperience of mainstreaming has been seen to bring tangiblebenefits for governments and public bodies. 14These findings are also relevant to the mainstreaming of socialinclusion into public policy-making.3 Principles for the Mainstreaming ofSocial InclusionIn integrating gender issues into its policies and activities, theEuropean Commission comments on the implementation of itsequal opportunities policies that ‘mainstreaming’ requires themobilisation of all policy areas and actors, including those notfamiliar with equality issues and it requires a cultural change inmentality and behaviour. 15Similarly, effective mainstreaming of social inclusion into the processof policy-making would require a comprehensive change in the waypolicy at all levels of government and administration is arrived at andthe political will to undertake such change. It would necessitatethose involved in the formulation of policy to take into consideration,in the decision-making process, how proposed policies might impact,positively or negatively, on poverty levels or might increase povertylevels or, indeed, have a neutral affect on those experiencing poverty.Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 49

From these examples of mainstreaming, and others, a number ofkey principles can be adopted for the implementation of amainstreaming approach to social inclusion. For example,contrasting the mainstreaming of gender and public health issueswithin the EU, the European Anti-Poverty Network makes threepoints. First, to be effective, mainstreaming must be underpinned byclear objectives and a political commitment. Second, to achievethese objectives, they should not only be mainstreamed across allpolicy areas but more specific and targeted measures should alsobe taken to tackle discrimination and structural inequalities. Third,mainstreaming must be a participatory process through which allpublic policies are evaluated in line with clear objectives, thenrevised in close co-operation with non-governmental organisations. 16Responsibility for implementing mainstreaming strategies shouldbe at the highest levels within an organisation and accountabilitymechanisms for monitoring progress need to be in place. A clearpolitical will and allocation of adequate resources formainstreaming, including additional financial and human resourcesif necessary, are important for translating the concept into practice.Furthermore, mainstreaming is a long-term strategy for theframing of policies that change organisational cultures andstructures. Mainstreaming puts people, and their diverse needsand experiences, at the heart of policy-making.The International Labour Organisation (ILO) is of the view thatmainstreaming leads to better government. It creates a process ofbetter-informed policy-making, operates with greater transparencyand openness and helps to tackle the ‘democratic deficit’ byencouraging wider individual and community participation in thepolicy process, through effective consultation mechanisms.50 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

Consequently, as a process, mainstreaming confronts societalstructures which contribute to, or sustain discrimination anddisadvantage. By implementing a mainstreaming approach theadoption of policies and programmes which replicate discriminationand exacerbate existing inequalities can be avoided. 17Effective mainstreaming (as a general concept) is dependent on anumber of criteria in the political and administrative arrangements.These issues include the following: 181. Leadership – The ‘championing’ of mainstreaming by thepolitical and executive leadership is important. Reform must beat the most fundamental level and must not only reflectsuperficial change. The commitment of senior management iscentral to ensuring that all staff become sensitised to povertyissues. Information sharing will assist greatly in keepingpoverty on policy agendas.There is a need for fundamental changes in attitudes andworking culture, but there are difficulties in assessing how farchanges in attitudes are actually occurring at a fundamentalrather than superficial level. In measuring change, it may beappropriate to consider a range of ‘outcome measures’ relatedto the values and attitudes of the actual policy makers, thoughthis would be a significant measurement challenge.2. Structures – A governance structure that enables effectivemainstreaming requires a centralised unit which is focusedsolely on promoting the social inclusion policy process. Thepresence of such a specialist unit may serve to crystallisehigher-level political vision and goals. Where such a unit islocated within the overall structure of the governmentPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 51

administration, the level of authority it has will be important.Its role might be to ensure a social inclusion focus on all policyareas from the strategic planning level through to theoperational, service delivery level.3. Capacity and skills – Administrations require the appropriateskills and knowledge to ensure effective mainstreaming ofsocial inclusion. There may be a need for sector-specific skills(e.g. housing, education and training, etc.) or knowledge linkeddirectly to poverty and social inclusion. For example, theavailability of personnel with experience of communityparticipation and engagement may be limited. In general,therefore, the human resource functions within administrationsneed to ensure that the appropriate personnel capacity forpoverty reduction strategies is available. This may take theform of specific recruitment exercises or the provision oftraining programmes to ensure that the skills and knowledgeare put in place.4. Community participation and engagement – This is an aspect ofmainstreaming social inclusion that, potentially, requires a lotof commitment, particularly with respect to involving peoplewho are experiencing poverty in policy development andimplementation processes.5. Research and evaluation – High quality and appropriate data areessential for establishing the parameters of mainstreaming.Linked to this is the effective dissemination of data andinformation on poverty and social exclusion. As communityinvolvement is central to the success of mainstreaming,relevant data and the sharing of information acrossgovernment departments and agencies need to be52 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

supplemented by effective communications betweengovernment and key NGO stakeholders in the fight againstpoverty and social exclusion.There are three other elements that are considered essential formainstreaming to be a success. First, financial, personnel and timeresources are necessary for effective mainstreaming. As a processit requires a political commitment to invest adequate resources toensure its successful implementation. Second, awareness raisingactivities, in terms of guidelines, training programmes, advice, etc.,are needed to reinforce commitment and provide wider support.Third, an impact assessment strategy, to analyse the direct andindirect impact of policies and actions on different social groups,should be in place. This assessment could show that specificmeasures would be needed to address existing areas of socialexclusion or that a proposed policy needs to be changed.4 National Action Plans against povertyand social exclusion (NAPs/inclusion);Joint Inclusion Memoranda to tacklepoverty and social exclusion (JIMs); andJoint Reports on Social Inclusion (JIRs)Chapter 4 details the development of the NAPs/inclusion, the JIMsand JIRs, within the Open Method of Co-ordination process,including the ‘common objectives’ agreed for the drafting of theseaction plans. However, in reviewing the application ofmainstreaming to social inclusion policies, this section brieflyPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 53

examines ‘mainstreaming’ in the context of governments’commitments, as outlined in the NAPs/inclusion.In the ‘common objectives’ for the preparation of theNAPs/inclusion, Objective 4 is related to the ‘participation of thosesuffering exclusion, mainstreaming the fight against exclusion intooverall policy and promoting dialogue between all relevant bodies’. 19In addressing Objective 4, all the NAPs/inclusion and JIMs makeparticular reference to mainstreaming as a necessary process insocial inclusion policies.As can be seen in Table 2.1, a number of Member States give a highpriority to mainstreaming in their NAPs/inclusion and JIMs.Table 2.1: References to MainstreamingBrief Mention Discussed in Detail Given a High PriorityMaltaAustriaDenmarkFranceItalyCyprusCzech Rep.EstoniaHungaryLatviaPolandSlovak Rep.SloveniaFinlandGermanyGreeceIrelandPortugalSpainSwedenUK (NI)LithuaniaNB: New Member States in italics. MSI partner countries in bold54 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

For example, the Czech NAP/inclusion includes a comprehensivedefinition for mainstreaming social inclusion:A process which incorporates the issues of poverty and socialinclusion, including a gender equality perspective, into all areasof public and state policy and which is promoted throughpartnership at all levels between public bodies, social partners,NGOs and other parties involved. 20While pointing out that mainstreaming social inclusion has not yetbeen used as a policy process cutting across all policy areas, theprinciple of mainstreaming has been included in all policies with ‘asocial impact’ and has been directly implemented in selected policyareas, such as Roma, people with disabilities, older people andemigrants. The Czech NAPs/inclusion also provided information onhow policies are mainstreamed. The Committee of Social Inclusionhas responsibility for developing the social inclusion strategy andfor its implementation, monitoring and evaluation. The process hasbeen assisted by a PHARE-funded Twinning Programme, with theco-operation of Germany and the UK, to set up institutionalstructures for a social inclusion strategy.While the Irish NAPs/inclusion does not define mainstreaming, theneed to have institutional structures to harness resources across allgovernment departments, to ensure a coherent cross-cutting and coordinatedapproach to tackling the complex nature of poverty, isrecognised. At the political level, a Government Committee on SocialInclusion, Drugs and Rural Development, chaired by the Taoiseach(Prime Minister), has been set up and this is supported at theadministrative level by the Steering Committee of Senior Officials andthe Office for Social Inclusion, showing that there is a strong emphasisplaced on mainstreaming social inclusion into national policies. Also,Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 55

at the local community level there is support for cohesion in thedevelopment of local projects and local development programmes. 21In the UK’s NAPs/inclusion there is a clear indication of specificmeasures which have been developed to achieve stated objectiveson the mainstreaming of poverty and social inclusion, across arange of government policies. These measures are to be found inthe Central Government structures and in the regional and localadministrations, which are required to publish annual reports onhow they are addressing poverty and social exclusion. For example,in Wales a Child Poverty Task Force has been set up and in Scotlandthe focus is on ‘Closing the Opportunity Gap’. In Northern Ireland‘New Targeting Social Need’ (New TSN) is the Government’s highlevelpolicy for tackling social exclusion and to ensure policies aretargeted at those most in need.In addition, under the Northern Ireland Act, 1998, the publicauthorities have a statutory duty to have ‘due regard’ to thepromotion of equality of opportunity between a number of socialcategories, such as people of different religious beliefs, politicalopinions, racial group, age, marital status or sexual orientation;between genders; between people with disabilities and those without;and between persons with dependants and persons without.In France, an Inter-Ministerial Committee to Combat Exclusion hasbeen established to co-ordinate the implementation of theNAPs/inclusion for 2003-2005. It also has an ongoing project tomonitor and assess the National Plan. At the local level, also, asystem of public service centres has been set up in disadvantagedneighbourhoods. The objective of these centres is to adapt allservices to improve their accessibility and their inclusiveness and toensure that they are more user-friendly for everyone.56 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

The process of preparing and promoting the NAPs/inclusion inPortugal has resulted in a concerted strategy of sharedresponsibility between the State, civil society and the socialpartners. The drafting of the NAPs/inclusion is co-ordinated by theMinistry of Labour and Social Solidarity and its implementation ismonitored by the NAPs/inclusion Inter-departmental MonitoringCommission, which is representative of the different ministries,State Secretaries and the Regional Governments of the Azores andMadeira. This Commission was set up as a result of a resolution ofthe Council of Ministers. Because of the co-ordination role of theMinistry of Labour and Social Solidarity and the significant numberof measures it is responsible for, a NAPs/inclusion Working Groupwas also set up within the Ministry, bringing together departmentswith responsibilities in the various areas covered by the plan.The organisation with responsibility for the co-ordination of theNAPs/inclusion developed a Strategic Project for Participation. Thepurpose of this project was to improve the process of policy-makingon social issues at both the central and local levels by bringingtogether resources and needs and by making possible theparticipation and involvement of all actors from the governmentaland non-governmental sectors, in the different phases of the plan.One of the objectives, therefore, during the implementation of theNAPs/inclusion, 2003-2005, was to set up fora for the effectiveparticipation of different stakeholders at every level in theimplementation and monitoring process. This was to ensure thatObjective 4 of the Common Objectives (To mobilise all relevantbodies) was achieved and that gaps identified in the process wereaddressed. So as to promote the active involvement of all relevantsocial actors, a Non-Governmental Forum was also established andPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 57

it has responsibility for the periodic monitoring of theimplementation and assessment of the NAPs/inclusion. The forumoperates in partnership with the Inter-Departmental MonitoringCommission. At the local level, the links with the non-governmentalsector and the social partners are through the Social Networkscreated within the Social Network Programme.The NAPs/inclusion, therefore, has been transformed from aGovernment document to a plan which was based on otherperspectives, including the inputs across the range ofadministrations at central and local levels and representativebodies from civil society. While the Government maintainedresponsibility for overall national policies, the frequent politicalchanges have been a problem during the last few years which was aconstraint on the process of co-ordination, implementation andmonitoring of the NAPs/inclusion and was reflected in constantchanges of national policies and programmes.While Norway is not a Member State of the European Union anddoes not participate in the NAPs/inclusion process, it doesparticipate in many of the EU’s broad economic, social and otherprogrammes. In 2002 Norway addressed issues of poverty andsocial exclusion in a similar way to the NAPs/inclusion process bythe adoption of a policy White Paper and a three-year plan of actionfor combating poverty (2002-2005). Other reforms and initiativesunderpin these social inclusion policy objectives. 2258 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

5 Understanding Mainstreaming SocialInclusion‘Mainstreaming’, therefore, is now very much part of the EU processfor the achievement of the objectives in the Lisbon Strategy withregard to the eradication of poverty and social exclusion and isaddressed by the Member States as an integral part of their range ofpolicies related to the promotion of social inclusion. It is a practicaltool, rather than an academic concept, to be used by policy-makersto achieve agreed policy goals and outcomes, such as on humanrights, gender and equal opportunities and social inclusion.Having taken into consideration the various definitions of‘mainstreaming’, the various publications from the EU institutionsand, in particular, the definition used by the Czech Ministry of Labourand Social Affairs, the partner organisations in the MSI projectagreed the following definition for the purpose of its research:Mainstreaming social inclusion is the integration of poverty andsocial inclusion objectives, including an equality perspective,into all areas and levels of policy-making and that is promotedthrough the participation of public bodies, social partners,NGOs and other relevant actors.ConclusionThis chapter discussed the origins and the increased use of theterm ‘mainstreaming’. It outlined that, as a policy process,mainstreaming has been applied to a range of policy areas for anumber of years, so there is now a degree of experience on whichPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 59

to build an understanding and how it might be understood withinthe context of the commitment by the EU Member States to tacklepoverty and social exclusion. Many of the Member States haverecognised the importance of mainstreaming social inclusion intotheir public policies and have outlined their commitment to theprocess in the NAPs/inclusion.Having examined the evolution of ‘mainstreaming’ as a policy tooland its growing use within the EU, the partner organisations, forthe purpose of the MSI project, defined ‘mainstreaming socialinclusion’. This definition places an emphasis on the main elementsof the MSI project – the integration of poverty and social inclusioninto all public policy areas and the importance of including all therelevant stakeholders in the process of policy-making. It also drawsattention to the importance of equality for all in the application ofmainstreaming social inclusion.Footnotes1 Learning from Experience: Lessons in Mainstreaming Equal Opportunities, F.Mackay and K. Bilton, Scottish Executive Social Research (2003).2 See www.questia.com for the background to the Public Law Act, 1975.3 See www.ohchr.org4 See www.unhchr.ch/development/huristproject.doc For other UNreferences to mainstreaming see www.undp.org/gender andwww.un-instraw.org5 Integrating human rights with sustainable human development: A UNDP policydocument United Nations Development Programme (January 1998).60 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

6 Mainstreaming Poverty Reduction Strategies within the UN MillenniumDevelopment Goals: The role of Public Administrations, UN Economic andSocial Council (E/C.16/2003/5).7 The DAC Guidelines Poverty Reduction, Organisation for Economic Cooperationand Development (OECD), Paris (2003).8 Opinion on the Implementation of Gender Mainstreaming in EU Policies,Advisory Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, Brussels(DOC EQOP 59- 2001 (2002) final).9 Tinkering, tailoring, transforming: principles and tools for gendermainstreaming, T. Rees in Gender Mainstreaming: a step into the 21st centuryAthens (1999). See also Mainstreaming Equality in the European Union, T.Rees, Routledge, London (1998).10 Mainstreaming and Equal Pay: a logical partnership? A. Woodward in EqualPay and Gender Mainstreaming in the European Employment Strategy, eds. L.Magnusson, L. Mosesdottir and A. Serano Pascual, ETUI/SALTSA, Brussels(2003).11 Gender Mainstreaming: Extract from the Report of the Economic and SocialCouncil for 1997 (Chapter IV), UN Economic and Social Council (A/52/2, 18September 1997).12 Incorporating equal opportunities for women and men into all Communitypolicies and actions, European Commission Communication(COM(96)67final).13 www.ilo.org/public14 Mackay and Bilton, op. cit. (Executive Summary).15 Interim report on the implementation of the medium-term Community actionprogramme (1999), Office for Official Publications of the EuropeanCommunities, Luxembourg.Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 61

16 Mainstreaming poverty and social exclusion, Report of seminar, Lisbon, 17-18 March, 2000 (Rapporteur: Xavier Dutrenit); European Anti PovertyNetwork (Brussels), August 2000.17 www.ilo.org/public/18 Paper prepared by S. Donnelly, OFMDFM NI for MSI Project, October 2004.19 Objectives in Fight Against Poverty and Social Exclusion, approved by ECSummit in Nice in December 2000, seehttp://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/social_inclusion/docs/approb_en.pdf20 National Action Plan on Social Inclusion 2004-2006, Czech Ministry of Labourand Social Affairs (2004).21 National Action Plan against Poverty and Social Exclusion 2003-2005, Officefor Social Inclusion (2003).22 In September, 2005, parliamentary elections were held in Norway whichresulted in the election of a new government. At the time of writing it wasnot clear whether the new government will adopt a new Plan of Action forCombating Poverty. What is clear, however, is that the issues of povertyand social exclusion will still be on the national agenda.62 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

3 From Poverty toSocial Cohesion

1 IntroductionThis chapter reviews a number of definitions related to the concept‘social inclusion’ and a number of other concepts, which are oftenused interchangeably and which are found in the literature –poverty, exclusion, inclusion and cohesion. These terms indicate anevolution in thinking from poverty in a narrow perspective to thewider integrated societal approach of inclusion and cohesion.The problem with defining these concepts is to find universalagreement on what they mean. There is no commonly agreeddefinition because the concepts change over time and people’sunderstanding, both from social, economic and political points ofview also change. There is, however, a general agreement thatcommunities should strive to eradicate poverty and social exclusionand to build socially inclusive and cohesive societies, regardless ofacademic or political definitions.2 PovertyThe need for a definition of poverty is recognised as essential for anunderstanding of the concept and the academic literature refers toa number of different types of poverty, such as:relative poverty (at-risk-of-poverty): an individual’s, or group’s,living standard relative to the overall standard of living in thesociety they live in, considered within the EU as having anincome which is 60 per cent or less than the national medianincome per adult equivalentconsistent poverty: where an individual or group is excluded and64 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

marginalised from participating in activities which areconsidered the norm for other people in society and haveproblems of providing food, clothing, housing, heating andother basics considered essential in the society in which theylive, over a given periodsubjective poverty: a combination of income and what areconsidered basic necessities which are used to defineindicators of deprivation 1absolute poverty: as defined by the United Nations:A condition characterised by severe deprivation of basic humanneeds, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities,health, shelter, education and information. It depends not onlyon income but also on access to services. 2In his assessment of what poverty is, Alcock asserts that ‘there is noone correct, scientific, agreed definition because poverty is inevitablya political concept and thus inherently a contested one’. 3 Whileattempts have been made over the last century to find an acceptable,universal definition, he quotes a number of definitions advanced inother studies. For example, Townsend provided a definition forpoverty in the UK in 1975, which has been updated in subsequentwritings and which has become acceptable and widely used:Individuals, families and groups in the population can be said tobe in poverty when they lack the resources to obtain the typesof diet, participate in the activities and have the livingconditions and amenities which are customary … in thesocieties to which they belong. 4The European Union has been grappling with the problem ofPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 65

poverty since its first anti-poverty programme in 1975. When thisprogramme was launched it gave rise to a debate on what is meantby poverty, and as part of the process of implementing it, theCommission adopted its own definition, reflecting the Townsenddefinition:The poor shall be taken to mean persons, families and groupsof persons whose resources (material, cultural and social) areso limited as to exclude them from the minimum acceptableway of life in the Member State in which they live.This definition was revised a number of times and the acceptedofficial EU measure of ‘at-risk-of-poverty’ is now any individualliving in a household where the equivalised income is below thethreshold of 60 per cent of the national median income. 5While EU publications increasingly use the term ‘social inclusion’since the early 1990s, the Joint Inclusion Report, 2004,interchanges the expressions of ‘poverty’, ‘social exclusion’ and‘social inclusion’ and, so as to distinguish between the three terms,it provides definitions on each. (For definitions see Table 1.)66 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

In line with the official EU definition, the PortugueseNAPs/inclusion (2001-2003) understands poverty in the doublesense of:An absence or scarcity of resources (monetary, property, social,relational, cultural and others) necessary to satisfy basic needs(of food, housing, educations, security, health, protection,access to culture and leisure, among others) or to provide fullparticipation in lifestyles that are considered normal. 6The Irish National Anti-Poverty Strategy (NAPS) also refers topoverty and, building on the Townsend definition, defines overallpoverty as:People are living in poverty, if their income and resources(material, cultural and social) are so inadequate as to precludethem from having a standard of living which is regarded asacceptable by Irish society generally. As a result of inadequateincome and resources people may be excluded andmarginalised from participation in activities that are consideredthe norm for other people in society. 7At the EU level, the European Anti-Poverty Network (EAPN) definespoverty as follows:Poverty consists in being unable to or precluded from meetingone or more needs without outside help. These needs relate toaspects of life which enable self-determination, i.e. assumingone’s responsibilities and exercising one’s rights, or access tofundamental goods (income, education, housing, health, etc.). Itis inseparable from the individual’s perception of adeterioration in their economic situation, rights and/orrelationships. 8Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 67

Finally, at its Copenhagen conference in 1995, the United Nationsadopted a global definition of overall poverty as a… lack of income and productive resources sufficient to ensuresustainable livelihoods; hunger and malnutrition; ill health;limited or lack of access to education and other basic services;increased morbidity and mortality from illness; homelessnessand inadequate housing; unsafe environments; and socialdiscrimination and exclusion. It is also characterised by a lack ofparticipation in decision-making and civil, social and cultural life.It occurs in all countries: as mass poverty in developing countries,pockets of poverty amid wealth in developed countries, loss oflivelihoods as a result of economic recession, sudden poverty as aresult of disaster or conflict, the poverty of low-wage workers andthe utter destitution of people who fall outside family supportsystems, social institutions and safety nets. 93 Social ExclusionSocial exclusion has a broader meaning than poverty, as it points tothe exclusion of people from activities, goods and servicesconsidered normal to the society in which they live and theirexclusion can be, but not solely, related to their level of income.In his book Concepts and Strategies for Combating Social Exclusion 10Jordi Estivill traces the emergence of the concept of socialexclusion back to Les exclus by René Lenoir in 1974. Thispublication first identified the inability of expanding economies toinclude certain physically, mentally or socially disabled groups,thus starting a debate on the meaning and use of the terms68 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

‘poverty’ and ‘exclusion’. Reflecting the difficulty in finding auniversal definition, Estivill argues that not all people living inpoverty are socially excluded and not all excluded people are livingin poverty and, consequently, there can be varying levels and typesof exclusion – social, political, economic, information technology,etc. He says that ‘exclusion’ has been refined by this debate and isnow at the heart of the economic, political and social policies:Social exclusion may be understood as an accumulation ofconfluent processes with successive ruptures arising from theheart of the economy, politics and society, which graduallydistances and places persons, groups, communities andterritories in a position of inferiority in relation to centres ofpower, resources and prevailing values. 11In this regard, the Poverty and Social Exclusion Survey of Britain,funded by the Rowntree Foundation in 1999, identified four similardimensions of exclusion:Impoverishment or exclusion from adequate income orresourcesLabour market exclusionService exclusion Exclusion from social relations. 12The European Union addressed the issue of social exclusion in itssecond anti-poverty programme in 1988 and it was included as anissue to be addressed in the Social Charter in 1989. The focus onsocial exclusion rather than poverty broadened the debate andexpanded the understanding of poverty as a multi-dimensionalissue, beyond just material and economic deprivation to societalPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 69

and political deprivation and the exclusion of individuals and groupsfrom participating in the wider community, thus creating a ‘twotier’society.A further definition is found in the Joint Inclusion Report (2004), 13which is intended to complement the understanding of poverty andsocial exclusion used in the agreed indicators drafted by the SocialProtection Committee. 144 Social InclusionThe European Commission’s Social Policy Agenda (2000-2005) setsas one of its objectives:To prevent and eradicate poverty and exclusion and promote theintegration and participation of all into economic and social life. 15and this is reiterated in the most recent Commission socialprogramme. 16 This objective stresses the more positive concept ofinclusion as a policy approach.A recent European Foundation paper identifies this more positivefocus and a shift in terminology during the 1980s, moving awayfrom the term ‘poverty’ to a greater use of ‘inclusion’, thuscapturing ‘the multifaceted processes and character of deprivation.’However, in a quickly changing Europe, social inclusion is neithersimple nor static – people move in and out of ‘disadvantagedcircumstances over time and in a varied and complex way’. Itdefines ‘social inclusion’ as:people’s capability to participate fully in both economic andsocial life. 1770 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

As with its other definitions, the European Commission’s JointInclusion Report (2004), 18 goes further in its definition of socialinclusion. The terminology used by the Commission has alsoevolved, as initially the NAPs/inclusion were referred to as ‘againstpoverty and social exclusion’, while the Commission reports on theanalysis of these NAPs and of the first round of NAPs/inclusionfrom the ten new Member States both referred to social inclusion,indicating a shift in emphasis and a more positive approach.In Ireland, for example, when adopting specific plans to implementthe National Anti-Poverty Strategy, Building an Inclusive Society, theNational Partnership Agreement, Sustaining Progress 2003-2005,sets as an objective for the partners to the agreement:… to build a fair and inclusive society and to ensure that peoplehave the resources and opportunities to live life with dignityand have access to the quality public services that underpin lifechances and experiences. 195 Social CohesionThe Council of Europe uses the term ‘social cohesion’ and definesthis as ‘the capacity of a society to ensure the welfare of all itsmembers, minimising disparities and avoiding polarisation. Acohesive society is a mutually supportive community of freeindividuals pursuing these common goals by democratic means.’ 20It goes on to point out that ‘social cohesion is an ideal to be strivenfor rather that a goal capable of being fully achieved’:Social cohesion is not only a matter of combating socialexclusion and poverty. It is also about creating solidarity inPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 71

society such that exclusion will be minimised. At the sametime, in so far as poverty and exclusion continue to exist, thereis also a need to take specific measures to help vulnerablemembers of society. A social cohesion strategy must, therefore,tackle exclusion by means of both prevention and cure.To co-ordinate its work on social cohesion, the Council establishedan inter-governmental body, the European Committee for SocialCohesion, in 1998. This committee identified social cohesion as ‘oneof the foremost needs of the wider Europe and … an essentialcomplement to the promotion of human rights and dignity’. 21Itdeveloped a Social Cohesion Strategy and undertook a review ofsocial rights, emphasising the inter-dependence of all aspects ofrights, through studies on access to housing, social protection,employment, education and health care. This work culminated in amajor publication on access to social rights and the Council ofEurope’s Malta Declaration. The report sees social cohesion asaddressing both the state of society as a whole and the role andplace of vulnerable groups and individuals within it, while theDeclaration calls on Council of Europe Member States to be ‘awarethat poverty and social exclusion are factors undermining theenjoyment of human rights’. 22These sentiments of fully integrated social and economic polices toachieve social cohesion, as declared by the Council of Europe, findfurther expression in the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy, agreedby the governments of the Member States and is the statedobjective of the European Union. 23 The term social cohesion is nowmore frequently used in EU documentation. It is one of the fourguidelines for the preparation of the NAPs/employment –Strengthening social cohesion and inclusion 24 – and a principle of the72 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

guidelines for the European Social Fund. 25 Indeed, the EuropeanCouncil committed the EU to ‘promoting high levels of socialcohesion based on the principles of solidarity and social inclusion’. 266 ConclusionsThe use of terminology has evolved over recent decades from‘poverty’ in the 1970s, through social exclusion in the 1980s, toinclusion and cohesion in more recent years. This change in the useof terms reflects a shift of focus by governments from a narrowapproach to addressing the problems of disadvantaged peoplethrough welfare support to a broader focus on the development ofpolicies to tackle the causes of exclusion and put in place strategiesfor greater inclusion. Social cohesion, as defined by the Council ofEurope, goes even further, seeking to direct all national policiestowards a common goal of social solidarity and equality, resultingin structures which provide social, economic and culturalopportunities for all and the prevention of exclusion andinequalities of opportunity.This evolution in terminology also resulted in a shift in EU-levelpolicies towards a greater mainstreaming of social inclusion intopolicy-making during the latter part of the 1990s and, in morerecent documents, to social cohesion. 27 While accepting theprinciple of subsidiarity in employment and social policies, therewas recognition that there was a need to co-ordinate nationalpolicies across the Member States and acceptance that workingtogether and pooling ideas, they could make a difference to thelevels of poverty, exclusion and unemployment. This resulted in theemergence of the ‘soft law’ approach of the Open Method of Co-Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 73

ordination, including the national action plans and peer reviewprocess, providing the Member States with common objectives,mutual encouragement and an exchange of good practices.The next chapter traces the changing focus of EU policies on socialinclusion and the emergence of the European Social Model.74 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

Table 3.1: List of some definitions at EU and International levelsTOPIC SOURCE DEFINITIONPoverty P. Townsend (1979)Oppenheim and Harker(1996)European Commission(1975)European Anti-PovertyStrategy (2003)European Commission/European Council JointInclusion Report (2004)Individuals, families and groups in the populationcan be said to be in poverty when they lack theresources to obtain the types of diet, participate inthe activities and have the living conditions andamenities which are customary … in the societies towhich they belong.… poverty means going short materially, sociallyand emotionally. It means spending less on food, onheating and on clothing than someone on anaverage income – above all, poverty takes away thetools to build the blocks for the future.The poor shall be taken to mean persons, familiesand groups of persons whose resources (material,cultural and social) are so limited as to excludethem from the minimum acceptable way of life inthe Member State in which they live.Poverty consists in being unable to or precludedfrom meeting one or more needs without outsidehelp. These needs relate to aspects of life whichenable self-determination, i.e. assuming one’sresponsibilities and exercising one’s rights, orfundamental goods (income, education, housing,health, etc.). It is inseparable from the individual’sperception of a deterioration in their economicsituation, rights and/or relationships.People are said to be living in poverty if theirincome and resources are so inadequate as topreclude them from having a standard of livingconsidered acceptable in the society in which theylive. Because of their poverty they may experiencemultiple disadvantages through unemployment, lowincome, poor housing, inadequate healthcare andbarriers to lifelong learning, culture, sport andrecreation. They are often excluded andmarginalised from participating in activities(economic, social and cultural) that are the normfor other people and their access to fundamentalrights may be restricted.Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 75

Table 3.1: List of some definitions at EU and International levelsTOPIC SOURCE DEFINITIONSocialExclusionJ. Estivill, ILO (2003)European Commission(1993)European Commission(1994)European Commission/European Council, JointInclusion Report (2004)Social exclusion may be understood as anaccumulation of confluent processes with successiveruptures arising from the heart of the economy, politicsand society, which gradually distances and placespersons, groups, communities and territories in aposition of inferiority in relation to centres of power,resources and prevailing values.Social exclusion does not only mean insufficientincome. It even goes beyond participation in workinglife; it is manifest in fields such as housing, education,health and access to services. It affects not onlyindividuals who suffered serious set-backs but socialgroups, particularly in urban and rural areas, who aresubject to discrimination, segregation or the weakeningof the traditional forms of social relations. …The causes of exclusion are multiple:■ Persistent unemployment and especially long-termunemployment■ The impact of industrial change on poorly skilledworkers■ The evolution of family structures and the declineof traditional forms of solidarity■ The growth of individualism and the decline oftraditional representative institutions;■ New forms of migration, particularly illegalimmigration and movements of populations.Social exclusion is the denial or absence of social contactwhich fundamentally distinguishes exclusion. The dignityof the individual derives from integration in a socialnetwork – or more precisely, into a system of exchange.… a process whereby certain individuals are pushed tothe edge of society and prevented from participatingfully by virtue of their poverty, or lack of basiccompetencies and lifelong learning opportunities, or asa result of discrimination. This distances them from job,income and education opportunities as well as socialand community networks and activities. They have littleaccess to power and decision-making bodies and thusoften feel powerless and unable to take control over thedecisions that affect their day-to-day lives.76 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

Table 3.1: List of some definitions at EU and International levelsTOPIC SOURCE DEFINITIONSocialInclusionSocialCohesionEuropean Foundation for theImprovement of Living andWorking ConditionsEuropean Commission,‘Social Policy Agenda’ (2000)Joint Inclusion Report (2004)Council of EuropePeople’s capability to participate fully in botheconomic and social lifeTo prevent and eradicate poverty and exclusion andpromote the integration and participation of all intoeconomic and social life.A process which ensures that those at risk ofpoverty and social exclusion gain the opportunitiesand resources necessary to participate fully ineconomic, social and cultural life and to enjoy astandard of living and well-being that is considerednormal in the society in which they live. It ensuresthat they have greater participation in decisionmakingwhich affects their lives and access to theirfundamental rights (as defined in the Charter ofFundamental Rights of the European Union).Social Cohesion is the capacity of a society toensure the welfare of all its members, minimisingdisparities and avoiding polarisation. A cohesivesociety is a mutually supportive community of freeindividuals pursuing these common goals bydemocratic means. It is not only a matter ofcombating social exclusion and poverty. It is alsoabout creating solidarity in society such thatexclusion will be minimised. At the same time, inso far as poverty and exclusion continue to exist,there is also a need to take specific measures tohelp vulnerable members of society. A socialcohesion strategy must, therefore, tackle exclusionby means of both prevention and cure.Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 77

Table 3.2: List of some definitions at national levelTOPIC SOURCE DEFINITIONPovertyIrish National Anti-PovertyStrategyPortuguese National ActionPlan 2002-2003Norwegian White Paper on aPlan of Action for CombatingPovertyPeople are living in poverty, if their income andresources (material, cultural and social) are soinadequate as to preclude them from having astandard of living which is regarded as acceptableby Irish society generally. As a result of inadequateincome and resources people may be excluded andmarginalised from participation in activities thatare considered the norm for other people in society.Consistent poverty is defined as being below 50-60per cent of average disposable income andexperiencing enforced basic deprivation. Basicdeprivation refers to a set of eight indicators whichare regarded as necessities and possessed by amajority of those in the Living in Ireland Surveyconducted by the Economic and Social ResearchInstitute (ESRI). 32An absence or scarcity of resources (monetary,property, social, relational, cultural and others)necessary to satisfy basic needs (of food, housing,education, security, health, protection, access toculture and leisure, among others) or to provide fullparticipation in lifestyles that are considerednormal.Poverty is usually understood to mean that peoplehave such a low income, possibly combined withhigh essential expenses in connection with illness,a disability, etc. that they cannot meet their basiswelfare needs over a lengthy period of time. ThisPlan of Action adopts a low income, measured as50 per cent of the median income that lasts forthree years, as a main indicator of poverty.78 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

Footnotes1 See Bare Necessities: poverty and social exclusion in Northern Ireland – keyfindings, P. Hillyard et al, Democratic Dialogue, Belfast (2003).2 Report of the World Summit for Social Development: Copenhagen March 1995,United Nations, New York (1995).3 Understanding Poverty P. Alcock, Macmillan, London (2nd Ed. 1997).4 Poverty in the UK: A survey of household resources and standards of living, P.Townsend, Penguin (1979).5 See Joint Inclusion Report, 2004, European Commission and Council,(7101/04) (page 16). This definition is also used by the EU Survey onIncome and Living Conditions (EU-SILC).6 Commitment with Inclusion, Commitment for Inclusion – National Action Planfor Social Inclusion, Portugal, 2001-2003, Ministry of Labour and Solidarity,Portugal (June 2001).7 Building an Inclusive Society, National Anti-Poverty Strategy, Dept of Social,Community and Family Affaires, Dublin (2002).8 European Project on Poverty Indicators starting from the experience of PeopleLiving in Poverty (Final Report) an EAPN transnational project, G, Hacourt,Antwerp (Sept 2003).9 United Nations (1995), op. cit.10 Concepts and Strategies for Combating Social Exclusion Estivill J,International Labour Office, Geneva, (2003).11 Ibid.12 Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain D. Gordon et al, Joseph RowntreeFoundation /York Publishing Services (1999), seewww.bris.ac.uk/pverty/pse/sum_find.htmPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 79

13 Council of the European Union 7101/04 (March 2004) op. cit.14 Report on Indicators in the field of poverty and social exclusion, SocialProtection Committee (October 2001).15 Social Policy Agenda (COM (2000) 379 final).16 The Social Agenda 2005-2010 (COM (2005) 33 final).17 Social Inclusion: Local partnerships with civil society, European Foundationfor the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Dublin (Foundationpaper No. 4, Dec. 2003).18 Council of the European Union 7101/04 (March 2004) op. cit.19 Sustaining Progress: Social Partnership Agreement 2003-2005 Dept ofTaoiseach (Prime Minister) Dublin (2003).20 Revised Strategy for Social Cohesion, Council of Europe Committee forSocial Cohesion, Strasbourg (CDCS (2004)10).21 Final Declaration on Social Cohesion, Council of Europe Strasbourg (1998).22 Access to Social Rights in Europe, M. Daly Council of Europe, Strasbourg(2002). This report was launched and the ‘Malta Declaration’ was adoptedat an international conference in Malta, November 2002.23 Presidency Conclusions: Lisbon European Council, 23-24 March 2000.24 Council Decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the MemberStates (2003/578/EC), Annex to the guidelines. See also The Social Agenda2005-2010 op. cit. and the Presidency Conclusions of the European Council,Brussels, 22-23 March 2005.25 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council onthe European Social Fund, European Commission (COM(2004) 493 final).26 Presidency Conclusions European Council, Brussels, 20-21 March 2003.80 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

27 For example the Presidency Conclusions, European Council, Brussels(March, 2005), welcomed the European Commission’s Social Agenda, 2005-2010 as helping towards the achieving of the Lisbon Strategy objectives byreinforcing the European social model based on the quest for full employmentand greater social cohesion.28 Poverty: the facts, revised and updated C. Oppenheim and L. Harker, ChildPoverty Action Group (3rd ed 1996).29 Joint Report on Social Inclusion, Council of the European Union 7101/04(March 2004).30 European Social Policy: Options for the Union Commission of the EuropeanCommunities, DG Employment, Industrial Relations and Social Affairs,Brussels (1993 (COM (93) 551).31 Social Europe: Towards a Europe of Solidarity – Combating Social Exclusion,D. Robbins, European Commission (1994).32 Dept of Social, Community and Family Affairs, op. cit.Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 81

4 Social Inclusion asa European UnionIssue

1 The European Social ModelDuring the twentieth century, in particular during the second half ofthe century, European countries adopted polices that attempted tofind a balance between economic growth and social justice. Evenallowing for variations between countries, the European approachto socio-economic issues is distinct from that of other regions ofthe world and it has evolved into what has become known as theEuropean Social Model. It is based on a consensus that economicprogress cannot be pursued without regard to social policy, but it isnot clear and there is less agreement on what is required to buildand maintain social inclusion into the future. In this new centurythe European Social Model is under challenge and ways have to befound to adapt it to changing needs and changing circumstances,while still protecting its core principles.Even with the European Social Model as the foundation for nationaland EU policies and with recent economic success, poverty andsocial exclusion remain a deeply disturbing problem withinEuropean society. It is a problem which is complex and multidimensional,with many inter-connecting causes, such as a lack ofwork or low- quality work, low skills, low incomes, an inequitabledistribution of wealth, inadequate housing, a lack of opportunitiesand rights, poor health, disabilities or discrimination based ongender and/or other reasons.While tackling poverty has been a stated objective of the EuropeanUnion going back to the mid-1970s and the first anti-povertyprogramme, the European Social Model and the inter-dependenceof economic and social policies was not formally recognised as akey EU objective until its inclusion in the Maastricht Treaty (Article130A) in 1992. The aspirations of the Treaty were developed in the84 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

subsequent European Commission White Paper Growth,Competitiveness, Employment – The Challenges and Ways Forwardinto the 21st Century (known as the Delors White Paper), which setout a number of broad guidelines to create a dynamic economy thatwould place employment at the heart of EU policies. Theseguidelines …have a predominantly economic basis, although it will be seenthat they cannot be dissociated from the major trends whichare affecting society itself: an economy that is healthy, open,decentralised, competitive and based on solidarity. However,these efforts would be in vain if we did not once again makeemployment policy the centre-piece of our overall strategy. 1Employment policy was further developed in the more detailedWhite Paper European Social Policy – A Way Forward for the Union,which followed a wide-ranging consultation on a discussion (green)paper on social policy. The White Paper analysed the challenges ofemployment creation including greater investment in skills training,and providing higher standards and equality in Europeanworkplaces. The problems of poverty and social exclusion are, forthe first time, identified as issues to be addressed and a move awayfrom passive social protection policies to more active andinterventionist measures is proposed, as part of the evolvingEuropean Social Model.The paper sets out a policy for mainstreaming social inclusion,when it recognised that social exclusion is a multi-dimensionalprocess, linked, not just to unemployment and low incomes:… but also to housing conditions, levels of education andPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 85

opportunities, health, discrimination, citizenship andintegration in the local community. As a result, preventing andcombating social exclusion calls for an overall mobilisation ofefforts and combinations of both economic and socialmeasures. At the European level, this also implies that socialexclusion should be addressed in the framework of all Unionpolicies. 2This approach would include active policies which would maintainfinancial incentives to get a job, to help those seeking employment‘to make a full contribution to society and the social integration ofthose who cannot join the labour force’.To address the problem of unemployment the European Councilmeeting in Essen (1994) agreed a plan of action to tackle theproblem, a strategy which was reviewed at each subsequentEuropean Council meeting, with a Declaration on Employment beingadopted at the Dublin European Council in 1996.Following on from the Declaration on Employment the AmsterdamTreaty (Treaty on European Union) in 1996 made both employmentand wider social policy a priority of the EU. A particular emphasiswas placed on tackling unemployment and the co-ordination ofemployment policies as the main approach to tackling socialexclusion across the Member States. Article 127 outlines a processfor the mainstreaming of employment into EU and national policies,while Article 128 sets out, in detail, the procedures for the draftingof employment guidelines, national action plans and jointemployment reports. This Article also gives the European Council,on proposals from the Commission, the right to issue specificrecommendations to individual Member States for urgent action asa result of joint surveillance, based on common indicators.86 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

The subsequent European Employment Strategy, adopted at anextraordinary European Council in Luxembourg (November 1997),‘marked a new departure in the thinking and action upon which theUnion’s Member States have embarked since the Essen EuropeanCouncil’. 3The Council decided not to wait for the ratification of thetreaty (due in 1999) but to put the new Title on Employment intoeffect immediately and to implement provisions to co-ordinate theemployment policies of the Member States from 1998. 4This co-ordination would be based on employment guidelines,drawing directly on the experience gained through the co-ordinationof European economic policies. These Union-wide ‘employmentguidelines’, were intended to set out broad areas of policy to befollowed by national governments in order to permanently reduceunemployment and promote the creation of jobs. It was intendedthat these guidelines would set specific targets to be incorporatedinto national employment action plans and the targets would beachieved through national objectives to be included in nationalregulation, administrative and other measures, with deadlines formeeting the targets. This was the first step towards a system of coordinationof policies at the EU level, which became the OpenMethod of Co-ordination (OMC).While the Luxembourg Employment Strategy provided for thepractical implementation of the treaty commitments onemployment through the introduction of the OMC, to give effect tothe other treaty aspirations of greater economic and socialcohesion, the European Council, at its meeting in Lisbon (March2000), adopted a ‘new strategic goal for the Union in order tostrengthen employment, economic reform and social cohesion aspart of a knowledge-based economy’. This Lisbon Strategy stressedPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 87

that, ‘with the current improved economic situation, the time isright to undertake both economic and social reforms as part of apositive strategy which combines competitiveness and socialcohesion’.The Presidency Conclusions go on to set out an overall strategy forthe period to 2010 aimed at:preparing the transition to a knowledge-based economy andsociety by better policies for the information society and R & D,as well as by stepping up the process of structural reform forcompetitiveness and innovation and by completing the internalmarketmodernising the European social model, investing in peopleand combating social exclusionsustaining the healthy economic outlook and favourable growthprospects by applying an appropriate macro-economic policymix. 5While setting out detailed targets to achieve a ‘competitive, dynamicand knowledge-based economy’ and full employment, the EuropeanCouncil also set out plans for greater investment in education andtraining, including life-long learning. It considered that themodernising of social protection systems and greater co-operationbetween Member States was essential to achieving social inclusion.The Council also acknowledges that the number of people living inpoverty and social exclusion in the EU (some 55 million citizens in2001) was unacceptable.Even by creating the economic conditions for growth in employmentand increased prosperity the European Council accepts that there is88 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

a danger of a widening gap between those with access to newknowledge and those who are excluded:To avoid this risk and to maximise this new potential, effortsmust be made to improve skills, promote wider access toknowledge and opportunity and fight unemployment: the bestsafeguard against social exclusion is a job. 6The Member States and the European Commission were alsoinvited to:promote a better understanding of social exclusionmainstream the promotion of inclusion in the Member Statesemployment, education and training, health and housingpoliciesdevelop priority actions addressed to specific target groups,e.g. minorities, children, elderly and people with disabilities.The approach adopted to achieve the objectives of the LisbonStrategy built on the experience gained from the implementation ofthe Employment Strategy, by introducing a common framework onwhich Member States’ national action plans would be based,following which the Commission would produce an annual progressreport for the European Council to consider at its ‘Spring’ meetingwhich, in future, would be devoted to employment, innovation,economic reform and social cohesion.The agreement at the Lisbon European Council was added to by thesubsequent Santa Maria da Feira Council (June 2000), where it wasPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 89

agreed that to tackle social exclusion successfully, all governmentpolicies must adopt a poverty perspective in their policy-making,thus placing mainstreaming social inclusion at the centre of theEuropean Social Model . 7Mainstreaming social inclusion is further reflected in theCommission’s social programme Social Policy Agenda (2000-2005),which sets as a key challenge:to move from an agenda of tackling social exclusion to onewhich fosters social inclusion and mainstreams it into the heartof all policy making. 8At the European Council in Nice (December, 2000), the Presidentsof the Council, Commission and Parliament jointly signed theCharter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The Charterbrings together, into a single text, a range of civil, political,economic and social rights for European Union citizens and allpersons living within the EU. Article 34 of the Charter, on socialsecurity and social assistance, states:in order to combat social exclusion and poverty, the Unionrecognises and respects the right to social housing andassistance so as to ensure a decent existence for all those wholack sufficient resources …This is further reflected in the draft Constitutional Treaty whichoutlines, as one of the objectives of the EU (Article 1-3-3):It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination and shallpromote social justice and protection …90 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

Article 1-3-4 further commits the Union, in its relations with thewider world, to the eradication of poverty and the protection ofhuman rights, among other values.2 Open Method of Co-ordination (OMC) 9To achieve the objective of making a decisive impact on theeradication of poverty the European Council, at its Santa Maria daFeira meeting, set out to encourage ‘co-operation between MemberStates through an open method of co-ordination combining thenational action plans with a Community programme to combatsocial exclusion’. 10OMC is applied to policy areas where some degree of co-ordinationat the EU-level is desirable, but where the normal regulatory orlegislative procedures are not considered appropriate or the policyarea is not covered by the Treaties as an issue of transnationalcompetence. Consequently, the OMC is a new form of governancewhich includes the following characteristics:The use of guidelines and recommendationsIntegration of actors from multiple policy areas and levels ofgovernmentBenchmarking and the sharing of good practiceMutual agreement on policy goals and multilateral monitoringof implementationRegular policy review and revision.Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 91

This new approach is considered as a major breakthrough in EUgovernance, adding a third option to the choice between EU-levellegislation, through Regulations or Directives, or allowing amultiplicity of national codes, thus risking regulatory competitionbetween Member States, which might impact on the operation ofthe internal market. 11On the basis of the agreements at the Lisbon and Santa Maria daFeira European Councils, the Social Policy Agenda 2000-2005outlined how OMC can be used in the implementation of policies forsocial inclusion. It also committed to develop indicators, targets andbenchmarking mechanisms to monitor ‘the success of thesepolicies, both in terms of mainstreaming and of integration ofspecific groups, including those with disabilities’. 12While continuing to recognise that policies to combat poverty andpromote social inclusion are the preserve of Member Stategovernments, it was agreed that the Member States would coordinatetheir policies and actions within the context of OMC.Drawing on elements of the OMC for employment policy, this wouldbe done through the agreement by Member States and theEuropean Commission of common social inclusion policyobjectives; setting quantitative and qualitative indicators; theproduction by Member States of national reports or plans; and amonitoring and evaluating system to examine progress through apeer review process.Four common objectives were agreed by the Council of Employmentand Social Policy Ministers and endorsed by the European Councilin Nice (December, 2000). These common objectives are:92 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

to facilitate participation in employment and access by all toresources, rights, goods and servicesto prevent the risks of exclusionto help the most vulnerableto mobilise all relevant bodies.The Member States undertook to draft National Action Plansagainst poverty and social exclusion (NAPs/inclusion), outlining howthey propose to meet these common objectives and, on the basis ofthe NAPs/inclusion, the European Commission would provide theheads of government with an assessment for consideration at theirSpring European Council each year.The conclusions of the second Spring Council (Barcelona, March2002) made a general reference to the importance of fightingpoverty and social exclusion and, while recognising that socialpolicy is subject to the rule of subsidiarity, the Council refrainedfrom setting specific targets but invited:Member States … to set targets, in their National Action Plans,for significantly reducing the number of people at risk ofpoverty and social exclusion by 2010. 13In this one key respect the social inclusion process differed fromthe Employment Strategy. While in the guidelines for theNAPs/employment, specific targets are included, no suchquantifiable targets are included in the guidelines for thepreparation of the NAPs/inclusion but, instead, Member States areinvited to set their own national targets. 14Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 93

Reiterating its earlier conviction, the Barcelona Council went on toemphasis the importance of employment in tackling social exclusion:[The Council] reaffirms the need to strengthen socialintegration and the fight against exclusion, in line with theconclusions of the Nice European Council, since,notwithstanding the multidisciplinary nature of thephenomenon, the best instrument for inclusion is employment,so that it is essential that employment services and socialservices work together in such a way that both mechanismsimprove the employability of the socially excluded. 15The Council also welcomed the decision of the European Commissionto undertake, in future, ‘a comprehensive impact assessment, takinginto account the three pillars’ of the Lisbon Strategy, preceding theintroduction of ‘all major proposed legislation’. 163 A Focus on Policy IndicatorsSocial inclusion policies cover many, if not all, aspects of nationaleconomic and social policies and the Lisbon Strategy set out todevelop an integrated approach across all policy areas. To assist in acomparison of national actions there was a need to develop indicatorsand tools for the measurement of mainstreaming social inclusionpolicies. As already noted, in the Presidency Conclusions for theLisbon European Council, a number of policy areas are specificallymentioned as central to the mainstreaming of social inclusion –employment; education and training; health; and housing. 17A Social Protection Committee (SPC) was set up in 2000 and latergiven a formal legal base by Article 144 of the Nice Treaty. The SPC94 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

was assigned the task of drafting a set of indicators for themeasurement of poverty and social exclusion. The subsequent listof indicators was adopted by the Laeken European Council(December 2001). (See Appendix 2.) In drafting theirNAPs/inclusion, some Member States responded to the invitation ofthe Barcelona European Council by basing their national targets onthe Laeken indicators, while other Member States adopted theirown targets.Using data from the Eurostat ECHP and Labour Force Surveys, 18 theindicators are designed to measure issues which lead to socialexclusion, with a particular focus on low-income households andlong-term unemployment. Related to low incomes, there are alsoindicators for early school leavers ‘not in education and training’;low education levels; and health status. 19There are both primary (lead) indicators which cover the broadfields that are considered the most important elements resulting insocial exclusion and secondary indicators which are designed tosupport the lead indicators and examine issues in greater depth.The SPC stresses that all of these indicators should be consideredas a whole, rather than as a set of individual indicators.In its Mid-Year Report (2003) the Committee proposed an additionalsecondary indicator for ‘in-work poor’ to be defined as the economicstatus ‘that individuals declare to have occupied for at least sevenmonths in the year – employed (either on a wage or salary or selfemployed);unemployed; retired; or other economic inactivity’.As the Committee had not reached an agreed indicator for housing,it recommended that the NAPs/inclusion should containquantitative information on three issues – (a) decent housing; (b)Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 95

cost of housing; and (c) homelessness and other precariousaccommodation conditions. 20Building on the work of the SPC, the European Anti-PovertyNetwork carried out a project to add to this range of indicators. Theobjective of the EAPN study was to develop a more ‘rounded’,tertiary range of measurements for poverty and social exclusion,including a more qualitative approach. 21 This project developedbroad (issue) indicators, again, on employment, income levels,housing, health, and education, which were further broken downinto ‘sub-topic’ indicators. However, it went further than the SPCindicators with an additional indicator on ‘participation and identity’.The EAPN report acknowledges that the additional indicator on‘participation and identity’ is less developed than the others.However, three general objectives, necessary for engagement indialogue and the policy-making process, were identified – localknowledge; an ongoing monitoring process; and a local informationnetwork on social data with links to national and EU-levelnetworks. Building on these objectives and a number of additional‘findings’, an indicator for participation, which reflects whether theliving environment enables individuals to express their culture andlead an active life with the community, was proposed:The percentage share of the population with an income below 60per cent of the median income (national poverty line) that aremembers of or connected with:a sports cluba cultural associationa trade union96 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

a networka consumer/service user groupa local independent organisation for:– people living in poverty– lone parents– unemployed people– immigrants– people with disabilities– people living in rented housing– parents’ committeesConsequently, from the point of view of monitoring and evaluating levelsof social inclusion within the EU a lot has already been achieved, bydeveloping a range of indicators which can be utilised by the MemberStates and the European Commission, and this work is ongoing.4 StreamliningWhile still placing the emphasis on the importance of employmentin combating social exclusion (more and better jobs for all), the thirdSpring European Council in Brussels (March 2003) under thePresidency of Greece, went further by committing the Union to‘promoting a high level of social cohesion on the principles ofsolidarity and social inclusion’ and called for an intensification ofmodernisation of social protection systems:Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 97

Strong mutually reinforcing interaction between employment andsocial protection policies is needed. Combating social exclusionrequires, in addition to employment policy, the mainstreaming ofthis objective into all relevant strands of policy, recognising thatthis is first and foremost the responsibility of Member States andtheir regional and local authorities. 22The report from the European Commission to this Council meetingalso committed the Commission to publish a Communication on:The streamlining of current disparate actions linked to socialinclusion and pensions and, in time, co-operation in relation tohealthcare and ‘making work pay’ into a single Open Method ofCo-ordination. 23While a streamlining process has been in place for the co-ordinationof economic and employment policies during the framework of the2003-2005 NAPs cycle, it has been agreed to extend the process to awider range of social policies, including social inclusion, socialprotection, pensions, health and long-term care. 24In this increasingly complex situation an evaluation of OMC wasundertaken during 2005. The aim of this evaluation was to movetowards the establishment of streamlining in 2006 which would bebased on an integrated set of common objectives for all socialpolicy areas, thus rationalising and simplifying the OMC process.This evaluation involved both the pre-enlargement and newMember States, the European Commission, other EU institutionsand civil society stakeholders. 25The fifth Spring European Council, 2005, set out three aims forstreamlining:98 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

To facilitate the identification of priorities while maintaining theoverall balance of the [Lisbon] strategy and the synergybetween its various componentsTo improve the implementation of those priorities on theground by increasing the Member States’ involvementTo streamline the monitoring procedure so as to give a clearerpicture of national implementation of the strategy.The Council also recognised that the results, so far, on achievingthe objectives of the Lisbon Strategy had been mixed and it ‘relaunched’the strategy, with a renewed focus on growth andemployment. It called on the Member State governments and allother players – ‘parliaments, regional and local bodies, socialpartners and civil society’ – to ‘take an active part in attaining itsobjectives’.To achieve the Lisbon goals, the Council outlined a number of strandsfor action, including the need for Growth and employment making forsocial cohesion. This strand also commits the European Council andthe Member States to continuing the policy of social inclusion…with its multifaceted approach, focusing on target groupssuch as children in poverty. 26The Council also agreed the streamlining process to be followed infuture years:The Commission will publish a ‘strategic report’ which willestablish political guidelines for the economic, social andenvironmental strands for the Lisbon Strategy.Each year the Council will adopt two-tier ‘integrated guidelines’Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 99

– broad economic policy guidelines (BEPGs) and employmentguidelines (EGs).On the basis of these guidelines, the Member States arerequested to send to the Commission by the autumn of eachyear, a single document – the national reform programme –‘setting out all measures taken during the previous twelvemonths to implement the national programmes’. 27The Commission identified a number of key policy messages in thearea of social inclusion, in particular:Perseverance will be needed, because tackling poverty andexclusion will require concerted effort beyond 2010.Policies on social inclusion must adapt to the diversity ofchallenges in the Member States. … The work undertaken todate confirms the relevance of several key policy priorities.The planned extension of OMC to health care and long-termcare and the streamlining of all social protection and socialinclusion processes in 2006 should be used to put strongerfocus on implementation of objectives and on developingsynergies between the different policy spheres. 28100 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

5 National Action Plans against povertyand social exclusion (NAPs/inclusion);Joint Inclusion Memoranda to tacklepoverty and social exclusion (JIMs); andJoint Reports on Social Inclusion (JIRs)All of the fifteen pre-enlargement Member States have completedtwo rounds of NAPs/inclusion, (2001-2003 and 2003-2005). The tennew Member States (NMS) undertook a similar task by drafting JointMemoranda on Social Inclusion (JIMs) during 2003, which was partof the process in preparing them to participate in the OMC afteraccession in May, 2004. The NMS submitted their firstNAPs/inclusion in July 2004, to cover the period from accession tothe end of 2006. As there was a time gap between the end of theperiod covered by the second round of NAPs/inclusion (2003-2005)and the full introduction of streamlining, the EU-15 pre-enlargementMember States have updated their action plans to cover one furtheryear to 2006, bringing the cycle for all 25 Member States into line.The SPC proposed the structure for the NAPs/inclusion. This structureis based on the four common objectives agreed by the EuropeanCouncil at Nice and sets out the policy measures to deal with eachobjective (see above). In line with the conclusions of the BarcelonaEuropean Council, the SPC also proposed the inclusion of indicatorsand quantifiable targets for all the major aspects of poverty and socialexclusion, with a particular focus on monitoring changes over time andalso the differences between disadvantaged groups. It stressed thatindicators should also take account of gender and age differences, aswell as deprivation, housing and literacy and numeracy.Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 101

According to the guidelines, the NAPs/inclusion should alsoindicate the institutional arrangements in place to implement theproposed policies and actions. 29 One aim of the guidelines is toprovide structures ‘to mainstream the fight against exclusion’.It is also intended that each round of NAPs should be compared to,learn from and build on the previous round, taking into account anyidentified weaknesses and issues that need particular focus andthere should be good co-ordination in the preparation of theNAPs/inclusion and NAPs/employment, so that they arecomplementary to each other.Based on an analysis of the NAPs, the European Commission draftsthe Joint Report on Social Inclusion (JIR) 30 for the Council of Ministersand the spring meeting of the European Council. This report is thenagreed by the Council of Ministers 31 and adopted at the EuropeanCouncil.Arising out of an analysis of the NAPs/inclusion for the 15 preenlargementMember States, the report identified a number of keytrends and challenges and also good practices and innovativeapproaches which are of common interest. In assessing progresstowards achieving the Lisbon objectives, it sets out six key prioritiesfor the Member States to focus on up to 2006:Promoting investment in and tailoring of active labour marketmeasures to meet the needs of those who have the greatestdifficulties in accessing employmentEnsuring that social protection schemes are adequate andaccessible for all and that they provide effective work incentivesfor those who can workIncreasing the access of the most vulnerable and those most at102 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

isk of social exclusion to decent housing, quality health andlifelong learning opportunitiesImplementing a concerted effort to prevent early school leavingand to promote a smooth transition from school to workDeveloping a focus on eliminating poverty and social exclusionamong childrenMaking a drive to reduce poverty and social exclusion ofimmigrants and ethnic minorities. 32A report on the analysis of the NAPs/inclusion of the new MemberStates was also published. 33 It recognised that the transition fromthe JIMs to the NAPs had been difficult for most of the countriesand that there needed to be more specific and ambitious prioritiesand better targets, linked to broader national economic andbudgetary policies.The report outlined six challenges for the new Member States,similar to the six key priorities for the pre-enlargement MemberStates. In addition, the report also called on the new Member Statesto take account of three ‘cross-cutting’ issues: equal opportunities(including anti-discrimination and gender equality); governance; andmonitoring and evaluation. While it noted that ‘positive progress hasbeen made in strengthening institutional arrangements tomainstream social inclusion’, it also identified a number of issuesfor future policy development at EU level, including themainstreaming of social inclusion across all EU policies:…to ensure that they are supportive of national efforts topromote social inclusion. This will be assisted by theforthcoming streamlining of policy co-ordination in areas ofsocial inclusion, pensions and healthcare. 34Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 103

ConclusionIn the context of the evolution of EU thinking and the structures toimplement agreed guidelines and policies, the emergence of theneed to mainstream social inclusion into all relevant strands ofpolicy is a significant development. There are, however, keyelements required for the successful implementation ofmainstreaming social inclusion which Member States need toaddress. These are explored in the following chapters.104 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

Table 4.1: Evolution of EU Policies on Employment and Social Inclusion since 19921993 Maastricht Treaty enters into forceWhite Paper Growth, Competitiveness, Employment1994White Paper European Social Policy– A Way Forward for the UnionEssen Strategy on the way forward for Europe1996Dublin Declaration on Employment1997 Luxembourg European Council on Employment1998 European Employment StrategyCardiff Process on economic reformNAPs/Employment Four Pillars:o Employabilityo Adaptabilityo Entrepreneurshipo Equal opportunities1999 Amsterdam Treaty enters into forceCologne Process on macro-economic dialogue2000 Lisbon StrategyCharter of Fundamental Rights for EU adoptedSocial Policy Agenda2000-20052001Open Method ofCo-ordination1st NAPs/inclusion 2001-2003 Objectives of NAPs/inclusiono To facilitate participation in employment and access by all toresources, rights, goods and serviceso To prevent the risk of exclusiono To help the most vulnerableo To mobilise all the relevant bodiesSPC Report on Indicators for poverty and social exclusion20021st Joint Report on Social Inclusion, 20022003 Nice Treaty enters into forceEmployment Taskforce (Chaired by Wim Kok)2nd NAPs/inclusion 2003-2005Jobs, Jobs, Jobs Report of the Employment Taskforce2004 High Level Group on the Lisbon Objectives (Kok Group)Enlargement of EU to 25 Member StatesDraft Constitutional Treaty2nd Joint Report on Social Inclusion, 20041st NAPs/inclusion for new Member States, 2004-2006Facing the Challenge Report of the High Level Group2005Community ActionProgramme toCombat SocialExclusion, 2002-20061st Joint Report on Social Inclusion in the new Member StatesNAPs/inclusion update for pre-enlargement Member StatesSocial Policy Agenda 2005-2010Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion2006 Integrated guidelines (Streamlining):a) economic and employment guidelines;b) social inclusion and social protection.

Table 4.2: Relevant European Council MeetingsYEAR LOCATION OUTCOME1994 Essen European Council Strategy on the Way Forward for the EU1996 Dublin European Council Declaration on Employment1996 Amsterdam European Council Amendments to the Treaty on EuropeanUnion (including the Employment Chapter)1997 Luxembourg Extraordinary European Council European Employment Strategy1998 Cardiff European Council Process on economic reform19992000Cologne European CouncilLisbon European CouncilProcess on macro-economic dialogueStrategic Goal for the Union onEmployment, Economic Reform andSocial Cohesion2000 Santa Maria da Feira European Council Follow-up to the Lisbon Council –modernising the European Social Model2000 Nice European Council New treaty and adoption of the Charter onFundamental Rights2001 Stockholm European Council 1st Spring European Council2001 Gothenburg European Council Addition of sustainable developmentstrategy to the Lisbon goals2001 Laeken European Council Laeken Declaration on the Future of EuropeAdoption of Indicators on poverty andsocial exclusion2002 Barcelona European Council 2nd Spring European Council:‘A Reinforced Employment Strategy’‘Reinforcing social cohesion’2002 Copenhagen European Council Completion of the process forenlargement to 25 Member States2003 Brussels European Council 3rd Spring European Council – Review ofUnion’s economic, social andenvironmental actions to meet theobjectives of the Lisbon strategy2003 Thessaloniki European Council Adoption of the draft Constitutional Treatyand its reference to an IntergovernmentalConference2004 Brussels (March) 4th Spring European Council –Review ofprogress on the draft Constitutional treatyReview of the Lisbon strategy2004 Brussels European Council (November) Preparations for the mid-term review ofthe Lisbon Strategy2005 Brussels (March) 5th Spring European Council – Re-launchof the Lisbon Strategy:A Partnership for Growth and EmploymentJoint Report on Social Protection and SocialInclusion106 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

Footnotes1 Growth, Competitiveness, Employment – The Challenges and Ways Forwardinto the 21 st Century (A White Paper), Office of Official Publications of theEuropean Communities, Luxembourg (1993) IBSN 92-826-7000-7.2 European Social Policy – A Way Forward for the Union, Office of OfficialPublications of the European Communities Luxembourg (1994)COM(94)333; IBSN 92-826-8526-8.3 Presidency Conclusions, Extraordinary European Council Meeting onEmployment, Luxembourg (November 1997).4 Ibid.5 Presidency Conclusions: European Council, Lisbon (March 2000).6 Ibid.7 Presidency Conclusions, European Council, Santa Maria da Feira, June2000.8 Social Policy Agenda 2000-2005, Office of Official Publications of theEuropean Communities, Luxembourg, (September 2000) ISBN 92-894-0049-8. Sect.2.3.9 For a detailed discussion on the background to OMC, see The Open Methodof Co-ordination and the Construction of Social Europe: A HistoricalPerspective Pochet P. in The Open Method of Co-ordination in Action: TheEuropean Employment and Social Inclusion Strategies, Zeitlin J. and PochetP., SALTSA/P.I.E-Peter Lang S.A. Brussels (2005).10 Presidency Conclusions, European Council, Santa Maria da Feira, op. cit.11 See the University of Wisconsin-Madison website for research into this newform of EU governance (OMC Research Forum) (www.wisc.edu/omc).12 Indicators, drawn up by the Social Protection Committee, were adopted atthe European Council in Laeken, December 2001.Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 107

13 Presidency Conclusions, European Council, Barcelona (March 2002).14 Guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States, CouncilDecision 2003/578/EC. The targets included an overall employment rate of67% in 2005 and 70% in 2010; an employment rate for women of 57% in2005 and 60% in 2010; and an employment rate of 50% for older workers(55 to 64) in 2010.15 Ibid.16 Ibid.17 Presidency Conclusions, European Council, Lisbon (March 2000).18 Replaced by the EU Survey on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC)since 2003.19 Eurostat has reservations about and has identified a number of technicaldifficulties with regard to the indicator on ‘self-defined health status’ whichare outlined in the Mid-Year Report from the Indicators sub-group of the SPC(June 2003). Further work to develop health indicators is underway.20 Report on Indicators in the field of poverty and social exclusion, SocialProtection Committee, Brussels (October 2001).21 European Project on Poverty Indicators starting from the experience of PeopleLiving in Poverty (Final Report), an EAPN transnational project, G. Hacourt,Antwerp (Sept 2003). For definitions of poverty, see Ch 2. See alsowww.eapn.org22 Presidency Conclusions, European Council, Brussels (March 2003).23 Report of the European Commission to the European Council, March 2003(COM(2003)5).24 See Strengthening the social dimension of the Lisbon strategy: Streamliningopen co-ordination in the field of social protection, Communication from theEuropean Commission (COM(2003)261 final).108 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

25 Ibid.26 Presidency Conclusions, European Council, Brussels, March 2005.27 Presidency Conclusions, European Council, Brussels, 2005, op. cit.28 Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion European CommissionCOM(2005)14 final, {SEC(2005)69}.29 Common Outline for the 2003/2005 NAPs/inclusion Social ProtectionCommittee, Brussels (2002).30 For example, Joint Report by the Commission and the Council on SocialInclusion (7101/04), March 2004. This is the last ‘Joint report’ and in futurethe Social Inclusion Report will be a European Commission staff documentprepared for the Spring European Council meeting.31 The Council of Ministers for Employment, Social Policy, Health andConsumer Affairs.32 op. cit. The National Action Plans for Employment will, from 2005 on, becalled National Reform Plans: New partnership for growth and jobs.33 Report on Social Inclusion, 2005: An analysis of the National Action Plans onSocial Inclusion (2004-2006) submitted by the 10 new Member States, Office ofOfficial Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg (2005).(SEC(2005)256).34 SEC(2005)256, op. cit.Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 109

5 MAINSTREAMINGSocial Inclusion inPublic Policy

1 IntroductionWithin the context of the definition of mainstreaming socialinclusion adopted for this book, it is important to establish what ismeant by a number of terms used, such as ‘public policy’ and‘participation’. The formulation of public policy can be influenced bya wide range of factors, including the following three importantelements – (a) the structure of governance and administration inthe country; (b) the resources committed to the development andimplementation of policies; and (c) the level of involvement andparticipation at each stage of the policy cycle.This chapter focuses on how public policy is formulated in theMember States, the opportunities and limitations faced by policymakersand how social inclusion might be mainstreamed into allpolicy areas. In particular, it examines both (a) and (b) above. Thechallenge of involving all the stakeholders, which is central tomainstreaming social inclusion into government policies, isaddressed in Chapter 6.2 What is Policy?Policy is defined as ‘a course of action adopted or proposed by agovernment, party, business or individual’. 1 Public policy in ademocratic system, therefore, can be considered as the process bywhich the resources of the State are allocated to achieve declaredpolitical objectives, e.g. the initiation of social change, to introducereform, to deliver better quality services and to forge continuousimprovements into public services. Policy can be for a range ofdifferent reasons and can take a number of forms, ‘including non-112 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

intervention; regulation, for instance by licensing; or theencouragement of voluntary change, including by grant aid; as wellas direct public service provision’. 2 It can also include non-statutoryguidelines and rules for the interaction between different socialactors, such as through the use of codes of practice in theemployment relationship.Policy making, as defined by the UK Cabinet Office, is the processby which governments translate political objectives and visions intoprogrammes and actions. 3Effective policy making needs toencompass vision, effectiveness and continuous improvement. Itgives structure to governance rather than government re-acting toevents. It is a complex process as policy areas overlap and impingeon each other so that decisions taken in one area have implicationsfor other areas, making policy issues inter-connected with, andinter-dependent on, each other. It is also the role of government toprioritise its policies within the financial and other resourcesavailable to it.The State Government of Manitoba (Canada) defines policy as:Those plans, positions and guidelines of government whichinfluence decisions by government. There are various types andforms of policy. Among the range of policy types are: broadpolicy which enunciates government-wide direction; morespecific policy which may develop for a particular sector (theeconomy) or issue-area (child welfare); operational policy whichmay guide decisions on programmes and project selection.With respect to the forms that government policy can take, it isreflected most typically in legislation, regulations andprogrammes, called policy instruments. 4Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 113

The guide goes on to state that the development of policy involvesresearch, analysis, consultation and synthesis of information toproduce recommendations. The process should also involve anevaluation of options against a set of criteria used to assess eachoption.In a companion publication which examines the policy developmentfunction of government, policy development is seen as an output ofgovernment. 5 It is a major function of government and virtuallyevery ministry and department is engaged in the formulation ofpublic policy. It plays a key role in ensuring that governmentresources are used effectively and efficiently, as poor quality adviceon government decision-making can be costly. The stronger thepolicy-making capacity is the greater the potential for gooddecision-making and, ultimately, for ‘good government’.Policy-making is central to what governments are about and itis the policy development function of government that mostdistinguishes it from private sector organisations. In one formor another, policy-making engages a good deal of the time ofministers, parliamentarians and senior public servants. 63 The Challenge of Policy-MakingThe process of policy-making is not a ‘high science, but it is difficultto do well’. 7 Modern public policy-making operates in a complexenvironment with governments having obligations to, and beinganswerable to, every section of civil society. In recent decadesgovernance has become much more complex and unpredictable asgovernments are increasingly involved in all aspects of economic114 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

and social life. This complexity is added to by the fact that peopleare now better educated and better informed than previousgenerations and, consequently, they have higher expectations andare demanding better quality services from the State.Public policy-making is also constrained by wider global factorsoutside the control of any one government, requiring a greatersharing of ideas and co-ordination of responses transnationally.Consequently, in an age of information technology and instantcommunications, governments must be in a position to respondquickly to global events and to social and economic changes thatcan impact on their domestic policies.Ideally, general political objectives and outcomes should be longtermbut the policies to implement long-term objectives might beincremental, requiring revision and adjustment over time, asexperiences are gained, as lessons are learned and as situationschange. However, short-term tangible results will, very often, beexpected to fit the electoral timeframe under which governments inrepresentative democracies operate.Taking all these complexities into consideration, policy-makers arechallenged with real and substantial change in the structure of theglobal economy; the nature of employment; the organisation ofwork; levels of poverty and social exclusion; the role ofgovernments; the nature of the European social model and socialsecurity issues. They are also challenged by the changing socialdemands and focus of citizens, together with the more fundamentalchanges to social and personal values, such as the diminishing ofcommunity solidarity and collective support contrasted with thegrowth in individualism.Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 115

To be effective, policy makers have to adapt to this fast-moving andchallenging environment and, to do so, they need all the relevantinformation, resulting from research, good practice, wide-rangingconsultation and participation of the stakeholders. All decisions inthe policy-making process should be based on solid foundations.Better policy-making results in better policies and better policiesresult in better outcomes.4 Features of Policy-MakingThere are different approaches to policy-making, many aredesigned to suit particular situations while others apply genericallyto the process. Building on the features outlined by the Centre forManagement and Policy Studies (UK), 8 the Northern Ireland policyguide sets out ten features of modern participative policy-making.The process should be as follows (Table 5.1):116 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

Table 5.1 :ProcessForward lookingTen features of modern participative policy-makingFeaturesPublic policy-making needs to identify the intended outcome ofthe policy at an early stage and its relevance to overallgovernment policies.Outward lookingInnovative, flexible and creativeEvidence-basedInclusiveJoined-upLearning LessonsCommunicationsEvaluationReviewIt should take account of developments at all political andadministrative levels, drawing on the approaches andexperiences in other countries, where possible.The policy-making process should question how things havebeen done in the past and, consequently, encourage creativeideas on how things might be done better in the future.Decisions need to be based on the best available evidence fromas wide a range of sources as possible, including a review ofexisting research findings and, where there are gaps inknowledge, the commissioning of new research.The policy-making process should consult with and assess theimpact on all who are or may be directly or indirectly affectedby the proposed policy.It should look beyond institutional boundaries to widergovernment policies and strategic objectives, taking a holisticapproach and establishing a moral, ethical and legal basis forthe policy.It is important for policy-makers to learn from previousexperiences, what will or will not work.The policy-making process needs to incorporate acommunications/dissemination strategy to inform the public.Such a strategy should be part of the design stage of the policy.Policies should have a built-in systematic evaluationcomponent to measure their effectiveness and impact on thesituation they are designed to change, measured againstagreed criteria.Policies need to be constantly reviewed to ensure that they aredoing what they were designed to do, solving the problems theywere designed to solve and adjusting to take into considerationchanging circumstances. Feedback mechanisms need to be inplace so that service providers and service recipients cancommunicate with the policy-makers.Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 117

The Manitoba Office of the Auditor General Guide describes theprocess of policy development as an activity which involvesresearch, analysis, consultation and the synthesis of information toproduce recommendations. It should also involve an evaluation ofoptions against a set of criteria used to assess each option. Boththis Guide and the Review from the Office of the Provincial Auditorset out five elements for effective policy development – identify theissue; analyse the issue; generate solutions; undertakeconsultations; and undertake performance measurement. TheGuide also suggests that, in setting out a range of options, thecriteria for a comparison of these options might be on cost;problems of implementation; legal considerations; and thereceptiveness of the stakeholders (see Figure 5.1).Another approach to policy making is set out by the Czech Ministryof Labour and Social Affairs in its practical guide for policy-makersand planners at the local level, in municipalities, regions, providersand users of social services involved in the development of localcommunity planning for social services. The guide sets out six stepswhich might be followed by planners. These are outlined here:1. Where to start?Establish a working groupDefine the stakeholdersGain political supportDevelop an information strategy118 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

2. Set up a management structure:Involve stakeholdersSet up an organisation and management structureDefine the rules for action3. Understanding of the problems in the community:Define the objectives, interests and needs of the stakeholdersCreate and publish mechanisms for the active engagement ofthe publicAnalyse the needs and assess the existing resourcesEvaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the existing socialservices systemIdentify opportunities and threats and outline trends4. Proposal for the development of social services:In what direction will the social services develop?What are the priorities?What are the obstacles to be overcome?What regional and national resources are available?Is the vision of the social services development accepted by allthe stakeholders?Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 119

5. Strategy for social services development:Prepare a plan of gradual steps and tasks to meet definedobjectives and prioritiesOutline a system for monitoring the implementation of thecommunity planPrepare the final draft of the community planPublish the plan for comments by the public and stakeholdersGet approval from the Municipal Council6. From planning to implementation:Implement the planInform the public; engage the partnersPut mechanisms in place to enable change to the originalcommunity plan. 9Along the same lines, the Strategic Policy-Making Team in the UKCabinet Office suggests a model of policy-making which has fourbasic steps, as shown in Table 5.2. 12120 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

Table 5.2:Stages of Policy Development There needs to be an understanding of the problem to beaddressed:- Defining the problem- Resolving tensions- Identifying stakeholders and deciding their roles. Solutions need to be developed:- Collecting information and evidence- Consulting widely- Working with other involved individuals and organisations- Managing risk- Developing options/choices- Estimating the cost for each option. Implementing solutions:- Communicating policy- Supporting service providers (training, advice)- Testing different options. Testing success:- Evaluating- Adjusting.Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 121

Figure 5.1 Effectivce Policy DevelopmentPerformancemonitoring1 Identify the issue2 Analyse the issue3 Generate SolutionsHow well is policyworking againstintended resultsConsultationConsultation with:MinistriesStakeholder groupsService providersRelevant externalorganisationsResearchBased on A Review of the Policy Development Capacity Within Government DepartmentsOffice of the Provincial Auditor, Manitoba, Canada (2001)Policy-making, therefore, is a series of inter-connected steps fromidea through design, testing, implementation, monitoring toevaluation, contributing to an ongoing process of re-design andcontinuous improvement. It is a process within a given context andis benchmarked against related existing policies or complementarypolicy-making.122 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

5 Mainstreaming Social Inclusion intoPublic Policy-MakingWhile the EU has been successful in terms of economic progressand wealth creation, there is concern that the benefits of thiswealth have not been distributed equitably across EU citizens,communities and regions and that too few people have participatedin the increased standards of living or employment generated byrecent economic growth.Taking into consideration the complexity of policy-making at boththe EU and national levels, outlined above, and the different policytypes identified by the Office of the Manitoba Auditor General in itsGuide, 13 in the context of mainstreaming social inclusion there arethree broad policy-types that should be explored.First, an administration might decide to address a particular issuethrough a targeted policy, developed specifically to direct resourcesat a particular problem and to ‘fast-track’ a solution, such asreductions in long-term unemployment, the promotion of socialhousing or a community regeneration scheme.The second are specific policies which have a direct impact onpeople and vulnerable groups at risk of poverty and socialexclusion, such as social security, employment, housing, educationor health.Third, there is the extensive range of other policies, such ascommunication, transport, environment or agriculture, that are notspecifically designed to tackle poverty but that, nevertheless, havean impact on those in poverty and at risk of been socially excluded.Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 123

6 Transparency and OpennessA key element of modern policy-making is the need fortransparency and openness in the process. It could be said that thetraditional form of policy-making was undertaken in a climate ofsecrecy, with a defensive ‘insider/outsider’ attitude among publicpolicy-makers, and with barriers to participation placed, not justbetween service providers and service recipients, but also withinand between ministries, services and agencies. In such anapproach the users of services were seen as separate from and asoutsiders to policy-making, with little opportunity to contribute to orinfluence the process.In a democratic society transparency minimises secrecy and,consequently, corruption, creates greater levels of accountabilityand a better understanding of social needs. Building transparencyinto the policy-making process requires a change in organisationalculture. It ensures an inclusive approach and a commitment tocommunicating both internally, within the public services andacross the relevant ministries and agencies and outwards to theuser groups and individuals whom a policy is designed to addressor impact on, giving them the opportunity to contribute to the policyprocess. 147 The Structure of GovernmentThe structure of governments and administrations is a keydeterminant of how policies are formulated and implemented. Forexample, within the MSI partner countries a range of differentpolitical/administrative arrangements are found, from centralised124 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

systems, such as Ireland, Norway and Portugal, to a regionalstructure with a high degree of autonomy with regard to internalpolicy-making, as in Northern Ireland, to a mix of both centralisedand decentralised systems, such as in the Czech Republic andFrance (Table 5.3).Table 5.3: Forms of Governance and Devolved Policy-Making onSocial Inclusion in MSI Partner CountriesCountry/RegionCentral GovernmentRegionalGovernmentLocal GovernmentCzech Republic Central government Regions withsubstantial devolvedpowersFrance Central government Régions with somedevolved powersMunicipalities withsubstantial devolvedpowersDépartements andCommunes withdevolved powersIreland Central government Local authoritiesworking within thenational policyframeworkNorway Central government Local authoritiesworking within thenational policyframeworkPortugal Central government Local authoritiesworking within thenational policyframeworkNorthern IrelandRegion of the UKwith substantialtransferred powersLocal authoritiesworking within theregional policyframeworkPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 125

Added to the complexities of the political and administrativestructures is the additional layer of policy-making at the EU level andthe ‘europeanisation’ of policy across a wide range of governmentresponsibilities, including economic policy, trade, agriculture, labourand conditions of employment, transport and the environment, whichresults in modern governance becoming more co-ordinated acrossthe Member States. However, the EU works on the principle of‘subsidiarity’ and, consequently, other aspects of Stateresponsibilities are not within the competence of the EU institutions,including the eradication of poverty and social exclusion.In considering the different forms of government, in the CzechRepublic, for example, the system is partly centralised and partlydevolved to the regions and municipalities. A number of structuralreforms during the 1990s have resulted in the public administrationbeen decentralised, with the ‘subsidiarity principle’ applying.Consequently, policy formation and decision-making powers aredistributed across three levels of administration – national, regionaland municipalities. These three levels have been in place since 2000.The ‘self-government’ of the regional and municipality levels isdefined by the Constitution and by legislation. The execution ofState powers is a part of territorial self-government and is one ofthe principal functions of the regions. Self-government in theregions and municipalities has a degree of autonomy in decisionmaking.Only legislation can restrict this autonomy and the Statecan only intervene in cases specified by law and for reasons ofupholding the law.Below the national administration, there are fourteen regions. Thecompetencies of the regions were re-established by aConstitutional Act which defines these responsibilities and the126 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

devolution of decision-making from the central administration. Atthe third and lowest level of public administration, there are 6,258municipalities and, again, their status, competencies and the scopeof activities are clearly defined by legislation.Social services were part of this public administration reform withalmost all of these services transferred to the regions andmunicipalities. Consequently, the Government (Ministry of Labourand Social Affairs), while developing national social policy, has onlylimited powers to influence the delivery of social services. Amongother devolved areas are: education (regions are now establishingschools), health (regions and some municipalities have set up andown hospitals), and housing. With regard to the latter,municipalities are responsible for housing policy, while theGovernment – Ministry of Regional Development – together withmunicipalities, run and finance programmes for the construction ofsupported (social) housing for low-income families, people withdisabilities and those from disadvantaged backgrounds.French policy-making, in many aspects of social policy, is in theprocess of devolution to the Région, Département and even to theCommune levels under an ongoing process of decentralisation.However, policies are still formulated centrally within the context oftwo pieces of legislation – the law on the fight against exclusion (Loid’orienatation relative à la lutte les exclusions, 1998) which sets outfundamental rights for each individual in society and the law onprogrammes for social cohesion (Loi de programmation pour lacohesion sociale, 2005).Under these laws the State continues to be responsible for peopleexperiencing poverty and the Inter-Ministerial Committee for theFight Against Social Exclusion co-ordinates Government policies.Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 127

However, the implementation of policies is monitored throughPrêfects appointed to each Département, thus transferring thecompetencies and experiences within the ministries to the locallevels. The structure recognises that responsibility for socialinclusion is a cross-cutting issue with the local levels ofadministration having a role in protecting the most vulnerable insociety. While the Régions have a responsibility for professionaltraining of unemployed people, the Département is the mostimportant level of local administration for dealing with socialproblems, such as minimum incomes, while theCommune/municipality level has a responsibility for the provision ofsocial housing.Policies at the national and local levels are also guided by theannual report published by the Observatory on Poverty and SocialExclusion, which sets out the year-on-year changes nationally, theimpact of public policies and the access to fundamental rights ofpeople experiencing poverty.In contrast, Portugal is a centralised country from the point of viewof political structures and administration, with Central Governmentand relevant ministries deciding on all aspects of social policy. Theydelegate the implementation of these policies to governmentalagencies and local authorities. The design and implementation ofthese policies has important implications for the role of thedifferent actors involved in social intervention and has resulted inchanges in institutional relations and, consequently, on the policydevelopment process.In recent years the introduction of the two-year NAPs/inclusion and,at the local level, the introduction of the Social Network PROGRIDE(Inclusion and Social Development) and the Social Insertion Income,128 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

have ushered in a new direction to establish a more inclusivesociety. These initiatives are aimed at addressing the problems ofpoverty and social exclusion through better planned, more targetedand integrated and, it is hoped, more effective policies.This process has also seen a greater commitment to an activepartnership between the State and civil society organisations toshare the responsibilities for a more effective implementation ofnational policies to tackle poverty and social exclusion. NGOs, thePrivate Solidarity Institutions and the Local DevelopmentAssociations are all playing an increasingly important role in thesocial protection system, as well as in the implementation ofnational social policy measures. In fact, such organisations areresponsible for running most of the existing social facilities forchildren and older people, while some private organisations andlocal authorities are partners with the local public services in theimplementation of national policies, such as the Social InsertionIncome (previously known as Guaranteed Minimum Income), and inthe development of local anti-poverty projects.In Norway, the formation of public policy is also centralised but themunicipality level does have administrative and implementationcontrol over a number of policy areas, such as first- and secondleveleducation, social housing and minimum income allowances.There has been growing concern in recent years about the lack ofco-ordination in the provision of social policies across theadministrative levels. After much debate and wide-rangingconsultation, a Green Paper (Norwegian Official Report) waspublished in 2004 by a Government-appointed Commission, whichis the basis for draft legislation (in 2005) on better co-ordination ofsocial services – a ‘one-stop-shop’ approach to service delivery. It isPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 129

intended, however, that the existing division of policy responsibilitiesand funding between the central and local levels will remain intactand these changes will be underpinned by legislation.One outcome from the White Paper (Plan of Action for CombatingPoverty, 2002-2005) was the establishment, in 2003, of the SocialPolitical Forum (Sosialpolitisk forum) which provides an opportunityfor an exchange of information and views and for debate aboutsocial, political and welfare issues. Representatives from a range ofgroups take part in the Forum:Political partiesParliamentary CommitteesGovernment ministries and directoratesUniversities and research institutesUser/interest organisations and other voluntary groups.The Forum meets in plenary session in four cities across thecountry every month. It is organised, on behalf of the Government,by the Welfare Alliance, an umbrella organisation which coordinatesthe work of twenty-five organisations working foreconomically, socially and legally less advantaged groups andsupported by public funding.Ireland also has a centralised political and administrativestructure, with ministries having responsibilities for key objectives,outputs and strategies within their areas of competence and as partof the overall programme for government. Social partnership is atthe core of this centralised structure, and public policy can bedefined as:130 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

The search for consensus on economic and social objectivesbetween sectoral interests … and government. Socialpartnership has strong cross-party political support, asexemplified in the policy programmes of the current andprevious governments … it has, in effect been elevated to ashared political ideology, which infuses all aspects of publicpolicy-making and with minimal dissent. 15National social and economic policies are agreed through the socialpartnership agreements, which the government, social partners,representatives of the farming organisations and the communityand voluntary sector agree every three years. The implementationof many of these policy areas is delegated to a range of Stateenterprises and agencies. It is further monitored and reviewedthrough the Steering Group for the Agreement, which isrepresentative of all the parties to the agreements.With regard to social inclusion, while policies are determined by theresponsible ministers and co-ordinated at government level andthrough the national partnership structures, they are implementedat the local level, through State offices and local authorities or, insome cases, through relevant NGOs.The key document which outlines the national objectives fortackling poverty and social exclusion and reducing the percentageof the population in consistent poverty over a ten-year period is theNational Anti-Poverty Strategy (NAPS), first published in 1997 andrevised in 2002. The NAPS sets out the key objectives for nationalpolicies on such issues as employment, education, health,accommodation, women, people with disabilities etc., thus involving‘a multi-policy approach’, and these policies are integrated into theNAPs/inclusion. The Office for Social Inclusion, DepartmentPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 131

(Ministry) of Social and Family Affairs, has been delegated thenational responsibility for developing, co-ordinating and driving thesocial inclusion process through the NAPS process and formonitoring the targets set out in the Irish NAPs/inclusion. 16A special emphasis is placed on the role that local authorities canplay in the implementation of the strategy. Local authorities operatewithin the broad policy framework for local administration and forthe integration of policies for economic, social and culturaldevelopment at the local level. The principal services provided bylocal government are infrastructural, such as housing, roads,transport and safety, planning and environmental issues. However,in recent years there has been a growing realisation of the impactthese policy areas have on the living conditions and on the socialintegration of local communities. Consequently, a number of localauthorities have established units to specifically address the socialimpact of their services and this work is supported by a LocalGovernment Anti-Poverty Learning Network, managed by the CombatPoverty Agency. 17A second initiative arising from the introduction of the NAPS wasthe introduction of Poverty Proofing. It was initially introduced for atrial period of one year in 1998 but was extended to all governmentdepartments (ministries), local authorities and State agencies andis still a cornerstone of Government policies in addressing issues ofpoverty and social exclusion.The Inter-Departmental Policy Committee, charged with theimplementation of the NAPS, drafted Guidelines for theImplementation of Poverty Proofing which were approved by theGovernment and circulated to all departments (ministries). Theguidelines defined Poverty Proofing as:132 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

… the process by which Government Departments, localauthorities and State agencies assess policies and programmesat design and review stages in relation to the likely impact thatthey will have or have had on poverty and on inequalities whichare likely to lead to poverty, with a view to poverty reduction. 19The objective of this process is not to target all policies at thoseexperiencing poverty but to ensure that they are added to theequation in the design of policies that might impact on them.Poverty proofing, therefore, is mandated as follows:In the preparation of Statements of Strategy in the StrategicManagement Initiative and Annual Business PlansIn designing policies and preparing Memoranda to Governmenton significant policy proposalsIn the preparation of the Estimates and Annual Budgetproposals – this also includes expenditure reviews andprogramme evaluationsIn the preparation of the National Development Plan and otherrelevant EU Plans and ProgrammesIn the preparation of legislation.In its review of Poverty Proofing, the National Economic and SocialCouncil found that there was ahigh degree of formal compliance with the requirements ofpoverty proofing, but its effectiveness could be improvedconsiderably by further clarification of (i) the objectives and (ii)the operation of the proofing process. 20Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 133

While there has been some success in implementing this policy, anumber of problems are identified, such as deficiencies in availabledata on the levels and risks of poverty, the need for greatertransparency in how policies are assessed, the provision ofadditional resources, including personnel trained in poverty-impactassessment and in planning for a more inclusive society, the needto develop indicators to measure poverty trends and greaterconsistency in the application of poverty proofing within thebudgetary process. 21Northern Ireland, as a region within the UK, is an example ofanother type of administrative structure. While working in cooperationwith other regions, it has substantial, transferred powersfrom the central UK Government, with responsibility for a range oflocal affairs, such as economic policy, training, agriculture,transport, environment, education and health and including thedevelopment and implementation of policies to tackle poverty andsocial exclusion. The main limitation has been the funding availablefrom a central taxation pool within the UK. The Northern Irelandadministration discharges these responsibilities within theexpenditure limits set by the UK Treasury.Important criteria for social inclusion are ‘incorporated in atransparent and objective way into organisational corporate andfinancial systems’ by agreeing priority areas of intervention totackle poverty and deprivation in Northern Ireland. ‘Crossboundary’working arrangements are approached in a number ofdifferent ways, in the formulation of policy, for example, throughrepresentative consultative groups or technical groups for researchand data gathering or to ‘develop, manage, monitor and reviewpolicies and programmes’. 22134 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

In drafting its New Targeting Social Need (New TSN) programme, forexample, the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister(OFMDFM) set out to adopt social inclusion policies which wouldaddress problems of employment and employability; areas ofinequality, such as health, education and housing; and establishingformal arrangements for cross-departmental working to implementthese policies. New TSN is primarily a cross-cutting approach toaddressing poverty and social exclusion, involving a wide range ofparticipants in the policy process, both inside and outside theadministration, such as Government departments and theiragencies, non-departmental public bodies and the six North-SouthImplementation Bodies. 23 The Government, including the NorthernIreland Office, has prepared Action Plans showing how they proposeto implement New TSN over the three-year period and theseproposals include any actions required to ensure that the data areavailable to monitor progress and to track any changes resultingfrom the policy.Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 135

8 ResourcesAnother important element in the development of policy is theallocation of resources – personnel, financial and time – at eachstage of the policy cycle. The availability of resources will have alimiting influence on the scope of the proposed policy and at thedesign and implementation stage and will also determine the rangeof any monitoring and evaluation undertaken.If qualified and trained personnel is available to deliver a particularprogramme or service, but the financial resources allocated to apolicy are insufficient, the policy will not achieve its objectives andwill have a reduced impact on the issue targeted. Even if ‘unlimited’financial resources are made available to a particular policy butthere is a shortage of trained personnel available for theimplementation and service delivery, the success of the policy,against its stated objectives, will also be impeded.A second barrier to implementing effective policies, noted by a UKCabinet Office report, is the requirement to introduce newapproaches to policy-making without additional resources and a thirdlimitation might be an unrealistic timeframe for the policy cycle.Without doubt, the most frequently mentioned barrier tomodernising the policy process was inadequate time. This wasnot a knee-jerk reaction of demanding resources in the face ofchange. Policy-makers showed a genuine concern that theadoption of modern approaches meant a need for more time:time to think, read, visit and to network. 24While time was the major concern for most policy-makers, othersstruggled with under-resourced training budgets that could notstretch to providing training on modern policy-making techniques.136 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

Furthermore, the European Commission’s Joint Inclusion Reportobserves that ‘there is little clear evidence of the NAPs directlyimpacting on national budgetary processes and thus on the overallallocation of resources.There is little evidence of resources for social inclusion beingsignificantly increased so as to make a decisive impact, thoughsome increased prioritisation of poverty and social exclusion isevident. 25The MSI partner countries have a range of approaches to theprovision of resources for the mainstreaming of social inclusion.The Czech Republic, as yet, does not have any special financialschemes directly related to the reduction of poverty and socialexclusion. The key priority is to tackle unemployment, especiallylong-term unemployment. However, several disadvantaged groupsor more serious social problems are given priority in governmentexpenditure. For example, priority is given to the funding of policiesfor the Roma minority and people with disabilities. There arespecial governmental programmes and also broad grant schemes(especially for NGOs) for the social inclusion of both these groups.The Portuguese Government communicates its general policiesthrough its Programme of Government and its spending prioritiesthrough the announcement of the Broad Economic PolicyGuidelines and the Annual State Budget. Both the Programme andBudget are discussed in the national parliament (Assembleia daRepública). Recent Governments have prioritised measures toreduce poverty and social exclusion. However, in the last few yearsany practical measures have been limited by the efforts to reducethe Portuguese budgetary deficit, which has taken priority.Generally the EU and national programmes to tackle poverty havePromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 137

specific lines of financing directed to disadvantaged groups, such aspeople with disabilities, ethnic minorities, children at risk and longterm unemployed persons.Funding in France is also from the central State budget but with adevolution of responsibilities for the implementation of policiesacross the three lower levels of administration – Régions,Département and Commune/municipalities. For example, theRégion offices of the Ministry of Solidarity, Health and Family(DRASS) have responsibility for professional training; theDépartement level offices (DDASS) have responsibility for theprovision of benefits, minimum incomes etc; while the Communelevel provide social housing. All resources, however, are fundedthrough the State budget, including personnel at the various levelsof administration. For example, in June 2004, a multi-annual planfor social cohesion, to cover the period 2005-2009, was published. Itcontained a commitment of ‘substantial financial resources’ tosupport the implementation of the law on programmes for socialcohesion (Loi de programmation pour la cohesion sociale, 2005). 26Northern Ireland takes a distinctive approach in that there is nospecific budget for poverty and social inclusion and New TSN, whichis the Government’s main policy for tackling poverty and socialexclusion, is a programme without its own budget. Instead, it has ageneral approach to policy development and delivery, involving allrelevant existing spending programmes across Northern IrelandDepartments, including some agencies, non-departmental publicbodies and North-South implementation bodies. 27 This is to ensurethat government resources are used ‘more to benefit the mostdisadvantaged people, groups and areas. It is also about changingthe way things are done so that programmes and services are138 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

organised and delivered in ways which are more helpful todisadvantaged people’. 28 This approach results in, for example, NewTSN areas been designated as priority for inward investment andfor focused neighbourhood regeneration initiatives.In Ireland the Government has outlined its overall objectives fortackling poverty and social exclusion through the NAPS. However, itis the view of the Government that these objectives can only be met‘through the combined efforts of Government, social partners,communities and families working together to achieve the collectiveaim.’ 29 The commitment to achieve the targets set out in the NAPSis qualified by the responsibility of the Government to ensure thatthe economic and fiscal situation and the budgetary environmentare protected:It is clear that the Government have to consider carefully theallocation of resources to the Strategy, including the issues ofprioritisation and phasing of measures and actions and thepotential to re-allocate and refocus existing resourceswhenever possible. 30While there are no specific financial or other resources allocated tothe implementation of policies to achieve the objectives set out inthe anti-poverty strategy, the commitments and targets areincorporated into the social partnership agreement, SustainingProgress. The national agreement places the framework foraddressing poverty, social exclusion and equality issues within thecontext of national economic and social policies and within ‘a set oflegislative and institutional arrangements and policy measures’. 31Within the context of the NAPS, the Government makes it clearthat the process of Poverty Proofing does not indicate a re-directionPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 139

of resources or policies towards those who are socially excluded.The Government’s understanding of poverty proofing is that it… is to identify the impact of the policy proposal on the poor sothat this can be given proper consideration in designing policy.It is not intended that poverty proofing would require that allpolicies be fundamentally transformed so that they areexplicitly targeted at the disadvantaged. 32Policies for social inclusion in Norway are also funded from theState budget, either directly to projects and services or through thelocal municipality level. In recent years NGOs and voluntaryorganisations have increasingly received targeted funding fordealing with problems of social exclusion. Under proposedlegislation to restructure the provision of social services (2005),funding will remain under the control of the Government throughthe central State budget.9 Co-ordination of NAPs/inclusionWithin the context of the governmental structures and the resourcesallocated to the development of policies directed at promoting socialinclusion, the partner countries in the MSI project have alldesignated the co-ordination of the preparation of the NAPs/inclusionto a specific office or unit of government. It is the role of thesedesignated offices to take overall responsibility for the consultationprocess (in particular with civil society organisations), the drafting ofthe plan, getting agreement across government, the organisation ofthe peer reviews and liaison with the European Commission.140 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

Table 5.4 sets out the structures for social inclusion policies in eachMSI partner Member State and includes extracts from theEuropean Commission’s Staff Paper Joint Report on SocialProtection and Social Inclusion: Technical Annex (SEC(2005)69)commenting on the three waves of NAPs/inclusion to date (2001,2003 and 2004). 33Table 5.4: Government Structures and European CommissionCountry Responsible Office/Unit European Commission commentsCzechRepublicFranceSocial Services Departmentwithin the Ministry of Labourand Social AffairsDesignated office within theMinistry of Solidarity, Healthand FamilyWhile it is not overly ambitious in launchingnew policy measures, the NAP makes animportant step in mainstreaming the socialinclusion process into other public policies.However, the general strategic approachremains sometimes implicit and the NAPimplementation and monitoring measuresshould be further clarified. The NAP hashelped bring together all relevant actors inthe field, but had the process received morepolitical visibility, more could have beenachieved.The NAP/inclusion, 2003-2005, and itsupdate presented in September 2004, arebased on the continuation of a strategyestablished in 1998 which takes account ofthe multi-dimensional character of socialexclusion and which gives priority topromoting access or the return to the labourmarket. … The measures set out in the NAPand in the law for social cohesion, 2005-2009, constitute a major new investment inthree areas: employment; housing; andequal opportunities. France has chosen notto establish an overall objective for povertyreduction but has, instead, adoptedquantitative objectives which partially coverthe range of policies and which often relatemore to measures of policy implementationthan policy outcomes.Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 141

Country Responsible Office/Unit European Commission commentsIreland Office for Social Inclusion, Deptof Social and Family AffairsThe NAP 2003-2005 involves the adoption ofa range of new targets and the creation ofnew institutional structures. It also breaksnew ground in the way it acknowledges themulti-dimensional aspects of poverty andsocial exclusion … A new framework totackle social exclusion has been established,with overall co-ordination and responsibilityallocated to a new Office for Social Inclusion.Given its wide remit and ambitious workprogramme, it will be necessary to ensurethat adequate resources are applied to thisOffice. A wide-ranging consultation processand the establishment of a Social InclusionForum have increased civic societyinvolvement.PortugalNorthernIrelandInstitute of Social Security,Ministry of Labour and SocialSolidarityDesignated office within the UKDept of Work and Pensions,and from Northern Ireland theOffice of the First Minister andDeputy First Ministercontributes to the preparationof the UK NAPs/inclusionThe NAP is a fairly straight continuation ofthe overall strategy presented in 2001 andcontains little innovation. The Plan presentsa rather broad list of principles, strategicaims and priorities and a wide panoply ofinstruments, but falls short from identifyingsources of funding and budgets for the mainmeasures. For this reason, it is difficult toestablish what the true priorities are andhow the strategic objectives tie in with theimplementation of the measures. A keymeasure of the NAP is the ‘Social Network’,which is to be extended and stepped up inorder to mobilise all stakeholders.The second UK NAP (2003-2005) maintainsthe process of developing a broad andcomprehensive strategy. Facilitating accessto employment for those capable of workingis at the centre of the strategic approach andhas been helped by continued goodeconomic and employment growth. Thestrategy also envisages the provision of goodincome support and high quality socialservices to those who cannot access work. …The strategy involves commitment to anumber of targets, supported by nationalindicators, most notably the aim oferadicating child poverty by 2020. … Theprocess of creating the second NAP alsoshows a greater degree of openness andinvolvement of relevant stakeholders.142 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

10 ConclusionThis chapter sets out the complex nature of public policy-makingand the different approaches to policy-making in the MSI partnercountries, in terms of structures and the allocation of resources.The partner countries represent the spectrum of governancestructures found in the EU Member States. The policy cycle, in apolitical context, requires top-level commitment to ensure that allthe necessary elements are in place for the successfulimplementation of a desired policy.The mainstreaming of social inclusion into all government policymakingis a particular policy challenge, requiring an across-theboardcommitment from all ministries, State agencies, socialpartners and the involvement and co-operation of nongovernmentalorganisations which are representative of those atrisk of poverty and social exclusion. Tools need to be developed toensure that public policies for social inclusion are integrated intothe wider policy framework and political objectives.All the partner countries have different ways of designing,introducing and implementing policies, whether centralised ordevolved to the regional and/or local levels. The need to prepareNAPs/inclusion, in line with agreed guidelines and commonobjectives, gives a European dimension to these policies. TheNAPs/inclusion process, with the assessment and comparison by theEuropean Commission, followed by peer reviews, give policies onsocial inclusion in the Member States a common focus, points themin the same direction and seeks to ensure that governments’ policiesaddress the underlying causes of poverty and social exclusion.Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 143

Footnotes1 The New Oxford Dictionary of English, as quoted in A Practical Guide toPolicy Making in Northern Ireland, Economic Policy Unit, OFMDFM, Belfast(2004).2 Ibid.3 Modernising Government, White Paper, UK Cabinet Office (London) (1999).4 A Guide to Policy Development, Office of the Auditor General, Manitoba(2003).5 Capacity – A Review of the Policy Development Capacity within GovernmentDepartments, Office of the Provincial Auditor, Manitoba (2001).6 Managing Horizontal Policy Issues, Federal Deputy Ministers’ Task Force onHorizontal Issues, Government of Canada (1996).7 OFMDFM NI, op. cit.8 Ibid. See also Better Policy-making, H. Bullock et al. Centre forManagement and Policy Making, Cabinet Office (London) 2001. For a moredetailed analysis of the policy-making features see Professional PolicyMaking for the Twenty-First Century, Report by the Strategic Policy-MakingTeam, Cabinet Office, London (1999).9 Ibid.10 Office of the Auditor General, Manitoba, op. cit. and the Office of theProvincial Auditor, Manitoba, op. cit.11 Community Planning – A Public Matter, Ministry of Labour and Social Affairsof the Czech Republic, Prague (2002).12 Cabinet Office, London, (1999), op. cit.13 Office of the Auditor General, Manitoba (2003), op. cit.144 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

14 For example, see Access to Social Rights, M. Daly, Council of Europe,Strasbourg (2002).15 Local Partnerships for Social inclusion? J. Walsh et al, Combat PovertyAgency/Oak Tree Press, Dublin (1998).16 Building an Inclusive Society, Dept of Social, Community and Family Affairs,Dublin (2002).17 First Annual Report of the Office for Social Inclusion, Office for SocialInclusion, Dublin, (2005).18 This Network, which was established in 2000, is organised and managed bythe Combat Poverty Agency in conjunction with the Dept of theEnvironment, Heritage and Local Government and the Office for SocialInclusion.19 See Review of the Poverty Proofing Process, S. O’Connor, National Economicand Social Council (No. 106), Dublin (2001). Appendix 1 sets out theGuidelines for the Implementation of Poverty Proofing Procedures.20 O’Connor, op. cit.21 Combat Poverty Agency (2004), op. cit.22 Mainstreaming Social Inclusion, Report on Phase I of the MSI Project, CPA,Dublin (2004).23 A North/South Ministerial Council and six institutions were set up underStrand Two of the Good Friday Agreement (April 1998), which is aninternational treaty between the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Theinstitutions implement policies agreed by the Ministerial Council and arejointly administered and funded by the relevant government departments(ministries) in Northern Ireland and the Republic. These bodies deal withtrade, tourism, food safety, waterways, minority languages and theadministration of the cross-border element of the European Commissionfunded Peace II programme.Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 145

24 Bullock et al, op. cit.24 Joint Inclusion Report, Council of Ministers and European CommissionBrussels (2004) 7101/04.25 European Commission Staff Paper (SEC(2005)69), op. cit.26 OFMDFM NI (2004), op. cit.27 TSN Annual Report 2002, OFMDFM NI28 Building an Inclusive Society Dept of Social, Community and Family Affairs,Dublin (2002).29 Ibid.30 Sustaining Progress – Social Partnership Agreement, 2003-2005, GovernmentStationary Office, Dublin (2004).31 Budget Statement, Government of Ireland, Dublin (2000).32 European Commission Staff Paper (SEC(2005)69), op. cit.146 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

Participation of6CIVIL SOCIETYWITH the relevantactors in publicpolicy making

1 IntroductionThe definition of mainstreaming, as set out at the end of Chapter 2,refers to the participation of public bodies, social partners, NGOs andother relevant actors. This chapter focuses on the understanding of‘participation’ within the context of mainstreaming social inclusion.Participation is an important part of the NAPs/inclusion process andrelates to one of the four Common Objectives agreed by the NiceEuropean Council – to mobilise all the relevant bodies. 1This implies that for the mainstreaming of social inclusion to beeffective, a key element is the involvement of all relevant actors ateach stage of the policy cycle. It requires the Member States tointroduce structures and processes to make participation possible.As the President of the European Commission, Jacques Santerstated when addressing the European Social Policy Forum in 1996:Dialogue is essential and nothing can be done withoutgrassroots involvement. We must set out on the road towards amore active, participatory society. 2The term participation is closely related to the form of governancewithin a political jurisdiction. It refers to the way society determineshow power, rights and responsibilities are used and distributed,how it collectively solves its problems and prioritises and reconcilesits economic, social and environmental objectives through thepolitical process. The form of representative democracy which hasevolved in Western societies allows for participation by citizensthrough the ballot box at election times. Consequently,representative government has traditionally operated a ‘top-down’approach to governance.148 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

The greater complexity of modern society, resulting from the growthin new information and communication technologies and theemergence of a greater global interdependence of economies,markets and the environment, has been matched with a greater levelof scepticism about how the democratic process works. Citizens haveless confidence in democratic institutions and ‘are pessimistic abouttheir ability to prevent or influence the implementation of unjustlegislation’. Consequently, there is ‘a desire for more opengovernment and the opportunity to influence decisions.’ 3 In thisincreasingly interactive and interdependent world the demands fora more co-operative, consensus approach to governance have beengrowing:Participation is viewed as an active relationship and dialoguebetween people and the State. It is seen as a means ofstrengthening representative democracy rather than inopposition to it, or offered as an alternative model. 4A practical example of this approach is the commitment by theEuropean Commission, in the draft general regulations for the EUStructural Funds, which requires Member States ‘to ensure broadand effective involvement’. This is further echoed in the proposedspecific regulations for the Social Fund (ESF), which state that:An efficient and effective implementation of the actionsupported by the ESF relies on good governance andpartnership between all relevant territorial and socio-economicactors and, in particular, the social partners and otherstakeholders including at regional and local levels. 5While participation is not a new concept, it is emerging to enhancegovernance in the workplace and in political organisations and hasPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 149

increasingly become the preferred way of harnessing theintellectual capacity of actors and stakeholders in an era of rapidchange. As noted by the Scottish Parliament handbook, ‘in the UKthere is a long history of participation from pressure groups,campaigns, lobbying or generally trying to influence electedpoliticians and have more say in decision-making at both local andnational levels’. 6Consequently, in recent decades the demands for greaterparticipation in the democratic process has grown, with theobjective of providing citizens and indeed workers, with a strongvoice in political decisions which affect their lives, families andcommunities. This is based on the belief that increasedparticipation in decision-making in the workplace, in communitiesand in society generally, releases potential energies that can bechannelled in positive and constructive directions.Governments in Europe and in the wider OECD countries, have beenexploring ways to develop citizens’ participation in the policyprocess through the establishment of local partnershiporganisations designed to improve social cohesion and thedevelopment of local social, economic and employment strategies,within the framework of EU and national policies. Theseexperiments have often come about because of the desire forgreater participation as a reaction to poor outcomes from previous‘top-down’ policies. They are also a reaction to the continuedpersistence of social exclusion and its associated problems ofpoverty, low education and health levels, high unemployment andpoor housing at a time of economic growth. Participation is seen asa means of improving the quality of life for socially excluded anddisadvantaged people and communities.150 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

The Council of Europe notes that ‘in many countries there is atendency to bring social services closer to the people by devolvingresponsibility to regional and local authorities. In addition,governments increasingly find that the best way of facilitatingaccess to social rights is by working in partnership with civil societyin order to achieve shared goals of social cohesion.’A newer development is the growing partnership betweengovernment and non-government organisations in dealing withsocial problems. In identifying and meeting new social needs,NGOs can often play a valuable complementary role alongsideofficial bodies in ensuring access to social rights for the morevulnerable members of society. 7The Irish Government, for example, recognised the importance ofthis new development in its White Paper setting out the role of thevoluntary sector, its relationship to government and on communityand voluntary activities, when it states:The ability of the Community and Voluntary sector to providechannels for the active involvement and participation of citizensis fundamental. An active Community and Voluntary sectorcontributes to a democratic, pluralist society, providesopportunities for the development of decentralised andparticipative structures and fosters a climate in which thequality of life can be enhanced. 8For involvement and participation to work, bureaucratic andadministrative systems need to change, providing greater access toinformation and exercising higher levels of openness andtransparency. Participation cannot function in a restrictive orsecretive environment. As stated by the Council of Europe, NGOsPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 151

and community and voluntary organisations can play key roles inpromoting an effective participation process. They can ensure thatpeople have access to information, in good time. They can assist inthe development of mutual support networks which ensure that theconsultation process is as wide as possible, that alternativeproposals are based on the full disclosure of all relevant data andthat they can make informed contributions to the debate. 9Such participation can be considered as a sharing of power acrossthe levels of governance:participative instruments have as their main function to help tostructure disputes among social actors, in order to make themmore transparent and, thus, to contribute to a more equitabledistribution of power. 102 Defining InvolvementInvolvement can be considered as a spectrum of the interactionbetween those in a position of authority and those in a subordinaterole, for example, between management and employees or betweengovernment and citizens. Participation is one of a number of stageson this spectrum, which ranges from the provision of information tojoint decision-making, or co-determination (Figure 6.1).152 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

Figure 6.1Involvement SpectrumInformationNo informationConsultationParticipationCo-Decision MakingEach step on this spectrum is dependent on the previous step, thusproviding the building blocks for involvement. Information and thesharing of knowledge is the ‘life blood’ of involvement, as withoutthe full and complete availability of information on the policyinitiative, which is made available in good time, it is not possible foreither consultation or participation to be meaningful. Consultationprovides those individuals or groups who are interested andinvolved to express views on a proposal and to influence the finaldecision but not to be involved in the making of that decision. Thisremains the prerogative of the policy-makers who may, or may not,take into consideration the views put forward through aconsultation process, in making the decisions. Consultation cannotbe effective unless those who are been consulted have all therelevant information on the proposed policy.Participation recognises the contribution made by all thestakeholders in the decision-making process and it providesindividuals and groups with the ability to influence the process andPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 153

to have their views incorporated in the final outcomes. Co-decisionmaking goes one step further by ensuring that a consensus isreached during the decision-making process, that policies arearrived at jointly and that they reflect the concerns and priorities ofall those affected by the decision, resulting in all the stakeholdershaving a joint ownership of the final outcome.The OECD looks at this process another way – as a continuum ofoptions. 11 This continuum provides a framework for the relationshipbetween statutory agencies and the voluntary sector:InformationConsultationPartnershipDelegationControl.Consultation varies in form from simply informing people whatgovernment proposes to do (information) to various levels ofempowerment (partnership, delegation and control) explicitlydesigned to involve those outside government in a decision. 12With regard to the application of this process to the mainstreamingof social inclusion, if involvement is to be an integral part ofmainstreaming, then actors at all levels of the policy cycle, bothhorizontally (across all ministries and State agencies) and vertically(from those involved in the policy design, its implementation, theprovision of the programmes and/or services, to the external targetaudience – individuals, groups and representative organisations),need access to information and need to be consulted and to154 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

participate in each stage of the policy cycle.Accepting that, in a modern open and transparent society,information is available to any individual or group interested in oraffected by a particular area of policy, providing them with thenecessary knowledge to participate effectively, a key issue is theappropriate level at which participation should take place, the formof involvement that is suitable and who should be involved at eachstage of the policy cycle.To ensure that the policy-making process is efficient and effective,there is a need for participative arrangements to be agreed and inplace within the framework of the policy process at the nationallevel (through the democratic structures and throughrepresentative and relevant national organisations), in theconception and design of a policy, at the implementation stage atregional and local levels (through relevant groups and individuals)and, finally, by the involvement of the actors at all levels in a reviewof the policy through an evaluation process.3 Benefits of and Barriers to ParticipationWhile there is a growing consensus on the benefits to policyformation from greater participation of all the actors, there are,however, also barriers to meaningful involvement. Some of thebenefits of participation are outlined in the Scottish Parliamenthandbook, such as:Wider public participation increases the pool of knowledge tobe drawn on and can provide detailed and specific evidence thatexperts often miss.Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 155

By hearing from the wider population, more appropriate andeffective policies and legislation are developed that have thesupport of peopleParticipation influences but does not dictate decision-making.Increasing the contact between people and their publicrepresentatives in new ways, strengthens the relationshipbetween themParticipation fundamentally promotes equal opportunitiesParticipation provides opportunities that help people tounderstand how Parliament structures work through positive,concrete experiences. In the longer term, this can help to raisethe level of people’s political literacy and create a more maturedialogue between politicians and the peopleParticipation provides more people with a good experience inengaging in the political process. 13Involvement and participation is not always an easy process tointroduce or to operate effectively. Very often, it is difficult toachieve meaningful involvement for a variety of reasons. In thecontext of social exclusion, some of these potential barriers arelisted in Table 6.1.156 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

Table 6.1:Institutional/politicalCulturalPhysical:TechnicalEconomicPotential Barriers to Involvement and ParticipationThe danger of stereotyping people experiencing exclusion and treatingindividuals as part of a generic groupUndertaking token involvement, which does not take note of the views andopinions of those being consultedInvolving groups or organisations that are not representative of excludedpeopleCommunicating in language that is not comprehensible to those who lackhigher levels of educationA bureaucratic and political unwillingness to share information and powerThe possible apathy and indifference of those experiencing poverty, whichworks against becoming involved in a participative processThe lack of trust many people experiencing poverty and exclusion have inthe political processReduced expectations of outcomes that would have a positive impact onthe lives of people experiencing social exclusionA lack of child/social care facilitiesProblems with the location of meetings and the accessibility to public transportA lack of provision of access for people with disabilities to engage in theparticipation processFor people experiencing poverty and social exclusion, a lack of thenecessary information, knowledge and analytical skills to make ameaningful contribution to the involvement processA lack of an effective social infrastructure for the development ofparticipative structuresOn the part of public services, a lack understanding, skills and experiencein how to involve people who are marginalised and excludedA lack of the education, training and experience necessary tobecome involvedPractical considerations around time constraints and the cost oforganising the participation processFor socially excluded people, a lack of the basic financial resourcesto participateInadequate financial resources to facilitate the involvement ofexcluded people. 14Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 157

4 Local PartnershipsA way to overcoming barriers to participation can be found in theorganisation of community structures and local partnerships whichprovide opportunities for individual and organisational involvement.Studies undertaken by the European Foundation for theImprovement of Living and Working Conditions show that local-levelstructures for participation work well andthe activities are, for many individuals, a necessary steppingstone between the privacy of the household and access to someform of public life; they are a way of pursuing an interest,meeting people, finding out what is going on in the locality,helping others, being helped, contributing to a cause,campaigning for improvements, or representing residents’views in relation to public services or new developments in thelocality. 15This European Foundation study shows that local partnershipsenable the building of local institutional frameworks which caninvolve and empower key actors, including excluded groups andindividuals, and make it possible for national policies on thepromotion of social inclusion to respond more effectively to localconcerns. They also improve the delivery of policies at the locallevel and enhance the performance of mainstreamed economic,social and environmental policies by tailoring them to local needs.They can act as fora for innovation and experimentation and for amore efficient use of resources in the local context.However, local partnerships should be complementary to and not158 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

eplacements for national actions and policies. To increase theireffectiveness, a number of issues need to be taken intoconsideration, such as how representative local organisations are ofthe communities, groups or individuals they claim to represent; theexistence of an adequate communications strategy for reportingback by the partnerships to individuals and groups locally; adequateresources, in terms of finance and professional personnel, tofacilitate participation; and transparency and accountability in theuse of public funds 16In the context of making resources available for local partnerships,consistency in commitment and funding from the nationalauthorities is essential. As the OECD notes:The main obstacle to partnership effectiveness is theinconsistency of national policy frameworks with regard to thelocal objectives pursued. Governments have often supportednetworks of partnerships and given them goals to achieve, butwithout ensuring that the prospective partners could take anactive and consistent part in the activities to reach those goals. 17The OECD Local Enterprise and Economic Development (LEED)Programme notes that the positive role that local partnerships canplay in the implementation of policies has become increasinglyrecognised in recent years due to the unsatisfactory results ofpolicies using a ‘top-down’ approach to governance. They are at thecentre of efforts to improve local governance, helping to reconcilethe tensions between local and national levels, providing localcommunities and individuals with opportunities to express theirviews and to participate in the formation of policies which affectPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 159

their areas, and helping to prioritise programmes and serviceswhich reflect local concerns. 18Therefore, key elements in the success of providing servicesthrough local partnerships are: first, determining how thesepartnerships fit into the existing structures of governance andsecond, the allocation of sufficient resources to ensure they canundertake their role in the local community.Finally, the European Foundation study puts forward the view thatthe more recognition and support there is for local communityorganisations the greater the chance of increasing social cohesionwith regard to a wide range of local issues, ‘without encroaching onthe legitimate and essential role of the public authorities’.The potential of the community sector is far greater thanrealised, but it would be dangerous to rely on it to carry outfunctions which are inimical to its nature. 195 Involvement and Social InclusionInvolvement at the local level and self-expression of peopleexperiencing poverty, in the context of social inclusion, remains oneof the key objectives of the European Commission, as articulatedthrough the NAPs/inclusion process and can be considered in thelight of the challenge set out in the Joint Inclusion Report (2004):The participation of people suffering exclusion in policy-makingis essential, as their direct experience and knowledgecontributes important insights to what does and doesn’t workand this leads to the development of better focussed and more160 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

elevant policies. The challenge is to put in place structuredways of ensuring this. 20The challenge for policy-makers and administrators is how toensure that those who might be affected by policies at the locallevel (or their representatives) are consulted and involved in thedesign, planning, implementation and evaluation of such policies.While much progress has been made, participation remains achallenge, as shown by the findings of a survey undertaken by theEuropean Anti-Poverty Network (EAPN), on behalf of the IrishPresidency of the EU, into the mechanisms in place to facilitate theparticipation of people who are experiencing poverty or exclusion inthe old EU-15 Member States (plus the Czech Republic). Thissurvey showed that there is a gap between the commitment toinvolve people and the implementation of that commitment:Few countries have structural arrangements, which canengage people who experience poverty and social exclusion(and the organisations in which they participate) in thedevelopment of cross-cutting social policy initiatives. Severalcountries have mechanisms for some involvement of nongovernmentalorganisations in the preparation of the NationalAction Plans on Inclusion. There are significant signs ofimprovement in consultation with non-governmentalorganisations and networks between the preparation of the2001 plans and the 2004 plans. There are no satisfactoryarrangements for follow-up, monitoring and evaluation of theoutcome of participation. 21This survey did find, however, ‘encouraging signs’ of an increasedcommitment to the introduction of participative mechanisms. ManyPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 161

examples in the survey make reference to NGOs who have taken thelead in participation issues and the report of this survey concludesthat a structural mechanism for participation needs to have apermanent means to bring both government and NGOs together. 22The findings of the EAPN survey are confirmed by a review of themost recent NAPs/inclusion for the twenty-five EU Member States,as they all mention the promotion of dialogue and the involvementof the social partners, NGOs and social service providers (Table6.2). However, with regard to the involvement of excluded people, ofthe MSI-participating countries, only Ireland and Portugal give thisaspect of involvement a high priority (Table 6.2).Table 6.2: Dialogue and Involvement of Social Partners, NGOsand Social Service ProvidersNo Mention Brief Mention Discussed inDetailDenmarkItalySpainEstoniaLatviaMaltaSlovak RepublicNorwayAustriaFranceGreeceUK (NI)CyprusHungaryLithuaniaPolandGiven HighPriorityFinlandGermanyIrelandPortugalSwedenCzech RepublicSloveniaNew Member States in italics; MSI partner countries in bold; EEA country(Norway) underlined.162 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

6 Involvement and ParticipationArrangements in MSI Partner CountriesAs shown above, involvement is discussed in the NAPs/inclusion forall the MSI partner countries. This section examines this focus oninvolvement and participation under the two sub-headings referredto in Chapter 5: the governance and administrative structures thatare in place and the resources made available to ensure theirproper functioning.StructuresA key prerequisite for the success of involvement in themainstreaming of social inclusion policies is the establishment offormal structures through which interested and relevant groups andindividuals can have an input into the planning, design,implementation, monitoring and evaluation of EU and nationalpolicies across the whole range of areas which impact on peopleexperiencing poverty.In Ireland, the importance of involvement and participation ishighlighted in the Government White Paper on the role andactivities of the voluntary sector. This document stresses thatGovernment has the ultimate and sole responsibility for making keydecisions on social and economic policy, ‘no matter how extensive aprocess of prior consultation that may have taken place’:However, the context in which these constitutionally-basedpowers and responsibilities are exercised is increasingly one ofsocial partnership … For example, the social partners have aformalised role in advising on, negotiating and agreeing aPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 163

ange of economic and social policies at the level of NationalPartnership agreements. 23Within this partnership approach, the formulation of nationalpolicies on poverty and social inclusion is in three parts. First, asoutlined by the White Paper, through the National SocialPartnership Agreements; second, through the work of the NationalEconomic and Social Development Office, in particular, two of itsconstituent organisations, the National Economic and SocialCouncil (NESC) and National Economic and Social Forum (NESF);and third, through the National Anti-Poverty Networks.The National Social Partnership Agreements are negotiated everythree years between the Government, the trade union andemployers’ organisations, the farming organisations and thecommunity and voluntary sector – the four pillars. A number ofother national civil society organisations are also parties to theagreements. In advance of negotiations on each agreement, theNESC, which consists of representatives of all the key nationalorganisations and the relevant State departments (ministries),prepares a strategy report on priority policy issues consideredessential to economic development and to increasing socialinclusion. These reports provide a background for the negotiations.The current National Agreement, Sustaining Progress (2003-2005),covers all aspects of national economic and social policies,including labour costs, and all issues are incorporated into anintegrated agreement. With regard to social inclusion, theagreement states that:The core objective is to build a fair and inclusive society and toensure that people have the resources and opportunities to live164 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

with dignity and have access to quality public services thatunderpin life chances and experiences. 24The Agreement states that ‘the framework for addressing poverty,social inclusion and equality issues is extensive’ and, in addition,sets out a number of key actions to be put in place during theperiod of the Agreement. A specific focus is ‘to ensure that theseestablished mechanisms operate effectively’. It also sets out anumber of actions to achieve better implementation of policies,including a move to evidence-based policy-making, better data andinformation, including national progress indicators, effectiveproofing and a range of tools for monitoring and evaluation. 25The implementation of the commitments entered into by the partiesto the National Agreement is monitored by the Steering Group forthe Agreement and representatives of the four pillars meetquarterly to review, monitor and report on progress. Finally, there isan annual meeting of all the parties to the National Agreement,chaired by the Taoiseach (Prime Minister).The parties to the Agreement recognise the National Anti-PovertyStrategy (NAPS), Building an Inclusive Society (2002-2007), as thevehicle for the detailed implementation of the social inclusioncommitments.The second of the structural arrangements for participation was inthe preparation of the NAPS and the NAPs/inclusion which wasundertaken through an intensive process of regional seminars,seminars on specific issues and the opportunity for interested andaffected parties to submit written comments, all of this processculminating in the Social Inclusion Forum, which is convened by theNational Economic and Social Forum (NESF). The Combat PovertyPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 165

Agency organised the regional seminars. Following the first round ofconsultation in advance of the NAPs/inclusion 2003-2005, anassessment of the discussions at the seminars and othersubmissions made during the consultation process was published. 26This participative process is co-ordinated by the NESF, inconjunction with the Office for Social Inclusion (OSI). There are fourrepresentative strands on the NESF and it has an independentchairperson. There are fifteen members for each strand:The Oireachtas (National Parliament)Employers, Trade Unions and Farm BodiesThe Community and Voluntary SectorGovernment Ministries, Local Government, independent bodiesand individuals.The NESF plays a central role in the development, monitoring andanalysis of social inclusion and equality policies and programmes,through the preparation of policy reports, consultation, debates andthrough the provision of information to the Government. It also hasa key role in monitoring the implementation of specific equality andsocial inclusion measures and programmes identified in the SocialPartnership arrangements. 27The OSI is the Government office with overall responsibility ‘fordeveloping, co-ordinating and driving the NAPs/inclusion process’ andits work is overseen by a number of high-level committees which arepart of the institutional arrangements for the overall co-ordination ofthe fight against poverty and social exclusion. These are:The Cabinet Committee on Social Inclusion, Drugs and Rural166 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

Development, consisting of relevant ministers and chaired bythe Taoiseach (Prime Minister)The Senior Officials’ Group on Social Inclusion, made up of toppublic servants to provide an overview of social inclusion issuesand emerging topics, which it brings to the attention of theCabinet CommitteeThe OSI Management Group of top-level public servantsrepresenting the relevant social and economic departments,including the Department of the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) andthe Department of Finance. 28The third approach is through the National Anti-Poverty Networkswhich provide opportunities for the direct participation of ten differentgroups dealing with different aspects of poverty and social exclusion.These networks make a valuable contribution by co-ordinating theviews of people living in poverty and in representing their needs andviews. In addition to their direct contact with the relevant policymakers,the ten networks meet twice annually with the CombatPoverty Agency to exchange information and experiences.In Portugal the experience with participation structures andmechanisms is mixed. There has been a two-speed development inthe field of participation – on the one hand, it is increasingly referredto in the context of diverse programmes and initiatives and, on theother hand, it is difficult to point out any visible or effective progress.The effort to achieve inclusion requires a greater capacity fornegotiations, co-operation and commitment, which implies thepromotion of consultation, participation and involvement of peoplewho are excluded (individuals, groups and organisations).At national level, participation has been introduced through variousPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 167

programmes and projects. These are based on the recognition thatit is essential to change traditional practices and explicitly adoptempowerment objectives, methods and practices with persons andgroups, working at individual and organisational levels. Thiscommitment is reflected in the involvement of a wide range ofbodies, such as State services, local authorities, charitableorganisations and groups of citizens in partnerships and innetworks which increasingly serve to combine efforts and pursuecommon purposes, with a broad sharing of responsibilities.Despite the positive results and the progress that has been made,and given the historical lack of participation by Portuguese citizens,there is still a lot of work to do and further efforts are needed topromote forms of participation and involvement and to strengthensocial cohesion.In a number of cases, involvement and participation are still morean experiment than the norm, with indirect representation havingan important role until direct representation becomes feasible andcan be introduced, so there is still a long way to go in terms ofdeveloping participative structures. The challenge lies in movingbeyond this transition stage to implement more inclusive andparticipatory strategies and in seeking more effective involvementof a broader range of groups and individuals, covering the national,regional and local levels.Parallel to this transition stage, a need to encourage thedevelopment of organisations and/or associations with membershipdrawn from disadvantaged groups has been identified. Thisincludes fostering their capacity to take part in policy decisionmakingand in the process of change. The challenge for168 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

participation in Portugal is how to deepen the quality andeffectiveness of involvement by the different actors and how toestablish a more equal, sustainable and ongoing partnership.There are, however, formal permanent partnership structures atthe local level, such as the Commissions for the Protection ofChildren and Young People, Local Education Councils, and LocalFollow-Up Commissions for the Social Insertion Income. These areresponsible for the implementation of the national policies locally.Such local structures are very seldom consulted on national issues,though they may be consulted on local problems and projects.Furthermore, a few municipalities are implementing participativebudgetary discussions which are open to the local populations.Considering these challenges, a number of structures for theparticipation of interested and relevant groups/individuals arealready in place:Municipal Committees, created by municipal bodies andinfluenced by the perceived advantages from decentralisation.These committees have been organised mainly around areassuch as education, employment, social action, security andenvironmental issuesLocal Committees, working as network partnerships onprogrammes and measures and encouraging the participationof certain target groupsCo-operative and associative initiatives, of which cooperativesfor people with intellectual disability are aninteresting exampleUsers Commissions, which have recently assumed a role inPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 169

elation to severe and continuing problems in the environment,transport and road safetyPublic Consultation, a regular process in the development ofpolicies and measures at the local level on, for example,strategic plans for local development and the physicalinfrastructures.The local Social Networks, which are found in 275 of the 278municipalities, also have a strong impact on participation at a locallevel. The Local Social Action Commissions are formal discussion foraor structures constituted within the municipality territories with theparticipation of local governments, local public services and open toall private, non-profit solidarity organisations. In these fora, the socialproblems of the territories are discussed and the partners define thepriorities of the intervention and approve Social Development Plansfor a three-year period, by consensus, thus creating conditions for theinvolvement of all public and private partners.In the Czech Republic a range of structures for participation in themainstreaming of social inclusion policies are in place. At theGovernment level participation is implemented by means ofGovernment Councils and Government Committees. The followingfive national councils play a key role in the area of social inclusionand influence the policy direction of the Government. Many of theCouncils are chaired by ministers, thus linking the participativeprocess into the political structures. For example:Council of Economic and Social AgreementGovernment Council for Non-State Non-Profit OrganisationsGovernment Council for Roma Community Affairs170 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

Government Board for People with DisabilitiesCouncil for National Minorities.As seen in Chapter 5, administratively, the Czech Republic isdivided into fourteen regions and over 6,000 municipalities withdevolved powers of policy-making on a range of social issues. Manyof the national councils are reflected at these regional andmunicipal levels, through special commissions. Two of thesecommissions, for social affairs and for healthcare, are particularlyimportant for social inclusion.The establishment of commissions is a matter to be decided byeach region and municipality council. Consequently, their titles andterms of reference vary, depending of the location (e.g. socialcommittees, health committees, or social and health committees).Commission members are nominated by the regional or municipalcouncils and approved by the regional or local assembly.In France, while there are formal structures for consultation at thenational level, in areas such as health, youth policy, or theenvironment, there are no such structures for social inclusion.Whatever involvement there is in the development of policies onpoverty and social exclusion it is informal and mainly throughconsultation with representative bodies for socially excluded peoplerather than with excluded people themselves. Even when excludedpeople are organised into representative associations and areinvolved in the process of consultation, these questions are posed:How representative are they? How professional are they? Whatlegitimacy do they have?Even though the law on the fight against exclusion (1998) requiresthat policies should be assessed by involving excluded people, therePromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 171

has been a lack of information on the situation of excluded peopleor on the impact national policies have on them. Following ameeting between NGOs and President Chirac, a process ofconsultation was undertaken in preparation for the First NationalConference on the fight against social exclusion. This consultationprocess brought together people experiencing poverty and socialexclusion and local service providers through local meetings in tenDépartements. These meetings focused on the needs of excludedpeople and vulnerable groups and set out to establish what theirconcerns were and what barriers they experienced in accessingservices and legal rights. The findings from the meetings providedthe background for the national conference, which was attended byadministrators and public representatives from national, Régionand Départements levels and from representatives of the NGOs.While this approach does not constitute a formal structure for theinvolvement and participation of stakeholders, it is proposed thatthe national conference will become an annual event. 29In Norway the issue of poverty had been off the political agenda formany years but within the past five years it is again the focus ofpolitical attention. There are no formal structures for theinvolvement or participation of people at risk of poverty or theorganisations which represent them. However, before major draftlegislation is put before the parliament (Storting) wide-rangingconsultation processes with the relevant bodies is part of theNorwegian political system, such as consultations withorganisations representing people at risk of poverty. This is usuallyundertaken through written submissions and comments. Inconnection with the White Paper – Plan of Action for CombatingPoverty, 2002-2005 – an annual consultation process with NGOs hasbeen established.172 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

As Norway takes part in the EU Social Inclusion Programme, theWhite Paper sets out the problem of social exclusion in Norway andhow it is proposed to address these issues. While recognising thatNGOs make ‘a considerable contribution as spokespersons andservice providers for those who live in poverty’, the white papercommits the Government to:initiate a dialogue with voluntary organisations with the aim ofthem being able to play a more important role in the work ofcombating poverty.The White Paper also commits to developing a system of socialreporting in order to receive systematic, regular information whichwill provide a basis for a process of policy evaluation. Furthermore,the paper says that the Government will invite various research andcompetent organisations to ‘take part in a brainstorming meeting todiscover effective strategies and measures.’ 30As part of thisconsultative process, the Welfare Alliance 31 organised a series oflocal fora to facilitate exchanges between national politicians, localorganisations working with excluded groups and individualsexperiencing poverty.Structures for involvement and participation in social inclusionissues in Northern Ireland are through the implementation of theNew TSN Programme, as set out in the Programme for Governmentin 2001. As part of this programme there was a commitment for theOFMDFM to undertake consultation on future priorities under thepart of the programme which refers to Promoting Social Inclusion(PSI). Through the PSI, Departments work together and withexternal partners to identify and tackle factors which can causesocial exclusion. Together with this consultation, the OFMDFM alsocommissioned research into a number of policy options forPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 173

developing a social exclusion strategy for Northern Ireland, leadingto recommendations for New TSN.It is proposed to put involvement and participation on a more formalfooting. In the review of New TSN (2004), the OFMDFM suggests theintroduction of an Anti-Poverty Forum which would compriserepresentatives of key public authorities, including localgovernment employees, trade unions, the voluntary and communitysector and the financial services sector. It is proposed that thisforum would oversee the implementation of the anti-povertystrategy across government, including monitoring targets forpoverty reduction. 32Also, alongside the Northern Ireland Assembly, the establishmentof a Civic Forum as a representative consultative body on thedevelopment of social policies provides structures for consultationwhich are incorporated into the formal administrative structures.This initiative is complementary to the legislative requirements forconsultation on equality and on human rights. It is alsocomplementary to the Partners for Change Compact.A further exercise in participation was the setting up of workinggroups in 1999. To fully understand the causes of social exclusionthese working groups identified problems and recommend policiesfor the promotion of social inclusion. To implement the reports ofthese working groups, a committee of the Northern IrelandGovernment ministries and voluntary and community representativeshas been set up to decide on the priorities among therecommendations which emerged from the consultation process. 33174 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

ResourcesThe second requirement for the successful implementation ofinvolvement and participation in the policy process is the availabilityof resources, both financial and personnel, to ensure that thestructures for participation function effectively. In a number of thepartner countries, resources are not seen as separate from theongoing process of implementing social policy, e.g. in France andIreland where resources to facilitate involvement (mainly at thenational levels) are allocated through the State budgets.In Ireland all the agencies which facilitate the participative process,e.g. the National Economic and Social Development Office and itstwo constituent organisations, the NESC and the NESF, are fundeddirectly from the State budget. While the constituent organisationsin the National Partnership process (trade unions, employers’organisations, farming bodies and many of the civil societyorganisations) are membership-funded, the Government facilitatestheir participation in the advance negotiations and the monitoring ofthe National Agreements by meeting any ongoing costs needed toassist the process. The NESC and NESF also provide research dataand skilled personnel to facilitate participation.With regard to the third approach to participation, the work of theNational Anti-Poverty Networks is funded directly through theDepartment (Ministry) of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. 34In Northern Ireland, for example, it is a clear policy that no extrafunding is available for policies on participation but that policies toeradicate poverty and social exclusion are funded by a re-allocation‘of public expenditure towards specific groups and individuals ingreatest objective need’. It is argued that this is the most effectivePromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 175

way of ensuring that measures to combat poverty and socialexclusion continue to be mainstreamed within public expenditureplanning and the allocation of resources. 35 The Northern Irelanddepartments (ministries) work within the resources allocatedcentrally from the UK Treasury. Consequently, New TSN has beenbuilt into the public expenditure system and the criteria for theprogramme are part of the budgetary management system acrossall departments. 36In Norway, also, resources are provided from the central Statebudget to meet the involvement and participative commitmentsgiven in the Plan of Action for Combating Poverty. Special allocationsare committed to developing evaluations of individual measures andto undertaking a systematic review of existing welfare schemes. Forexample, the Battery, a service centre for NGOs and people wishingto establish an NGO dealing with poverty issues has been set up fora three-year period in Oslo. It is run by the Church City Mission andis financed by the Directorate for Health and Social Affairs.There are also examples of funding for specific programmes. Forexample, the Czech Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs providesfunding support for the community-planning process through grantschemes for NGOs active in various areas of society, mostly fromthe State budget. Examples of these specific funding supportschemes to promote participation include:The consultation process for the development of theNAPs/inclusionCommunity planning of social servicesCommunication systems of the blind and partially sighted onpublic transport services in Prague.176 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

However, as the key structures are under the auspices of thenational and local administrations, the resources for their operationare provided by the relevant public authority.In Portugal the government sets out its allocation of resources totackle poverty through its Programme for Government and its‘Broad Economic Policy Guidelines’. Also, a number of financialand training programmes have been introduced to encourageparticipation. Examples of such programmes are those covered bythe EQUAL Community Initiative Programme, in which peopleexperiencing social and/or professional exclusion take an activepart in processes to diagnose, design, develop and assess activitiesaimed at improving inclusion. There is also an initiative underway,as part of an Operational Programme, which has three lines ofaction:Promotion of participation and community actionImprovement of individual and social skillsTraining and qualification of community development agents.In addition to the goal of promoting equal opportunities, thisprogramme focuses on new models of local intervention and onthe reinforcement of participation and partnership mechanisms. Itallows diverse and meaningful experiences at individual, groupand community levels and makes visible some of the conditions tocreate and maintain a participatory environment at various levelsof intervention.Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 177

7 Participation in the NAPs/inclusionThis section looks at the arrangements in place for the consultationof relevant groups and organisations in the preparation of theNAPs/inclusion in the MSI partner countries. Participation of theactors in this process is important for the mainstreaming of socialinclusion and the guidelines for the preparation of theNAPs/inclusion include a proposal that Member States ‘promote,according to the national practice, the participation and selfexpressionof people suffering exclusion, in particular in regard totheir situation and the policies and measures affecting them’. 37An analysis of the NAPs/inclusion of the twenty-five EU MemberStates shows that the issue of participation of socially excludedpeople is not as high a priority as other issues in the Action Plans(Table 6.3).Table 6.3:Participation of Socially Excluded PeopleNo Mention Brief Mention Discussed inDetailAustriaItalyCyprusHungarySloveniaFinlandGermanyGreeceSpainUK (NI)Czech RepublicPolandSlovak RepublicNorwayFranceEstoniaLatviaGiven HighPriorityDenmarkIrelandPortugalSwedenLithuaniaMaltaNew Member States in italics; MSI partner countries in bold; EEA country(Norway) underlined.178 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

In Ireland, for the NAP/inclusion 2003-2005, there was extensiveinvolvement and participation which was undertaken in four stages.First, the Social Inclusion Forum brought together some 230participants from civil society organisations, the social partners andthe relevant ministries and State agencies. The objectives of thisforum were to provide an opportunity to individuals andorganisations to contribute to the development of the National Anti-Poverty Strategy and to have an input into the process of drawingup the NAPs/inclusion. Second, the Forum was followed by fourregional consultation seminars which provided local communitiesand organisations the opportunity to give their observations on ‘theimplementation of social inclusion policies, regional and spatialissues and the urban and rural dimensions of poverty’. 38Third, three thematic seminars were held on (a) standards of publicservices; (b) migration and ethnic minorities, including travellers;and (c) indicators for social inclusion. In total some 660 additionalpeople took part in these consultative seminars. Finally, 65 detailedwritten submissions were made on the draft plan.Much the same process was followed for the second SocialInclusion Forum, with extensive local participation through anumber of consultative meetings. These provided key issues onpoverty, exclusion and vulnerable groups for input into thediscussions and conclusions at the Forum. 39Similarly, in Portugal the recent discussion on the secondNAPs/inclusion is a good example of a more participative policydecision-making process. The draft NAPs/inclusion was discussedwithin national structures but it was also presented and discussedin several seminars across the country with local organisations,culminated in a ‘National Meeting’ of some 500 participants fromPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 179

the ministries involved in the NAPs/inclusion process, central andregional public departments, local authorities, national and localNGOs, universities and research centres, as well as communityvolunteers. 40In order to guarantee the effectiveness of the process of overseeingand monitoring the Portuguese NAPs/inclusion, an integratedinformation system was created, based on statistical informationdrawn from administrative sources. A Working Group is responsiblefor the permanent monitoring and reporting on the progress of theimplementation of the commitments in the action plan.Policies on the eradication of poverty and social exclusion inNorthern Ireland are incorporated into the UK NAPs/inclusion.However, since the transfer of policy-making to the NorthernIreland Government, consultation ‘is at the heart of the Executive’scommitment to openness and inclusivity – consultation is not anend in itself. The most fundamental reason for consulting informulating policy is to help develop solutions which will work andgain acceptance in practice.’ 41There was extensive consultation by the Norwegian governmentwith municipalities and NGOs, before the Plan of Action forCombating Poverty was published in 2002 and also with differentresearch organisations delivering written reports on aspects ofpoverty. This document sets out tailored measures for vulnerablegroups and individuals, such as unemployed, immigrants andrefugees, children and young people, people with disabilities andolder people. The Czech Republic also undertook an extensiveprocess of involvement in the preparation of its first NAPs/inclusionin 2004, through the Committee on Social Inclusion, which hasmembership from all the relevant national partners, both public180 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

and non-governmental, involved in the development andimplementation of the NAPs. A twinning arrangement with the UKand Germany (funded by the EU PHARE Programme) providedadvice and technical assistance for institutional changes to facilitatethe social inclusion strategy. 42France has seen a renewed interest in social inclusion issues, butthe NAPs/inclusion process did not prevent a reduction in povertyand social exclusion programmes by the Government between 2002and 2004. However, while there are national consultativeorganisations, such as the Council National de Lutte Contrel’Exclusion, there has not been any move towards the directinvolvement and participation of the stakeholders or representativeorganisations in the preparation of the NAPs.8 ConclusionsInvolvement and participation are considered a key development ingovernance and, in particular, in combating poverty and socialexclusion and the mainstreaming of social inclusion into the publicpolicy process. Consultation with the relevant national and localrepresentative organisations which gives them the opportunity toparticipate in the development of policies through theNAPs/inclusion process is important in capturing the views ofexcluded people and in ensuring that national policies meet theirneeds and not only reflect political and administrative view.In order to ensure that this process is effective, both the structuresfor involvement and the necessary resources need to be in place. Asindicated in this chapter, there is a perception that the involvementPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 181

and participation of all the key actors and stakeholders is notachieved through the existing administrative and political structuresin the MSI partner countries, or in other Member States, nor arethe resources made available to facilitate full participation byindividuals or representatives organisations in the preparation ofthe NAPs. Chapter 7 sets out to develop an evaluation frameworkwhich might be used to test this hypothesis in the Member States.Footnotes1 Annex to the Presidency Conclusions, European Council, Nice (December2000) and outlined in Joint Report on Social Inclusion, 2004, EuropeanCommission, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities,Luxembourg (2004) (COM(2003)773 final).2 Working for a European Social Policy: A report on the forum, Office for OfficialPublications of the European Communities, Luxembourg (1996).3 See, for example, The European Values Study 1981-1990, D. Baker, et al,Institute for Social Research, Tilburg University (1992).4 Participation Handbook, The Scottish Parliament Participation Service(2004), www.scottish.parliament.uk5 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council onthe European Social Fund , European Commission (COM(2004)493 final) (seeArticle 5, in particular).6 Scottish Parliament, op cit.7 Revised Strategy for Social Cohesion, Council of Europe, Strasbourg(CDCS(2004)10).182 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

8 Supporting Voluntary Activity: A White Paper on a framework for supportingvoluntary activities and for developing the relationship between the State andthe Community and Voluntary Sector,Government Publications, Dublin (2000).9 Social inclusion: Local partnerships with civil society, European Foundationfor the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Dublin, Workingpaper No.4 (December 2003).10 Methdologia Participativa – uma introdução a 29 instrmentos, M. Brose (2001)as quoted by Prof Fernanda Rodrigues in Innovative Methodologies andExperiences of Participation, a paper for the meeting of the MSI sub-groupon Participation (April 2004).11 Background paper in OECD Responsive Government, D. Shand and M.Arnberg, OECD, Paris (1996), as quoted in Supporting Voluntary ActivityGovernment Publications, Dublin (2000), op. cit.12 Government Publications, Dublin (2000), op. cit.13 Scottish Parliament, op.cit.14 See Guidelines for Effective Involvement, Combat Poverty Agency et al,Dublin (2000).15 Active Citizenship and Community Involvement: Getting to the roots, EuropeanFoundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Dublin(1997) EF/97/54 (ISBN 92-828-2028-9).16 Local Partnership: A Successful Strategy for Social Cohesion? M. Geddes,European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and WorkingConditions, Dublin (1998) Cat. No. SX-12-98-845-EN-C.17 Local Partnerships for Better Governance OECD, Paris (2001). See alsoReport of the Committee of Experts on Promoting Access to Employment,Council of Europe, Strasbourg, CS-EM (2001), available on www.coe.intPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 183

18 See OECD website – www.oecd.org19 European Foundation (1997), op. cit.20 European Commission, (COM(2003)773 final), op. cit.21 Report on Survey of Mechanisms for Participation of People who ExperiencePoverty or Exclusion, Executive Summary, EAPN, Brussels, May 2004.22 Ibid.23 Government Publications, Dublin (2000), op. cit.24 Sustaining Progress – Social Partnership Agreement 2003-2005,GovernmentPublications, Dublin (February 2003).25 Ibid.26 Report on Consultation for the National Action Plan against Poverty and SocialExclusion, 2003-2005, Combat Poverty Agency/Office for Social Inclusion,Dublin (2003).27 Conference Report on Second Meeting of NAPS Social Inclusion Forum, NESF,Dublin (2005).28 First Annual Report – Office for Social Inclusion (2005).29 Paper prepared by Patricia Loncle, ENSP, for MSI project and on casestudy presented by Marie Helene de Chauoc, Ministry of Solidarity, Healthand the Family and Didier Giroud, IDRH Consultants, consultant to Ministry.30 Plan of Action for Combating Poverty: Report No.6 to the Storting (2002-2003)(Abbreviated version in EN) Sosialdepartementst (Ministry of SocialAffairs), Oslo (2002).31 The Welfare Alliance is a partnership network of twenty-five organisations ofsocially disadvantaged groups funded by the Government.184 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

32 New TSN – the way forward: A consultation document, OFMDFM, Belfast(2004).33 Policy, Poverty, Social Exclusion and Northern Ireland, Northern IrelandCouncil for Voluntary Action (NICVA), in Poverty and Powerlessness,Information Pack of the NI Anti-Poverty Network (2004).34 Gaeltacht is an Irish-speaking region of Ireland and these are found mainlyalong the Atlantic coast.35 Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action, op. cit.36 New TSN – Annual Report 2002, OFMDFM, Belfast.37 Objectives for the fight against poverty and social exclusion, ‘Annex to theAnnex’, in the documentation for the European Council, Nice (December2000), (Objective 4 – To mobilise all relevant bodies).38 Combat Poverty Agency/Office for Social Inclusion (2003), op. cit.39 See Conference Report – Second Meeting of the NAPS Social Inclusion Forum,NESF, Dublin (2005). This process was supported by the Combat PovertyAgency.40 This Forum was held in Lisbon, April 2005. Participants in the MSI StudyVisit to Portugal took part in the Forum.41 OFMDFM NI, op. cit.42 Participants in the MSI sub-group meeting on Participation attended thisconference during a visit to Prague, September 2004.Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 185

The development of7an EvaluationFramework for theMainstreaming ofSocial Inclusion

1 IntroductionThe earlier chapters examined the process of public policy-makingand the involvement and participation of social actors in theprocess. The final stage in the policy cycle is to evaluate theeffectiveness of policies, measured against set benchmarks.Building on previous chapters, this chapter develops a frameworkfor the evaluation of mainstreaming social inclusion into publicpolicies.An evaluation of how social inclusion is mainstreamed into publicpolicies within EU Member States has not been undertaken sincethe process was introduced after the Lisbon European Council in2000. One reason for this is the lack of an evaluation tool tomeasure mainstreaming social inclusion. The objective of thischapter is to develop a framework which can be used to undertakesuch an evaluation.2 Evaluation in the Policy CycleIn the context of governmental policies, evaluation is undertaken toassess the medium to long-term impact of policies againstintended objectives, so as to identify the strengths and weaknessesof the policies and to establish to what extent they have achievedtheir goals. ‘Evaluation is important for determining the extent towhich a policy has met or is meeting its objectives and that thoseintended to benefit have done so’. 1 The lessons learned from thefindings should be ‘fed back’ into the policy-making process, toensure that further policy decisions reflect the results of evaluationand that government actions are continually refined.188 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

Policy-makers, at the political level, are generally interested in theoverall effectiveness of a given policy, rather than detailedoperational issues, which are the responsibility of administrativestaff and service providers. Evaluation is important, therefore, inmeasuring the effectiveness of policy interventions by identifyingwhere changes or improvements are required and by giving thepolicy-makers the data on which to make further broad policydecisions, such as whether to continue, to modify or to terminate aprogramme, or to extend it to other areas or groups. Comparison ofevaluation results also assists policy-makers in prioritising theallocation of resources across different policy areas and for futurepolicy decisions.Monitoring, in contrast to evaluation, is an ongoing assessment ofpolicies and programmes undertaken during the implementationphase. It can use administrative data to assess whether the deliveryof the policy is as planned, is reaching the intended targetpopulation and is using the allocated resources efficiently.Formative or process evaluation is a form of monitoring whichassesses how, why and under what conditions a policy is working,what is happening as the policy is been implemented, if it is beenimplemented in line with the original design and for whom thepolicy is working (or not working). Systematic monitoring of policiesduring the implementation phase contributes important data whichare essential for an effective final evaluation. 2A general definition of ‘evaluation’ is:a systematic assessment of the operation and/or the outcomes ofa programme or policy, compared to a set of explicit or implicitstandards, as a means of contributing to the improvement of theprogramme or policy. 3Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 189

There are five key elements in this definition:1 Systematic assessment (either qualitative or quantitative,or both)2 Operation (study of process)3 Outcomes (study of the affect or impact – short-term and/orlong-term)4 Standards of comparison (comparing findings against a set ofexpectations/indicators)5 Contribution to improving the programme or policy, as theevaluation findings are incorporated into the policy cycle.Evaluation, therefore, is a key phase in the policy cycle. The UKTreasury’s Green Book demonstrates this cycle: 4Figure 7.1: The Policy Cycle5Evaluation6Feedback4Monitoring1RationaleImplementationStage3Appraisal2Objectives190 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

This policy cycle, referred to in the Green Book as ROAMEF, followsa logical sequence of policy formation:Rationale: What is the reason for developing a new policy? Is itnecessary? Is the rationale for intervention clear? Can it beassumed that intervention will be cost-effective?Objectives: If it is established that there is a reason forintervention, what are the objectives of the proposed newpolicy or programme? What are the intended outcomes,outputs and targets?Appraisal: Policy options are appraised to develop a value-formoneysolution that meets the objectives of the particulargovernment action, within the allocated budget. Which optionwill deliver a cost-effective solution and, at the same time,achieve the goals of the policy?Monitoring: When the agreed policy or programme isdeveloped, an ongoing monitoring of its implementation willtrack its success in achieving the objectives and in ensuringthe expected benefits. This involves a systematic collection ofdata relating to the management and outcomes of the policyduring implementation. To be fully effective, plans formonitoring must form part of the initial planning of a policyor programme.Evaluation: When a policy or programme is completed or hasadvanced to a pre-determined degree, it should undergo acomprehensive evaluation. Evaluation examines the outturnor a policy against what was expected and is designed toensure that the lessons learned are fed back into thedecision-making process. This ensures that the public policyPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 191

process is continually refined to reflect what best achievesobjectives and promotes the public interest. 5Within this policy cycle there is a range of actors, each withdifferent but complementary roles at each stage of the process,who would be the focus of an evaluation investigation. First, at thepolitical level there are policy-makers who initiate and, possibly,design the policy but are not involved in implementation anddelivery. In the political process, policies are not arrived at inisolation but are part of an overall strategy and are oftencomplementary to each other.Second, at the administration/management level are the managerswho undertake the detailed design of the structures and theorganisation for the implementation of the policy and the projectmanagement. Third, there are the service providers – the frontlinedelivery personnel – and, finally, the target groups, individuals and/orrepresentative organisations that the policy is designed to benefit.3 Evaluating Mainstreaming SocialInclusionIn developing a methodology to evaluate the mainstreaming ofsocial inclusion, the MSI project adopted the following researchquestions:Can mainstreaming of social inclusion be measured?If so, does it have an impact on the policy process andoutcomes?192 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

A number of supplementary questions arise for these mainquestions which are essential to the design of an evaluationmethodology for mainstreaming social inclusion:What questions on the process of mainstreaming socialinclusion will provide the required level of detail for an effectiveevaluation study?Can scenarios of the evaluation for mainstreaming beconstructed?Are the tools available to analyse the process of mainstreamingand measure its impact?Can processes for the evaluation of mainstreaming beidentified in the partner countries/ region/organisations?Why is mainstreaming used? Is mainstreaming better thanother approaches? If so, is it possible to explain why it isbetter? What is the rationale behind the process?There are obvious difficulties in measuring social policies, includingsocial inclusion policies, as their impact may not be apparent in theshort term and might only bring about change in the longer term,outside the scope and timeframe of the evaluation process.Consequently, it would be necessary to have a sequence ofevaluation studies, over time, to establish a clear picture of theeffectiveness of a policy.With regard to the research questions and taking these difficultiesinto consideration, the focus of evaluating mainstreaming socialinclusion might be at two levels of policy:European level: within the context of the Open Method of Co-Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 193

ordination (OMC) and the NAPs/inclusion in 25 Member States:– Do NAPs make a difference?– What is the impact on poverty and social exclusion?Implementation level of the NAPs/inclusion(national/regional/local):– How are NAPs implemented?– Who is involved?The application of evaluation theory to these questions and theselection of the most appropriate methodology, or number ofmethodologies, is the key challenge. By definition, mainstreaming isa process and the hypotheses that it should lead to positive outcomesin the design and implementation of policies (i.e. improvement ofsocial inclusion and reduction in poverty levels) must be qualified bythe relationship of social inclusion policies to the political process.For mainstreaming to be successful, political commitment at the toplevel, the engagement of all the key stakeholders, cross-cuttingpolicies and a realistic level of expectations are essential.A difficulty with evaluating the mainstreaming of social inclusion isagreeing a common understanding of the concept and establishingthat it is actually happening at each stage of the policy cycle.Consequently, designing an evaluation study of policies which aremainstreamed needs to be done with the following points in mind:A clear understanding is required of what target groups(audience) the policy intervention is directed at.How are the outcomes to be measured and against whatobjectives?194 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

How is the change experienced by those who benefited, or didnot benefit, from the intervention to be measured and what hasbeen the change over a given period of time?The quality of the co-ordinating mechanism and collection ofdata, specifically at the local level, is crucial in order toevaluate interventionsIt is difficult to compare small and large units involved in theintervention and an evaluation study must allow for suchcomparisonsData needs to be collected at the point of delivery – as policyintervention is at the local level, it is a challenge to capture thisin the design of the evaluation methodologyThere is always the danger of the ‘silo’ approach to policymaking(independent and ‘stand-alone’ policies and an absenceof ‘joined up’ policy-making) – there is a need to focus policywhere it counts and having a co-ordinating strategy to do soIn this context, an evaluation study should strive to capture thewhole range of outcomes and their combined impact on thepolicy, rather than a series of single impacts. 6There are a number of additional issues that need to be consideredwhen designing a framework for evaluating the impact ofmainstreaming. Some are common to any evaluation design, suchas the financial and personnel resources available, the timing – atwhat point in the policy cycle should evaluation take place – andwhat research instruments/methodology should be used?However, other issues are more specific to the design of anevaluation scheme for social inclusion policies which arePromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 195

mainstreamed, e.g.Accessibility of data at all levels of governanceThe level(s) of governance at which the process ofmainstreaming is implemented – national, regional, or localThe political environment and how the process ofmainstreaming is linked to political decision-making Political/administrative structures in the Member States –centralised or decentralised decision-making andadministrationThe link between the political role (policy development anddesign) and administration (policy implementation/servicedelivery)Cultural differences across the Member StatesDefinition of ‘success’ measures in different countries andfinding ‘commonalities’ across countries.Additional to these is the fact that, by definition, ‘mainstreaming’ isa process which cuts both vertically and horizontally across allareas of policy implementation and delivery. This presents thedesign of an evaluation study and its impact across multiple levelsof administration with a methodological challenge. Consequently,undertaking an evaluation is a complex process requiring detailedplanning and project management.196 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

4 Evaluation Design 7Decisions around the evaluation design are determined by verypractical issues, such as available resources and whether the studyis carried out internally or by external personnel. The timescale forthe study and the requirements of the policy-makers for either alimited or extensive evaluation can also determine design decisions.Any policy should have clear objectives built in at the design stageand these should be addressed at the evaluation stage.Consequently, the construction of the methodology, the issues to beexplored and questions to be asked are essential to undertaking aneffective policy evaluation.There are a number of different evaluation methodologies whichcan be used to assess the success or otherwise of policies, e.g.Outcome evaluation examines whether or not a policy, or aphase of a policy, produced the intended results, as set out inthe policy objectivesSummative or impact evaluation is usually undertaken at the endof the lifetime of a policy or programme to provide a summaryjudgement about how the policy has functioned and the extentto which the intended outcomes were achieved, compared withother interventions or with doing nothing (counterfactual)Variation evaluation is a comparison of two or more policies orprogrammes to determine which version produces the betteroutcomesCounterfactual evaluation investigates what a situation wouldhave been if a given policy was not in place or the target groupfor the policy was not exposed to the policy. This form ofPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 197

evaluation requires the use of a control group (not part of thetarget group) and an intervention group (part of the targetgroup), for comparative purposes.By its nature, evaluation is dependent on systematically gatheringrelevant information on the process and outcomes of the policy andanalysing that information. Outcomes, or impacts, are the endresults of the policy and might be measured as the net impact ofthe policy – for example, what additional impact did the policy haveover and above the situation prior to the implementation of thepolicy? While policies have intended results from the policy design,they can also have unforeseen results, either beneficial or harmful,and these are also important to policy-makers. However, these maybe difficult to measure in an evaluation study.While there is no ideal or perfect model of evaluation, there arecertain key questions which need to be addressed and which guideany design of an evaluation study, for example:Does the policy work?How does the policy work?These questions are further sub-divided in Table 7.1 and Figure 7.2,providing a set of guidelines for the construction of questions thatmight be followed in the design of an evaluation scheme:198 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

Table 7.1: Questions for EvaluationTimePerspectiveExtensivepastEvaluation question Illustrative evaluationmethodWhat worked? Meta-analysisSystematic reviewCounterpart formativeevaluation questionIllustrative formativeevaluation approachesHow did it work? Systematic reviewPast Did the policy work? Retrospective evaluation How is it working/notworking?Retrospective interviewsParticipative judgementRetrospective case studiesPresent Is this policy working Monitoringo Interrupted time serieso Natural experimentsHow is it working/notworking?Process studiesImplementation evaluationEthnographyPresent tofutureIs there a problem? Basic researchPolicy analysisWhat is the problem? Basic researchRapid reconnaissanceClose future Can we make this policywork?PrototypesMicro-simulationHow can we make thispolicy work?Theory of changeParticipative researchAction researchFuture Will this policy work? Programme evaluation(Impact or summativeevaluation)o Random assignmento Matched designso Cohort designso Statistical controlsHow will it work/not work? Theory of changeLaboratory evaluationExpansivefutureWhat policy would work? Prospective evaluationo Micro-simulationo Laboratory experimentationo GamingHow would it work? Laboratory evaluationDelphi consultationGamingEvaluation: Evidence for Public Policy R Walker in Evaluating Local Economic and Employment Development OECD, Paris (2004).Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 199

Figure 7.2 brings together the range of questions set out in Table7.1. Each question, or set of questions, has a relevance to how thepolicy is working. In this scenario Question 1 (‘Is this policyworking?’ and ‘How is this policy working?’) and Question 2 (‘Isthere a problem?’ and ‘What is the problem?’) are pivotal, as theyset the context for the other evaluation questions.Figure 7.2: Infrastructure for EvaluationWhat worked? 7Is there a problem?21Is this policyworking?Has this policy worked?6PolicyWhat policy would work?35Can we make this work?4Will this policy work?200 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

Following this infrastructure, having selected a policy to address aparticular problem or issue (Question 1) and established if there isa problem with the implementation of this policy (Question 2), thenext stage is to establish if any changes are required to make thepolicy work, through a series of questions (Questions 3 to 5).Question 6 (Has this policy worked? If so, how did it work? If itdidn’t work, why not?) and Question 7 (What worked and how?)relate back to the first two questions, thus completing theevaluation cycle – has this policy worked to solve the problem thepolicy was designed to address (Question 1) and, in Question 7, triesto find out what has or has not worked and to relate these findingsback to the original policy (Questions 1 and 2).To ensure that the study is focused and not unnecessarily broad andthat only relevant information is collected, the design of these keyquestions is vital for a successful evaluation. They should be limitedin number, relevant to the topic under review, simple and to thepoint, with no room for misunderstandings on the part of therespondents. Questions might fall into four main categories, such as:Factual – Statistics, records etc.Knowledge – What do the respondents know about a particularissue/topic?Attitudinal – What are the views, opinions, beliefs of therespondent (subjective)?Behavioural – What do people do and how do they react to thepolicy under evaluation? 8Any evaluation of policy is based on a ‘theory of change’, measuringthe difference the policy has made when compared against thePromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 201

situation before it was introduced, consequently, evaluation alsoneeds to examine policy within a certain timeframe. It seeks out‘people’s perceptions of the sequence of causation thought to linkpolicy inputs, implementation and outcomes’ 9 (see Figure 7.3).Figure 7.3: ‘Theory of Change’Levels ofGovernance:EUMember StatesMinistriesRegionalLocalPolicy outcome:Intermediate and finalTimeframeImpactof policyPolicyinputThe different levels of governance, from local government up to EUlevel,each have particular priorities, interests and competenceswhich make evaluation involving all, or a mix of these levels,difficult. Depending on the level of governance, the timeframe, thepolicy process and outcomes, the types of questions each level ofgovernance would be interested in asking and the units for analysiswould all be different. This results in greater complexity and thepossibility of having to use different methodologies or acombination of methodologies in undertaking an evaluation study.With regard to the evaluation of mainstreaming social inclusion, the202 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

timeframe might be the three-year cycles of the NAPs/inclusionand the implementation of the agreed policy objectives within theperiod of the NAPs.The nature of policy outcomes can be examined in two ways and arerelated to a given timeframe for the policy:Intermediate outcomes, such as the process of policy-making,the resources available and the organisation of those resourcesFinal outcomes, at the end of the policy cycle, and how thepolicy impacted on the issues it was designed to address.In the context of evaluating mainstreaming social inclusion thesetwo levels of outcome are relevant, both in terms of the policyprocess and the level of impact the policy has on poverty and socialexclusion. With regard to the process, the key ingredients might bethe level of consultation and/or participation which is undertaken inthe design of the policy, the level of personnel and financialresources available, how these resources are organised and howthey are evaluated. The impact of the policy is also related to thefinancial and personnel resources allocated to its implementation,the various levels of social assistance and their effect on the levelof poverty. Finally, the key test of the success of the policy would bethe level of poverty, measured against the level before theintroduction of the policy and after the policy has been in place for agiven period of time (final outcomes) (Figure 7.4).Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 203

Figure 7.4:The Nature of OutcomesIntermediateOutcomesPolicy MakingProcessMainstraming SocialInclusionParticipationproceduresResources:Financial / PersonnelPer capita spendingProcessOrganisation ofresourcesSocial assistanceschemes / servicedelivery, etc.Policy outputsFinal OutcomesPolicy outcomesLevel of benefitsPoverty levelImpact5 Measuring Mainstreamed PoliciesAs outlined in Chapter 2, the concept of mainstreaming within theEuropean Union developed with respect to gender equality, 10 so it isnot surprising that the balance of available research material hastended to focus on this policy area. This is not a limitation, giventhat gender itself can play a significant role in determining potentialsocial and economic status. It is also the case that the conceptsdeveloped with respect to gender mainstreaming can be applied inthe context of social inclusion. However, a framework for evaluatingthe effectiveness of gender mainstreaming has not been developed.204 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

A key challenge, therefore, in attempting to determine how farpolicies to promote social inclusion are mainstreamed, centres onthe subjectivity of any measurement tools that are put in place.There are also general problems associated with a quantitativeassessment of what are largely qualitative processes. Thissubjectivity is reinforced when there may be differing views on howa particular Member State administration may be performing. Forexample, the engagement and participation of organisationsrepresenting disadvantaged groups, such as anti-poverty NGOs, isperceived as been a central tenet for ensuring the mainstreamingof social inclusion policies. In this context, it may well be the casethat there is a gap in the perception of how an administration viewsits performance in facilitating relevant community engagement andhow that community and NGOs may perceive the same process. Anymeasurement response must be robustly argued and supported bysolid examples of actions.The subjective nature of measuring mainstreaming is alsoproblematic with respect to the assessment of key leadership andintergovernmental relationships. While it may be the case thatbroad policy directions and specific actions can be identified,concepts such as ’political will/leadership’, ‘partnership’,‘ownership’ and ‘cross-departmental working’ are much moredifficult to objectively define. However, it might be said that theobjective of evaluating mainstreaming social inclusion is to seek,not firm scientific proof, but plausible evidence of howmainstreaming functions.While many countries may have specific ‘positive action’ initiativestargeted directly at alleviating poverty e.g. the Social Inclusion TaskForce in Dublin 11 or the Social Network Programmes in Portugal 12 ,Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 205

specific targeted action does not constitute mainstreaming. On theother hand, it is also the case that the introduction ofmainstreaming does not preclude the development or continuationof positive action or resources focused on selected excludedgroups. Mainstreaming, however, should be a policy goal tocontribute to combating social exclusion but also to provide a focusto ensure policies do not regress and result in increased povertylevels, rather than reductions.6 A Methodology for the Evaluation ofMainstreaming Social InclusionAs outlined in Chapter 5, there are three main policy approachesconsidered by the MSI project:(a)(b)(c)Targeted policies against poverty (e.g. drug addictionprogrammes; local health programmes; homelessness)Global policies against poverty (e.g. the EU OMC/NAPs process;Irish National Anti-Poverty Strategy or the PortugueseInclusion and Social Development programmes (PROGRIDE))Other global policies which have an impact on poverty andsocial exclusion (e.g. transport; environment; justice; consumerrights).Targeted policies are not considered as mainstreaming, but therecan be an element of learning from such policies which can, intime, be applied to more global policies, that, in turn, lead to themainstreaming of policies.206 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

MainstreamingFinal PerformanceIndicatorsTable 7.2:Mainstreaming of Three Policy OptionsTargeted policies againstpoverty & socialexclusion(a)Global policies againstpoverty & socialexclusion(b)Global policies notdirectly focused on theeradication of poverty&social exclusion(c)May lead tomainstreamingMainstreamingCan be mainstreamedIn addressing these three policy options, and their relationship tomainstreaming, a framework for the evaluation of mainstreamingsocial inclusion might be depicted by the following diagram:Figure 7.5:A Mainstreaming ScaleStrongaaStrongScenario oneScenario twoWeakabWeakMid-Term MainstreamingPerformance Indicatorsc WeakbStrongPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 207

First axis (a-a) describes, analyses and quantifies how strong orweak mainstreaming is within these policy options. Using agreedindicators, the findings from an evaluation can place a policy on ascale from ‘weak mainstreaming’ to ‘strong mainstreaming’ (e.g.Is there a political/administrative commitment to mainstream?What formal structures are in place to promote mainstreaming?Is there an effective consultation/participation of people in eachstage of the policy cycle?)Second axis (b-b) focuses on the mid-term performanceindicators (process evaluation or monitoring) and an analysis ofthe effectiveness of mainstreaming. Again an evaluation studycould be analysed and placed on a ‘weak-strong’ scale, (e.g.What is the quality of the service – skills, available data,statistics, etc.? Does the policy result in more or fewer peopleavailing of a service?)Third axis (c-c) would consider the final performanceindicators and an analysis of the outcomes of mainstreamingsocial inclusion. Again, responses might be analysed andplaced on a scale (e.g. How many people are at risk of povertyafter the implementation of the policy, compared to before thepolicy intervention?)On this diagram two possible scenarios are suggested. Scenario oneshows an evaluation outcome of a policy which is high onmainstreaming, with strong delivery results during itsimplementation and a final evaluation showing strong final resultsat the end of the policy; Scenario two shows a policy which is weakon mainstreaming and continuing to be weak duringimplementation and the mainstreaming outcomes are also weak oncompletion of the policy.208 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

7 MSI ScaleTaking this theoretical hypothesis forward, a questionnaire wasdesigned to measure the relative strength/weakness ofmainstreaming social inclusion. This questionnaire covers the keyelements required for the mainstreaming of social inclusion intopublic policies (see Appendix 3):Is there political leadership and is there a commitment at thepolitical level to sponsor the mainstreaming of social inclusioninto the policy-making process?Is there administrative leadership and a commitment by thepublic administration to the implementation of mainstreamingsocial inclusion in the delivery of public policies?What is the capacity of the public administration and the skillsof the social inclusion specialists and other service providersfor mainstreaming social inclusion into public policies?What structures are in place, at each level of publicadministration, to ensure the effective mainstreaming of socialinclusion in the public policy cycle – design, implementationand evaluation?Is there adequate data, statistics, indicators available, at eachlevel of government, to undertake research and evaluation intothe levels of poverty and social exclusion?What arrangements, resources and structures are in place toensure the involvement and participation of peopleexperiencing poverty and social exclusion, the organisationsthat represent them and other relevant civil societyorganisations?Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 209

What is the understanding and relevance of mainstreamingsocial inclusion?The questionnaire provides space for the respondents toelaborate on the reasons for their answers. It is targeted at thoseworking at different levels of responsibility within publicadministrations at the national, regional and local levels and atnon-governmental organisations representing peopleexperiencing poverty and social exclusion.Appendix 4 sets out how the data resulting from the responses to theevaluation questionnaire might be analysed and outlines a scalewhich will provide a longitudinal measurement of comparison, first,of the separate elements which contribute to policy-making and,second, for an overall measurement of MSI. It is called the MSI Scale.The application of the MSI Scale could provide a comparison of howweak or strong the application of mainstreaming social inclusion iswithin the public policy-making processes in EU Member Statesand could also provide an EU benchmark from which to undertakefuture assessments of the application of MSI.This evaluation methodology will provide a measurement ofthe effectiveness of implementing mainstreaming socialinclusion into public policy-makingthe effectiveness of mainstreaming social inclusion on policyoutcomes.210 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

8 ConclusionsIn re-visiting the initial research questions:Can mainstreaming of social inclusion be measured?If so, does it have an impact on the policy process andoutcomes?and in the light of this proposed evaluation framework, the MSIproject demonstrates that the mainstreaming of social inclusion canbe measured and that, by applying the methodology developed by thisproject, it would be possible to evaluate the impact of mainstreamingsocial inclusion on the public policy process and outcomes.Footnotes1 The Magenta Book: Guidance Notes on Policy Evaluationwww.policyhub.gov.uk/evalpolicy/magenta2 Ibid.3 Evaluation, C. H. Weiss, Pearson, USA (1998).4 The Green Book: Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government HMTreasury, London, TSO (2003) – available on www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/media/785/27/green_book_03.pdf5 Ibid.6 Points made in a presentation by Prof Michael Wiseman, GeorgeWashington University, Washington DC, USA, to a roundtable on evaluationmethodology as part of the MSI project, Brussels, June 2004.Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 211

7 Much of this section, including tables and figures, is taken from apresentation made by Prof Robert Walker, University of Nottingham, UK, toa roundtable on evaluation methodology as part of the MSI project, inBrussels, June 2004, and from Evaluation: Evidence for Public Policy byProf Walker in Evaluating Local Economic and Employment DevelopmentOECD, Paris (2004).8 Magenta Book, op. cit., Ch 6.9 OECD/Walker (2004), op. cit.10 Mainstreaming Equality Issues, C. Kidner and S. Curtis, ScottishParliament Briefing 03/58, Edinburgh (August 2003).11 See Inclusion is Everyone’s Business, A. Nolan, Social Inclusion Unit,Dublin City Council (2005).12 Paper prepared by Institute of Social Security for the MSI Project, 2004.212 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

8 Conclusions andMain Findings

The objective of the strategy adopted by the European Council inLisbon, in 2000, was to pull closer together the various strands of EUpolicy – economic, employment, social and environmental – and, by sodoing, to make the EU the world’s leading knowledge-based economyby 2010. However, it would be an economy with a social core, buildingon the social-democratic model that has evolved and been acceptedas the norm in Europe. It is a model which recognises the need toprotect the most vulnerable individuals, groups and communities byproviding them with the means to move out of poverty, to share ineconomic prosperity and to empower them to have better living andworking conditions, underpinning the principle of social cohesion.In setting this objective, the issue of poverty and social exclusion hascome to the fore in the policy debate within the European Union. Itwas noted by successive European Councils that the levels ofunemployment, poverty and social exclusion are unacceptably high inan economy as wealthy as the EU’s and that, to achieve the objectivesof the Lisbon Strategy, these problems need to be addressed. In thiscontext, the open method of co-ordination was developed to providecomparisons of how Member States are addressing these challengesand to exchange good practice and mutual learning. This approachwas adopted because the social policy areas that are relevant to thepromotion of social inclusion are outside the Treaty competence ofthe EU institutions and remain the responsibility of the nationalgovernments, under the principle of subsidiarity.Working within this legal limitation, the European Council agreed aplan for the Member States to co-ordinate their national policies totackle poverty and social exclusion. They undertook, as part of theopen method of co-ordination, to draft national action plans basedon common objectives (NAPs/inclusion), to adopt common214 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

indicators to measure levels of poverty and social exclusion, toparticipate in a process of peer reviews and to incorporate a povertyperspective into national policies. To achieve the goals of the LisbonStrategy there was also a commitment by the European Council tomainstream social inclusion into public policy-making.The MSI study examined the challenges for Member States inaddressing poverty and social exclusion within the open method ofco-ordination and, in particular, how they implement the objectiveof mainstreaming social inclusion into all public policies. Itestablished that the process of mainstreaming social inclusion iscomplex and is largely dependent on national political andadministrative structures – whether federal or central – the level ofsocial consensus, as well as the resources made available throughthe political decision-making process. The structures put in placeto facilitate the mainstreaming of social inclusion and the allocationof the necessary resources is dependent on the politicalcommitment to eradicate poverty and social exclusion.Based on the experiences of the Member States that participated inthe MSI project, the study explored the wide variation betweencountries with regard to the process of policy-making, including areview of existing policies, the development of new policies and howpolicies to promote social inclusion are developed. These differenceshave an impact on how the Member States operate within the openmethod of co-ordination, including the preparation of theirNAPs/inclusion, how they respond to the review of their national plansby the European Commission, how they compare with other MemberStates and how they share their experiences through peer reviews. Thestudy also observed how individual countries implement a process toinvolve organisations representing vulnerable and excluded groups andPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 215

how they ensure that the views of individuals who are at risk of povertyare incorporated into the process.While it is acknowledged that there is an understanding of whatmainstreaming social inclusion means in theory, the study found thatthere are varying interpretations of its application. Some progress hasbeen made since 2000 but much of the evidence is anecdotal. Toestablish a more empirical basis for comparing how social inclusion ismainstreamed, the study has developed a methodology (the MSI Scale)to measure the extent to which the process has been incorporated intonational policy-making within the Member States. This evaluationmethodology focuses on the level of joined-up government, the extentof political and administrative leadership and how meaningful andrelevant are the resources, skills and capacity made available toensure the mainstreaming of social inclusion into all public policies.Summary of Main FindingsMainstreaming social inclusion is defined as:the integration of poverty and social inclusion objectives,including an equality perspective, into all areas and levels ofpolicy-making and that is promoted through the participationof public bodies, social partners, NGOs and other relevantactors.Within the context of this definition, mainstreaming socialinclusion is a process whereby policy-makers at all levels ofgovernment and administration take into account poverty andsocial exclusion in the design, implementation and evaluation ofall public policies, as agreed by the Member States in the Lisbon216 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

Strategy and reiterated by subsequent European CouncilsFor mainstreaming of social inclusion to have an impact on publicpolicy-making and for policies to achieve the goal of socialinclusion, the following important elements must be in place:- Political commitment- Social consensus- Co-ordination of policy development- Mechanisms for the involvement of all the relevant actors- The allocation of adequate resources, both financial and personnel.How mainstreaming of social inclusion is undertaken within theMember States is dependent on thegovernmental/administrative structures in place, and for theimplementation of mainstreaming to be successful, strongpolitical and administrative commitment at all levels ofgovernment – national, regional and local – is essentialMainstreaming is important in focusing social inclusion withinexisting public policies, in developing new policies and in targetingpolicies on the eradication of poverty and social exclusionWhile mainstreaming is increasingly recognised and understoodin theory, in practice, it is less well developedTo assess the effectiveness of mainstreaming social inclusion, it isimportant to have an evaluation framework that can provideagreed comparisons on the mechanisms used to promote socialinclusion, reduce poverty and social exclusion across the MemberStates and thus achieve the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy.Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 217

APPENDIX 1MAINSTREAMINGSOCIAL INCLUSION– PHASE I

The report of Phase I of the project outlines the emergence ofmainstreaming social inclusion at an EU-level policy. 1Mainstreaming social inclusion in Europe has a short history andconsequently does not have an extensive literature. The origins ofthe use of the concept by the EU can be traced to a Communicationissued before the Lisbon Summit (March 2000) by the EuropeanCommission. 2 This Communication effectively outlined the need fora new initiative aimed at directing Member States in combatingpoverty and social exclusion.This new initiative set out a roadmap within the European SocialPolicy Agenda to move Europe towards achieving the goalarticulated at Lisbon, i.e. that the Union should adopt the strategicgoal, for the next decade (to 2010), of becoming the most competitiveand dynamic knowledge-based economy … with more and better jobsand greater social cohesion. Essentially, this goal recognises theinterdependence between economic and social components ofsociety in achieving sustainable economic growth and socialcohesion. By 2010 the achievement of this goal would make adecisive impact on the eradication of poverty. 3The new initiative became what is now known as the Open Method ofCo-ordination (OMC). This method of policy delivery essentiallyrecognises that social policy remains the responsibility of the MemberStates, and that the European Commission produces commonobjectives and indicators while monitoring the progress of theirimplementation. Central to OMC is the submission of National ActionPlans against Poverty and Social Exclusion (NAPs/Inclusion).Furthermore, the OMC seeks to identify, promote and exchangeinformation on good practice in combating poverty and social exclusionand the TEP Programme is part of this information exchange.220 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

Mainstreaming social inclusion takes its place explicitly within theOMC in Objective Four of the common objectives. This objectivecalls for the participation of those suffering social exclusion; themainstreaming of the fight against exclusion into overall policy; andthe promotion of dialogue and partnership between all relevantbodies, public and private. The Joint Reports on Social Inclusionillustrate some examples of elements of mainstreaming in place indifferent Member States. 4 They also acknowledge the need foradditional efforts, other than those in the social protection andsocial assistance domain, towards mainstreaming social inclusionconcerns into all areas of public policy.The European Commission and the Council have continued to issuestatements regarding the need to mainstream social inclusion, forexample, in the Presidency Conclusions of the Spring EuropeanCouncils and in the Mid-Term Review of the Social Policy Agenda. 5However, they do not outline or provide guidelines on how this can beachieved. Therefore, there is a need for a clearer understanding ofwhat the concept of mainstreaming implies and to better understandhow mainstreaming is applied in different Member States.The report of Phase I also examined the understanding of‘mainstreaming social inclusion’ in the partner countries/regionand came to the conclusion that it is a new and evolving conceptand that ‘there is no one common understanding of mainstreamingsocial inclusion’. Rather it identified approaches that areattempting to shift existing policy and delivery paradigms toproduce positive outcomes for people experiencing poverty. Theseapproaches are in addition and complementary to specific actions(targeted policies). These approaches may be classified as follows:Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 221

Administrative types of mainstreaming, found in Ireland andPortugal. Examples include ‘poverty proofing’ where theassessment of all policies is based on a precautionary principleto ensure that they do not exacerbate povertyA stronger executive mainstreaming, found in Northern Ireland.This approach actively directs resources in favour of people livingin poverty, by ‘top slicing’ proportions of line ministries’ budgetsJudicial mainstreaming, found in France, where social rights areenshrined in national law and the policy framework is set out inrights legislation, such as the Law Against Social Exclusion.The research undertaken during Phase I of the project found thatthere are two levels to mainstreaming. The first is a form that canbe termed ‘integrationist’, essentially introducing social inclusionperspectives into existing policy processes, but does not challengeexisting policy paradigms. The second can be termed ‘agendasetting’,involving a fundamental rethink, not simply of the meansor procedures of policy making, but of the ends or goals of policyfrom a social inclusion perspective.The research found shared features across a number of case studiesthat could constitute a framework for mainstreaming. The featuresidentified are grouped together under the following headings:Policy processes:- The inclusion of a poverty perspective when developing policy- Cross-boundary working arrangements- Mechanisms for the involvement of people experiencing poverty- An ex-post evaluation system.222 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

Outcomes for people experiencing poverty. The review did notidentify any reduction in poverty; however positive outcomes inthe case studies were as follows:- Actions within existing policies which provide more focus onexcluded people and people experiencing poverty- Greater participation and dialogue for social partners andpeople experiencing poverty- More resources towards social inclusion within existingpolicies/programmes to include a greater focus on excludedpeople and people experiencing poverty.Outcomes for policy-making and policy makers:- Change in attitudes and working culture to include a povertyperspective- Greater responsibility and ownership for social inclusionoutcomes across all policy areas- Better data and information around poverty and socialexclusion. Related to this is improved dissemination systemsfor innovation and learning around poverty and social exclusion- Greater efficiency in policy-making.Phase I concluded that more research is needed to assess thecapacity of mainstreaming in tackling poverty and social exclusionas well as greater equity and efficiency in policy-making.Noting that mainstreaming is an evolving concept, which can resultin a social inclusion dimension in all policies, Phase I found that formainstreaming to be effective it would necessitate a shift in howPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 223

policy is made in EU Member States. This change would berequired simultaneously at three public policy levels:Political – Mainstreaming should imply the inclusion of povertyelimination and social inclusion in political vision and goals whichwill then be translated into measures, programmes and policies,backed up with political commitment.Institutional – Mainstreaming should produce more focusedpolicy-making and delivery of services for people experiencingpoverty.Service delivery – The focus should be on finding solutions andservices that can prevent, ameliorate and reduce poverty andsocial exclusion.224 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

APPENDIX 2SOCIAL PROTECTIONCOMMITTEEINDICATORS

- Indicators in the field of Poverty andSocial ExclusionThe Primary Indicators for social exclusion agreed by the SocialProtection Committee (SPC) 1 are:1 At-risk-of-poverty rate: Share of persons living in householdswith an income below 60% of the national equivalised medianincome (breakdown by age groups and gender) by the followingcategories:a) Household type – with dependent children; withoutdependent children (0-15 years and, if inactive, 16-24 years)b) Work intensity of households – range from jobless householdto full work intensity during the income reference yearc) Most frequent activity status – employment (including selfemployment);unemployment; retirement; other inactivity(breakdown by age groups and gender)d) Accommodation and tenure status – owner-occupied, rentfree or rented (breakdown by age groups and gender)2 At-risk-of-poverty threshold: The value of the at-risk-ofpovertythreshold (60 per cent median of national income) inpurchasing power standards (PPS) by single-person householdor household with two adults + two children3 Income quintile ratio: Ratio of total income received by the 20per cent of the country’s population with the highest income226 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

(top quintile) compared to the income received by the 20 percent of the population with the lowest income (lowest quintile)4 Persistence of at-risk-of-poverty: Share of persons with anincome below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold in the currentyear and for at least two of the preceding three years(breakdown by age groups and gender)5 Relative median low income gap: Difference between themedian income of persons below the at-risk-of-povertythreshold and the threshold itself, expressed as a percentageof the at-risk-of-poverty threshold (breakdown by age groupsand gender)6 Regional cohesion: Coefficient of variation of employment ratesat Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics level 2, withemployment rates calculated as the share of the population (15years and above) who are in employment (ILO definition ofemployment) (breakdown by gender)7 Long-term unemployment rate: Total long-term unemployedpopulation (≥ 12 months; ILO definition) as a proportion of thetotal active population aged 15 years or more (breakdown byage groups and gender)8 (a) People living in a jobless household (children): Proportionof children (0-17 years) living in jobless households, expressedas a share of all children8 (b) People living in jobless households (adults): Proportion ofall people aged 18-59 years who live in a jobless household asa proportion of all people in the same age group (includinggender breakdown). Students aged 18-24 years living inPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 227

households composed solely of students are not counted ineither numerator nor in denominator9 Early school leavers not in further education or training:Share of persons aged 18-24 who have only lower secondaryeducation (level 0, 1 or 2) according to the 1997 InternationalStandard Classification of Education – (ISCED 97) and have notreceived education or training in the four weeks preceding thesurvey (breakdown by gender)10 Low reading literacy performance by pupils: Share of 15-yearold pupils who are at level 1 or below of the OECD Programmefor International Student Assessment (PISA) combined readingliteracy scale (breakdown by gender)11 Life expectancy: Number of years a person aged 0, 1 and 60may expect to live (breakdown by gender)12 Self-perception of one’s health status: Proportion of thepopulation aged 16 years and over in the top and bottom quintileof the income distribution who classify themselves as in a bad orvery bad state of health (breakdown by age groups and gender).The Secondary Indicators are:13 Dispersion around the at-risk-of-poverty threshold: Share ofpersons with a disposable income below 40, 50, and 70 per centof the national equivalised median income (breakdown by ageand gender)14 At-risk-of-poverty rate anchored at a point in time: In year t,the share of persons with an income below the at-risk-ofpovertythreshold in year t-3, up-rated by inflation over thethree years (breakdown by age and gender)228 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

15 At-risk-of-poverty rate before social cash transfers: Relativeat-risk-of-poverty rate where income is calculated as follows:- Excluding all social cash transfers- Including retirement and survivors pensions and excluding allother social cash transfers- Including all social cash transfers16 Distribution on income (Gini coefficient): Summary measure ofthe cumulative share of income accounted for by thecumulative percentages of the number of individuals (Range: 0per cent - complete equity; 100 per cent - complete inequity);17 Persistence of at-risk-of-poverty (based on 50% of medianincome): Share of persons with an income below 50 per cent ofthe national median equivalised income in the current year andat least two of the three preceding years (breakdown by agegroups and gender)18 Working poor (in-work poverty risk): Individuals aged 16 yearsand above who are classified as employed (wage and salaryemployment and self-employed) according to the definition ofthe most frequent activity status (1c above) and who are at riskof poverty, analysed by personal, job and householdcharacteristics (breakdown by age group and gender)19 Long-term unemployment share: Total long-term unemployedpopulation (≥ 12 months; ILO definition) as a proportion of thetotal unemployed population aged 15 years and over(breakdown by age group and gender)20 Very long-term unemployment rate: Total very long-termPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 229

unemployed population (≥ 12 months; ILO definition) as aproportion of the total unemployed population aged 15 yearsand over (breakdown by age group and gender)21 Persons with low educational attainment: Share of the adultpopulation (aged 25 years and over) whose highest level ofeducation or training is ISCED 0, 1 or 2 (breakdown by agegroup and gender).230 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

APPENDIX 3DRAFTQUESTIONNAIRE FORAN EVALUATION STUDYOF MAINSTREAMINGSOCIAL INCLUSIONINTO PUBLIC POLICIES

This questionnaire has been designed to examine howmainstreaming social inclusion is undertaken through three factors– policy design and implementation of policies; the participation ofall relevant actors in each stage of the policy cycle; and theevaluation of mainstreaming social inclusion into public policies.For the purposes of this study the following definition of‘mainstreaming’ has been adopted:Mainstreaming social inclusion is the integration of poverty andsocial inclusion issues, including an equality perspective, intoall areas and levels of policy-making that is promoted throughthe participation of public bodies, social partners, NGOs andother relevant actors.The focus of this evaluation framework is on two levels:European level: within the context of the Open Method of Coordination(OMC) and the related National Action Plans againstpoverty and social exclusion (NAPs/inclusion) in the twenty-fiveMember StatesImplementation level of the NAPs/inclusion at national/regional/local levels.To undertake this evaluation, it is intended that the questionnairebe circulated to a range of prospective respondents in governmentministries/departments, regional/local administrations and toNGOs involved in the delivery of services to people experiencingpoverty and social exclusion.Please fill out the questionnaire, taking into consideration thefollowing points: Tick one box for each question. Give the reason for your response.232 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

Background InformationName (optional):Gender: Male 1Female 2Country:Organisation Name (optional):Organisation Type:Co-ordinating Unit for theNational Action Plans AgainstPoverty and Social Exclusion 1Ministry 2Regional Government 3Local Government 4Non Government Organisation 5(If a NGO, please specify what areayour organisation is involved in:Other 6(Please specify what area yourorganisation is involved in:Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 233

Position Heldin Organisation:Length of Timein this Position: 1-5 years 16-10 years 2Over 10 years 3Length of Time Workingon Anti-Poverty andSocial Inclusion Issues: 1-5 years 16-10 years 2Over 10 years 3234 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

Political leadership and sponsorship (please tick one box only)1) The Government has the political will to seek significantreductions in poverty and social exclusion:Not at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 62) Senior politicians champion and sponsor policies againstpoverty and social exclusion throughout central government:Not at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 6Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 235

3) Policies against poverty and social exclusion are a keypolitical priority at a regional level:Not at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 64) Policies against poverty and social exclusion are a keypolitical priority at the local government level:Not at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 6236 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

e) Health ServicesNot at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 6g) Information &Communication TechnologyNot at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 6i) Social SecurityNot at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 6f) HousingNot at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 6h) Justice / Crime PreventionNot at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 6j) TransportNot at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 6238 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

Legislation6) Legislation is used as a tool to reduce poverty andsocial exclusion:Not at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 6You may wish to expand on the answers you have ticked in this section.Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 239

g) Information &Communication TechnologyNot at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 6i) Social SecurityNot at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 6h) Justice / Crime PreventionNot at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 6j) TransportNot at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 6Resources8) Government resources are re-directed towards policiesagainst poverty and social exclusion:Not at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 6Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 241

You may wish to expand on the answers you have ticked in this section.Administrative leadership and implementation of policies againstpoverty and social exclusion (please tick one box only)9) Senior management are committed to policies against povertyand social exclusion:Not at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 6242 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

10) Policies against poverty and social exclusion are co-ordinatedacross central government:Not at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 611) Policies against poverty and social exclusion are co-ordinatedacross regional government:Not at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 6Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 243

12) Policies against poverty and social exclusion are co-ordinatedacross local government:Not at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 6Please explain your answer:13) The National Action Plans against Poverty and SocialExclusion have had an impact on Government policies andstrategies which reflect poverty and social exclusionpriorities:Not at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 6No opinion 7244 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

You may wish to expand on the answers you have ticked in this section.Capacity and skills (please tick one box only)14) Specialists in the area of poverty and social exclusion areemployed at the following levels throughout Government:a) MinistryYes 1No 2b) RegionalYes 1No 2c) LocalYes 1No 2Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 245

15) Poverty and social exclusion awareness training is deliveredat the following levels throughout Government:a) NationalNot at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 6c) Localb) RegionalNot at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 6Not at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 6246 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

16) Equality 3 awareness training is delivered at the followinglevels throughout Government:a) NationalNot at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 6c) Localb) RegionalNot at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 6Not at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 6Structures (please tick one box only)17) There is a co-ordinating unit at the National level with adedicated responsibility for policies against poverty and socialexclusion:Yes 1No 2Please explain your answer:Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 247

18) There are units with a dedicated responsibility for policiesagainst poverty and social exclusion at the following levels:a) MinistryYes 1No 2b) RegionalYes 1No 2c) LocalYes 1No 219) Structures at the following levels allow for transparentpoverty and social exclusion policy development:a) MinistryNot at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 6c) Localb) RegionalNot at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 6Not at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 6248 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

20) Structures at the following levels are delivering policiesagainst poverty and social exclusion on the ground:a) MinistryNot at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 6c) Localb) RegionalNot at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 6Not at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 6You may wish to expand on the answers you have ticked in this section.Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 249

Data, research and evaluation (please tick one box only)21) Government commits sufficient resources to themeasurement of poverty and social exclusion:Not at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 6250 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

22) Baseline data and statistics on poverty and social exclusionhave been developed at the following levels:a) MinistryYes 1No 2b) RegionalYes 1No 2c) LocalYes 1No 223) Poverty and social exclusion indicators have been developedacross government functions:a) MinistryYes 1No 2b) RegionalYes 1No 2c) LocalYes 1No 224) Poverty and social exclusion targets have been developedacross government functions:a) MinistryYes 1No 2b) RegionalYes 1No 2c) LocalYes 1No 2Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 251

25) Regular evaluation of policies against poverty and socialexclusion is undertaken at the following levels:a) MinistryNot at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 6c) Localb) RegionalNot at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 6Not at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 6You may wish to expand on the answers you have ticked in this section.252 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

Engagement and participation (please tick one box only)26) People directly experiencing poverty and social exclusion areconsulted on policy development:Not at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 627) People directly experiencing poverty and social exclusion areprovided with resources to participate in policy development:Not at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 6Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 253

28) People directly experiencing poverty and social exclusioninfluence policy development:Not at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 629) NGOs working against poverty and social exclusion areconsulted on policy development:Not at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 6254 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

30) NGOs working against poverty and social exclusion areprovided with resources to participate in policy development:Not at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 631) NGOs working against poverty and social exclusion influencepolicy development:Not at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 6Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 255

32) Other organisations of the wider civil society are consulted onpoverty and social exclusion policy development:Not at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 633) Other organisations of the wider civil society influencepoverty and social exclusion policy development:Not at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 6256 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

You may wish to expand on the answers you have ticked in this section.Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 257

Anti-Poverty and Social Inclusion Mainstreaming(please tick one box only)Mainstreaming social inclusion is the integration of poverty and socialinclusion issues, including an equality perspective, into all areas andlevels of policy-making and that is promoted through the participationof public bodies, social partners, NGOs and other relevant actors.34) This is your understanding of MainstreamingNot at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 6258 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

35) Mainstreaming, as defined above, is relevant in your countryNot at all 1To a little extent 2To some extent 3To a great extent 4To a very great extent 5Don’t know 6No opinion 7You may wish to expand on the answers you have ticked in this section.Any Other General Comments:Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 259

APPENDIX 4EVALUATION OFSURVEY DATA –THE MSI SCALE

1 Political leadership and sponsorshipFour questions (Q1; Q2; Q3; Q4).Responses are scaled as follows:‘Not at all’ or ‘Don’t know’ 0‘To a little extent’ 1‘To some extent’ 2‘To a great extent’ 3‘To a very great extent’ 4The answers in this section can range from 0 to 16.2 Government policiesOne question (Q5) and 10 responses (a to j).Responses are scaled as follows:‘Not at all’ or ‘Don’t know’ 0‘To a little extent’ 1‘To some extent’ 2‘To a great extent’ 3‘To a very great extent’ 4The answers in this section can range from 0 to 40.262 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

3 LegislationTwo questions (Q6 and Q7 – 10 responses(a to j)).Responses are scaled as follows:‘Not at all’ or ‘Don’t know’ 0‘To a little extent’ 1‘To some extent’ 2‘To a great extent’ 3‘To a very great extent’ 4The answers in this section can range from 0 to 44.4 ResourcesOne question (Q8)Responses are scaled as follows:‘Not at all’ or ‘Don’t know’ 0‘To a little extent’ 1‘To some extent’ 2‘To a great extent’ 3‘To a very great extent’ 4The answers in this section can range from 0 to 4.Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 263

5 Administrative leadership andimplementation of policiesFive questions (Q9; Q10; Q11; Q12; Q13).Responses are scaled as follows:‘Not at all’ or ‘Don’t know’ 0‘To a little extent’ 1‘To some extent’ 2‘To a great extent’ 3‘To a very great extent’ 4The answers in this section can range from 0 to 20.6 Capacity and skillsThree questions (Q14; Q15; Q16)Scale for Q14 (a, b, c):Yes 4No 0Answers can range from 0 to 12 for Q14Scale for Q15 (a, b, c) and Q16 (a, b, c):264 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

‘Not at all’ or ‘Don’t know’ 0‘To a little extent’ 1‘To some extent’ 2‘To a great extent’ 3‘To a very great extent’ 4Answers can range from 0 to 12 for Q15 and Q16Answers in this section can range from 0 to 367 StructuresFour questions (Q17; Q18; Q19; Q20)Scale for Q 17 and 18 (a, b, c):Yes 4No 0Answers can range from 0 to 4 for Q17 and 0 to 12 for Q18Scale for Q19 (a, b, c) and Q20 (a, b, c):‘Not at all’ or ‘Don’t know’ 0‘To a little extent’ 1‘To some extent’ 2Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 265

‘To a great extent’ 3‘To a very great extent’ 4Answers can range from 0 to 12 for Q19 and Q20Answers in this section can range from 0 to 408 Data, research and evaluationFive questions (Q21; Q22; Q23; Q24; Q25)Scale for Q 21 and Q25 (a, b, c)‘Not at all’ or ‘Don’t know’ 0‘To a little extent’ 1‘To some extent’ 2‘To a great extent’ 3‘To a very great extent’ 4Answers can range from 0 to 4 for Q21 and from 0 to12 for Q25Scale for Q22 (a, b, c), Q23 (a, b, c) and Q24 (a, b, c)Yes 4No 0Answers can range from 0 to 12 for Q22, Q23 and Q 24Answers for this section can range from 0 to 52266 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

9 Engagement and participationEight questions (Q26 to Q33)Scale for all questions in this section:‘Not at all’ or ‘Don’t know’ 0‘To a little extent’ 1‘To some extent’ 2‘To a great extent’ 3‘To a very great extent’ 4Answers for this section range from 0 to 32Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 267

10 Understanding MainstreamingSocial InclusionTwo questions (Q34 and Q35)Scale for each question:‘Not at all’ or ‘Don’t know’ 0‘To a little extent’ 1‘To some extent’ 2‘To a great extent’ 3‘To a very great extent’ 4Answers for this section range from 0 to 8268 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

Adding the scores - Total MSIMinimum MaximumPolitical leadership and sponsorship 0 16Government policies 0 40Legislation 0 44Resources 0 4Administrative leadership and implementation 0 20Capacity and skills 0 36Structures 0 40Data, research and evaluation 0 52Engagement and participation 0 32Understanding MSI 0 8TOTAL 0 292MSI Weak - 0292 - MSI StrongPromoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 269

Mainstreaming(Quantitative data) *Final Performance(Based on SPCIndicators) ***Framework for the Evaluation of Mainstreaming Social InclusionStrong 292StrongWeak0 0Weak0WeakMedium-term Policy MainstreamingPerformance Indicators(Qualitative data)**Strong* The left-side axis is based on quantitative data from the MSIScale above.** The data for the horizontal axis, which would seek to measurethe mainstreaming of policies in the medium term, based onqualitative data (interviews and case studies) would focus onfour issues which are identified in the Lisbon European CouncilPresidency Conclusions as key to ‘mainstreaming thepromotion of inclusion in Member States’ – employment,education/training, health and housing policies.*** The right side axis is the long term impact of mainstreamingsocial inclusion, measured against the SPC indicators, at the endof the policy cycle. The left-side axis and horizontal axis form thebasis on which this right-side axis is measured in the longer-term.270 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alcock, P. (1997): Understanding Poverty. London: Macmillan (2ndEd.). Available on www.policyhub.gov.uk/evalpolicy/magentaAtkinson A.B. et al. (2005): Taking Forward the EU Social InclusionProcess. Report prepared for the Luxembourg Presidency of theCouncil of the European Union, by CEPS/INSTEAD ResearchInstitute (www.ceps.lu/eu2005_lu/inclusion).Baker, et al. (1992): The European Values Study 1981-1990. Institutefor Social Research, Tilburg University.Brose, M. (2001): Methodologia Participativa – uma introdução a 29instrmentos. Instituto Sere, Projeto Doces Matas, e da TomoEditorial, Portugal.Bullock, H. et al. (2001): Better Policy-Making. Centre forManagement and Policy Making, UK Cabinet Office, London.Combat Poverty Agency (2000): Guidelines for Effective Involvement.Combat Poverty Agency, Dublin.Combat Poverty Agency (2004): Mainstreaming Social Inclusion.Research Report Phase I, Combat Poverty Agency, Dublin.Combat Poverty Agency/Office for Social Inclusion (2003): Reporton Consultation for the National Action Plan against Poverty and SocialExclusion, 2003-2005. Combat Poverty Agency/Office for SocialInclusion, Dublin.Council of Europe (1998): Final Declaration on Social Cohesion.Council of Europe, Strasbourg.Council of Europe (2001): Report of the Committee of Experts onPromoting Access to Employment. Council of Europe, Strasbourg(CS-EM (2001)).272 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

Council of Europe (2004): Revised Strategy for Social Cohesion.Council of Europe, Committee of Social Cohesion, Strasbourg(CDCS(2004)10).Daly, M. (2002): Access to Social Rights in Europe. Council of Europe,Strasbourg.Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs (2002):Building an Inclusive Society. National Anti-Poverty Strategy, Dublin.Estivill, J. (2003): Concepts and Strategies for Combating SocialExclusion. International Labour Office/STEP Programme, Geneva.European Anti-Poverty Network (2000): Mainstreaming poverty andsocial exclusion. Seminar Report, Lisbon, March 2000. EAPN,Brussels.European Anti-Poverty Network (2004): Report on Survey ofMechanisms for Participation of People who Experience Poverty orExclusion. Executive Summary, EAPN, Brussels.European Commission (1993): European Social Policy: Options forthe Future (A Green Paper). Office of Official Publications of theEuropean Communities, Luxembourg (COM(93)551).European Commission (1993): Growth, Competitiveness,Employment – The Challenges and Ways Forward into the 21 st Century(A White Paper). Office of Official Publications of the EuropeanCommunities, Luxembourg (Bulletin of the European Communities,Supplement 6/93).European Commission (1994): European Social Policy – A WayForward for the Union (A White Paper). Office of Official Publicationsof the European Communities, Luxembourg (COM(94)333).Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 273

European Commission (1996): Working for a European Social Policy:A report on the forum. Office for Official Publications of theEuropean Communities, Luxembourg.European Commission (1996): Incorporating equal opportunities forwomen and men into all Community policies and actions. EuropeanCommission Communication (COM(96)67 final).European Commission (1999): Interim Report on theimplementation of the medium-term Community Action Programme.Office for Official Publications of the European Communities,Luxembourg.European Commission (2000): Social Policy Agenda 2000-2005.Office for Official Publications of the European Communities,Luxembourg (COM(2000)379 final).European Commission (2003): Strengthening the social dimension ofthe Lisbon strategy: Streamlining open co-ordination in the field ofsocial protection. Communication from the European Commission,Brussels (COM(2003)261 final).European Commission (2004): Proposal for a Regulation of theEuropean Parliament and of the Council on the European Social Fund.Brussels. (COM(2004)493 final).European Commission (2005): The Social Agenda 2005-2010. Officefor Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg(COM(2005)33 final).European Commission (2005): Joint Report on Social Protection andSocial Inclusion Communication the Council, European Parliament,Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions,Brussels (COM(2005)14 final) {SEC(2005)69}.274 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

European Commission (2005): Joint Report on Social Protection andSocial Inclusion: Technical Annex. European Commission Staff Paper.European Commission (2005): Report on Social Inclusion, 2005: Ananalysis of the National Action Plans on Social Inclusion (2004-2006)submitted by the 10 new Member States. Office of OfficialPublications of the European Communities, Luxembourg(SEC(2005)256).European Commission (2005): Working together for growth and jobs:Next steps in implementing the revised Lisbon Strategy. CommissionStaff Working Paper, Brussels (SEC(2005)622/2).European Commission Advisory Committee on EqualOpportunities for Women and Men (2002): Opinion on theImplementation of Gender Mainstreaming in EU Policies. AdvisoryCommittee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, Brussels(DOC EQOP 59-2001 (2002) final).European Commission and Council (2004): Joint Report on SocialInclusion (7101/04), March 2004.European Council (1997): Presidency Conclusions, ExtraordinaryMeeting on Employment. November 1997, Luxembourg.European Council (2000): Annex to the Presidency Conclusions,December 2000, Nice.European Council (2000): Objectives for the fight against poverty andsocial exclusion. ‘Annex to the Annex’, December 2000, Nice.European Council (2000): Presidency Conclusion, March 2000,Lisbon.Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 275

European Council (2000): Presidency Conclusions, June 2000, SantaMaria da Feira.European Council (2002): Presidency Conclusions, March 2002,Barcelona.European Council (2003): Council Decision on guidelines for theemployment policies of the Member States. Annex to the guidelines.European Council (2003): Guidelines for the employment policies ofthe Member States. Council Decision 2003/578/EC.European Council (2003): Presidency Conclusions, March 2003,Brussels.European Council (2005): Presidency Conclusions, March 2005,Brussels.European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and WorkingConditions (1997): Active Citizenship and Community Involvement:Getting to the Roots. European Foundation for the Improvement ofLiving and Working Conditions, Dublin.European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and WorkingConditions (1998):Local Partnership: A Successful Strategy for Social Cohesion? GeddesM., Office for Official Publications of the European Communities,Luxembourg.European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and WorkingConditions (2003): Social Inclusion: Local partnerships with civilsociety. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living andWorking Conditions, Dublin, Foundation Paper No. 4.276 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

Gordon, D. et al. (1999): Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain.Joseph Rowntree Foundation/ York Publishing Services. Availableon: www.bris.ac.uk/pverty/pse/sum_find.htmGovernment of Canada (1996): Managing Horizontal Policy Issues.Federal Deputy Ministers’ Task Force on Horizontal Issues,Government of Canada.Government of Ireland (2000): Budget Statement, Dublin.Government of Ireland (2000): Supporting Voluntary Activity: A WhitePaper on a framework for supporting voluntary activities and fordeveloping the relationship between the State and the Community andVoluntary Sector. Government Publications, Dublin.Government of Ireland (2003): Sustaining Progress: SocialPartnership Agreement 2003-2005. Government Publications, Dublin.Gray, A. (2004): Unsocial Europe: Social Protection or Flexploitation?Pluto Press, London.Hacourt, G. (2003): Poverty Indicators: starting from the experience ofPeople Living in Poverty (Final Report). European Anti-PovertyNetwork, Transnational Project, Antwerp.Hillyard, P. et al. (2003): Bare Necessities: poverty and socialexclusion in Northern Ireland – key findings. Democratic Dialogue,Belfast.Kidner, C. and Curtis, S. (2003): Mainstreaming Equality Issues.Scottish Parliament Briefing 03/58, Edinburgh.Mackay, F. and Bilton, K. (2003): Learning from Experience: Lessonsin Mainstreaming Equal Opportunities. Scottish Executive SocialResearch, Edinburgh.Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 277

Magnusson, L., Mosesdottir, L., Serano Pascual, A. (eds) (2003):Equal Pay and Gender Mainstreaming in the European EmploymentStrategy. ETUI/SALTSA, Brussels.Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (2002): Community Planning –A Public Matter. Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs of the CzechRepublic, Prague.Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (2004): National Action Planon Social Inclusion 2004-2006. Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs,Czech Republic, Prague.Ministry of Labour and Solidarity (2001): Commitment withInclusion, Commitment for Inclusion – National Action Plan for SocialInclusion, Portugal, 2001-2003. Ministry of Labour and Solidarity,Lisbon.Molloy, D., Woodfield, K., Bacon J. (2002): Longitudinal qualitativeresearch approaches in evaluation studies. National Centre for SocialResearch, London.National Economic and Social Forum (2005): Conference Report onSecond Meeting of NAPS Social Inclusion Forum. NESF, Dublin.Nolan, A. (2005): Inclusion is Everyone’s Business. Social InclusionUnit, Dublin City Council, Dublin.Northern Ireland Anti-Poverty Network (2004): Poverty andPowerlessness. Information Pack, Belfast.Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (2004): Policy,Poverty, Social Exclusion and Northern Ireland. Northern IrelandCouncil for Voluntary Action (NICVA). In Poverty and PowerlessnessInformation Pack of the NI Anti-Poverty Network (2004), Belfast.278 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

O’Connor, S. (2001): Review of the Poverty Proofing Process. NationalEconomic and Social Council, Dublin.Office for Social Inclusion (2003): National Action Plan againstPoverty and Social Exclusion 2003-2005. Office for Social Inclusion,Dublin.Office for Social Inclusion (2005): First Annual Report. Office forSocial Inclusion, Dublin.Office of the Auditor General (2003): A Guide to Policy Development.Office of the Auditor General, Manitoba, Canada.Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister (2002):Targeting Social Needs. Annual Report. Belfast.Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister (2004): APractical Guide to Policy Making in Northern Ireland. Office of theFirst Minister and Deputy First Minister, Economic Policy Unit,Belfast.Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister (2004):Towards an Anti-Poverty Strategy: New TSN – the Way Forward AConsultative Document. Office of the First Minister and Deputy FirstMinister, Belfast.Office of the Provincial Auditor (2001): Capacity – A Review of thePolicy Development Capacity within Government Departments.Manitoba, Canada.Oppenheim, C. and Harker, L. (1996): Poverty: the facts, revised andupdated. Child Poverty Action Group, London (3 rd ed.).Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2001):Local Partnerships for Better Governance. Paris.Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 279

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2003):The DAC Guidelines Poverty Reduction, Paris.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2004):Evaluating Local Economic and Employment Development – How toassess what works among programmes and policies. OECD-LEEDProgramme, Paris.Purdon S, et al. (2001): Research Methods for Policy Evaluation.Department of Work and Pensions, Research Working Paper No. 2,National Centre for Social Research, London.Rees, T. (1998): Mainstreaming Equality in the European Union.Routledge, London.Rees, T. (1998): Tinkering, tailoring, transforming: principles and toolsfor gender mainstreaming. In Gender Mainstreaming: a step into the21st century. Athens.Robbins, D. (1994): Social Europe: Towards a Europe of Solidarity –Combating Social Exclusion. European Commission, Brussels.Scottish Parliament Participation Service (2004): ParticipationHandbook. The Scottish Parliament Participation Service,Edinburgh. Available on: www.scottish.parliament.ukShand, D. and Arnberg, M. (1996): Background paper in OECDResponsive Government, OECD, Paris.Social Protection Committee (2001): Report on Indicators in the fieldof poverty and social exclusion. Social Protection Committee,Brussels.Social Protection Committee (2002): Common Outline for the2003/2005 NAPs/inclusion. Brussels.280 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES

Sosialdepartementst (2002): Plan of Action for Combating Poverty:Report No.6 to the Storting (2002-2003) (Abbreviated version in EN).Ministry of Social Affairs, Oslo.Townsend, P. (1979): Poverty in the UK: A survey of householdresources and standards of living. Penguin.UK Cabinet Office (1999): Modernising Government. White Paper.London.UK Cabinet Office (1999): Professional Policy Making for the TwentyFirst Century. Report by the Strategic Policy Making Team, London.UK Cabinet Office (2000): Magenta Book: Guidance Notes on PolicyEvaluation. Available on: www.policyhub.gov.uk/evalpolicy/magentaUK HM Treasury (2003): The Green Book: Appraisal and Evaluation inCentral Government. London: UK HM Treasury, TSO. Available onwww.hmtreasury.gov.uk./media/785/27/green_book_03.pdfUnited Nations (1995): United Nations Report of the World Summitfor Social Development, Copenhagen, March 1995. United Nations,New York.United Nations Development Programme (1998): Integrating humanrights with sustainable human development: A UNDP policy document.United Nations Development Programme, January 1998.United Nations Economic and Social Council (1997): Co-ordinationof policies and activities of the specialized agencies and other bodies ofthe United Nations system related to the following theme:Mainstreaming the gender perspective into all policies andprogrammes in the United Nations system. United Nations Economicand Social Council paper E/1997/L.30, Geneva.Promoting the Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion 281

United Nations Economic and Social Council (1997): GenderMainstreaming: Extract from the Report of the Economic and SocialCouncil for 1997 (Chapter IV) (A/52/2, 18 September 1997).United Nations Economic and Social Council (2003): MainstreamingPoverty Reduction Strategies within the UN Millennium DevelopmentGoals: The role of Public Administrations (E/C.16/2003/5).Walker, R. (2004): Evaluating Local Economic and EmploymentDevelopment in Evaluation: Evidence for Public Policy. OECD-LEEDProgramme, Paris.Walsh, J. et al. (1998): Local Partnerships for Social inclusion?Combat Poverty Agency/Oak Tree Press, Dublin.Weiss, C.H. (1998): Evaluation. Pearson, USA.Woodward, A. (2003): Mainstreaming and Equal Pay: a logicalpartnership? In Magnusson, L., Mosesdottir, L., Serano Pascual, A.(eds.) Equal Pay and Gender Mainstreaming in the EuropeanEmployment Strategy. ETUI/SALTSA, Brussels.Zeitlin, J. and Pochet, P. (eds) (2005): The Open Method of Coordinationin Action: The European Employment and Social InclusionStrategies. ETUI/SALTSA, Brussels.282 BETTER POLICIES, BETTER OUTCOMES