Culturally Relevant Programming - Cross Sector - Coordinated Services

Views:
 
Category: Education
     
 

Presentation Description

Culturally Relevant Programming - Cross Sector - Coordinated Services Approach

Comments

Presentation Transcript

Culturally Relevant Programming The Cross-Sector/ Coordinated Services Approach to Delinquency Prevention:

Culturally Relevant Programming The Cross-Sector/ Coordinated Services Approach to Delinquency Prevention The Advocacy Foundation, Inc. 1735 Market Street, Suite 3750 100 Edgewood Avenue, Suite 1690 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Atlanta, GA 30303 (878) 222-0100 Voice | Data | SMS www.TheAdvocacyFoundation.org © The Advocacy Foundation, Inc. 2015 (All Rights Reserved)

Biblical Authority:

Biblical Authority Isaiah 56:6-8 (NIV) 6  And foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord     to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord ,     and to be his servants, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it     and who hold fast to my covenant— 7  these I will bring to my holy mountain     and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices     will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called     a house of prayer for all nations.” 8  The Sovereign Lord declares—     he who gathers the exiles of Israel: “I will gather ( I ) still others to them     besides those already gathered.” 2

Introduction:

Introduction A coordinated approach to meet the needs of youth in the juvenile justice system can reduce costs and increase service availability, access, and quality. Most juvenile justice systems acknowledge the importance of this collaboration, but they also fail to commit to its implementation. Instead, juvenile justice systems are often left to tackle challenges such as arranging for school reenrollment or connecting youth with appropriate mental health services on a case-by-case basis. 3

Introduction:

Introduction Juvenile justice stakeholders who seek to ensure that systems coordination isn’t left to chance and who want to maximize its potential benefits for lower recidivism rates and improvements in their youth outcomes can promote a number of key implementation strategies suggested by research and practice:   Establish a formal, ongoing structure for collaboration Identify shared goals and indicators of success and devise an action plan to achieve these goals Establish data-sharing and other cross-systems protocols and processes Facilitate regular cross-systems training Evaluate outcomes, and share and use data to guide improvements 4

Collaboration:

Collaboration Collaboration is working with others to do a task and to achieve shared goals. It is a recursive process where two or more people or organizations work together to realize shared goals. This is more than the intersection of common goals seen in co-operative ventures, but a deep, collective determination to reach an identical objective — for example, an endeavor that is creative in nature—by sharing knowledge, learning and building consensus. 5

Collaboration:

Collaboration Most collaboration requires leadership, although the form of leadership can be social within a decentralized and egalitarian group. In particular, teams that work collaboratively can obtain greater resources, recognition and reward when facing competition for finite resources. Collaboration is also present in opposing goals exhibiting the notion of adversarial collaboration, though this is not a common case for using the word. 6

Collaboration:

Collaboration Structured methods of collaboration encourage introspection of behavior and communication. These methods specifically aim to increase the success of teams as they engage in collaborative problem solving. Forms, rubrics, charts and graphs are useful in these situations to objectively document personal traits with the goal of improving performance in current and future projects. 7

Social Collaboration:

Social Collaboration Social Collaboration refers to processes that help multiple people interact and share information to achieve any common goal. Such processes find their 'natural' environment on the internet, where collaboration and social dissemination of information are made easier by current innovations. Sharing concepts on a digital collaboration environment often facilitates a "brainstorming" process, where new concepts may emerge due to the contributions of individuals, professional or otherwise. 8

Social Collaboration:

Social Collaboration In the book Collaboration: What Makes It Work ( Mattessich , Murray-Close & Monsey, 2001) the authors describe Success Factors that influence the success of collaborations by non-profit organizations: Environmental Factors Membership Characteristics Process & Structure Communication Purpose Resources 9

Social Collaboration:

Social Collaboration Social Collaboration vs. Social Networking Social collaboration is related to social networking, with the distinction that social collaboration is more group-centric than individual-centric. Social networking services generally focus on individuals sharing messages in a more-or-less undirected way and receiving messages from many sources into a single personalized activity feed. Social collaboration services, on the other hand, focus on the identification of groups and collaboration spaces in which messages are explicitly directed at the group and the group activity feed is seen the same way by everyone. 10

Interagency Working Groups:

Interagency Working Groups The Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs (IWGYP, or Working Group) is a group within the executive branch of the U.S. government, and is responsible for promoting healthy outcomes for all youth, including disconnected youth and youth who are at-risk. The Working Group also engages with national, state, local and tribal agencies and organizations, schools, and faith-based and community organizations that serve youth. 11

Interagency Working Groups:

Interagency Working Groups Membership of the Working Group includes staff from 18 federal departments and agencies that support programs and services that target youth. The Working Group was formally established by Executive Order 13459, Improving the Coordination and Effectiveness of Youth Programs , on February 7, 2008. The Working Group has developed a Federal Interagency Website on Youth: www.FindYouthInfo.gov 12

Interagency Working Groups:

Interagency Working Groups The IWGYP is responsible for promoting achievement of positive outcomes for youth through the following key activities: Create and Support FindYouthInfo.gov - This federal website provides interactive tools and other resources to help youth-serving organizations and community partnerships plan, implement, and participate in effective programs for youth. Create and Support YE4C.gov - This site is the home of the IWGYP’s online youth engagement efforts. YE4C helps young people between the ages of 16 and 24 engage in change on personal, community, and national levels. Identify and Disseminate Promising and Effective Strategies - The IWGYP identifies strategies, tools, and resources accessible through FindYouthInfo.gov that will help promote effective community-based efforts addressing youth risk and protective factors. The Program Directory, a searchable database on FindYouthInfo.gov, provides visitors with information about such efforts. Communities can determine whether replicating these strategies will meet their needs. Promote Enhanced Collaboration – The IWGYP identifies and engages key government, private, and nonprofit organizations that can play a role in improving the coordination and effectiveness of programs serving and appealing to youth. Entities include faith-based and other organizations, community coalitions and partnerships, businesses, volunteers, and other key constituencies. 13

Interagency Working Groups:

Interagency Working Groups Membership of the Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs includes staff from twelve Federal agencies that support programs and services that target youth: U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of Commerce; U.S. Department of Defense; U.S. Department of Education; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Chair); U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; U.S. Department of Justice (Vice-Chair); U.S. Department of Labor; U.S. Department of State; U.S. Department of the Interior; U.S. Department of Transportation; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; U.S. Social Security Administration; U.S. Small Business Administration; The Corporation for National and Community Service; and National Science Foundation; The Office of National Drug Control Policy. 14

Collective Intelligence:

Collective Intelligence Collective Intelligence is shared or group intelligence that emerges from the collaboration, collective efforts, and competition of many individuals and appears in consensus decision making. The term appears in sociobiology, political science and in context of mass peer review and crowdsourcing applications. 15

Collective Intelligence:

Collective Intelligence It can be understood as an emergent property from the synergies among: 1) Data-Information-Knowledge; 2) Software-Hardware; and 3) Experts (those with new insights as well as recognized authorities) that continually learns from feedback to produce just-in-time knowledge for better decisions than these three elements acting alone. Or more narrowly as an emergent property between people and ways of processing information. 16

Collective Intelligence:

Collective Intelligence Political parties mobilize large numbers of people to form policy, select candidates and finance and run election campaigns. Knowledge focusing through various voting methods allows perspectives to converge through the assumption that uninformed voting is to some degree random and can be filtered from the decision process leaving only a residue of informed consensus. Critics point out that often bad ideas, misunderstandings, and misconceptions are widely held, and that structuring of the decision process must favor experts who are presumably less prone to random or misinformed voting in a given context. 17

Collective Intelligence:

Collective Intelligence The UNUM “Swarm Intelligence” Social Platform The UNUM platform for "human swarming" (or "social swarming") establishes real-time closed-loop systems around groups of networked users molded after biological swarms, enabling human participants to behave as a unified collective intelligence. When connected to UNUM, groups of distributed users collectively answer questions and make predictions in real-time. Early testing shows that human swarms can out-predict individuals. www.unanimousai.com 18

Civic Intelligence:

Civic Intelligence Civic Intelligence is an "intelligence" that is devoted to addressing public or civic issues. The term has been applied to individuals and, more commonly, to collective bodies, like organizations, institutions, or societies. Civic intelligence is similar to John Dewey's "cooperative intelligence" or the "democratic faith" that asserts that "each individual has something to contribute, and the value of each contribution can be assessed only as it entered into the final pooled intelligence constituted by the contributions of all". 19

Civic Intelligence:

Civic Intelligence Civic intelligence is implicitly invoked by the subtitle of Jared Diamond's 2004 book, Collapse: Why Some Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed , and to the question posed in Thomas Homer-Dixon's 2000 book Ingenuity Gap: How Can We Solve the Problems of the Future? that suggests that civic intelligence will be needed if humankind is to stave off problems related to climate change and other potentially catastrophic occurrences. With these meanings, civic intelligence is less a phenomenon to be studied and more of a dynamic process or tool to be shaped and wielded. 20

Civic Intelligence:

Civic Intelligence Civic intelligence focuses on the role of civil society and the public for several reasons. At a minimum, the public's input is necessary to ratify important decisions made by business or government. Civic intelligence is inherently multi-disciplinary and open-ended. Cognitive scientists address some of these issues in the study of "distributed cognition." Social scientists study aspects of it with their work on group dynamics, democratic theory, on social systems generally, and in many other subfields. 21

Civic Intelligence:

Civic Intelligence No atlas of civic intelligence exists, yet the quantity and quality of examples worldwide is enormous. The rise in the number of transnational advocacy networks, the coordinated worldwide demonstrations protesting the invasion of Iraq, and the World Social Forums that provided "free space" for thousands of activists from around the world, all support the idea that civic intelligence is growing. 22

Consensus Decision-Making:

Consensus Decision-Making Consensus decision-making is thus concerned with the process of deliberating and finalizing a decision, and the social and political effects of using this process. Consensus Decision-Making is a group decision-making process in which group members develop, and agree to support, a decision in the best interest of the whole. Consensus may be defined professionally as an acceptable resolution, one that can be supported, even if not the "favorite" of each individual. Consensus is defined by Merriam-Webster as, first, general agreement, and second, group solidarity of belief or sentiment. 23

Consensus Decision-Making:

Consensus Decision-Making As a decision-making process, consensus decision-making aims to be: Agreement Seeking : A consensus decision making process attempts to generate as much agreement as possible. Collaborative : Participants contribute to a shared proposal and shape it into a decision that meets the concerns of all group members as much as possible. Cooperative : Participants in an effective consensus process should strive to reach the best possible decision for the group and all of its members, rather than competing for personal preferences. Egalitarian : All members of a consensus decision-making body should be afforded, as much as possible, equal input into the process. All members have the opportunity to present, and amend proposals. Inclusive : As many stakeholders as possible should be involved in the consensus decision-making process. Participatory : The consensus process should actively solicit the input and participation of all decision-makers. 24

Consensus Decision-Making:

Consensus Decision-Making The level of agreement necessary to finalize a decision is known as a decision rule. Possible decision rules for consensus vary within the following range: Unanimous agreement Unanimous consent (See agreement vs consent below) Unanimous agreement minus one vote or two votes Unanimous consent minus one vote or two votes Super majority thresholds (90%, 80%, 75%, two-thirds, and 60% are common). Simple majority Executive committee decides Person-in-charge decides 25

Consensus Decision-Making:

Consensus Decision-Making Healthy consensus decision-making processes usually encourage expression of dissent early, maximizing the chance of accommodating the views of all minorities. Since unanimity may be difficult to achieve, especially in large groups, or consent may be the result of coercion, fear, undue persuasive power or eloquence, inability to comprehend alternatives, or plain impatience with the process of debate, consensus decision-making bodies may use an alternative decision rule, such as Unanimity Minus One (or U−1), or Unanimity Minus Two (or U−2). 26

Social Enterprise:

Social Enterprise A Social Enterprise is an organization that applies commercial strategies to maximize improvements in human and environmental well-being - this may include maximizing social impact rather than profits for external shareholders . Social enterprises can be structured as a for-profit or non-profit, and may take the form (depending in which country the entity exists and the legal forms available) of a co-operative, mutual organization, a disregarded entity, a social business, a benefit corporation, a community interest company or a charity organization. 27

Social Enterprise:

Social Enterprise Many commercial enterprises would consider themselves to have social objectives, but commitment to these objectives is motivated by the perception that such commitment will ultimately make the enterprise more financially valuable. These are organizations that might be more properly said to be operating corporate responsibility programs. Social enterprises differ in that their commitment to impact is central to the mission of the business. 28

Social Enterprise:

Social Enterprise Some may not aim to offer any benefit to their investors, except where they believe that doing so will ultimately further their capacity to realize their social and environmental goals. The term has a mixed and contested heritage due to its philanthropic roots in the United States, and cooperative roots in the United Kingdom, European Union and Asia. In the US, the term is associated with 'doing charity by doing trade', rather than 'doing charity while doing trade'. 29

Social Enterprise:

Social Enterprise Social enterprises are organizations that: Are led by an economic, social, cultural, or environmental mission consistent with a public or community benefit; Trade to fulfill their mission; Derive a substantial portion of their income from trade; and Reinvest the majority of their profit/surplus in the fulfillment of their mission. 30

Social Enterprise:

Social Enterprise Community Interest Companies The UK has also developed a new legal form called the community interest company (CIC). CICs are a new type of limited company designed specifically for those wishing to operate for the benefit of the community rather than for the benefit of the owners of the company. This means that a CIC cannot be formed or used solely for the personal gain of a particular person, or group of people. Legislation caps the level of dividends payable at 35% of profits and returns to individuals are capped at 4% above the bank base rate. 31

Public/ Private Partnerships:

Public/ Private Partnerships Public/social/private partnerships are methods of co-operation between private and government bodies. PPP is one expression of a strong trend towards (re) privatisation , which in some European countries has arisen as a result of more difficult economic conditions in recent years and the associated structural crisis in the public sector 32

Public/ Private Partnerships:

Public/ Private Partnerships In political discussions, lack of public funds is often put forward as a limit on state activities. Instead of financing infrastructure projects alone, the government increasingly looks to cooperations with private investors. Also, the EU policy on competitive tendering of public works and services has forced changes towards a more market-oriented approach to delivering tasks for which the state is responsible. 33

Public/ Private Partnerships:

Public/ Private Partnerships Public Private Partnership contrasted with conventional provision of public services PPPs can be said to differ from other forms of provision of public services in the following 3 points: In PPPs, the ownership of the project is shared. The heart of a PPP is thus the sharing of risks and profits. Compared to providing the service directly, in a PPP the state can concentrate on its core competences. The state does not need to allocate experts of its own for the implementation of the project and is thus less intimately involved. Additionally, PPPs exhibit a trend away from conventional, tax-based financing approaches towards financing through contributions of individual users (e.g. tolls for motorways). 34

Public/ Private Partnerships:

Public/ Private Partnerships In other words, public social private partnership (PSPP) is not merely an extension of the PPP idea, but a precondition for ensuring that a PPP with a social goal: Assures and implements the public aims, agendas and tasks in the sense of community benefit, welfare, etc.; Adheres to and sustains the agendas and aims of cooperations in the mid- and long-term; and Plans and suitably applies the necessary conditions and resources (e.g. financing) for sustainable results. 35

Questions & Answers:

Questions & Answers 36

Thank You!:

Thank You! 37 The Advocacy Foundation, Inc. 1735 Market Street, Suite 3750 100 Edgewood Avenue, Suite 1690 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Atlanta, GA 30303 (878) 222-0100 Voice | Data | SMS www.TheAdvocacyFoundation.org © The Advocacy Foundation, Inc. 2015 (All Rights Reserved)

authorStream Live Help