Law in the community: the University of Greenwich/Greenwich Association of Disabled People Centre for Independent Living (GAD) research project

The GAD Advocacy Service is funded by the London Borough of Greenwich Directorate of Neighbourhood Services; its remit to support disabled people experiencing Hate Crime, Domestic Violence and Harassment. Run by disabled personnel and giving advice to all disabled people it is unique in London. Since its inception in 2004, the Advocacy Service has been stretched to its limit - there is a need to extend the remit of the Advocacy Service to give specialist legal advice on other issues. In 2003, the CEDRM-UK project was set up in the University of Greenwich Law Department as part of the Disability Rights Promotion International Legal Education and Research Project; its objectives were firstly, to facilitate the collection of data on the effectiveness of legislation in promoting the rights of disabled persons; and secondly, to pilot new methods in teaching and training in Human Rights Law – students acquire an expertise in Human Rights Law through research into the practical application of legislation relating to civil and human rights in the daily life of the community. In July 2007, GAD and CEDRM-UK embarked on a joint project to report on the work of the Advocacy Service and to create a database to support its caseload. The 2008-9 Project team will report on their work and findings relating to facilitating equality in the workplace; the inclusion of cancer, HIV and multiple sclerosis within the legal definition of disability and the implications of the statutory duty to promote disability equality for the provision of extracurricular activities for schoolchildren. [From the Author]

Reaching across organisational, sectoral and geographical boundaries: exploring the learning potential of an EU cross-border project

Research This paper outlines some of the key findings from an evaluation of the project and demonstrates that EC funded projects such as this, which seek to promote cross border collaboration and understanding (i.e. across organisational, sectoral and geographical boundaries) offer considerable learning potential – not least about variances in health politics across different communities. However, for this learning to be realised a comprehensive system of knowledge management needs to be an integral part of project planning alongside a system for sustaining embryonic professional networks. The concept of managing relationships was also a key part of the projects success. Executing a project funded by the EU demands the development of complex organisational skills to negotiate all the administrative challenges en route to successful completion and this project in particular relied for its success on the development of social relationships of trust and mutual respect across national, professional and social boundaries. Context A three–year European Commission funded project designed to exchange a wide range of staff (professional semiprofessional and voluntary staff in health and social care) project led by the University of Greenwich (UK) and the Université Catholique de Lille, France was completed this year (February 2008). The project was complex because it involved working in different national contexts, was multi-disciplinary, and demanded the negotiation of multiple boundaries. Theories A mixed method evaluation including written reports gathered immediately after each exchange visit and a post hoc series of individual interviews and focus groups was conducted in order to gain qualitative information (from the participants perspective) on their experiences and to identify any learning gained. Results Analysis of the data provided evidence of learning on a number of levels; personally, inter and intra professionally and organisationally as well as across sectors and also from a project management perspective. The learning crystallised around the extent of the differences noted by the participants between the UK and the French health and social care systems despite geographical proximity, common membership of the EU and many shared challenges in health and social care. The extent of these differences, noted at every level from policy to practice proved a rich source for reflection on organisational philosophies, ways of working, distribution of resources, professional roles and autonomy and professional registration and mobility - in short on health politics at ‘macro’ and ‘micro’ levels.