Social Inclusion Project Team

1

• Social Inclusion Project Team
• Peter Huxley UoW Swansea
• Sherrill Evans UoW Swansea
• Maria Munroe UoW Swansea
• Martin Webber IoP
• Tanya Burchardt LSE
• Martin Knapp LSE
• David McDaid LSE
• Acknowledgements to
• Peter Bates NDT
• Jenny Secker Anglia Ruskin
• David Morris NIMHE SI programme
• Nicola Vick NIMHE SI programme
• Fabian Davies Oxleas Trust

2
Social Inclusion Project

• Aims
• Describe the key components of social inclusion
• Identify existing measures of the various
  components of social inclusion
• Draft the possible content of an index of social
  inclusion for testing among general population
  and treated and untreated mental health samples

3
Social Inclusion Project

• Methods
• FOUR main components
• (1) Review of literature
• An update of the LSE literature review on social
  exclusion and a further search with particular
  reference to existing measures of social
  inclusion
• (2) A review of existing measures
• Including web searches the work of the NIMHE
  research and evidence coalition network
• (3) Concept mapping exercise
• in a number of groups, including members of the
  general public, mental health and other
  professionals, and older people groups)
• (4) Expert group synthesis

4
Social inclusion Project

• Useful conceptual material and background papers
• Commins (1993)
• Beck (1997)
• Berman and Phillips (2000)
• Berger Schmitt and Noll (2000) (Appendix 1)
• Burchardt, Le Grand and Piachaud (2002)
• Atkinson (2002)
• EFILWC (2003)
• Roeher Institute (2003)
• ZUMA (2005)
• Levitas et al (2006)
• Combat Poverty Agency (Ireland) Better policies,
  Better outcomes (2006)
• New Policy Institute/ Joseph Rowntree Trust
  (2006)

5
Social inclusion Project

• Concept Mapping groups
• Nine groups
• IoP group
• Mental health service users
• Older people group
• Student group
• Womens group
• NIMHE social inclusion network group
• Social inclusion and employment group
• Voluntary organisations and BME group
• General population group

6
Social Inclusion Project

Focus groups - Concept mapping Concept maps are
graphical tools for organizing and representing
knowledge which is sometimes used for measurement
development . There are six steps in the concept
mapping process STEP ONE Preparation STEP TWO
Generating statements STEP THREE Structuring of
statements STEP FOUR Representation of
statements STEP FIVE Interpretation of maps STEP
SIX Utilisation of the concept maps
7
Social inclusion Project

• 66 participants
• 444 statements
• 66 clusters

8
Social inclusion Project
Most frequent themes (seven or more groups) Most
frequent Social network and support e.g.
friends and family Second Opportunities Neighbo
urhood and built environment e.g. ghettos,
deprivation, surroundings Financial
stability Employment Disadvantaged and excluded
groups Acceptance including being part of
society Third Participation in society and
social support (local society rather than
wider) Discrimination including
stigma Representation being visible and listened
to having a say Participation (wider) Housing
Health and well being Engaging in
community Diversity, difference, integration
9
Social inclusion Project

• Third (continued)
• Decreased exclusion/opposite of
  exclusion/including people who have been excluded
• Choice/Freedom/Control/Power/Responsibility
• Access
• Service provision
• Fourth (five or six groups)
• Confidence/Sense of Purpose/Fulfilment/Achievement
  
• Isolation
• Having a meaningful, recognised and valued role
• Barriers to inclusion
• Understanding
• Peoples behaviour
• Transport and mobility
• Safety, fear, crime, conflict
• Respect
• Religion (ignorance and tolerance)
• Education

10
Social inclusion Project

• Web searches
• Search Engines
• Look Smart Dogpile NQMC Question Bank Google
  Advanced Copernic Firefox
• Terms
• Social Inclusion Index Socially inclusion
• Hits - 1955
• Conclusion academic sites, EU, NIMHE etc
• added almost nothing to conventional searching

11
Social inclusion Project

• CONVENTIONAL LITERATURE SEARCH STRATEGY
• DATA BASES
• Web of Knowledge (Science Citation Index Social
  Science Citation Index)
• CSA (Assia Eric Sociological Abstracts Social
  Services Abstracts)
• Ovid (Medline, Old medline Embase Psychinfo
  IBSS HMIC)

12
Social inclusion Project

• SEARCH TERMS
• Varied slightly between search engine due to the
  capabilities of each one.
• Keyword search on inclusion using the following
  truncated and/or specific terms
• OVID Social inclu OR social capital OR social
  cohesi OR social engage OR social involve OR
  social participation OR social interaction OR
  social integrat OR social responsibilit OR
  social wellbeing OR social well-being
• CSA Social(ly) inclusion/ed/ive, Social Capital,
  Social(ly) cohesion/ive, Social(ly)
  engage/d/ment, Social(ly) invole/d/ment, Social
  participation, Social interaction/s, Social
  integration/ed, Social responsibility/ies, Social
  wellbeing/well-being
• Web of Knowledge OVID truncated terms followed
  by a within search search for CSA specific terms

13
Social inclusion Project

• SEARCH TERMS
• Title searches for measure/s using the same
  specific terms in each database
• measure OR measures OR measurement OR index OR
  indices OR indicator OR indicators OR scale OR
  scales OR tool OR tools OR assessment OR
  assessments OR instrument OR instruments OR
  questionnaire OR questionnaires OR form OR forms
  OR profile OR profiles OR test OR tests OR
  schedule OR schedules.
• Social inclusion and measures searches were
  combined in all databases, to produce a more
  focused search
• Combined searches were limited according to the
  criteria (next slide) as far as possible
• The ability to limit searches varied by database,
  and only OVID was able to exclude duplicates
  effectively

14
Social inclusion Project

• Criteria
• Abstract
• English Language
• Humans
• Peer review journals
• 1948-2007
• Tests and measures (OVID only)
• Process
• 2 people reviewed and categorised all abstracts
• Papers reporting on measures of social inclusion
  or contributing variables eg participation, or
  including useful conceptual material, were
  retrieved and read, again by 2 people

15
Social inclusion Project

• Literature Search Results

Database OVID WOK CSA Total
Social inclusion and related terms 75,585 95,778 21,303 192,666
Measures 1,734,823 gt100,000 749,086 386,151 PR,E 2,583,909
Combined 2240 5355 6517 14112
Limited to (retained) 243 (99) 179 (87) Inclusion 107 Exclusion 123 Capital 172 Cohesion 66 Engaged 13 Involved 6 Participate 53 Interact 87 Integration 73 Responsi 22 Wellbeing 81 Total 803 (89) 1225 (275)
Including duplicates within WOK CSA, and with OVID Including duplicates within WOK CSA, and with OVID Including duplicates within WOK CSA, and with OVID Including duplicates within WOK CSA, and with OVID Including duplicates within WOK CSA, and with OVID
16
Social inclusion Project

• 144 potentially relevant papers when duplicates
  removed
• These were retrieved and classified as follows
• 1 Measures of inclusion or components
• 2 Conceptual papers relevant to social inclusion
  or measurement
• Measures of other concepts or none of
  the above
• 68 papers were selected for inclusion in the
  review, on the basis that they met criteria 1) or
  2)

17
Social inclusion Project

• The search did not produce any existing measures
  of social inclusion.
• Of the 68 papers reviewed
• 9 measures of aspects of inclusion or component
  measures were reported (participation community
  integration, social cohesion) and these are
  reviewed in more detail
• 16 conceptually useful papers were identified
  relating to measurement (eg, that proposed items
  models, indicators, Wilson -Adelaide)
• 43 papers were excluded on the basis of
  relevance, quality or because they measured other
  concepts

18
Social inclusion Project

• The two broad approaches to the measurement of
  inclusion emerged
• Individual, inward looking, psychological,
  subjective, internal referents
• Societal, outward looking, objective, social
  indicators, external referents

19
Social inclusion Project

• INDIVIDUAL APPROACH
• Roeher Institute, Canada
• Crawford (2003) suggests that two key themes
  emerge from this perspective. People with
  disabilities want to be socially included in the
  sense that they, like others, want
• ?To participate as valued, appreciated equals in
  the social, economic, political and cultural life
  of the community (i.e., in valued societal
  situations) and
• ?To be involved in mutually trusting,
  appreciative and respectful interpersonal
  relationships at the family, peer and community
  levels.
• That is, people want inclusion in the situations
  that most people take for granted and want to be
  welcomed and valued there.

20
Social inclusion Project

• Crawford (2003) lists the socially valued
  situations that people want to participate in as
  (egs)
• ??Post-secondary education or training.
• ?A job or career and income security in the event
  of unemployment.
• ?An affordable, healthy pleasant home that
  meets individual family needs.
• ?A safe, secure, healthy and pleasant
  neighbourhood.
• ?Justice in the event of violence or abuse.
• ?Recreational opportunities and chances for
  cultural/artistic expression.
• ??Health, social and related services.
• ?Clubs, faith communities, voluntary
  associations.
• ?Opportunities/venues for civic involvement
• Valued interpersonal situations in which people
  want to participate include
• ?Family, a variety of friendships and
  relationships with trusted, respectful others in
  the community.

21
Social inclusion Project

• SOCIAL INDICATOR APPROACH
• The second major approach to the measurement of
  inclusion is the social indicators approach which
  uses existing (statistical) data sources in an
  aggregated form to assess the success or change,
  in social inclusion terms, of various policies
  and strategies.
• These policies are often area-based, for example
  the Social Inclusion Measure groups in the
  Irish republics regions, or may relate to more
  local services, for example schools in Hampshire,
  or specific age groups (Tanton et al 2006)
  children at risk of exclusion in Australia.
• Existing indicators are taken to represent
  aspects of inclusion, and these may or may not be
  aggregate into a single index.

22

• Some of the issues related to this approach
• How are indicator questions selected and tested?
• Often no indication, commonly experts, sometimes
  that which is already available
• Mental health service users often do not like the
  census or survey style questions and want them
  rephrased
• It is possible to incorporate modules on specific
  issues (eg social capital in the HSE QoL in the
  NPMS Levitas social exclusion in the UKLHS) in
  existing surveys and over-sample particular
  groups is this a route one would want to go
  down?
• Work with existing research groups?

23
Social inclusion Project

• Social indicators research groups
• European Social Survey City University
• GESIS - ZUMA
• NPI/Rowntree
• All have large accessible data sets

24
Social inclusion Project

• German Social Science Infrastructure Services
• ZUMA Centre for Survey Research and Methodology,
  Mannheim
• Inclusion Indicators
• Currently the European System of Social
  Indicators is being implemented step by step by
   ZUMA's Social Indicators Department. At this
  stage time series data are available at their
  website for 7 out of the projected 13 life
  domains Population, household and family Labour
  market and working conditions Housing Education
  and vocational training Income Standard of
  living and consumer patterns, Health and Total
  life situation.
• The indicator system covers as a standard the
  previous EU-15 countries, Norway, Switzerland,
  Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, as well as Japan
  and the U.S. as major reference societies.
  Successively, all the EU-25 member states will be
  covered systematically, as is already the case
  for numerous indicators.

25
Social inclusion Project

• ZUMA Indicators
• Life Domains
• Population, household and family
• Income, standard of living and consumer patterns
• Housing
• Health
• Transport
• Environment
• Leisure, Media and Culture
• Social Security
• Social and Political Participation and
  Integration
• Crime and public safety
• Education and vocational training
• Labour market and working conditions
• Total life situation

26
Social inclusion Project

• In the UK, Levitas et al were commissioned by
  the Cabinet Office to produce a measure of social
  exclusion
• Levitas et als Bristol Social Exclusion Matrix
  has three major sections
• resources (material, access to services, social
  resources)
• participation (economic, social, culture
  education and skills, political and civic)
• quality of life (health and well-being, living
  environment, crime, harm and criminalization).

27
Social inclusion Project

• They examined 27 potential sources of data and
  selected the best available data on children,
  adults of working age and older people.
• the Millennium poverty and social exclusion
  survey
• the Families and young children survey
• the Longitudinal survey of young people (ALSPAC)
• the British household panel survey and the
  General Household Survey for adults of working
  age
• English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) for
  older groups.
• Other options - add a module to existing
  household surveys (but excludes excluded groups)

28
Social inclusion Project

• Review of measures
• Bates Key indicators for services
• MIND (SW) Human Givens
• Davis Valued Lifestyles Support Needs Pack
• Secker Inclusion measure
• (Huxley Social and community participation
  profile)
• Lev-Weisel (2003) Perceived Community
  Cohesion
• Van Brakel et al (2006) The Participation
  Scale
• Gierveld and van Tilburg (2006) Loneliness
  scale
• Lelieveldt (2004) Neighbourhood participation
• Sibley et al (2006) Impact on participation
  and autonomy questionnaire

29

• Issues
• Are there any adequate existing measures? No
• Are there any component measures? Possibly
• No combined indicator subjective measures
• Is a combined indicator desirable or possible?
• Should we be looking at 6 measures, one indicator
  based and one perceived inclusion, for three
  major demographic groups?
• Or one measure with a core and age specific
  modules?

30
Social inclusion Project
EU Reporting B-SEM, Crawford and concept mapping result EU Reporting B-SEM, Crawford and concept mapping result EU Reporting B-SEM, Crawford and concept mapping result
Berger Schmitt Noll B-SEM/Crawford Number of concept mapping groups mentioning domain
Household and families Social , family support 8
Labour market and working conditions Economic participation work 7
Income, standard of living, consumption patterns Material resources income, possession of necessities 7
Social, political participation Social participation, political and civic participation 6
Environment Neighbourhood satisfaction, access to open space 6
Social Security Access to financial services 6
Public safety and crime Neighbourhood safety 6
Housing Living environment housing quality 5
Transport Access to public services transport 5
Leisure, media, culture Culture education and skills leisure activities 5
Health Health and Well-being mental physical health 5
Education and vocational training Culture education and skills educational attainment 5

31

• Question Structure within Domains
• Opportunity of access to material
  resources/existence of rights (o)
• Perceived access to resources/ perceived
  entitlements (s)
• Participation /actual realisation of rights (o)
• Perceived participation/perceived realisation of
  rights (s)
• Choice/ improved or changed entitlements (s)

32

• Participation
• From the ESRC Health Variations Programme Survey
  and National Psychiatric Morbidity Survey
• 80/100 feel leisure opportunities are restricted
  (cf 64)
• 83/100 want a more active social life (cf 62)
• 47/100 want to participate more fully in family
  activities (cf 28)
• 56/100 not a member of community groups ( cf 47)
• Satisfaction with leisure activity 3.7 (cf 4.3)
  (plt0.001)

33

• From the ESRC Health Variations Programme Survey
  South Manchester
• Access and participation
• 5 employed compared to.. 61
• 24 hour working week compared to.. 38 hours
• 53 seen friend last week compared to. 80
• 57 have a close friend compared to 95
• 16 contact relatives less than monthly.3

34
Social inclusion Project

Domain Policy Theory Practice Research Evaluation Real life/ personal
Sought effects (after Hills 2002) Impact or influence Prediction Outcome Efficacy Effective-ness Impact
Prevention (stopping people becoming excluded)
Promotion (helping people to exit)
Protection (from the worst effects of being excluded)
Propulsion (ensuring that having exited you dont return)
35
Social inclusion Project

• Implications for Phase II
• Indicators and questions
• Best candidates European Social Survey ZUMA
  NPI/Rowntree
• Perceived inclusion
• Existing instruments?
• Choice goals
• Cognitive appraisal of questions
• Age specific measures
• Psychometric testing

36
Social inclusion Project

• Psychometric Testing
• Validity tests vs other measures
• (eg participation scales Anglia-Ruskin measure)
• Responsiveness over time
• (service context where inclusion change is the
  objective eg arts programmes, MIND SW or Oxleas)
• Beta-testing
• Construct experiment using standard measures on
  same subjects (Priebe et al 1999)

37
Social inclusion Project

• Potential international collaborations
• Prof Robert Bland, Tasmania
• Prof Sammy Chiu, Hong Kong
• Prof Lih-Rong Wang, Taiwan
• Prof Rick Beinecke, Boston
• Prof Bill Healy, Melbourne
• SCRENE (12 European States)

38
CSCR Centre for Social Carework
Research University of Wales Swansea Singleton
Park Swansea SA2 8PP P.J.Huxley_at_swansea.ac.uk S.E
vans_at_swansea.ac.uk C.M.Baker_at_swansea.ac.uk