L4D Learning for Democracy

"
Table of Contents
0. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................4
1. Introduction...................................................................................................................................................6
1.1 IPTS research on ICT for Inclusion and the MIREIA Project ...............................................................6
1.2 Objectives of the Study........................................................................................................................................6
1.3 Structure of the Report .......................................................................................................................................7
1.4 Methodological approach...................................................................................................................................7
1.5 Methodological challenges ................................................................................................................................9
2. Context of the Locality............................................................................................................................ 12
2.1 Socio-Economic Landscape ............................................................................................................................12
2.2 Digital Inclusion Policy, Strategy and Projects.......................................................................................14
2.3 Implications of the context in the composition of the typology e-Inclusion Intermediaries
...........................................................................................................................................................................................17
3. Mapping of eInclusion intermediaries................................................................................................ 19
3.1 The landscape of eInclusion intermediaries in Sunderland .............................................................19
3.2 Target groups of eInclusion intermediaries............................................................................................23
3.3 Organizational Structure.................................................................................................................................32
3.4 Main activities and outcomes........................................................................................................................36
3.5 Complementary/Alternative classification of eInclusion intermediaries ..................................42
3.6 Impact Assessment Methods .........................................................................................................................44
4. Policy Implications and Recommendations for MIREIA............................................................ 45
References..................................................................................................................................... 47

Table of Figures
Figure 1: Map of the City of Sunderland, UK.......................................................................... 12
Figure 2: Organisational types from extended database .......................................................... 19
Figure 3: Organisational types from survey responses ............................................................ 20
Figure 4: Breakdown of target groups named by intermediaires from survey......................... 23
Figure 5: Category of Intermediary and Target Groups from survey ...................................... 25
Figure 6: Distribution of target groups across categories of intermediaries ............................ 31
Figure 7: Organisational structures of intermediaries .............................................................. 33
Figure 8: ICT services/activities offered by intermediaries ..................................................... 36
Figure 9: Main outcomes and activities of ICT intermediaries................................................ 38

Executive Summary
Methodology
A database was constructed to account for all organisations working within the city
boundaries currently providing some form of ICT access and/or support to residents. This
information was based on publically available information as well as through key gatekeepers
and local experts from City Council, the University and Local Strategic Partnership.
Information was also gathered through internet searches, previous research conducted in this
area and via local directories. 248 intermediaries operating in the city were identified. This
provided the population for the second stage of the research, an online survey, which aimed to
get a representative sample of this population and explore in more detail the character of the
organisations and their provision. More detailed information about (a) the character and
structure of organisations (b) ICT provision and support offered and (c) recorded and
perceived benefits, was collected through the use of a quantitative/qualitative questionnaire
distributed via email to all organisations on the database. 39 intermediaries (including
intermediaries with multiple venues) responded. This represents a response rate of 16%.
Survey results were electronically captured and coded according to the responses provided
where necessary.
Findings
Residents within the city of Sunderland face a number of socio-economic challenges
including below national average measurements for employment, income, education, health
and multiple deprivation.
A great deal of attention has been paid to the digital inclusion agenda in Sunderland over the
last two decades to deal with these challenges, including a strong strategic commitment and a
number of practical programmes supporting access to ICT for residents.
The City Council and its partners in the voluntary and community sector have played an
important role in the provision of ICT facilities in the city. However, there are signs that this
is beginning to be undermined due to threats to funding and reduced local government
spending.
Much of the ICT provision is based in the public and third sectors. Private provision is mostly
found in education and training industries and there is very limited privately owned public
access to ICT facilities.
In terms of ICT support and the hosting of ICT activities for other organisations, the
interdependency of intermediaries is clear. This is a strength in terms of partnership working,
but there may be knock on effects from the closure of intermediaries in the future.
Formal educational institutions make up the largest proportion of ICT intermediaries in the
city, although there is emerging evidence that procurement processes for managed services in
schools mean that there are restrictions in extending provision to the wider local community.
Community and youth centres are a key form of ICT provision and support in the city, many
of which have been or are supported by the Council’s Community ICT team. This is a crucial
group of intermediaries because access is inclusive – offering a range of open access as well
as formal basic ICT training courses.

Smaller organisation in the third sector, for example those supporting the needs of refugees
and black and minority ethnic communities in the city are under resourced and face
challenges around the ability to offer technical support in the use of such technology.
Many of those surveyed see the use of ICT as important to the work they do. However, there
are very few intermediaries solely concerned with technological needs and requirements.
Most commonly cited activities in the survey included general access to computers and the
internet as well as a range of educational courses. The target groups most commonly targeted
by these activities include ‘General’ local populations and ‘Young People’.
The key benefits of ICT access identified in the survey included those related to employment
and education related outcomes, as well as an equality of access which would not otherwise
exist. However, there are other benefits which may not be adequately captured by focussing
solely on employment based typologies.
Very few intermediaries collect reliable and rigorous data sets in relation to the number of
users accessing ICT services and the benefits this has for their quality of life. Even for those
intermediaries indicating that such data was collected, this wasn’t done in any systematic
form.
Policy Recommendations
There is a requirement to establish which initiatives provide the most effective and valuable
interventions and, in the current economic context, to be smarter about which forms of ‘digital
inclusion’ to support. At the same time it should be recognised that many intermediaries do
not just offer ICT access/support and that the variety of services offered to disadvantaged
communities by intermediaries should be valued.
There is a need to support the work of those intermediaries who provide services to the local
community, which include, but are not limited to ICT activities. It is suggested that this broad
approach to community development and social inclusion is supported.
The community and voluntary sector is the main intermediary in the city outside of
mainstream education. If this work is considered of value – the future of organisations
(particularly smaller organisations) facing threats of closure needs to be urgently addressed.
The development of a useable measurement framework which accounts for the work of
diverse intermediaries has potential to demonstrate some of the successes as well as limits of
technology in addressing areas of social exclusion.
There is a danger that the typology employed in these case studies is too general and not
responsive enough to local contexts. There needs to be a better awareness of the diversity of
terminologies used across Europe and awareness of the range of non-employment based
benefits which might be accrued from ICT access.
It is suggested that intermediaries need data which focuses on the impact in terms of
employment and education, but also ‘softer’ and less prescribed measurements of success.
There is also a temptation to separate out technological and non-technological benefits – but it
is suggested that these are both integrated into any future measurement framework.
From the findings of this study it is suggested that the following should be included in any
future organisational typology work: (a) Health and Social Care (b) Third sector support (c)
Business support (d) Social Housing providers.

Because some organizations and venues within the city offer a range of services and a range
of access to ICT it raises questions about what is counted as the intermediary. This needs to
be clarified in future work. There needs to be greater recognition of the fact that
intermediaries can be both hosts of ICT access/supporters as well as providers/funders of
those services."