Will the lessons be learned? Reflections on local authority evaluations and the use of research evidence

Sure Start programmes are complex, community-based initiatives - forerunners of the Children's Centres Initiative - that have been evaluated nationally and locally. Using an in-depth, retrospective case study of an evaluation of one local programme, the authors raise key issues pertinent to both practice and evaluation in the field, highlighting conflicts and dilemmas both within evaluation generally and, specifically, relating to the evaluation of this programme.We illustrate the difficulties placed on local evaluators by the lack of clear structures within which to work, and provide useful lessons as we move forward into the development and evaluations of new services for children and families

Wall Street vs. Main Street: What are the Benefits and Costs of Wal-Mart to Local Communities?

Community/Rural/Urban Development, L81, R52, R58,

Ohio Local Food Policy Council Network

IMPACT. 1: Professor Clark has been a leader in fostering the grass-roots food policy movement in Ohio. In 2007, only one local food policy council was in operation in Ohio. There are now 19 established or emerging councils. In 2012, Jill established the Ohio Local Food Policy Council Network, enabling the food policy community to pool their experiences and information and to speak with one voice on Ohio food policy issues. It is also acting as a hub and a conduit for peer learning and exchange, capacity building and technical assistance.OSU PARTNERS: John Glenn School of Public Affairs; College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences; OSU ExtensionCOMMUNITY PARTNERS: Allen County Food Policy Council; Athens Food Policy Council; Central Ohio Local Food Working Group; Cleveland/Cuyahoga County Food Policy Council; Columbiana/Mahoning/Trumbull Counties; Delaware Local Food Council; Fairfield County Local Food Council; Franklin County Local Food Council; Greater Cincinnati Regional Food Policy Council; Knox County Local Food Council; Lake Local Food Initiative; Licking County Local Food Council; Lorain County; Montgomery County Food Policy Coalition (Dayton); Food Council of Northwest Ohio; Summit County Food Policy Coalition (Akron); Tuscarawas County; Union County; Yellow SpringsPRIMARY CONTACT: Jill Clark ([email protected])Starting in 2007, Jill Clark served as a researcher for the Ohio Food Policy Advisory Council. She raised the funds to conduct basic research for the Council, established a baseline of rural food access, established experiments to address urban food access, and established measures of demand and capacity of the Ohio food system and produced a baseline survey of Ohio distributors to explore connecting Ohio retailers to Ohio consumers. The Ohio Local Food Policy Council Network is enabling the food policy community to pool their experiences and information and to speak with one voice on Ohio food policy issues. It is also acting as a hub and a conduit for peer learning and exchange, capacity building and technical assistance

Mary Seacole Awards: an evaluation of the impact of the Awards 2012

Executive summary: The prestigious Mary Seacole Awards aim to develop senior nurses, midwives and health visitors as future leaders with the enhanced leadership skills necessary to tackle health inequalities in black and minority ethnic (BME) communities. The primary purpose of the current evaluation, which was completed between May and August 2012, was to examine the impact that Mary Seacole Award holders’ projects have had on their personal and professional development, service design and delivery, and on patient/service user care. Building on the two previous evaluations in 2000 and 2010, it explored the ‘added value’ and impact that the Awards have had in order to gather evidence to support the continued funding of the Awards. The evaluation was undertaken in four stages and included both quantitative and qualitative elements. Stage 1: an online questionnaire was used to gather core data from as many of Mary Seacole Award holders as possible. Information was gathered on what each individual’s project has achieved, where they are now professionally and the support they received. Stage 2: The data from the online questionnaire were used to select and invite Award holders to take part in an in-depth interview. This explored in more detail impact on policy and on service design and delivery, influence on others, benefits for the BME community and suggestions for ways to support future Award winners to maximise the benefits of the experience. Stage 3: Managers of the 2010 cohort of Award holders were invited for interview which focused on the Award holder manager’s perceptions of the key benefits of the Award, the impact of the Award holder’s work on practice, policy and personal/professional development, and any plans to develop the work further. Stage 4: Members of the Mary Seacole Award Steering Group were invited to complete an online questionnaire to obtain their views of Award holder’s achievements and the future of the Awards. Summary of the main findings In this evaluation we obtained rich data from 22 Award holders (59% of the total population who completed their Awards during the past 18 years) and found a high level of consensus between the views of Award holders and Mary Seacole Award Steering Group members in relation to the key achievements of the Awards. The evaluation also demonstrates robust consistency with the findings of the two previous reviews of the Awards, thereby presenting a view over nearly two decades of their success in developing effective and courageous leaders who have had a positive impact on reducing health inequalities. Improving health outcomes for people from BME communities This evaluation demonstrates that Award holders have made a difference in many practical and tangible ways and that the impact of Award holders’ work has been felt beyond healthcare for minority communities, as many of the issues addressed are relevant for the wider communities served by today’s NHS. Reducing health inequalities The evidence from this evaluation demonstrates that the accumulated work of the Award holders has had a direct impact on people’s health, thereby contributing to the reduction of health inequalities among hard-to-reach groups who are often marginalised and neglected. The body of work resulting from the Awards has significantly raised the profile of health inequalities and of the healthcare needs of BME communities. Leadership skills The Awards have enabled individuals to develop core skills of leadership: networking, influencing and communication. There has been transformational change on a personal scale as individuals have had access to role models for the first time and have then been able to achieve and sustain their own potential as leaders. Many have been appointed to senior posts and have become significant leaders in healthcare practice and education. Sustainability of positive changes The Mary Seacole Awards have been notable in that many improvements have become integrated into service redesign and thereby sustained beyond the time of the Award holder’s project. This has been achieved by disseminating the findings, training staff in new ways of working, mentoring staff, ensuring that other staff learn from the findings of the Award holders’ work and that different ways of working are integrated into practice. Impact on policy Many instances were reported where Award holders’ work has resulted in changes to local, national and international policy. Issues highlighted by Award holders are often those that are not recognised and addressed in other arenas and are therefore unlikely to have been the subject of policy changes through any other route: their work is therefore of vital importance to our modern NHS. User involvement in policy and services There are numerous examples from the evaluation of instances where service users and carers from hard-to-reach BME groups, whose needs were marginalised and unrecognised, have developed confidence and awareness through their involvement in Award holders’ projects. Developing the evidence base It is vital to develop a robust evidence base from which to further advance practice and the evidence base relating to issues affecting BME communities must be strengthened so that effective ways of working can be embedded in wider policy and practice. Award holders have disseminated their findings and the impact of their work in their final reports, published articles in peer-reviewed journals and through presenting at conferences. Personal and professional development The structure of the Mary Seacole Awards supports Award holders in numerous practical ways and many individuals reported that they had been enabled to develop a range of key skills such as project management and presentation skills. Individuals have also developed greater self-confidence, strategic thinking skills, networking skills and, most importantly, a belief in their own ability that continues to sustain them in their careers. Recommendations The nine recommendations below are made in the belief that the firm foundations and achievements of the past 18 years can be built on to develop even more effective leaders for the NHS and to meet the needs of, and improve health outcomes for, the diverse communities in Britain today. 1. Based on the unequivocal evidence that the Mary Seacole Awards enhance career opportunities for professionals from BME communities at a time when they are underrepresented in leadership and management positions, the Awards should continue in their present form and with the present funding levels maintained or even enhanced, given the strategic importance of the awards. 2. The current system of support for Award holders, namely mentors and academic supervisors, should be strengthened and co-ordinated to provide individuals with personal and professional advice during this life-changing year. 3. The vital, supportive role played by Award holders’ colleagues and managers should be reinforced and acknowledged by involving these individuals more actively in the process. Award holders’ managers could, for example, be invited to events organised by the Steering Group to recognise their commitment. 4. Award holders are powerful and influential individuals and their impact should be enhanced further by bringing them together regularly after the completion of their projects. A Mary Seacole alumni group would have even greater influence than individuals alone and would create a critical mass of healthcare professionals to further the goals of the Mary Seacole Awards. 5. The findings of the Award holders’ work should be more widely disseminated so that they can have even greater impact on policy and practice than at present. Consideration should be given to a series of ‘Highlights’ focusing on policy changes achieved and practical implications from Award holders’ work to be published regularly by the Mary Seacole Award Steering Group and disseminated widely throughout the NHS and wider health and social care sectors. 6. The outcomes and practical implications for service development and improvements in patient experience demonstrated by the impact of the Award holders’ work is often evident beyond BME communities. The implications of the work for the wider communities served by the NHS should be highlighted and publicised more extensively. 7. There is great strength in the fact that the Awards are supported by the key organisations in nursing, midwifery and health visiting: Department of Health, NHS Employers, Royal College of Nursing, Royal College of Midwives, UNISON and Unite CPHVA. This support should continue. 8. Consideration should be given to the suggestion that each year, applications be invited to address aspects of a theme of key strategic importance to the NHS and to the important agenda of ensuring equity of healthcare for all communities. 9. The Awards should be widely advertised and promoted by the Steering Group and through previous Award holders to ensure that individuals with the potential to be effective leaders have the opportunity to apply and become part of the growing body of influencers to improve health outcomes and challenge health inequalities in modern Britain. In summary, the Mary Seacole Awards are a fitting, dynamic and contemporary legacy for a remarkable pioneer and leader. Through the Awards, the impact of Mary Seacole’s vision and courage continue to be experienced by some of the most marginalised groups and communities in modern Britain today. Without these Awards, many of the unmet health needs would continue to go unrecognised. Their important contribution should be sustained and strengthened so that health inequalities continue to be addressed within the NHS

The journey of researching on to researching with : theoretical and methodological challenges within educational research

PhD Thesis (Published Articles have been removed due to copyright issues. The thesis can be viewed in full, on request via the print copy at the University Library)This thesis focuses on the relationship between participatory research and visual methods. Firstly, I explore how methodology can be participative, investigating the conceptual base, the possibilities, significance and usefulness. Secondly, I explore whether using visual research methods can contribute to participatory research and how we can do this better as researchers. As I gained more confidence as a researcher, I started to carve out such space within projects to design and use more creative, innovative and visual research tools as a way of engaging with the participants in my research. The thesis elaborates on three main themes: 1. Ideals vs Practice of participatory research: How I have come to understand the difference between the theoretical and conceptual underpinnings of participatory research within the everyday reality (and the affordances and constraints) of educational research when trying to do it well. My early discussion relates to the methodological, practical and ethical challenges faced when, as a researcher, I was keen to be evaluatively formative, inclusive and collaborative (Publications 1, 2, 3). I also relate this to the range of knowledge this can produce. In this theme I explore the underlying principles of participatory research – and how these fit well with my own values as a researcher - and the notion of participation, consider linear modelling and question the concept of voice. I explore the mismatch between what I intended (the ideal) and what happened in reality (practice). I consider whether and how participation can be conceptualised in the less-than-ideal situations of real world research. 2. Quality in practice using visual methods: How visual methods can help individuals think differently. With reference to the development of particular visual research tools, I explore what visual methods can add to the quality of participatory research particularly in terms of ethics, inclusivity and appropriateness (Publications 4 and 5). I argue that visual methods enable me to reject a deterministic framework for exploring human behaviour and experiences, but instead position visual methods as facilitative with the aim of creating ‘space’ – ‘visually-mediated encounters’ - for meaningful dialogue between the researcher and participant. I critically explore the affordances of using visual methods and the different pieces of knowledge that visual methods can facilitate. I argue that the use of visual methods in a participatory setting can evoke a variety of viewpoints, from a range of participants, leading to a more complete and better research process. 3. Making connections: Implications for policy and practice: Revisiting the early concepts in my work, Publication 6 develops my earlier ideas further and proposes a model for effective participatory research. Publication 6 is a result of this journey to date, - as I reflect, refine and further develop tools to improve the research process and the experiences of people within it. During this journey so far I have moved from the structural issues of conducting participatory research (section 3), through to 7 managing the research encounter (section 4) and bringing all that I have learnt through to a policy and practice context (section 5). This thesis draws upon twenty three years as a researcher at Newcastle University, and my experiences of conducting over 60 research projects in many diverse educational settings. These different environments include community-based settings, prisons, and primary and secondary schools. However, it is not the particular settings in which this research takes place that is important in this thesis. It is to some extent about the participants within the thesis, and these include young offenders in the community, prisoners and children and young people. These participants could be described as unheard, or the have nots in the research process (e.g. Munro et al., 2005; Liamputtong, 2007; Arnstein, 1969) and so this thesis will discuss the particular considerations and sensitivities of being a researcher faced with subject groups who are sometimes placed at the margins of society. It explores the ethical, practical and methodological implications of researching with such groups (or for) rather than as objects of research (see Griffiths, 1998). My research experiences and reflections are placed in the wider context of other researchers in the area who advocate an inclusive, and collaborative methodology alongside ‘user involvement’ and ‘participation’ (e.g. Cook, 2003; Crozier and Reay, 2004; Nind, 2014). However, such concepts are contested, often overlapping, used interchangeably and are therefore not unproblematic, as will become evident. Rather than have a single study focus, the thesis charts my journey as an academic across both a series of projects and a timeframe and focuses on the reflection, learning and the thinking which took place within this work over time. This thesis is based on 6 pieces of work published between 2006 and 2012 – five are published in independent, peer-reviewed journals - and the majority of these publications are joint-authored. This reflects the collaborative nature of my work – I have never worked as a lone researcher (nor have I had the desire to) and I have always enjoyed being part of larger research and writing teams. This thesis reflects my own perspectives and therefore my own contribution to this work. Moreover, the publications are not all academic journal articles, one is a report (Publication 6), which is soundly based on academic evidence and robust research (funded through the joint Research Councils UK Connected Communities programme), and has been written specifically for a wider audience. This report is primarily aimed at practitioners and policy-makers and reflects my gradual realisation that by broadening the dissemination from academic journals, such publications can be accessed and utilised by different audiences, academics and non-academics, and perhaps have different kinds of impact. For a full list of the submitted publications for this thesis, please see Table 1. Contextual publications (related to my thesis, but not submitted as part of my thesis) which help to provide the context for my work are referred to in the thesis as [a], [b] etc., and a full reference list is included in Appendix 1

How Time and Social Awareness affect Good Policy Councils and Food Democracy in Communities

The data was collected via a Survey Monkey survey with a series of questions that ranged from how FPC\u27s categorized themselves to their connection to the government to their top policy priorities. The survey also asked about what the FPC\u27s needed assistance in in terms of funding to community engagement to being able to get from just fundraising to actual policy work. The participants were chosen for the survey using a database from the government. After the survey was closed, the data was collected into an Excel spreadsheet, The data was then collated into graphs and put in a side-by-side comparison with existing data from 2010. The data from 2010, was collected in much the same way, using Survey Monkey and Excel.https://fuse.franklin.edu/ss2016/1013/thumbnail.jp

Pictures are necessary but not sufficient: Using a range of visual methods to engage users about school design

It has been argued by both educationalists and social researchers that visual methods are particularly appropriate for the investigation of people's experiences of the school environment. The current and expected building work taking place in British schools provides an opportunity for exploration of methods, as well as a need to establish ways to achieve this involvement of a range of school users, including students. This article describes a consultation that was undertaken in a UK secondary school as part of a participatory design process centred on the rebuilding of the school. A range of visual methods, based on photographs and maps, was used to investigate the views of a diverse sample of school users, including students, teachers, technical and support staff and the wider community. Reported here is the experience of using these tools, considering the success of different visually-based methods in engaging a broad cross section of the school community and revealing useful information. Using a range of visual methods allows a complex, but coherent, understanding of the particular school environment to be constructed and developed. It is further argued that such a range of visual and spatial methods is needed to develop appropriate understanding. The study, therefore, contributes to knowledge about specific visual research methods, appreciation of the relationship between tools, and a general methodological understanding of visual methods' utility for developing understanding of the learning environment