Search results

This article describes the National Social Inclusion Programme's Communities of Influence workstream, the premises on which it was founded, the innovative social inclusion practice it proposed, what was learned and how the work will be taken forwards in the future.

This paper gives an overview of the development and pilot implementation of a tool to evaluate socially inclusive practice. There are strong links between social inclusion and better mental health outcomes for people who access services, yet a very limited amount of research exists concerning ways to evaluate socially inclusive practice within mental health services. The paper describes the creation of a tripartite tool to access the views of mental health teams who work with service users, and the service users themselves. As part of the movement towards recovery and social inclusion, the Department of Health requires that social and occupational needs become embedded in care plans alongside health needs (DoH, 1999), and so an analysis of care plan documentation completed the evaluation tool. A pilot evaluation was conducted with three mental health teams in Sussex and found issues with engagement and response rate. Lessons learned and future implications are discussed.

A tool was created to evaluate the socially inclusive practice of mental health teams. The tool was based on the 2007 Department of Health best practice guide for the workforce, Capabilities for Inclusive Practice (CfIP), itself based on The 10 Essential Shared Capabilities (Hope, 2004). The tool comprised three parts, a team questionnaire, a service user questionnaire, and a Care Programme Approach (CPA) care plan documentation analysis (see previous paper on pp31‐41). This paper focuses on piloting the tool with mental health teams within Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust as a means of showcasing the evaluation tool. Detailed findings are reported from one assertive outreach team (AOT). The findings suggest that although the team professed limited knowledge of CfIP, they endorsed all capabilities in their practice, although a low response rate limits the extent to which the current findings are generalisable. The triangulation of data provided by the tool facilitates an exploration of the variance of capabilities across team, service user, and care planning perspectives, meaning that specific areas for the improvement of the delivery of inclusive practice can be easily identified.

This paper aims to consider the role of demarketing in the specific context of the marketing of places, and to introduce a typology of place demarketing and related place marketing activity.

Following a review of the extant literature on place marketing and branding, place image and demarketing, the paper outlines a number of different types of place demarketing and more unusual place marketing strategies, with examples of each.

The marketing of places has grown in scale and importance, both as a practice and as an area of academic research, as places have had to become more entrepreneurial in an ever‐increasing competitive environment. Places are increasingly conceptualised as brands to be marketed, and a key emphasis of such activity is the creation of an attractive place image and/or the dilution of negative place images. This is reinforced in the academic literature. Counter to this “conventional wisdom”, this article conceptualises various types of place demarketing activity and related place marketing activities; namely “passive place demarketing”, “informational place demarketing”, “crisis place demarketing”, and also “perverse place marketing” and “dark place marketing”.

This paper provides a unique counter to the “conventional wisdom” of place marketing by introducing the concept of place demarketing and perverse and dark place marketing which more explicitly accentuate the negative, rather than accentuating the positive which is the norm in this marketing context. A typology of such activities is introduced and the implications for place brands are considered.

ALL the auguries for the Bournemouth Conference appear to be good. Our local secretary, Mr. Charles Riddle, seems to have spared neither energy nor ability to render our second visit to the town, whose libraries he initiated and has controlled for thirty‐seven years, useful and enjoyable. There will not be quite so many social events as usual, but that is appropriate in the national circumstances. There will be enough of all sorts of meetings to supply what the President of the A.L.A. describes as “the calling which collects and organizes books and other printed matter for the use and benefit of mankind and which brings together the reader and the printed word in a vital relationship.” We hope the discussions will be thorough, but without those long auto‐biographical speeches which are meant for home newspapers, that readers will make time for seeing the exhibitions, and that Bournemouth will be a source of health and pleasure to all our readers who can be there.