CITIZENSHIP AGENCY

1
CITIZENSHIP AGENCY

• Case study on social enterprise
• Milano Metropoli Development Agency Province of
  Milan

Prague, 28th April 2005
2
Reasons why

• Excellent examples of participative process
• Impact on local welfare policies
• Successful initiative

3
GENERAL DESCRIPTION

• Name CITIZENSHIP AGENCY
• Theme Support to Social Enterpreneurship
• City Milan
• Legal Status Association
• Project delivery area Province of Milan
• Project funders Initially Equal EU Initiative,
  then also through national or local laws
• Partners over 90 local partners, among which
  local bodies (Milan Province and municipalities
  (48), social cooperatives and consortia,
  volunteer sector organizations, charities, trade
  unions, training organizations, associations of
  employers, 1 ethic bank and profit companies

4
Background

• Presence on the territory of separated
  initiatives for the fight against social
  exclusion
• Need for setting the over mentioned initiatives
  in a multi-sectorial and experimental dimension
• Need for acting in a community, territorial
  inter-institutional and inter-organizational
  dimension

5
Association Citizenship Agency

• Born in May 2002 after more than one year of
  negotiations on objectives and method
• GENERAL AIMS
• Experimentation of actions in order to support
  and strenghten social enterpreneurship
• Promotion of the social enterpreneurship culture
  stressing its strategic function and its social
  role
• OBJECTIVES
• Setting up innovative methodologies, measuring
  and controlling social enterprises performances
• mapping good practice planned and experimented
  at a local, national and European level
• comparing European welfare systems

6
Association Citizenship AgencyFinancial tools

• Equal EU initiative
• Theme 2 Enterpreneurship
• Measure 2 Strenghtening Social economy
• Duration 30 months (15th of May 2002 - 15th
  November 2004)
• Budget 3.781.024 Euro (EU grant 3.419.564,42
  Euro)
• Transnational partnership France (Logement
  Français Paris-Lyon), Greece (Development Agency
  of Heraklion-Crete / Training and Research Center
  of Magnesia Prefecture-Volos), Italy (Territorial
  Pact of Sangro-Aventino, Chieti)
• Other projects at national level ex, sector
  laws L.40 in matter of social housing.

7
MANAGEMENT OF THE PROJECTPOLITICAL/INSTITUTIONAL
STRUCTURE
8
MANAGEMENT OF THE PROJECT OPERATIVE STAFF
9
MANAGEMENT OF THE PROJECT
10
OPERATIVE MACRO-AREAS

• 1. Support to social enterprises
• 2. Good Practice and territorial planning
• 3. New technologies and knowledge management
• 4. Transnationality

11
OPERATIVE MACRO-AREA 1Support to social
enterprises

• Training and Consultancy for the development of
  social management competences and for social
  quality
• 22 actions on 5 specific themes
• HR management
• Gender opporunities
• Social enterprises life-cycle
• Evaluation of SEs performances
• Relationships management

12
OPERATIVE MACRO-AREA 2Good Practice and
territorial planning

• Resources and needs survey, good practice and
  territorial planning and experimentation of
  innovative territorial development tools.
• Three specific actions
• territorial atlas of needs and resources
• training for negotiation planning
• Consultancy for territorial planning

13
OPERATIVE MACRO-AREA 3New technologies and
knowledge management

• Definition of a knowledge management system and
  development of ITC tools management competences
• Services provided through the web specific info
  on legal issues, assistance to EU project
  planning, etc.

14
OPERATIVE MACRO-AREA 4Transnationality

• Exchange of experiences and good practice,
  development and experimentation of common tools,
  realization of a european observatory on welfare
  systems
• 4 specific actions
• Training for transnational activities
• Transnational observatory on local welfare system
• Transnational exchange through visits
• Transnational thematic working groups

15
Outputs

• 1. On social enterprises
• 1300 Social enterprises involved, providing
  training, consultancy, legal guidance
• SEs quality and knowledge improved
• Indirect job creation
• Sustainabilty of SEs activities improved

16
Outputs

• 2. On policies
• CA begins to have an effect on policies, it
  becaming an actor involved in the decision making
  process
• Ex Region of Lombardy has recently asked CA to
  take part in a EU INTERREG project CA provided a
  coherent support for the definition and the
  comparison of many zone plans support in urban
  regeneration projects development of social
  activities in deprived areas

17
Conclusions what works

• INNOVATION
• Governance CA started a new way of governance,
  increasing the value of the network and the third
  sectors capability in working together. This
  led to a more participative process and gave the
  opportunity to have a real impact in the policy
  making process. A Critical mass that cant be
  ignored.
• Services CA provided information and
  servicesbefore difficult to be assessed by social
  enterprises

18
Conclusions what works

• SUSTAINABILITY
• At the beginning CA initiatives were funded by
  EQUAL but now the association is involved in
  other activities funded by national/regional law
  ex, social housing.
• New funds represents 20 of its total incomes and
  they are going to grow to the 70 by the end of
  the year.
• TRANSFERABILITY
• The model could be transfered in every other
  italian region, on the following basis
• Goals and strategy should be shared among all
  partners from the beginning, in order to overcome
  difficulties and different specific positions
  (troubles are unavoidable)
• Partners should trust the project creating the
  network is a long process, without any guarantee

19
Conclusions what should be improved

• Relationship with the profit sector one of the
  major goals of CA for the future is a greater
  involvement of the profit sector in its
  activities, regarding both project partnerships
  and/or their funding (businnes angels model)
• Different languages with the public sector the
  operational style of social enterprises is often
  different from the public sectors one.
• The initial budget (EQUAL Initiative) revealed to
  be not sufficient the social enterprises
  involved had to invest from their own in terms of
  money and human resources