Why Social Enterprises Are Asking to Be Multi-stakeholder and Deliberative: An Explanation around the Costs of Exclusion.

The study of multi-stakeholdership (and multi-stakeholder social enterprises in particular) is only at the start. Entrepreneurial choices which have emerged spontaneously, as well as the first legal frameworks approved in this direction, lack an adequate theoretical support. The debate itself is underdeveloped, as the existing understanding of organisations and their aims resist an inclusive, public interest view of enterprise. Our contribution aims at enriching the thin theoretical reflections on multi-stakeholdership, in a context where they are already established, i.e. that of social and personal services. The aim is to provide an economic justification on why the governance structure and decision-making praxis of the firm needs to account for multiple stakeholders. In particular with our analysis we want: a) to consider production and the role of firms in the context of the “public interest” which may or may not coincide with the non-profit objective; b) to ground the explanation of firm governance and processes upon the nature of production and the interconnections between demand and supply side; c) to explain that the costs associated with multi-stakeholder governance and deliberation in decision-making can increase internal efficiency and be “productive” since they lower internal costs and utilise resources that otherwise would go astray. The key insight of this work is that, differently from major interpretations, property costs should be compared with a more comprehensive range of costs, such as the social costs that emerge when the supply of social and personal services is insufficient or when the identification of aims and means is not shared amongst stakeholders. Our model highlights that when social costs derived from exclusion are high, even an enterprise with costly decisional processes, such as the multistakeholder, can be the most efficient solution amongst other possible alternatives

Include 2011 : The role of inclusive design in making social innovation happen.

Include is the biennial conference held at the RCA and hosted by the Helen Hamlyn Centre for Design. The event is directed by Jo-Anne Bichard and attracts an international delegation

Interventions by healthcare professionals to improve management of physical long-term conditions in adults who are homeless: a systematic review protocol

Introduction People experiencing homelessness are at increased risk of, and have poorer outcomes from, a range of physical long-term conditions (LTCs). It is increasingly recognised that interventions targeting people who are homeless should be tailored to the specific needs of this population. This systematic review aims to identify, describe and appraise trials of interventions that aim to manage physical LTCs in homeless adults and are delivered by healthcare professionals. Methods and analysis Seven electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Assia, Scopus, PsycINFO and CINAHL) will be searched from 1960 (or inception) to October 2016 and supplemented by forward citation searching, handsearching of reference lists and searching grey literature. Two reviewers will independently review titles, abstract and full-texts using DistillerSR software. Inclusion criteria include (1) homeless adults with any physical LTC, (2) interventions delivered by a healthcare professional (any professional trained to provide any form of healthcare, but excluding social workers and professionals without health-related training), (3) comparison with usual care or an alternative intervention, (4) report outcomes such as healthcare usage, physical and psychological health or well-being or cost-effectiveness, (5) randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before-after studies. Quality will be assessed using the Cochrane EPOC Risk of Bias Tool. A meta-analysis will be performed if sufficient data are identified; however, we anticipate a narrative synthesis will be performed. Ethics and dissemination This review will synthesise existing evidence for interventions delivered by healthcare professionals to manage physical LTCs in adults who are homeless. The findings will inform the development of future interventions and research aiming to improve the management of LTCs for people experiencing homelessness. Ethical approval will not be required for this systematic review as it does not contain individual patient data. We will disseminate the results of this systematic review via conference presentations, healthcare professional networks, social media and peer-reviewed publication

The Impact of the Patient-Centered Medical Home on Health Disparities in Adults: A Systematic Review of the Evidence

Introduction: The objective of this study was to review the empirical evidence on Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) impact on health disparities in adults. Methods: We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar to identify studies on PCMH/health homes and health disparities published in English between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2014. Articles met inclusion criteria if they investigated at least one component of PCMH or health homes in vulnerable populations, defined by PROGRESS-PLUS criteria, and reported differences in one of five clinical quality measures. Results: 964 articles were identified through database searching and subsequent snowballing. 60 articles underwent full text screening. Further review eliminated 56 studies. In the final 4 studies, PCMH interventions showed small improvements in health disparities. Discussion: The PCMH has been suggested as a model for improving health disparities. Given rapid implementation in underserved settings, stakeholders should better understand the impact of the PCMH on health disparities

Health of offenders in the community: the forgotten Inequality

Health of offenders in the community: The forgotten Inequality. A report on Lincolnshire Probation’s Healthy Living Centre and the health needs of offenders in the communit

European Union Social Policy as an Instrument for Sustainable Development

This paper undertakes an analysis and assessment of European Union (EU) social policy in the context of the sustainability of the group's social and economic development. The process of Europeanizing EU social policy is not advanced. Thus, the weight of solving social problems primarily rests with member countries. EU social policy is "looser" in character than other EU policies and its scope is limited to those areas where member states were willing to transfer certain prerogatives to European Union level. The EU only supports social policy in the context of the sustainability of the group's social and economic development. The process of Europeanizing EU social policy is not and supplements the actions of member states in the social sphere. At the same time, the EU supports the concept of corporate social responsibility. Corporate social responsibility is defined as the voluntary taking into account by companies of social and environmental matters in their operations and in relations with interested parties.W artykule została przeprowadzona analiza i ocena polityki społecznej Unii Europejskiej (UE), w kontekście równoważenia rozwoju społeczno-gospodarczego ugrupowania. Proces europeizacji polityki społecznej UE nie jest zaawansowany. W związku z tym, ciężar rozwiązywania problemów społecznych spoczywa głównie na krajach członkowskich. Polityka społeczna UE ma bardziej "luźny" charakter niż inne polityki UE i jej zakres jest ograniczony do tych dziedzin, w zakresie których kraje członkowskie były skłonne do przekazania pewnych uprawnień na szczebel unijny. UE jedynie wspiera i uzupełnia działania państw członkowskich w sferze społecznej. Jednocześnie UE wspiera ideę społecznej odpowiedzialności przedsiębiorstw. Społeczną odpowiedzialność przedsiębiorstw definiuje się jako dobrowolne uwzględnienie przez przedsiębiorstwa problematyki społecznej i ekologicznej w swojej działalności i stosunkach z zainteresowanymi stronami

Evaluating empowerment and control of HE e-learning in a secure environment

With the increased spread of HE distance learning into a wide variety of contexts it is important for us to understand the factors involved in its successful deployment for students. E-learning has a great potential to support effective and empowering HE distance learning (Wilson, 2007; Adams, 2005; Hughes, 2005). However, within two secure environments, prisons and health service, the factors involved are complex. This paper reviews HE e-learning technology perceptions within these two contrasting contexts from 225 students' and stakeholders' perspectives. Previous research has detailed literature limitations on obtaining students' perspectives of e-learning (Conole et al, 2006). These limitations are compounded when other stakeholder perceptions are not integrated (Sun et al, 2007; Adams et al, 2005; Millen at al, 2002). This paper developed and applied an e-learning framework for student and stakeholder perceptions. This social psychological framework, is based on previous practice based e-learning studies and is used here to synthesise two large-scale case studies. The framework focuses on three concepts learner Access (e.g. learning design, technology design, physical access), Awareness (e.g. of resources, their usage and support for e-learning tasks) and Acceptability (e.g. trust, privacy, aesthetics, engagement). Students' and stakeholders' perceptions identified high levels of students' empowerment through e-learning whilst still requiring a further pedagogical tailoring and an awareness of support. However, serious problems within these contexts have identified blocks to e-learning through stakeholders perceptions and fears of acceptability (i.e. issues of risk and trust). Ultimately, through understanding competing perceptions and needs within these complex environments we can support the effective technological development, pedagogical design and deployment of e-learning systems