Re-engaging young people
Re-engaging Young People An evaluation of the Neighbourhood Support Fund By Gavin Bailey
First published in 2006 by the Community Development Foundation Unit 5, Angel Gate 320–326 City Road London EC1V 2PT Registered charity number 306130
Copyright © Community Development Foundation 2006
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A record of this publication is available from the British Library.
ISBN 1 901974 73 1 ISBN 978 1 901974 73 7
Typesetting by Third Column, Twickenham Front cover photos from a selection of NSF groups Printed in Great Britain by Crowes of Norwich
Contents
Page no. Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................................................. vii Community Development Foundation ....................................................................................................................... viii
Executive summary
ix ix ix x x
.........................................................................................................................................................
Improving young people’s lives in a community setting ................................................................................... Young people, the project and the community...................................................................................................... The NSF project, the community organisation and the community ........................................................ The future .....................................................................................................................................................................................
Introduction
1 1 3
............................................................................................................................................................................
The Neighbourhood Support Fund at CDF ............................................................................................................ The evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................................
1
Improving young people’s lives in a community setting ..................................................
4 4 6 6 7 10 11 12 15 17 17 18
Joiners and leavers – the monitoring data ................................................................................................. Young people’s other risks ................................................................................................................................... Their aspirations ......................................................................................................................................................... Participation in education, work and training........................................................................................... Helping young people to participate.............................................................................................................. Volunteering to employment .............................................................................................................................. Soft outcomes and ‘distance travelled’.......................................................................................................... Attitudes to school and work ............................................................................................................................ Other ‘Every Child Matters’ outcomes ........................................................................................................ Sustainability of outcomes .................................................................................................................................... Conclusion: the cost of doing nothing ..........................................................................................................
2
Young people, the project and the community ...................................................................... 20 Introductions to NSF – friends, neighbours, teachers, localities ................................................... Giving young people what they want ............................................................................................................ Activities: the ‘hook’ and the ‘draw’ ................................................................................................................ The developmental approach ............................................................................................................................. Formal and informal governance of the project ..................................................................................... Satisfaction and responsibility............................................................................................................................. Beyond the project, beyond the organisation .......................................................................................... Community cohesion .............................................................................................................................................. Volunteering................................................................................................................................................................... Youth involvement ..................................................................................................................................................... Conclusion......................................................................................................................................................................
Re-engaging young people
Community Development Foundation
20 22 22 23 24 25 26 28 29 30 31 ●
v
3
The NSF project, the community organisation and the community ...................................................................................................................................................... 32 Community organisations and community involvement ................................................................... Community involvement ....................................................................................................................................... Embedding the NSF project in the organisation and the community ....................................... Organisational change ............................................................................................................................................. Embedding the NSF project within wider educational provision ................................................ Capacity building ......................................................................................................................................................... Long-term benefits .................................................................................................................................................... Conclusion......................................................................................................................................................................
32 36 37 41 41 43 44 46
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................................................. 48 Improving young people’s lives ......................................................................................................................................... Young people, the project and the community...................................................................................................... The NSF project, the community organisation and the community ........................................................ Not just qualifications and jobs, but confidence ...................................................................................................
48 49 49 49
APPENDICES A
Methods ........................................................................................................................................................................ 51 Background studies ................................................................................................................................................... Surveys of young people........................................................................................................................................ Surveys of projects and organisations........................................................................................................... Case studies................................................................................................................................................................... Other evaluation work ...........................................................................................................................................
B
51 51 52 53 53
The CDF/NSF vision ........................................................................................................................................ 54 The history and vision ............................................................................................................................................ 54 The community-based youth project ............................................................................................................ 55
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................................................ 57
vi
●
Community Development Foundation
Re-engaging young people
Acknowledgements
This report is the final output of just over two years of my work at the Community Development Foundation. It would not have been possible without the support of colleagues both within and outside CDF. First, I wish to thank the rest of the research team at CDF – Jayne Humm, Kate Jones, Valerie Lammie and Malcolm James – who provided guidance, support, humour and debate over my entire time there. Second, I thank Alison Gilchrist, Michael Pitchford, Melanie Bowles, Jenny Fisher, Janet Muir and Stuart Hashagan, all of CDF, June Lightfoot, Vipin Chauhan, Stuart Read, Steve Evison and Neil Smith. All these people contributed ideas and shed light on the Neighbourhood Support Fund (NSF) projects. More often than not, their influence has come not from a published paper but from informal discussion. If their ideas are reproduced without reference this is why. I also thank the interviewers for their patient work tracking down young people for both faceto-face and telephone interviews. Lastly, I thank the NSF team at CDF – Debbie Ladds, Kathryn Laird, Laura Miller, Martine Davies, Kay Holman, Helen Culnane, Viv Whittaker and Simon Maddison – and all the project workers, volunteers and young people who gave up their time for this work.
Re-engaging young people
Community Development Foundation
●
vii
Community Development Foundation (CDF)
CDF is a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and a charity registered in England and Wales and recognised in Scotland. CDF’s mission is to lead community development analysis and strategy in order to empower people to influence decisions that affect their lives. CDF is the leading source of intelligence, guidance and delivery on community development, engagement, empowerment and capacity building in England and across the UK. Our work cuts across Government Departments, regional and local public agencies and the community and voluntary sectors. We also operate at European and international level. CDF’s key aim is to build engaged, cohesive and stronger communities and community sector by: ●
advising government and other bodies on community involvement, civil renewal and community cohesion, and measures to build strong, active communities and promote community development
●
supporting community work of all kinds through networks, links with practitioners, collaborative work with partner organisations, funding and management of local projects
●
carrying out research, evaluation and policy analysis to identify good practice in all aspects of community development and involvement, and disseminating lessons through training, conferences, publications and consultancy.
Community Development Foundation Unit 5, Angel Gate 320–326 City Road London EC1V 2PT Tel: 020 7833 1772 Fax: 020 7837 6584 Email:
[email protected] Website: www.cdf.org.uk Registered Charity Number 306130
viii
●
Community Development Foundation
Re-engaging young people
Executive summary
In 2005, 11% of 16 to 18-year-olds in England were not in education, employment and training (NEET). The UK is also 27th out of 30 OECD countries for participation in education at age 17. Although some of this non-participation may be planned and unproblematic, for many young people this may be both a symptom and then a cause of wider deprivation and social exclusion. In addition, this social exclusion is associated with teenage pregnancy, drugs and criminality. Again, these may be symptoms of growing up in a deprived community and can also reproduce this deprivation. The community sector can play an important role in breaking this cycle of intergenerational cycle of disadvantage. Through 6 years of research, including surveys, focus groups and case studies, the evaluation of the Neighbourhood Support Fund (NSF) shows that community organisations can successfully work with ‘hard-to-reach’ and disengaged young people. The gradualist community approach can slowly engage the hardest-to-reach and eventually get them involved in the community organisation and beyond as well as improving their life chances. The new audiences and learning contribute to the development of the host organisation.
Improving young people’s lives in a community setting Between 2000 and 2006 almost 50,000 young people participated in projects that were part of CDF’s NSF programme. The entire cost of the programme was just under £58 million, thus each young person was worked with for £1,172. Re-engaging young people
NSF projects recruited young people who were either disengaged from education or were at risk of becoming so. Through community networks and friends, and using informal activities such as sport, computers and DJing, they attracted young people with histories of school exclusion, offending and drugs, homelessness and so on. New activities and socialisation helped to increase young people’s confidence as well as keep them interested. This was combined with advice, information and guidance (sometimes in partnership with Connexions), help with school work, accredited activities and training. When young people were ‘signed off ’ NSF projects, 71% were noted as moving onto a ‘positive outcome’. Few remained NEET, and young people gained new experiences and qualifications that will help them in the long term.
Young people, the project and the community As part of a ‘community approach’, most NSF projects encouraged young people to be involved beyond their role as participants. Within the vast majority of NSF projects, young people had informal involvement in the management of activities. However, involvement beyond the project makes NSF more than a youth project. NSF projects were part of community organisations, and as such had the opportunity to have NSF young people participate in the wider life of the organisations. This could be anything from a community event for all, to having a young person volunteer or be a representative on the management committee. This contributes to Community Development Foundation
●
ix
Executive summary
intergenerational understanding and helps the organisation to cater for the needs of the young people in their community.
The future
The NSF project, the community organisation and the community
The evaluation showed that community organisations can work successfully with young people, including those who are problematic and disengaged. Furthermore, the integration of young people into a community-based organisation is positive for both the participants and the organisation. Young people participate on their terms, gradually getting involved, but can use the project as a springboard to involvement in the organisation and beyond. Similarly, organisations have used the NSF projects as springboards to further work, new networks and an engagement with a broader community.
For most of the host organisations, the NSF project was a new piece of work and had a major impact on the organisation. The projects brought changes in funding, the audience and users of the organisation, and thus the position of the organisation.
NSF projects were an example of this kind of work. Now that the programme has ended, most participating organisations are still working with young people. However, many more community organisations could work with young people. Therefore:
Most obviously, the creation of an NSF project meant the presence of teenagers, and organisations had to adapt to this. However, this also brought young people’s friends and families into contact with the organisation, some of whom became involved as participants or volunteers. Furthermore, a new topic created opportunities for workers and volunteers, many of whom were community members – activities such as art and design, music and sport need different skills and interests to activities associated with older and younger people.
1 Community organisations that do not currently work with young people should not be seen, by themselves or others, as unable to do this work because they haven’t done it before.
Furthermore, community organisations’ links and networks provided additional opportunities for young people’s activity. This included activities with other community organisations and involvement in youth councils and forums and the national youth parliament.
This new work also brought community groups into contact with new partners such as schools, Connexions and others working with 13 to 19-year-olds. This helped the community organisation and the community to build constructive relationships with this sector.
2 Community organisations should be supported in setting up this kind of project, and be given time to embed the work within their wider activities. Funding is available for organisations to do this kind of work. 3 Community organisations working with young people should encourage young people to be involved in the wider work of the organisation, as participants, volunteers and on the management committee. This can help rejuvenate or refresh the organisation as well as providing opportunities for young people’s personal development.
Finally, the new work, new participants and new networks all helped to bring in new money and resources. On average, organisations participating in the 2003–06 phase of the programme gained an additional £84,500 from other sources as a direct result of their NSF work. The human capacity and physical infrastructure built by this work was organisation-wide and had organisationalwide benefits.
x
●
Community Development Foundation
Re-engaging young people
Introduction
The Neighbourhood Support Fund at CDF The Neighbourhood Support Fund (NSF) was launched in September 1999. It aimed to work with disaffected and disengaged young people aged 13 to 19 in order to re-engage them with education, employment or training. The Department for Education and Skills (DfES) provided £60 million for the pilot stage, which ran from 1999 to 2003, and a further £30 million for the second stage, which ran to March 2006. This money was distributed by 3 managing agents to projects in the 40 most deprived local authority areas in England. In the pilot stage, 665 projects were operational, 79% were managed by the Community Development Foundation (CDF), 15% by the National Youth Agency (NYA), and the remaining 6% by the Learning Alliance, a partnership between Nacro, the crime reduction charity, Rathbone Training, YMCA training and Community Service Volunteers (CSV). As the ‘leading authority on community development in the UK’, CDF used a community-based approach in its NSF work. CDF helps communities achieve greater control over the conditions and decisions affecting their lives by supporting community work of all kinds, including management of local projects. In this instance, CDF allocated grants, and managed and supported community organisations to work with disaffected young people. During the pilot stage of NSF, CDF managed 525 projects that received an average of £20,000 per year. In the second stage CDF managed 131 projects, each of which was allocated around £40,000 per year. These were usually housed in Re-engaging young people
small voluntary and community organisations, the majority of which had not worked with the target group of disaffected young people. 14% of the initial set of NSF organisations had not worked with young people at all (Steer 2005). Two-thirds of the organisations receiving funding were classed as community groups, that is ‘groups operating at a sub-local authority level, with an annual turnover of less than £150,000 and with a management committee comprised of local people’ (Steer 2005). Nineteen of 86 organisations surveyed had an income of less than £100,000, and for some the NSF funding made up the majority of their income. All bar 2 of these 86 organisations employed some paid workers, but a key feature was the participation of unpaid helpers, whether for one-off events, as regular volunteers, or as trustees and management committee. Each organisation used the money provided to create an ‘NSF project’, ultimately managed by the community organisation. This could be done entirely within the organisation by employing staff and providing space and facilities. Alternatively, partners could help with this delivery, either by providing staff or other resources. The NSF project could be an extension of existing work for a new audience, but more often organisations were creating an entirely new stream of work. Each project therefore began with a relatively clean sheet with the broad aim of finding disaffected young people, and working with them to re-engage. The organisations designed their own projects to meet this aim. As well as the funding, organisations also had help from CDF and its partner ContinYou, and local Community Development Foundation
●
1
Introduction
umbrella bodies (usually the local community and voluntary sector umbrella body). Details of this support can be found in the previous evaluation report (Steer 2005). As described in chapter 1, these projects were part of a response to the Social Exclusion Unit’s ‘Bridging the Gap’ report (1999) that highlighted the problem of disaffected and disengaged young people. This report found that at any one time 161,000 – or 9% of the age group – are outside education, training and work for long periods after the school leaving age of 16. It went on to say that the pathway from education to work needed for the less academic was less defined than the path taken from school to college and university. Furthermore, young people with existing problems were more likely to struggle at school, and so options of additional education would close. These problems would then be compounded by nonengagement, and the cycle of social exclusion becomes permanent. Although the Social Exclusion Unit’s report introduced the concept of NEET (not in education, employment and training), it was not assumed that this was the only or key problem, or that a young person re-engaging would be a problem solved. Some 16–18 year olds have to deal with a complex range of obstacles to success – often from a much earlier age – which cross many departmental boundaries. These include crime and drugs, family and housing problems, learning difficulties and bullying. Secondly, the nature of some education and work was itself seen to be a problem. Instead of the clear path or ‘rite of passage’ from school to A-levels and perhaps to university, or from school to an apprenticeship, some young people have a more muddled path. They may take part in unsuitable college courses and perhaps drop out or, at worst, have short-term, poor quality jobs with no training, interspersed with periods of no meaningful activity. The NSF was one of a number of programmes and organisations created as part of the response to these problems of youth transitions. The Careers Service was refocused and rebranded as Connexions. Other programmes included Education Maintenance Allowances, which provide money for 16–18 year olds in education, and
2
●
Community Development Foundation
Positive Activities for Young People. Although not aimed at this age group, SureStart is also designed to stop the cycle of deprivation, and the holistic vision of both SureStart and NSF led one expert to dub NSF ‘SureProgress’. The NSF projects were designed and managed by community organisations themselves. However, as an expert in community development, CDF has its own view of how a youth project with a community development ethos would operate. First, it would not ‘ghettoise’ young people, but work with them in a context that may include the whole community. Adults would be involved, but they would not just be paid workers, but members of the community who were giving up their time to help. Second, the activities would not be just for ‘youth’ but would bring benefits to the community as a whole. Third, the project would be community led and managed, ideally by young people and adults together. Young people would not be consumers of an adult-run service. This would be done in a manner that empowers all, in an environment of equality and mutuality where young people and adults participate on an equal footing. This model points to a number of side effects of working in this way that address more recent policy objectives in the arena of community empowerment and intra-community and intercommunity relations. Allowing local communities to plan and manage projects of this kind fits into the ‘double devolution’ agenda in which power shifts ‘from the central government to local government, and from local government to citizens and communities’ (Miliband 2006). The bringing together of adults and young people in an atmosphere of mutual respect should break down the intergenerational divisions caused by the fear of aggression and assault, and self-preservation in the light of stranger danger messages to children and moral panics over paedophilia. It may also restore adults’ confidence and enable and encourage them to communicate with young people in local communities (Williamson 2006a). Finally, when the wider aim of social cohesion or inter-community cohesion is fostered through bringing together community groups, the involvement of young people in these groups addresses the lack of social cohesion that causes ‘youth conflict’ (see Commission for Racial Equality 2004).
Re-engaging young people
The evaluation
The evaluation The evaluation of the NSF from 2003 to 2006 focused on the community-based nature and community development ethos of the projects. This means there was a requirement to examine more than just the results for young people in terms of hard outcomes such as education and jobs and soft outcomes such as socialisation and confidence. These positive outcomes were the DfES’s aims when creating the NSF programme, but working in a community setting also adds value through the involvement of community members, including young people. Therefore, the evaluation also examined ‘community’ outcomes for the young person, for example involvement in other community activities, and outcomes for the project, its host organisation and the community. These community outcomes are largely both the results and the process of working with a community ethos. As will be discussed in chapter 3, getting people involved as volunteers, helpers and participants is part of the day-to-day activity needed to keep the project and the organisation moving, yet is also a valued result, as it provides resources for further work. Therefore the ‘how and why’ of community work can also be seen as an answer to the question ‘what was achieved?’. The evaluation research comprised many elements, all of which are combined in this report. First, the NSF researcher consulted experts within CDF and beyond in order to create a picture of ‘communitybased’ work with young people (see Appendix B for details). This and other background research provided the framework for the subsequent research. A new cohort or sample of young people was interviewed, and some of those interviewed as part of the previous evaluation were re-interviewed. Over the 6 years of evaluation work this involved 2,617 young people. The NSF researcher surveyed projects and their parent organisations. He also conducted qualitative work, including 8 weeks of case study research, where 4 projects were studied in depth. Full details of all the research contributing to this report can be found in Appendix A. The results of this evaluation research have been divided into 3 chapters. First the evaluation
Re-engaging young people
examined the success of the NSF programme in terms of outcomes for young people. It built upon and extended the work done in the evaluation of the pilot stage of NSF (Steer 2005) and the national evaluation of NSF, covering the delivery of all 3 managing agents (Golden et al. 2004). It looked at young people’s participation in education, employment and training, and their attitudes to education and the activities they took part in as part of the NSF projects. These findings are detailed in chapter 1. Chapter 2 details the role of community in the lives of NSF participants, and the involvement of these participants in the life of the organisation and the community. As in previous evaluation work, this begins by examining the networks through which young people become NSF participants. It then looks at how young people were made to be a part of the NSF project through active involvement, and not just as passive consumers. This is then extended to their involvement in the governance of the project and the host organisation, the other activities of the host organisation, and involvement in bodies beyond this. This chapter also examines the relationship between young people and the community, with an emphasis on community conflict and cohesion. The final chapter details the evaluation’s findings that cover the impact the NSF project had on the parent organisation and its relationship to the community and wider civil society. It shows how the project was not a ‘semi-detached’ piece of funded work but was part of the long-term development of the community organisation. It examines the new community involvement that may be fostered by work with young people, and how the NSF work became embedded in the organisation as the organisation became further embedded in the community. It also echoes the work of the previous evaluation, examining the relationships built with external bodies such as Connexions and local schools. The final piece of analysis examines all this change in terms of capacity building, so looking at this development as not just relevant to the work with young people, but having an impact across the community organisation.
Community Development Foundation
●
3
1
The key aim of the 6 years of the Neighbourhood Support Fund (NSF) programme was to help ‘at risk’ young people re-engage with education, employment or training. The NSF projects targeted ‘young people age 13 to 19 who were disengaged from mainstream education, employment and training provision and/or who were at risk of long-term social exclusion’ and ‘for each £1,000 to £1,300 … help one young person to take the first step back into an activity which might spark off an interest and make it more likely that they will move on to education, employment or training’ (CDF 2004: iv). CDF’s strand of the programme was delivered by community organisations. This involved 525 organisations in the 2000–03 pilot programme, and 131 organisations in the 2003–06 programme. This chapter examines the achievements of the 131 organisations in fulfilling this key aim. It begins with an analysis of the monitoring data provided by projects and collated by CDF. It looks at the background of the NSF participants and their involvement in education and employment before and after the period they were part of an NSF project. This data shows the range of risks experienced by young people, and thus that they were likely to disengage. Projects also collected data on destinations. 4 in 5 of the young people coming off the projects’ attendance books were noted as having a ‘positive outcome’. Although monitoring data was collected for every young person participating in an NSF project, it can only provide snapshots of involvement at the moment of joining and leaving. Therefore, a major part of the evaluation examined the improvements in young people’s lives in more detail. Approximately 5% (2,617) of the participants took
4
●
Community Development Foundation
Improving young people’s lives in a community setting
part in evaluation interviews, some as many as 4 times. These surveys (referred to in this report as ‘young people’s surveys’) confirmed the findings of the monitoring. However, they also show the interviewees’ participation over time, including educational work done in the project and more details of that participation, and changes in participants’ views of barriers and opportunities, and in their skills and confidence.
Joiners and leavers – the monitoring data Project staff collected data about all the young people participating as they joined and left the projects. This was then collated by the CDF/NSF management team. Although most data can be considered to be reliable, the fact that project staff collected it does change its status. In particular, a young person’s ‘background characteristics’ were noted by staff who may not have had that person’s full confidence, or who may not have had all the necessary information. There may also have been differences in the understanding of categories. By the end of the 6-year period comprising the 2000–03 pilot programme and the 2003–06 second phase of NSF, 49,442 young people had joined an NSF project, as noted by the monitoring procedures. These young people were worked with for an average of 78 hours, at an average cost of £1,172. This figure doesn’t only reflect the project’s expenditure, it is based on the spending of the whole programme, including CDF’s management and evaluation and the work of umbrella groups and regional advisors. Taking away these costs, the average cost per participant was £1,032.
Re-engaging young people
Joiners and leavers – the monitoring data
58% of the joiners were male and 42% female. 40% were aged 13 or 14, 39% were aged 15 or 16 and 20% were aged 17 to19. 7% did not have their ethnic background recorded. Of those that did, 69% were white, 14% were black, and 14% were of Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi background.
(33%) or part-time (4%). 12% went on to get further assistance from Connexions and 17% joined other programmes.
Two of the most common background characteristics noted were ‘low school achievement’ (53%), and ‘non-attender’ (19%). These characteristics are likely to be related to one another and lead to NEET (see top chart below).
As noted in the previous evaluation, the client monitoring system did not accurately record young people’s starting points. Risk factors were noted, but relatively few were noted as NEET. It is therefore difficult to gauge the significance of these outcomes, when many participants were still involved in education when they joined the NSF project (Steer 2005: 14). Evaluation surveys of young people aimed to overcome these limitations.
At the end of May 2006, projects had provided the ‘destination’ details of 45,149 young people who had officially left the NSF projects. By far the most likely destination was education, either full-time
Overall, 32,198 participants (71%) had a ‘positive outcome’ noted as they left the NSF programme.
Low school achievement Young offender Non-attender Excluded from school Special educational needs Alcohol/drugs Homeless Teenage parent Refugee Mental health In or leaving care 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Leavers’ destinations FT education Other programme Connexions Employment without training PT education Training Employment with training Voluntary work New Deal Left area Custodial sentence Supporting family Pregnancy Health reasons Unknown/other 0%
Re-engaging young people
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Community Development Foundation
●
5
Chapter One: Improving young people’s lives in a community setting
Young people’s other risks As noted in the introduction, the NSF projects were in the 40 most deprived boroughs of England. For the NSF young people, just living in these places is a risk in itself. In the most deprived areas, only 13% get the top level 5 in the national English tests for 11-year-olds, compared with 67% in the least deprived areas (Taylor 2006). Staying-on rates at schools in these boroughs are significantly lower than elsewhere, and many are areas in which there has been a decline in traditional industrial employment and high unemployment. It was not unusual for people to talk about ‘3 generations of unemployment’. As shown on the previous page, monitoring data picked up a variety of background characteristics associated with low achievement. Obviously those noted as NEET (9%), excluded from school (11%) or non-attender (19%) were likely to be doing badly at school and might find it difficult to ‘get on’. 10% were noted as having ‘special educational needs’. Other characteristics are less obviously connected but are still risk factors. 3% were noted as homeless and 3% were in or leaving care. 5% were teenage parents and 2% were caring for someone else. 19% were noted as being young offenders. Further risks included mental health issues, alcohol and drugs and being a refugee or asylum seeker.1 In addition to the problems identified in the monitoring, the evaluation survey of young people identified other barriers. When asked to pick 3
things that ‘hold them back’, 32% (247) of young people mentioned their ‘lack of qualifications’, 27% (207) mentioned ‘a lack of confidence’, 23% (179) mentioned their own bad behaviour, and 9% (71) their lack of motivation. 9% (68) felt there were ‘no suitable jobs or opportunities’, and 8% (60) mentioned bullying or racism.2 Residential instability was also common. 16% (123) of the young people surveyed had lived at 3 or more addresses in the previous 3 years. This, of course, is also likely to involve disruption to schooling. Further disruption could be caused by caring responsibilities. 6% (45) of the survey sample had children, with the vast majority being full-time, stay at home parents. 18% (142) of the sample had caring responsibilities for other family members due to disability or health problems.3 This survey data shows that the young people recruited to NSF projects had attributes that point to a risk of becoming disengaged from education, employment and training.
Their aspirations Although the interviewees live in areas of deprivation and have been identified as being inactive or at risk of becoming so, their long-term aspirations were the same as other young people’s. When asked ‘what is most important to you?’, ‘family’ and ‘an interesting job’ were most frequently chosen. This mirrors the responses of
Long-term aspirations Family Interesting job NSF sample
Having lots of money Having a nice home
Prince’s Trust control group
Chance to make own choices Having friends 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Source: Prince’s Trust (2004) and young people’s survey, wave 1, cohort 3, n775
1
NSF monitoring data, n49,442.
2
Young people’s survey, wave 1, cohort 3, n775.
3
Ibid.
6
●
Community Development Foundation
Re-engaging young people
Participation in education, work and training
the control group used by the Prince’s Trust, which surveyed socially excluded young people (2004). However, the NSF sample was less likely than the Prince’s Trust socially excluded control group to choose ‘lots of money’ or the ‘chance to make own choices’. 20% (153) chose ‘feeling safe in the community’, suggesting that problems of crime and violence are higher in these areas than elsewhere.4
Participation in education, work and training The most concrete measure of success of the NSF programme is the number of participating young people who are in education, work and training. As mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, projects aimed to ‘spark off an interest’ that would help a NEET young person to re-engage. However, this NEET to non-NEET story vastly simplifies a project’s work. First, young people may have been on the edge of non-participation through skipping lessons, non-permanent exclusion from school or unstable employment. These young people had a high risk of becoming NEET, but may have been labelled as participating. Second, participation and non-participation may have been temporary, so a one-off ‘destination’ may not give the whole story: although a young person could leave NSF to a negative destination, the spark remained and a positive destination may be just around the corner.
Both the second and third cohorts showed an overall reduction in the number of young people who were NEET. The vast majority of the sample avoided becoming NEET, and most who began NEET spent some time in education, employment or training. In a period in which the official figures suggest a rise in the number of 16–18 year olds in this status (Rogers 2006) this is an important achievement. Indeed, as the majority of NSF young people are aged 13–16, they are likely to be most at risk of becoming NEET as they leave school. The evaluation shows that, instead, most young people successfully navigated the transition to post16 education, employment or training.
The second cohort Data from interviews with the second cohort is particularly illuminating as it covers 4 interviews over 31/2 years. Therefore, even the youngest interviewees were beyond the school leaving age by the time of the final interview. Using the whole sample each time we found that 23% (303) of the young people were NEET at the first interview,5 compared with 16% (46) at the final interview.6 As can be seen in the following chart, those in ‘education only’ decreased significantly as people gained employment. However, this analysis uses data from all young people interviewed, and as those who were NEET at the first interview were less likely to participate later, it becomes progressively biased towards participators.
Cohort 2 Wave 1
NEET
Cohort 2 Wave 2
Both education and work
Cohort 2 Wave 3
Work or training only
Cohort 2 Wave 4
Education only 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Source: Young people’s surveys, wave 1, cohort 2, n1,332; wave 2, cohort 2, n653; wave 3, cohort 2, n481; wave 4, cohort 2, n282
4
Thanks go to the Prince’s Trust for details of the methods used in Reaching the Hardest to Reach (2004).
5
Young people’s survey, wave 1, cohort 2, n1,332.
6
Young people’s survey, wave 4, cohort 2, n282.
Re-engaging young people
Community Development Foundation
●
7
Chapter One: Improving young people’s lives in a community setting
Using only the 163 young people interviewed in all 4 waves gives a different picture. Again, young people moved away from ‘education only’ as they got older, and most were doing some work. However, this analysis shows a slight increase in the number of young people who were NEET over the 3-year period (see top chart below).
15 or under at the first interview increased over the period. This incisively points to the need for longitudinal analysis, that is, analysis of the results from the same young people across the different time periods or waves of the survey. Although the number of NEET in this subsample of young people was about the same at the beginning and end of the 3 years, they were not the same young people. Young people moved in and out of the NEET status and very few remained NEET throughout all 4 interviews (see bottom table below).
This small increase is entirely accounted for by the aging of the interviewees. The number of NEET young people among those aged 16 and above at the first interview decreased over the period. The number of NEET young people among those aged
Cohort 2 Wave 1
NEET
Cohort 2 Wave 2
Both education and work
Cohort 2 Wave 3
Work or training only
Cohort 2 Wave 4
Education only 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Source: Young people’s surveys, waves 1– 4, cohort 2, n163
Education, employment and training from January 2002 to September 2005
Percentage of young people
In education throughout (some with work in addition)
40% (65)
Education followed by work only
26% (43)
Education to work with NEET period
5% (8)
NEET to work (often via education)
6% (10)
NEET to education
3% (5)
Education broken by NEET period
1% (1)
Education broken by work period
1% (1)
Work all the way through
3% (5)
Education followed by NEET status
6% (10)
Education followed by work followed by NEET status
4% (7)
NEET at beginning and end
2% (3)
NEET throughout
2% (3)
Missing data
1% (2)
Source: Young people’s surveys, waves 1–4, cohort 2, n163
8
●
Community Development Foundation
Re-engaging young people
Participation in education, work and training
Only 4% (6) of the sample were NEET at the beginning and the end of the period. This data also suggests that the NEET status more often follows work than education. Within this sample, twice as many were in education throughout as moved into the world of work full time. However, those who were NEET at wave 4 were almost equally divided between previously being workers and students. Using all of cohort 2’s interview data suggests a strong relationship between ‘not being in education’ and the NEET status. At each stage, those in ‘work/training only’ were 2 to 4 times more likely to become NEET than those in education. This may be because it is easier to keep a place in education than to keep a job. However, this does not explain why NEET young people do not participate in education. It seems more likely that those most at risk of becoming NEET ‘do not get on with’ education and the educational establishment. They are likely to seek work as soon as possible, but when unskilled jobs are hard to find they become NEET.
The third cohort Although the third cohort was only interviewed twice over a year, they were asked a number of extra questions, which gives us further insight into the development of both the activities and attitudes of the young people attending NSF projects. Although the projects targeted young people who were NEET, the majority of young people were officially in education at the time they joined the
project. However, this masks the fragile nature of these young people’s attendance. Of those who were not completely disengaged, approximately a third did less than 5 days’ activity a week. The average number of days spent in education and employment falls from 4.8 days at 13 to 2.5 days for those aged 18 and 19 (see chart below). It seems likely that there are important differences between those involved in NSF at school age, and those aged 16 and above. The former were targeted because they were at risk of exclusion, but were likely to be attending school though not full time. The latter were mixing work, training and further education, but were relatively inactive. Case study research also suggests that the actual activity for those of school age may have been lower still. Although young people who were still in school may have reported that they attended 5 days per week, they were unlikely to include shortterm temporary exclusions or unauthorised absence. At 1 project, CDF researchers arranged to meet a teacher at the local secondary school. While waiting for the appointment, they witnessed one of the NSF young people being asked to go home for the afternoon due to misbehaviour. Indeed, it should be legally impossible for someone of school age to be NEET. The local education authority (LEA) has a legal requirement to educate those aged up to 16, and if a child is permanently excluded the LEA should find him or her a place in a new school or an alternative education programme. Therefore, the LEA should have placed all those in our survey who said they were not in school in the NSF project.
13 Years of Age
14 15 Days in education, employment or training
16 17 18 19 0
1
2
3
4
5
Source: Young people’s survey, wave 1, cohort 3, n775
Re-engaging young people
Community Development Foundation
●
9
Chapter One: Improving young people’s lives in a community setting
Of course, we know this is not always the case. Short-term exclusions can lead to self-exclusion as young people decide not to return. Girls. in particular, have been excluded but unrecorded as they self-exclude under the guise of illness or attend registration but not lessons (Osler et al. 2001). These complications in the meaning of ‘NEET’ and ‘at school’ mean that our survey data should be considered problematic. Some young people may have been NEET at the time of interview, yet fully involved in an alternative education programme. Others may have said they were in school, yet be on the verge of exclusion or self-exclusion. However, this is a problem inherent in all data of this kind. In addition, and as mentioned in the context of the second cohort, the young people were getting older and were therefore more likely to be NEET. The data is therefore presented with different levels of analysis. Using only the data of those young people who were interviewed twice, we find that the number who were NEET decreased from 16% (53) to 14% (45),7 as shown in the chart below.
NEET at the time of the first interview, dropping to 20% (24) by the time of the second interview.8 These young people leaving NEET status were to a small extent replaced by those leaving school to become NEET. Of those of statutory school age when first interviewed 6% (13) were NEET, rising to 10% (21) by the time of the second interview.9
Helping young people to participate Projects helped young people to participate in education, employment and training and also helped improve their participation. The most concrete ways they did this are: ●
helping young people with their school/ college-based learning
●
providing other learning opportunities within the project
●
providing access to information, advice and guidance.
This sample was not weighted towards the nonNEET part of the original sample. Those who were NEET at the first interview were just as likely to participate in the second interview. This is strong evidence for a reduction in non-engagement.
This was supplemented by a myriad of smaller interventions that supported or encouraged participation. Data from the survey work, case studies and other qualitative work illustrates this.
Even stronger evidence is found when we consider only those who were over the school leaving age at the first interview. 33% (40) of this sample were
56% (433) of those interviewed in the first wave said they were working towards qualifications or certificates with the help of the project.10
NEET Cohort 3 Wave 1
Both education and work Work or training only
Cohort 3 Wave 2 Education only 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Source: Young people’s surveys, waves 1 and 2, cohort 3, n323
7
Young people’s surveys, waves 1 and 2, cohort 3, n323.
8
Young people’s surveys, over school leaving age, waves 1 and 2, cohort 3, n122.
9
Young people’s surveys, under school leaving age, waves 1 and 2, cohort 3, n201.
10
Young people’s survey, wave 1, cohort 3, n775.
10
●
Community Development Foundation
Re-engaging young people
Volunteering to employment
Most of these were being done as part of the project. They included a variety of ‘youth achievement awards’ (e.g. ASDAN (Award Scheme Development and Accreditation Network), Duke of Edinburgh), first aid certificates, hygiene certificates, sports awards and IT certificates.
‘Decided I don’t want to be a youth worker ’cos it’s too hard work.’
4% (30) mentioned GCSEs as qualifications being done with the help of the project. Although some might have been done in the context of the project, it is likely that some were referring to help with schoolwork. Some projects were operating as a homework club and so the help given by the project was for qualifications done elsewhere.11
‘Pushed me to return to project after I fell out with some of them.’
By the time of the second wave 64% (210) were working or had worked towards qualifications or certificates with the help of the project.12 Furthermore, by this point the young people had been in contact with the NSF project for at least a year. They had therefore benefited from more informal and ad hoc support. 64% (206) of the young people said they had ‘become clearer about the job or career [they] want’. 61% (196) said they had made an important decision using information provided by the project.13 These ‘important decisions’ covered every aspect of young people’s lives. Not all the 61% were willing to tell us about the decisions, but most did. They included decisions about: ●
career/job
●
relationships and sex
●
drugs and alcohol
●
education
●
family and friends.
Categorising these answers is complicated. Young people’s lives are as complicated as everyone else’s. The careers advice is not a case of looking for what the young person would like to do, and advice about family and friends is not all about resolving teenage disputes. Here are a few examples: 11
Ibid.
12
Young people’s survey, wave 2, cohort 3, n329.
13
Ibid.
Re-engaging young people
‘I wanted to go to college to do beauty but they advised me to stay on at school to do A-levels. This was better.’
‘To get in touch with my dad.’ ‘Home-life improved ’cos of communication skills.’
Volunteering to employment As will be discussed in chapter 3, the NSF projects did give young people the opportunity to help out, to volunteer and to be involved in the management of the project and the parent organisation. In a few cases this could lead directly to employment for the young person within the organisation. Alternatively, the experience gained could set the young person up to do well in another setting. This had happened in 2 of the 4 case study projects. In the first, a young man involved in the NSF project had shown an interest in working with pre-school children. He had left school with no qualifications, but with the help of the project achieved an NVQ Level 2 in play. The project was part of a ‘cradle to grave’ community organisation with a daily playgroup, and so the young man was able to help out and gain experience ‘in house’. After some time it was decided that he could have a long-term paid position. In the second, a young man was ‘turned on’ to kayaking by the NSF worker. Finding he was very good at it, he did the training required to become a trainer himself, and so was then able to do unpaid work at the NSF sessions. He could be paid in the future, as part of this project or other kayaking sessions. At the moment, however, he cannot be paid for work at the youth project as he also plans to be a trustee of the organisation.
Community Development Foundation
●
11
Chapter One: Improving young people’s lives in a community setting
Clearly not everyone can gain volunteering experience and a paid job in the organisation they are involved with. The projects are too small to provide these opportunities for all. However, as projects and organisations grow some work may be available for young people and they can use this as a springboard to a career.
Soft outcomes and ‘distance travelled’ As well as tracking the ‘hard outcomes’ of attendance, employment status and educational achievement, the longitudinal surveys also tried to capture data on skills, including social skills, attitudes and behaviours. These soft outcomes are the foundation on which the harder outcomes are built and thus can be seen as the ‘distance travelled’ towards getting a job or qualifications. However, as these outcomes can only be measured by young people’s or project workers’ ratings, reliably measuring them is much more difficult than finding out whether someone is attending school. In the evaluation of the NSF pilot phase, the evaluation surveys of young people focused on 2 types of ‘soft outcomes’ – life skills and self-esteem. The first was measured by asking young people to rate themselves from ‘very good’ to ‘not good at all’ for a range of skills. Here most interviewees assessed themselves as good at the first interview, so improvement was only measurable for the few who said they were ‘not so good’ or ‘not good at all’. A similar problem affected the measurement of self-esteem. Here the survey used the Rosenberg self-esteem scale, which asks respondents to agree or disagree with statements such as ‘on the whole, I am satisfied with myself ’. Again, most interviewees had a high self-esteem classification at each interview, and so change was hard to measure (Steer 2005). To address these problems, the evaluation tried to develop this work further and produce some transferable indicators of ‘distance travelled’ (Read 2004). This included surveying the methods already used by NSF projects and the subsequent 14
http://www.community-links.org/
15
http://www.rickterscale.com
12
●
Community Development Foundation
development of a question set based on work by Community Links in Newham.14 NSF projects were found to use a range of methods to measure ‘distance travelled’ including: ●
review sessions with individual young people
●
feedback from project staff and outside agencies
●
traditional evaluation tools (e.g. self-completion questionnaires)
●
the Rickter Scale.15
These were used for action planning, to motivate young people, and as part of projects’ evidence base for their own work. Key to these methods was catching young people early in their engagement with the project. This was important if we were to see the progression, as later measuring would be unreliable. However, the development work found that measured change may be due to increasing honesty throughout the period:
‘The honesty levels of the clients when they are new to the projects and do not know the member of staff interviewing them need to be gauged. The change in the relationship between the interviewer and interviewee is the biggest concern in terms of the validity of any comparison made between the sets of answers obtained at the beginning and at the end of the contact time.’ (Read 2004: 31) It was also suggested that young people have a low self-awareness of their skills, and can only realistically judge them as they begin to use them in the real world. Development of ‘distance travelled’ indicators was conducted with these issues in mind. Fifty statements were piloted at 16 projects. These covered: ●
self-confidence
●
self-esteem
●
positive regard for others
●
positive attitude
Re-engaging young people
Soft outcomes and distance travelled
●
communication skills
●
taking responsibility
●
life skills
●
self-discipline
●
aspirations.
Seven of these statements were used in the interviews of the third cohort of young people. They supplemented questions used in earlier interviews that looked at attitudes to school and work, and a number of questions that asked young people about a range of abilities.
Self-assessment of ability Young people scored highly on questions asking for their assessment of their own ability. They were asked to rate themselves as ‘very good’, ‘fairly good’, ‘not so good’ or ‘not good at all’ for the following skills: ●
working with numbers
●
working with computers
●
working with other people as part of a group
●
planning for the future
●
being on time for things like work or appointments
●
having a smart appearance when you need to.
One pertinent example is that of a project which provided a crèche so that its target audience of teenage mothers could take part. The lead worker described how the use of the crèche was a side effect of participation but also a positive outcome in itself. The women were using a crèche for the first time in a community that lacked a tradition of using and trusting childcare facilities. After a few sessions the participants became more comfortable with the arrangement and gained the opportunity to meet others in similar positions and do IT, dressmaking and other activities. The worker felt this meant they were less scared and more comfortable with other opportunities. In general, project workers described NSF activities as ‘helping [young people] to learn how to operate in the real world’ and ‘adapt to new social situations’. This ‘will help them outside their own community’ and participants are ‘learning how to get on with people’. Both cohort 3 interviews used questions which tried to examine this increase in confidence. The young people were asked to ‘strongly agree’, ‘agree’, ‘disagree’, or ‘strongly disagree’ with the following 7 piloted statements: ●
If I get bored I start messing around.
●
It doesn’t take much for me to lose my temper.
●
I find it difficult to tell people what I think.
Except for ‘planning for the future’, at 72% (558), over 80% of young people rated themselves as fairly or very good for each skill.16 As these were all rated so highly, there was little room for improvement over the year, and the results of the second survey closely matched those of the first.
●
If I find something hard I give up.
●
I find it embarrassing to ask questions when I don’t understand something.
●
I find it easy to talk to new people.
●
I get nervous about trying new things.
Confidence and self-esteem
All these questions except ‘If I find something hard I give up’ indicate an improvement in interviewees’ self-confidence, self-esteem and self-control. 5% (17) fewer of the interviewees agreed that they ‘get nervous trying new things’, 11% (36) fewer agreed that they ‘find it embarrassing to ask questions’ and 7% (24) fewer ‘find it difficult to tell people what they think’.17
In the qualitative research, confidence and selfesteem were described as key to the beginning of young people’s re-engagement. Project workers described how NSF activities helped young people to widen the range of environments in which they were happy.
16
Young people’s survey, wave 1, cohort 3, n775.
17
Young people’s surveys, waves 1 and 2, cohort 3, n323.
Re-engaging young people
Community Development Foundation
●
13
Chapter One: Improving young people’s lives in a community setting
How young people’s confidence changed
If I get bored I start messing around. It doesn’t take much for me to lose my temper. I find it difficult to tell people what I think. If I find something hard I give up. If find it embarrassing to ask questions when I don’t understand something. I find it easy to talk to new people. I get nervous about trying new things. –12%
–10%
–8%
–6%
–4%
–2%
0%
2%
Source: Young people’s surveys, waves 1 and 2, cohort 3, n323
Again, these changes in agreement across the sample hide the individual changes that can be found in a longitudinal study. The number agreeing with ‘I find it embarrassing to ask questions’ decreased by 11% of the sample but the number of young people moving from one category to another was far higher. 37% (118) gave the same response in both interviews, 45% (146) reduced their level of agreement (e.g. from strongly agree to agree) and 16% (53) increased their level of agreement. Although these changes may be less concrete than a change from agreement to disagreement, the data suggests the improvement to be more widespread. When asked ‘what do you think that you have achieved by taking part in the project?’, 56% (184) said that they had become more confident.18
New and accredited activities An interesting part of this confidence building is the participation in new activities. As will be discussed in chapter 2, activities at NSF projects were used as a ‘hook’, particularly where attendance was voluntary. This does not mean, however, that young people were only doing activities they had been doing before and that they knew they liked. Neither were they just doing unstructured leisure 18
Young people’s survey, wave 2, cohort 3, n329.
14
●
Community Development Foundation
activities, as leisure and learning went together and contributed to accreditation. The most common activity was ‘trips to places’, although it should be clear that this was done, perhaps regularly or irregularly, in addition to the activities based within the project. Similarly, ‘computing and internet’ was very common, and at 3 of the 4 case study projects we found that PCs were available at the venue with relatively open access. This meant that if a young person was working on, for example, an ASDAN portfolio, they might be doing practical activities, then using the internet for research and writing. After these, ‘sports and games’ and ‘arts, crafts and painting’ were the most common (see chart opposite). As NSF participants are growing up in the 40 most deprived boroughs of England, and often in the most deprived neighbourhoods in these boroughs, they have limited opportunities for activities outside those provided by their school. The variety of activities provided by the projects gave young people opportunities to try something new. 60% (466) of the third cohort said that the NSF activities were things they had done for the first time. 57% (442) also said that these were activities they only did with the project.
Re-engaging young people
Attitudes to school and work
Participation in new activities Trips to places Computing, internet Sports or games Arts, crafts, painting Reading, writing, maths or schoolwork Dance, drama, music, singing Voluntary work Film or radio production Work experience 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Source: Young people’s survey, wave 1, cohort 3, n775
Most often these activities were broadly within the category of performing and visual arts and crafts, although this description does hide a huge range. They included: ●
dance, drama, music, DJing and singing
●
film and radio production
●
henna applying
●
soap making.
A number of outdoor activities and sports were also new to participants on the NSF programme. These included abseiling, climbing, sailing, caving, horse riding, boxing and waterfall jumping. One young girl mentioned joining a football team, something that may already be common for the boys, but will be much less likely for girls. There were also a few more unusual activities described as new or only available at the NSF project. Some may have been the unintended consequences of the NSF projects, but they were part of the socialisation that went on in the sessions. Notable examples include: ●
swimming with my child
●
discussion groups with other girls
●
first time I’ve talked with lasses
●
guiding blind/communicating with deaf
●
learning to design traditional Asian dress
●
socialising with other cultures.
Re-engaging young people
Attitudes to school and work A big risk to young people’s engagement is their attitude to school, training and work. As pointed out in the NSF case study research and elsewhere, some areas, cultures and groups have a problematic relationship with education and, to a lesser extent, work. Young people who embody these attitudes are highly likely to struggle with or drop out of education, and NSF projects aim to change those attitudes. Education has long been seen as favouring white, middle-class, young people. Paul Willis (1977) described how working-class boys do not value academic work and rebel in the classroom. More recent studies have examined the low performance of black boys and have found a similar antiacademic, anti-school culture (e.g. Sewell 1997) that has increased as deference to authority has decreased. Other studies have also pointed out the institutional racism and class-ism (e.g. Gillborn 1990) that stereotypes particular groups of young people and sets them up to fail by reacting negatively to their behavioural style. Other problems such as bullying and racism in the playground, behavioural problems and learning difficulties also make school tough for some young people. The NSF case study research found similar antischool attitudes that were compounded by the deprivation, and in particular the economic environment, in the area. In one area we were told how, historically, education was not necessary: Community Development Foundation
●
15
Chapter One: Improving young people’s lives in a community setting
jobs in local industry were easy to come by and so no one saw the need to stay on after the age of 16. The community as a whole has few qualifications and the neighbourhood is in the bottom 0.3%, when it comes to education (IMD 2004). In these circumstances, the deputy head of the local secondary school described how difficult it was to motivate young people. Many do not want to be there, and have little parental support, as their parents also do not value education. Only a third of the young people at this school have representation at parents’ evenings. The young people want to leave school as soon as possible to look for work although, as the previous analysis of participation shows, the fragility of work for the least qualified means that work may lead to NEET status. With this in mind, improvements in how much young people like school, college, work and training are to be applauded. At the first interview, a large proportion of young people had negative attitudes to school. They were asked ‘how much do you like to be doing…?’ and
47% (308) liked school ‘not very much’ or ‘not at all’. This figure was much lower for college (22%, 58), work (15%, 42) and training (12%, 25).19 Few said that they actively liked being NEET. These figures are collated from those who had experience of each status, and weren’t necessarily doing them at the time of interview (see top chart below). By the time of the second interview, the percentage of those not liking school had decreased considerably, to 37% (109) (see bottom chart below). However, the percentage of those not liking college and work increased in this period. This could be due to the timing of the interviews. Qualitative work with young people suggested that those who do not like school often look forward to going to college. It is seen as an environment where young people are treated as adults rather than children. It is possible that once young people spend time in college and learn of their environment and workloads they like it less. Again, a small number said that they liked being NEET.
How much do you like to be doing…? school very much college quite a lot work not very much training not at all NEET 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Source: Young people’s survey, respondents with experience of each status, wave 1, cohort 3, n>217 in each case
school very much college quite a lot work not very much
training
not at all
NEET 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Source: Young people’s survey, respondents with experience of each status, wave 1, cohort 3, n>105 in each case
19
Young people’s surveys, respondents with experience of each status, wave 1, cohort 3, n>217 in each case.
16
●
Community Development Foundation
Re-engaging young people
Sustainability of outcomes
Other ‘Every Child Matters’ outcomes As well as help with re-engagement to education and employment, the ‘topics’ of NSF projects are also associated with other important outcomes. Many fit into the ‘Every Child Matters’ framework (DfES 2004), which sets out how to ‘build services around the needs of children and young people so that we maximise opportunity and minimise risk’. This framework takes as its beginning 5 broad aims: ●
be healthy
●
stay safe enjoy and achieve make a positive contribution achieve economic well-being.
● ● ●
Of course, the aim of ‘achieving economic wellbeing’ was the raison d’être of the NSF programme. Its objective of getting young people back into education, employment and training fitted the government’s view that work is the best route out of poverty. ‘Make a positive contribution’ is inherent in the community approach, and the ethos of making enjoyable activities that lead somewhere helps young people to ‘enjoy and achieve’. As part of the second wave of the third cohort’s survey, young people were asked whether the project helped with a number of outcomes that contribute to being healthy and staying safe. As the following table shows, there was broad agreement that the projects did help in these areas.
The young people therefore achieved more than the programme’s intended outcomes. 70% (230) felt they gained new skills, 20% (65) felt they had improved in their school work, and 26% (87) felt they were more aware of their future options.20 However, as shown in the table below other ‘Every Child Matters’ aims were also achieved.
Sustainability of outcomes As shown earlier in the chapter, young people may move in and out of NEET status over time. There is therefore a question with regard to the sustainability of outcomes. Even if we had found that all or none of the young people were NEET at the time of the last interview, we would not be certain that this would be the case a few months later. This is especially true due to the wider circumstances in which the NSF participants grow up. They often live in areas of high unemployment, and the last year of the NSF programme coincided with an increase in unemployment and economic inactivity, particularly amongst younger people.21 Indeed ‘According to figures from the Department for Education and Skills (DfES), the percentage of 16- to 18-year olds not in education, employment or training (NEET) was 10% at the end of 2004 – up from 9% in 2003’ (Young People Now 2005). Although NSF intervention can improve the circumstances of young people, it cannot by itself reverse the structural economic inequalities that see people in poor areas, and these young people in particular, disadvantaged in work and education.
… the project helps people to get on with others who are different
94%
(309)
… the project helps people to stay out of trouble
87%
(286)
… the project encourages people to take part in more sport or other physical activity
86%
(284)
… the project helps people to deal with bullying
82%
(271)
… the project helps people to improve their behaviour in school
75%
(247)
… the project helps people to become healthier, for example in diet or sexual health
73%
(240)
… the project helps people to reduce their smoking, drinking, or use of other drugs
70%
(231)
Source: Young people’s survey, wave 2, cohort 3, n329
20
Young people’s survey, wave 2, cohort 3, n329.
21
National statistics.
Re-engaging young people
Community Development Foundation
●
17
Chapter One: Improving young people’s lives in a community setting
Therefore, the sustainability of the measured shortterm outcomes cannot be guaranteed, but the developmental and long-term approach can play a part in creating long-term positive outcomes. Instead of a one-off intervention, many NSF projects carried out a continual intervention and re-intervention. Indeed, this is perhaps essential, given the circumstances in which the NSF projects operated. Although young people may be disengaged from education and work, most have the same ambitions as wider society. However, young people’s background, neighbourhood deprivation and the local economy combine to make life tougher for the NSF participants (MacDonald and Marsh 2005). As noted by the CDF management team, it will be difficult for a young person to find a decent job with training if the local area only offers short-term McJobs. For these reasons, some of the work of the NSF projects was to help young people make decisions, and so help them navigate through this adversity. 24% (67) of the second cohort young people interviewed in the fourth wave still had contact with the project, some 31/2 years after first being interviewed at the project.22 Of these, 30 were still attending as participants, 19 were volunteering and 17 keep in touch or are advised by the project staff. This long-term engagement was an opportunity for young people to get advice, information and guidance within an organisation they trust, and at a familiar location. It seems unlikely that a school or Connexions office would also foster this kind of relationship. Furthermore, the community development ethos put the projects in a position to provide long-term help for young people with a huge range of issues. The parent organisation’s position in the community is often to empower and help people improve their lives across all arenas of life. 85 of 91 projects ‘helped young people to make better use of services’ and 74 provided training for them to do so.23 This included: ●
signposting and increasing awareness of services
22
Young people’s survey, wave 4, cohort 2, n282.
23
Project workers’ survey, n93.
18
●
Community Development Foundation
●
breaking down barriers and increasing young people’s confidence to use services.
The involvement of projects can also empower young people. Whereas a young person on his or her own may not have much influence on a particular service, in the context of the community organisation a number of young people can communicate their needs to the service more effectively. Young people have more confidence, both in day-to-day dealings, and as shapers of services, when they have the institutional backing of the community organisation.
Conclusion: the cost of doing nothing As described in ‘Bridging the Gap’ (Social Exclusion Unit 1999), the routes to social exclusion are various and complex. The report identifies parental divorce, homelessness, bullying, drugs and much more as contributing to young people’s struggle to ‘graduate’ into stable and successful adulthood. It is this failure to graduate into successful adulthood that the NSF programme, and others like it, tried to forestall. Indeed, the costs of not graduating into successful adulthood are high, for both the young person and wider society. Although not all these young people will turn to crime, the few that do will cost between £2,000 for a community punishment order and £42,000 for a custodial punishment per year (Resources 4 Change 2006).
A ‘ Coopers and Lybrand report in the mid-90s said that youth workers only needed to reduce offences by the young people they worked with by a couple a year to justify their own salary and existence. The report estimated that every youth crime cost £2,800, of which £1,800 was “recoverable to the public purse”.’ (Williamson 2006a) It is likely that the same is true of the NSF workers.
Re-engaging young people
Conclusion: the cost of doing nothing
More often, society bears the financial and other costs of long-term unemployment, lack of skills, ill health and the other non-criminal problems of social exclusion. Given that the total cost per participant, including all programme management, support and evaluation, was £1,172, the costs of doing nothing far outweigh the costs of the NSF programme. In contrast to expensive one-off interventions, NSF was a low cost, low key, ongoing intervention. Both the highly targeted work of the NSF projects and the ongoing community-based nurturing
Re-engaging young people
helped guide young people into successful adulthood. Continual intervention, guidance, signposting and everything else done in a community setting, may help young people avoid some of the other paths. In this light, the NSF projects are akin to SureStart. Where SureStart aims to improve the lives of children and their parents so that the children grow up to make a positive contribution to society, so NSF projects aimed to improve the lives of young people, in order that their contribution becomes positive over the long term.
Community Development Foundation
●
19
2
The previous chapter showed how NSF projects helped young people to have better lives. These improvements include achievement in education and employment, increased confidence, and acquiring new skills and activities. This chapter examines the social and community elements of young people’s engagements with NSF projects. First, it looks at how and why young people got involved in the project, and why they remained involved, and looks particularly at the ‘developmental approach’. Second, it looks at young people’s involvement in other projects, the parent organisation and other organisations.
Introductions to NSF – friends, neighbours, teachers, localities The NSF projects had no single model of recruitment, and each project may have used many methods. Even a particular method may have appeared different to the young person and the project worker. Most young people joined the project after hearing of it via friends and family (36%, 276) or the project worker (18%, 139).1 In these circumstances, involvement can be assumed to be voluntary: the young person decided to take part in NSF activities. This is likely to be the case for those still in school, where activities were in the evening or at weekends. Others taking part voluntarily in school hours
1
Young people’s survey, wave 1, cohort 3, n775.
2
Ibid.
3
Ibid.
20
●
Community Development Foundation
Young people, the project and the community
included those who were not in education, having left school with nothing to do, or were excluded, whether formally, informally or self-excluded. 30% (231)2 of the young people found out about the project via a teacher, education welfare officer, social worker or probation officer. For these the referral was more a case of ‘there is a place where you can go’. At one project, involving daytime graphic design and art, the NSF worker described how the young people attending were a mix of self-referrals and those who were required to attend as part of an Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme (ISSP). Even the ISSP young people were given some choice about attending, although where this was their last chance the alternative could be a custodial sentence. There were a number of other routes to attendance. Young people were referred by other projects, mentors, or people who worked for the parent organisation (as opposed to the NSF project itself ). Sometimes the links were quite tenuous, as in the example of one young person who heard about the project through her ‘mum’s work colleague’, and sometimes very close to home, as someone said, they had ‘lived next door all her life’. Although young people found about the project from a variety of people, 65% (507) of participants already had friends on the project, 39% (307) already knew a member of staff and 15% (116) had a brother or sister involved.3
Re-engaging young people
Introductions to NSF – friends, neighbours, teachers, localities
How young people found out about the project Friend Parent or guardian Brother or sister Project worker Teacher/School/EWO Probation/YOT/Social worker Connexions worker 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Source: Young people’s survey, wave 1, cohort 3, n775
The case study research suggested that being with friends was an important consideration for young people and could override the desire for a convenient location. Most young people were local to the project they attended. 73% (560) travelled for less than 15 minutes to get to the project, and 55% (422) walked or cycled. However, as with adults, young people’s networks are not limited to the neighbourhood and so this local provision attracted some participants from beyond the immediate area. 3 of the 4 case study projects were truly neighbourhood projects and most young people were local. Young people stick to their own turf for reasons of convenience, comfort and safety, and their neighbourhoods or ‘endz’ are defined by roads, housing estates and open spaces. However, even in these circumstances some young people travel to a neighbourhood that, for whatever reason, they consider to be their neighbourhood. These young people may have previously lived in the area and moved away, but their friends still live there. Others travel to the neighbourhood to join extended family or school friends. In these instances, the requirements of funders or the organisation’s constitution to work with people from a particular neighbourhood may have been stretched to fit in with young people’s friendship networks. This use of friendship networks as part of the recruitment to NSF projects is best described as ‘working with the grain’. It was clear in the Re-engaging young people
participant-observation work done as part of the case studies that young people arrived and left in groups when activities were flexible, drop-in sessions. Young people in groups, particularly boys, would hang around outside the NSF venue and then arrive together. There was a feeling that ‘safety in numbers’ was an issue, and young people would not attend if on their own. However, this working with the grain does have its drawbacks. Young people are often already divided on geographic, ethnic, gender and age lines, and drop-in sessions reflected this. Many sessions were dominated by single gender groups. In one case study project the group was entirely white, reflecting nearby streets, and no Asian young people attended, despite a significant sized Asian community less than half a mile away. This echoes a key problem of all community work. Although working within the community brings people together, this can be limited to a particular religious or ethnic group, or a particular neighbourhood (which may itself be ethnically or religiously homogeneous). It does not necessarily create links beyond this grouping. In the language of Putnam (2000), it can reinforce ‘bonding’ social capital while ignoring the need for ‘bridging’ social capital, and thus help people ‘get by’ and not ‘get on’. Given that youth disorder and youth gangs are born from such ethnic and territorial division it is important to address this. As will be shown later in this chapter, NSF projects often worked ‘outside the group’ to achieve this. Community Development Foundation
●
21
Chapter Two: Young people, the project and the community
Giving young people what they want
this description simplifies 2 processes that contribute to the activities – the development of the project and the development of young people.
Often the NSF project was the only youth provision in the area. 66% (517) of young people surveyed said they did not know of anywhere else they could do similar things.4 Furthermore, in 1 case study project we found that the statutory youth provision was available but intermittent. A recent re-opening of a neighbourhood youth club had resulted in conflict between groups of young people from different neighbourhoods, and so the youth club had only 1 closed session per week.
Although most obvious at the very beginning of a particular youth project, the organisation develops its activities all the time. The project manager and others in the organisation need to be aware of young people’s interests and needs in order to create a project that the target young people will attend.
21% (161) of the young people had knowledge and experience of other places in the area where they could do similar activities.5 Of these, 76% (123) preferred the NSF project, 14% (22) preferred the other project and 10% (16) liked both equally.6 The reasons were similar across both preferences. Convenience, both in time and place, was a consideration – 1 young person preferred the NSF project as it was ‘open 5 days a week, and the other is only open 1 day.’ Many mentioned the atmosphere of the project – ‘fun’, ‘more friendly’, easier to relax’ – and others preferred a particular project because that’s where their friends went. Proportionally more of those preferring the NSF project mentioned a greater choice of activities and facilities. Those preferring NSF also mentioned the mix of people – ‘more people, mixed gender’ – and the opportunity for learning.
This creates a dilemma common to all community development work. How much of the activity should be up and running by the time the participants join in? If too little is done, the young people may see it as under-resourced at the beginning, or not a serious project. If too much is done or, even worse, set in stone, then young people will see the project as something done to them, in which they can have little influence. Similarly, it is important to take notice of the development of the young people themselves. As mentioned above, many of those stating a preference for the NSF project referred to the ‘learning’ they could do. In our case study projects this included DJ and music production tuition, computer classes and kayaking courses. Although the young people were sometimes happy just to ‘give activities a go’, they came to realise that they would get more out of the activities if they gained more skills. For this reason, part of the long-term ‘draw’ of the NSF projects was a sense of progress.
Different interests and different skills Activities: the ‘hook’ and the ‘draw’
Young people in a particular area are unlikely to have the same interests and the same skills.
The case study research and other non-survey work pointed to the relationship between attracting young people and the activities offered. The activities needed to attract young people, especially at projects that didn’t use coercion, were often described as the ‘hook’ (see Steer 2005). However,
43% (335) of the young people surveyed said they had taken part in 4 or more activities as part of the NSF project.7 However, this does not tell us whether all activities were available at any given NSF session, or whether activities were only available on specific occasions.
4
Ibid.
5
Ibid.
6
Young people’s survey, young people with experience of alternative, wave 1, cohort 3, n161.
7
Young people’s survey, wave 1, cohort 3, n775.
22
●
Community Development Foundation
Re-engaging young people
The developmental approach
The case study research found that projects used a variety of ways to manage young people’s different needs. Three of the case study projects had at least 1 open session in which all young people were welcome. These sessions offered a variety of activities, for example: ●
DJing, pool, and computers
●
computers, gym and youth café
●
DJing, dance and music production.
All these activities were available at the same time, making high demands on space and staff. All the sessions had a ‘drop-in’ feel, as young people came and went, particularly if they had to wait for a specific activity. They could treat these as ‘taster’ sessions, deciding whether the activity was something they wanted to do long term. Other sessions, although open and drop-in, were set aside for specific activities. Examples include one case study project’s ‘youth achievement’ sessions, in which young people spent time completing activities and portfolios for the ASDAN youth achievement awards, as well as taking part in other activities. Finally, some sessions were closed, with a specific activity and a particular group of young people. These were focused on particular achievements. In one project, 7 young people were in a closed session which was part of the creation and training of a youth forum that would help manage the project. In another, 3 young people were chosen to create a CD in a weekly session. These approaches allow project staff to work with young people in different ways at different times. However, there are still issues of interests, skills and timings that inhibit the full involvement of young people. First, it is difficult to appeal to all young people all of the time, and even where a range of activities was on offer, this range or the atmosphere generated may have put some off attending. Second, any activity assumes a level of skill in order to participate and enjoy. This is most obvious in competitive games and sports where being picked last or losing all the time can be a
8
knock to confidence. But this is also true in other activities, and project staff had to balance the need to work with the group and help particular individuals. Finally, where activities had a particular timeline, for example termly or yearly award schemes, young people could not join in at their first involvement, but had to wait until the sessions began again.
The developmental approach Projects that work with young people over long time frames need to develop as the young people develop. The same is true, to an extent, in projects that engage young people in fixed length ‘courses’, where the participants, and so their interests and needs, change. In the vast majority of projects young people were formally involved in the day-to-day management of activities. 85 of 93 projects surveyed said that ‘young people were involved in running the NSF project or in the planning or delivery of the project’s activities’ through informal discussion. Seventeen had young people on their steering groups (see top chart overleaf ).8 Some projects also used market research style consultation techniques. These included evaluation questionnaires, exit questionnaires, activity requests and planning, and focus groups. Other projects mentioned youth involvement in the project that did not sit neatly into the categories of ‘informal involvement’ or management committee/steering group. Instead, where young people were involved as peer mentors or volunteers, they were ‘planning and delivering sessions alongside staff ’. The survey also asked projects whether they had young people’s input into various aspects of their work. As expected, most projects had young people’s input into the project’s activities and recruitment of other young people. However, some had encouraged more substantial involvement, and 18 even had young people involved in the recruitment of project staff (see bottom table overleaf ). Seventy-two of the projects also provided training or support for young people who wanted to be involved in this way.
Project workers’ survey, n93.
Re-engaging young people
Community Development Foundation
●
23
Chapter Two: Young people, the project and the community
Young people’s involvement in projects’ day-to-day management In informal discussions By making group decisions As reps on the steering group Other 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Source: Project workers’ survey, n93
Young people’s involvement
Number of projects
Individually choosing what to do from a menu of activities offered by project
75
Deciding where to go for a project trip or residential
75
Deciding on the activities that the project offers
75
Working as peer mentors to other young people on the project
61
Involved in recruiting other young people onto the project
58
Involved in budgeting/accounting for the project’s activities
26
Involved in the recruitment of project staff
18
Source: Project workers’ survey, n93
Formal and informal governance of the project As the NSF projects were part of a parent organisation (the community organisation), the responsibility for ensuring the NSF work happened lay with the management committee of the parent body. However, as shown above, some projects organised young people’s forums or steering groups which helped to manage the project, but without the legal responsibility. 17% (56) of the young people surveyed had been ‘involved in organising or managing the project, for example as part of a young people’s forum or committee’ and of these 41 had been given appropriate training.9 The case study research provided more detail of this involvement. In 2 of the 4 projects visited, 9
Young people’s survey, wave 2, cohort 3, n329.
24
●
Community Development Foundation
young people were involved in the management of the NSF activities in a formalised structure. At the first, a youth forum was formed from 6 young women who had been involved in the project for 3 to 5 years. Although the parent organisation’s management committee was ultimately responsible for the project, this forum worked with the project manager to guide the project. At the time of the research, the forum was writing and making representations to the local MP and local authority, with the aim of securing longterm funding from the youth budget. At the second, the project manager was planning to re-constitute the youth activities into a stand-alone organisation. For this, a shadow body had been formed that was chaired by a 19-year-old ex-NSF participant. At the time of the research, the youth
Re-engaging young people
Satisfaction and responsibility
group was planning to ‘go it alone’ with a new governing body consisting of a mix of young people and others.
Satisfaction and responsibility
In both cases the youth forum was contributing through activities that would often be part of the work of the parent body’s management committee. In the first, young people were representing the project at meetings considering the local youth funding. In the second, the young people were to be the signatories to funding applications.
95% (312) of the young people interviewed in the second wave of the third cohort said they would ‘recommend the project to other people’.12 Some young people were extremely positive but very general:
Of course, participants were not always able to be formally part of the management committee, for legal reasons. Trustees of unincorporated charities must be aged 18 or over. Furthermore, the Charity Commission suggests that there may be some ‘parental liability’ for young trustees and that their number and role will depend on the nature of the organisation (NCVYS 2004). Fourteen of the projects reported that NSF participants had been involved in the management committee of the project’s parent body.10 Twenty-one of the parent bodies surveyed had young people on the management committee, although not necessarily NSF participants.11 Although there are legal and other barriers to having young people involved in governance, some organisations enable young people to be involved at the highest level.
‘It’s the best thing you can ever do; get so much out of it’ More specific reasons given for recommending the project included the immediate outcomes such as learning or opportunities for leisure, the long-term outcome of better prospects, and the project’s atmosphere and social life. However, it also seems likely that satisfaction also came from the ability of young people to shape and play an active part in the project. They were not just consumers of a youth activity. The survey asked NSF participants about how they were treated, and how much influence they had on the project. This goes beyond particular forms of representation or consultation. After all, it is possible to have a young people’s forum and still ignore their wishes. At the NSF projects the vast majority of participants agreed that they were treated with respect and were able to influence what happened to them there:
[They] treat me with respect [They] listen to me
Strongly disagree Disagree
[They] treat me as an individual
Agree
[They] are friendly and approachable
Strongly agree I am able to choose what I do I have a say on the kinds of activities 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Source: Young people’s survey, wave 1, cohort 3, n775
10
Project workers’ survey, n93.
11
Host organisations’ survey, n86.
12
Young people’s surveys, wave 2, cohort 3, n329.
Re-engaging young people
Community Development Foundation
●
25
Chapter Two: Young people, the project and the community
Not only does this very basic empowerment contribute to satisfaction, and therefore continual attendance, but it should also help young people to handle responsibility. Young people who complain about school because they don’t want to be ‘treated like children’ have the opportunity to be treated in a more adult way. They are listened to and are able to choose what they do and when, and this basic responsibility and day-to-day decision making can be part of a gradual process towards the informal and formal governance described above.
Beyond the project, beyond the organisation A key difference between the community organisations that ran NSF projects and schools and the statutory youth sector is the fact that the project was part of something bigger. Whereas a school or youth club is part of a centralised state structure such as the local education authority, the NSF project was part of the organisation with which it shared physical space, staff and resources. This gave rise to opportunities for people and activities to mix across the organisation. Furthermore, where community organisations aim to involve the whole community, as opposed to certain sections, there are daily opportunities for mixing.
Mixing with other groups As stated earlier, young people come in their own social groupings, and most projects worked with the grain. Indeed, to force mixing might have discouraged involvement. However, the groups of young people that attended NSF projects were encouraged to mix with others, both within the project and the organisation and beyond. Of course, many projects successfully mixed young people within the project. For neighbourhood, ethnicity and religion, a majority of the NSF projects said they had a mixture of young people registered as NSF participants. And although it may at first seem like ‘no big deal’, having a gender mix or appealing to differing needs and interests is something that is not done, for example, in a boys’ football session. 85 out of 93 projects said they had a mix of male and female participants, 60 projects had a mix of religions or faiths and 71 had young people of differing ethnic backgrounds (see chart below). Many projects also worked with young people under different funding programmes or for their own different goals. Although it requires accounting systems to register who benefits and when, many organisations ran activities that were attended by both young people who were NSF registered and other young people. In 66 of the NSF projects at least some of their activities were attended by a mix of young people (see chart opposite).13
With differing interests A mixture of male and female With different needs Of different ethnicities From different neighbourhoods Of different religions or faiths 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Source: Project workers’ survey, n93
13
Project workers’ survey, n93.
26
●
Community Development Foundation
Re-engaging young people
Beyond the project, beyond the organisation
All activities are attended by a mix of NSF registered and others Some activities are attended by a mix of NSF registered and others No activities are attended by a mix of NSF registered and others 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Source: Project workers’ survey, n93
The ‘others’ that attended the NSF activities were not registered as NSF participants for a range of reasons, including: ●
out of the age range or neighbourhood
●
registered with other projects in the organisation
●
friends who take part in activities, but do not need intensive help
●
young people volunteering to work in these sessions.
Outside the youth project As well as getting different sets of young people together, NSF projects also mixed the target young people with others as part or as a by-product of the activity.
Project managers said this approach avoided labelling or ghettoising the young people as being ‘the NSF group’ and therefore partially being recognised as those unlikely to achieve. Indeed, in 27 of the projects, the NSF young people did not necessarily know that they were part of an NSF group or registered as NSF participants.14 From the young person’s point of view, they had become involved in a youth project and did not necessarily care about how the project was funded or badged.
85 of 93 NSF projects surveyed ‘take place at venues that are used by the wider community’ and 79 took place in venues with ‘mixed use areas that see young people and others doing activities sideby-side’.15 The case study research demonstrated how this worked in practice. In 1 project visited, the NSF young people had free access to a gym that was part of the community facility. Although not necessarily fully-fledged intergenerational work, these activities did bring young people and adults together in a safe space. This was described as helping the different age groups have more experience, and become more tolerant, of each other. 66 of the projects went further and said that these opportunities led to young people and others working together.16
Furthermore, NSF-registered young people also attended non-NSF youth activities within the same organisation. A few projects said that although daytime NSF activities were only attended by NSF participants, they encouraged these young people to attend other sessions, and in particular their evening youth clubs. This should be seen as the beginning of their wider engagement.
Through these mixed use areas and more deliberate activities, NSF projects did mix their participants with other groups of people. As would be expected, it was more common for young people to mix with slightly younger or slightly older people than with those who were much older. However, a third (32) of the projects had activities with people aged 40 or above. The percentage of projects in which young people mixed with different age groups is as follows:
14
Ibid.
15
Ibid.
16
Ibid.
Re-engaging young people
Community Development Foundation
●
27
Chapter Two: Young people, the project and the community
12 or younger 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60 or over 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Source: Project workers’ survey, n93
68 of the projects had activities that mixed the NSF group with people from other neighbourhoods, 65 with people of other ethnicities, and 54 with people of other faiths. Not only do we see a mix of people within the project, but also an additional mix with those outside the project. The case study research gave examples of how these activities worked in different contexts. Intergenerational, inter-neighbourhood or other inter-group activities were sometimes done within the organisation where opportunities arose. However, as noted before, the groups involved with an organisation could be relatively homogeneous, and working with other community organisations created further opportunities for this work. In a ‘cradle to grave’ community setting, intergenerational activities are immediately available and can be very ad hoc. At one organisation, an older people’s group was due to take part in a theatre trip. Due to people dropping out, they had a number of spare tickets. A decision was made to use these spare tickets for the NSF group, and so a number of young people and the NSF worker joined the older people’s group in the minibus. At another case study project, a group that was primarily working with young people (aged from 10 to 19) created an intergenerational event for the Queen’s golden jubilee celebrations. Although the adults taking part were not involved in the organisation beforehand, the neighbourhood nature of the project meant that the event, a street party organised by young people, was on the doorstep of parents and other adults, making involvement easy.
28
●
Community Development Foundation
Mixing with people of other ethnic or religious backgrounds is more difficult where the community and community organisation is predominantly of one ethnic or religious group. Linkages with other community organisations and other youth groups can help to bridge these divides, however it must be stressed that this kind of multicultural work, where found, was done as a ‘one-off ’ and was not long-term regular activity.
Beyond the organisation As the focus of the evaluation was the NSF programme, and therefore the projects and the community organisations managing them, there was little investigation of the community beyond the walls of the community centre. However, the evaluation did find evidence of an impact in the wider community. The following sections will detail the role of the young people in this impact, and chapter 3 details the role of the project and organisation.
Community cohesion Although ‘community cohesion’ is most often used in the context of inter-ethnic strife, and in particular with regard to the 2001 riots, the Cantle report (Home Office 2001) and the London bombs of 2005, the concept is also useful in considering youth relations. The territorialism of young people, whether based on ethnicities or postcodes, can lead to divisions that echo those described by Cantle:
‘I never met anyone on this estate who wasn’t like us from around here.’ (Home Office 2001: 9) Re-engaging young people
Volunteering
The emphasis on ‘common values and a civic culture’ (Home Office 2001: 13) is also the opposite of the divide between young and older people. Indeed, some cultural differences, particularly in fashion, music, and language, are greater between generations than between ethnicities, and this may contribute to feelings of mistrust and fear (for example, the debate around the wearing of ‘hoodies’). It was difficult to gauge fully projects’ and organisations’ work in this area, particularly with regard to neighbourhood and ethnic divisions. Although one project visited as part of the case study research did have a multicultural event and regular attendance by at least 1 young person from a black and minority ethnic community (who was black/white mixed ethnicity), there was still a feeling of ‘us and them’ when referring to a largely Pakistani area nearby. The evaluation did not find any concrete changes in these divisions. This suggests a need for long-term work, perhaps supported by specific funding streams, that addresses ethnic divisions. However, in those case study projects where young and older people used the same space, divides were being eroded. Although some older people said that young people were too noisy and, when hanging around, got in the way, they did not see young people as a threat. One older man said that although he didn’t like the noise, he realised that young people were having fun in the same way that he did when young. This ‘learning to get along’ was part of a realisation that the young people were not all problem teenagers. A more striking example was where an NSF project turned round an area that was a place where young people caused trouble and others avoided. Prior to the NSF project, the community centre suffered from youth disorder in the immediate vicinity. Stolen cars and motorbikes were abandoned and set alight in the car park outside the centre, and local young people climbed onto the roof, dismantled the tiles and smashed windows. In interviews, the management committee members were quick to blame these problems on the lack of
provision. A local youth club had closed a couple of years previously and there was nothing for young people to do. This contributed to a more generalised disorder, as prostitution and drug problems appeared in the area. When the NSF project began, it operated as a drop-in with DJing and other music activities. Postcards were distributed across the nearby estates to announce the first session. Far more young people turned up than had been expected. For the centre manager this was the beginning of a turnaround in the relationship between young people and the centre, and young people and the community. He said that at the start he could not say ‘hello’ to the teenagers without them being a bit abusive. Now he can talk to them and the vandalism and general disorder has ceased. He said that as the young people now think it is also their centre, destroying it would mean damaging their own facilities. This sense of belonging can be extended to the relationship between young people and the community. If young people feel they have no stake, there is little incentive to look after or contribute to a community centre or the community. However, if the community organisation is helping them, then they will value the help. It is possible that this contributes to a greater satisfaction with the area. The survey data shows an increase in ‘young people wanting to live in the area when they get older’ from 42% (324) to 56% (185).17
Volunteering As part of the second wave of interviews, young people were also asked about their involvement in community activities, both in the context of the project and beyond. 55% (182) of the young people surveyed had spent some time volunteering. 27% (88) said they were currently doing voluntary work and a further 29% (94) said they had done some voluntary work in the past but weren’t doing it at the time of interview.18
17
Young people’s surveys, waves 1 and 2, cohort 3, wave 1 n775, wave 2 n329.
18
Young people’s survey, wave 2, cohort 3, n329.
Re-engaging young people
Community Development Foundation
●
29
Chapter Two: Young people, the project and the community
Approximately half of this volunteering came about through the NSF project, and a similar amount was self-organised or arranged through other organisations. A small amount of this activity came about through school. Due to the crossover between the project and the community organisation it is not always clear which a young person is helping out. Of those that got involved in voluntary work through the project, just over half mentioned activities that were part of the organisation. These included:
●
coaching sports and helping in youth theatre.
Many of the other voluntary activities arose through friends, family, other community organisations and faith organisations. Fundraising, looking after young children and coaching/ teaching were the most common forms of volunteering. A few also mentioned helping older people.
Youth involvement
●
mentoring, helping younger children as part of the project, and working with much younger children at the organisation’s play schools and nurseries
The surveys of both the projects and the young people revealed involvement in governance and consultative activities beyond the NSF project and the parent organisation.
●
administration and other ‘back of house’ activities
●
helping with events, whether as part of the project or the organisation.
In response to questions about volunteering a number of young people mentioned their involvement in youth forums, councils and committees. 19% (62) said they had been involved in running other community organisations, and of these 53% (33) had been helped to do this by the project.19
Some projects encouraged volunteering as part of their regular activities. This was often in circumstances where skills were gained within the project that could then be used in the community, for example: ●
teaching sign language and helping people with sight problems
Examples included: ●
involvement in committees at the local hospital or college
●
youth parliament.
Young people’s involvement in governance and consultative activities Local youth council or forum Connexions Service consultation Local authority consultation Other voluntary organisation Area committees/residents’ association Management committee of the project’s parent body Campaigning groups School council Regeneration partnership UK Youth Parliament British Youth Council 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Source: Project workers’ survey, n93
19
Ibid.
30
●
Community Development Foundation
Re-engaging young people
Conclusion
This was confirmed by the project managers. 39 of 93 projects reported that NSF young people had been involved with their local youth council or forum. Especially welcome was the finding that 6 projects had NSF participants who had been involved with the UK youth parliament.20 This means that some of the ‘hardest to reach’ young people, living in the most deprived areas of England, had the chance to make their views heard at the highest level. Fifty-eight of the projects said they provided training and support for these young people. Indeed, CDF itself witnessed this engagement at first hand. An NSF group presented to the CDF staff conference in 2005, with the project manager and participants running through the activities and work done by young people.
Conclusion NSF projects generally took a developmental approach to working with young people. Individual young people’s involvement could begin extremely gently, often by accompanying friends to drop-in sessions. At this stage, young people may have attended an NSF project, but were not signed up and did not contribute to monitoring statistics. They were trying it out. Young people needed to feel comfortable with the environment of the NSF project. At one case study project, we were told how many of its young people, boys in particular, would previously only have engaged with adults in confrontational and authoritarian circumstances, that is with teachers and police. NSF projects avoided this by a gradual and voluntary approach: the young person decided what to do and when. The added comfort of a
20
community space, a community worker who may already be known to the young person, and friends, made the NSF project a place in which all could participate. This does not mean that the projects were purely a leisure activity for young people. Participants wanted a sense of progress and didn’t want to be doing the same thing every week. But nor did they want to be dropped in at the deep end, being taken out of their comfort zone. Gradual development is necessary, and this can extend to young people playing a full part in the life of their project, managing the work and volunteering. Of course, youth work generally aims to work developmentally. Although sometimes caricatured as working with an ‘if we build it, they will come’ approach, other youth projects do aim to develop their young people, and develop with the young people. A key difference, however, is the position of the NSF project as part of a larger communitybased organisation. A statutory youth sector project or a youth organisation’s project will work with young people as a community in itself, whether deliberately or due to the boundaries of the organisation. Instead, the NSF projects, through sharing participants, staff, volunteers and space, blurred with the parent organisation. Beyond this, the parent organisation is a part of the wider community. This creates opportunities for young people to be involved with more than just the youth project, and this can foster positive outcomes for both young people and the community. And again, this involvement can occur gradually. This relationship between the community, the community organisation, and the NSF project was also part of the developmental approach. The next chapter examines this relationship in more detail.
Project workers’ survey, n93.
Re-engaging young people
Community Development Foundation
●
31
3
The NSF project, the community organisation and the community
By March 2006, the community organisations had been running their NSF projects for just under 6 years. Beginning in April 2000, 525 organisations received NSF funding of an average £20,000 per year. When the pilot stage was finished and the second stage began in April 2003, 131 projects continued with just under £40,000 per year (Steer 2005: 77). For many of these parent organisations, this funding and the work of the project created a great deal of change. As noted in the previous evaluation, ‘only 38% of the groups that received NSF funding had previously worked with the NSF target group; 14% had not worked with young people at all prior to NSF’ (Steer 2005: 2). This chapter focuses on the impact of this funding and work, both within the organisation and more widely. First, the chapter examines the type of organisations that hosted NSF projects, how they are funded, and their relations with the community. Second, it looks at the way that the NSF project was part of and potentially embedded within the organisation. Third, it examines the change to the organisation that occurred as a result of the NSF projects. The final section broadens this theme by looking outward from the organisation to the wider provision in the locality.
Community organisations and community involvement Type of organisation Although the organisations running CDF’s strand of the NSF programme were all ‘community organisations’, there was a great range of organisations involved. Through a survey of the organisations and case study research, the 32
●
Community Development Foundation
evaluation found that to describe them as ‘community organisations’ is a vast simplification, and that the complex nature of the organisations and their histories is part and parcel of them being a community organisation. 86 of the 127 projects operating at the time of the survey – summer 2005 – responded to a postal survey. This requested information about the organisation as a whole, and not just about NSF activities, with the aim of discovering how they define themselves and the community they serve, the type of work they do, and how the NSF project fitted in or changed the organisation. The vast majority of organisations were best described as ‘local voluntary – not for profit organisations’ and most of these were also registered charities. Organisations were free to choose more than one of the categories; none considered themselves to be in the private or public sector: Local voluntary – not for profit organisation
68
Registered charity
59
Community group
41
Education/training establishment
29
Faith organisation
9
Community enterprise
6
Partnership
5
National voluntary – not for profit organisation
3
Other
2
Source: Parent bodies’ survey, n86
Re-engaging young people
Community organisations and community involvement
create a typology of the organisations running NSF projects.
The community served The organisations were also asked about the community they serve. Again the vast majority saw themselves as servicing the local community. However, many also saw their ‘client group’ in terms of age, need, interest, ethnicity, faith and gender: People from the local neighbourhood
76
People of a particular age group
47
People with a particular need
44
People with a particular interest
28
People from a particular ethnic group
20
People of a particular gender
13
People of a particular faith or religion Other
8 15
Source: Parent bodies’ survey, n86
Many of those that responded ‘other’ went on to describe their ‘open door policy’ or how they work with different groups as part of different strands of their work. As mentioned above, the organisations and their projects cannot be simply categorised. For example, none of those that described themselves as faith groups said they served a community of a particular religion. Most of those that said they served a particular religion described themselves as a ‘community group’ or a ‘local voluntary – not for profit organisation’. Furthermore, the case study research revealed how organisations change over time. One project visited is now adequately described as a ‘cradle to grave neighbourhood community organisation’. However, further probing into its history revealed its origins in the local church. Although it was not a Christian organisation, it was kick-started by members of a local church, and the 2 local churches retain representatives on the management committee. To categorise the projects we also asked about their history and their current work. The responses to these questions and those above were used to 1
This found 4 broad categories of organisation. 21 were non-specialist organisations that served either a local community or an ethnic or religious group. Because of the residential segregation of England this often means the same thing: a Muslim group in a Muslim neighbourhood would be serving the local community and organisations in a very white area would also be catering to a specific ethnic group. A small number were described as ‘anchor organisations’ as they brought together a number of community groups in one organisation rather than servicing a single neighbourhood. 21 were non-specialist youth organisations. These usually had no particular activity or focus, other than on providing opportunities for young people. Some had roots in a particular ethnicity or faith. For example, 1 was set up by an Anglican church but described itself as offering ‘secular youth provision’. 24 were most characterised by their focus on skills. These were of 2 kinds. One set had a focus on skills in the creative arts or other activities, sometimes with the aim of people finding their vocation, or more usually to give an opportunity to gain skills in new activities. Others were much more instrumental. As training organisations, they aimed to give people skills to use in the workplace. Finally, 20 could be described as ‘issues based’. These organisations had a focus on particular problems that can affect people’s lives. They focused on health, gender and family issues (e.g. organisations catering for parents), and homelessness.1
Staff and funding The parent organisations were mostly small. 47 had an annual income of less than £200,000, and 19 had an income of less than £100,000 per year. 46 of the organisations employed 5 or fewer full-time workers. Adding each part-time worker as half a full-time worker, two-thirds (57) of the organisations had 10 or fewer staff.
Parent bodies’ survey, n86.
Re-engaging young people
Community Development Foundation
●
33
Chapter Three: The NSF project, the community organisation and the community
Apart from the NSF funding, the organisations received funding from a range of other sources. The most common were charitable sources (47) and local government (44) (see chart below). Most organisations had a diversity of funding sources: two-thirds (57) had 4 or more funding sources including NSF. However, some had few sources. Three organisations had only 1 funding source (that is NSF) and 10 had only 2.
Age and history of organisation The current position of the organisation (the work done, its funding and networks, and its relationship to the community) is very much a product of its history. The organisation’s background does not only influence its current work, but also the involvement of the community as volunteers. First, each organisation’s original mission was a response to the conditions at the time it was formed. Many organisations came together to save community facilities threatened by funding cuts or under use. Others were responses to particularly prominent social problems, including unemployment in the 1980s, racism around the time of the Lawrence Inquiry and, more recently, anti-social behaviour and the ‘climate of fear’. However, organisations can and do change in response to the needs of the community around them. One case study organisation began as an
adventure playground project run by ‘a group of parents because there were no facilities in the area for children at that time’. Thirty years later it has become a community organisation offering IT classes, a playgroup and youth club, an older people’s group and more. For both of these reasons we find that the different types of organisation have different age profiles. The non-specialist organisations tended to be older: 11 of the 21 had existed for more than 20 years. Those focusing on arts, activities and training (skills) were much younger, with 19 of the 24 having existed for less than 20 years.2 This produces a sedimentation effect, where each era produces a different kind of organisation. The organisations created at the time NSF was started were all working on skills or youth topics, whereas the older organisations were much more likely to be non-specialist or addressing a particular issue (see top chart opposite). Older projects were also better resourced in terms of human capital and financial resources. The very newest organisations had an average of 4 paid staff, whereas older organisations had an average of 11.5 staff, a figure that did not increase as the organisations got older. However, the average number of volunteers increased as the age of the organisations increased. The newest organisations had an average of 4.5 volunteers, compared with 27.9 for organisations aged over 20 years (see middle chart opposite).3
Organisations’ sources of funding Charity or trust Local government department Central government department driven Other regeneration/Regional Development Fund National Lottery Community Fund European funds Voluntary organisation Private sector Membership fees 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Source: Parent bodies’ survey, n86
2
Ibid.
3
Ibid.
34
●
Community Development Foundation
Re-engaging young people
Community organisations and community involvement
Similarly, the most established organisations had more income. Around half of those aged 10 years or more had more than £200,000, whereas only a third of the newest organisations had this much income. The newest organisations were also reliant on few funding streams (see bottom chart below). The case study research provided more in-depth information of the development of community organisations4 that is particularly relevant to the
integrating of youth activities. It is important to note at this stage that the age of the organisation may have an effect on how it is integrated into the community, and how a youth project can be integrated into the organisation. This work found that the older, more established organisations had both the resources and the reputation to take on a new piece of work like the NSF project, with little risk to the organisation’s
Less than 5 years Issues based 5 to 10 years
Skills
10 to 20 years
Youth Non-specialist
More than 20 years 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Source: Parent bodies’ survey, n86
Less than 5 years 5 to 10 years
volunteers workers
10 to 20 years More than 20 years 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Source: Parent bodies’ survey, n86
Less than 5 years
£500,000 or more Between £200,000 and £499,999
5 to 10 years
Between £100,000 and £199,999 10 to 20 years
Between £50,000 and £99,999 Up to £49,999
More than 20 years 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Source: Parent bodies’ survey, n86
4
Although this research only covered 4 projects, the findings fit well with the survey data, and it therefore seems likely that they can be extended to other projects.
Re-engaging young people
Community Development Foundation
●
35
Chapter Three: The NSF project, the community organisation and the community
stability. One organisation, with reserves in the bank, said it would be able to continue working with young people in the short term if funding ceased. It suffered less from the stop–start nature of grant funding, as it could cover gaps and present a seamless service to the users. Furthermore, if something did go wrong with a particular activity (for example, deciding to close it due to lack of interest) the organisation was not destabilised as it had many more activities.
served, compared with 65% of staff working for ‘issues based’ organisations and 72% of staff working for ‘youth’ organisations:
Non-specialist Youth specialist Skills
Community involvement Even where the focus of the activities is on a particular ‘client group’ or problem, the organisation may well be a ‘community group’. Measures of ‘community involvement’ show that there was little difference across these types. All of the non-specialist organisations had members of their community on the management committee, as did all except 3 of the other organisations. 80 of the 86 organisations surveyed had volunteers helping with their activities and all but 2 of these had volunteers from the community. Over 90% of all volunteers in the non-specialist, youth and skills organisations were from the community served, and 82% of those in issues-based organisations were from the community served:
Non-specialist Youth specialist
Issues based 0%
20%
40%
60%
80% 100%
Source: Parent bodies’ survey, n86
Organisations also recruited staff from their communities. 22 took all their staff from the community they serve, although proportionally more of these were in the youth specialist category. Summing across the 4 categories used above, we find that over 50% of all staff working in the nonspecialist organisation came from the community ●
0%
20%
40%
60%
80% 100%
Source: Parent bodies’ survey, n86
Part of this difference may be explained by the understanding of the term ‘community’, and therefore who counts as coming from the community, and part may be explained by the paths taken to becoming a volunteer or worker. Indeed, these 2 issues are intimately connected. During the case study research, we found that a number of paid staff, and some volunteers, had connections to the locality or the community, although they did not necessarily live there. These included: ●
people who had grown up in the area and moved away as adults
●
people with family or friends in the area.
Volunteers: community and ‘professional’ volunteers
Skills
36
Issues based
Community Development Foundation
Of course, travelling more than a short distance to the organisation is much more unlikely for someone giving their time up for free, and thus most volunteers were from the community served by the organisation. However, we did find examples of people travelling in order to help. These can be dubbed ‘professional’ volunteers and were found in both management committees and helping with the work of the organisation. Similar themes arose in relation to sessional staff. In 2 of the 4 case study projects we came across workers who had begun by volunteering in the Re-engaging young people
Embedding the NSF project in the organisation and the community
organisation. In one, the worker had originally spent time with the organisation as part of her degree, choosing to do this as work experience. In the other, the receptionist had volunteered to spend time with the youth project, and had subsequently been taken on as a part-time youth worker. In the 2 other case study projects we came across sessional staff who were also using the community organisation as a way of gaining valuable experience. These were people with creative skills who were working as tutors or youth practitioners either as part of their career building or at the same time as pursuing their own creative work. One of the projects also had a ‘professional volunteer’ on the management committee. This person was not from the area served, but knew of the organisation through friends, and brought expertise in finance. This suggests that there are 2 different motivations for volunteering and kinds of volunteers. Some are local people, who are giving something back to their own community, and will directly gain from any consequent improvement in the area. The others, ‘professional’ volunteers, are still motivated by ‘giving something back’, but are also motivated by their own self-improvement and will not gain from the improvement in the area. Of course, the skills of the ‘professional’ volunteers are incredibly valuable to the community organisation. However, like paid staff who have come in from outside the community, those with loose or no ties may well leave the community organisation and take their experience and skills with them. As with the New Economics Foundation’s Plugging the Leaks campaign (2002), enabling community members to gain skills as part of the work ensures that these skills remain in the community and so helps ‘plug the skills leaks’. Young people in particular can gain skills through helping out, and so the skill of the ‘professional’ volunteers should be transferred to others in the organisation. Furthermore, emphasising differences between volunteers representing the community and those with specific expertise risks ignoring the skills of community members.
5
Embedding the NSF project in the organisation and the community As noted above, the organisations running NSF activities were all ‘community organisations’, run by voluntary management committees, and often with paid staff and helpers from the community. They were run for and by the community. However, the NSF activities were funded as a discrete piece of work, and so could come to be constituted as a ‘semi-detached’ project. The evaluation therefore asked representatives of both the host organisation and the project questions that tell us the extent to which the NSF project was embedded in the organisation and the community.
The NSF workers Although NSF was a new piece of work for the host organisations and some new staff were recruited, in many organisations there was staffing crossover with other work. This suggests that NSF was embedded in these organisations and thus the skills and experience gained by workers remained after the NSF programme ended. Forty-six of the 93 project workers surveyed said they were not recruited specifically for the NSF project.5 The case study research found NSF staff who had previously had other roles in the organisation and some who had multiple roles in the organisation. Sixty-six of the staff were fulltime within the organisation, but of these only 40 worked on NSF full time. Across all the NSF staff surveyed, less than half (41) worked only on the NSF project, with most of the rest doing work with different client groups. It is therefore misleading to talk of ‘NSF workers’. In the majority of cases the lead worker was an employee of the organisation who worked on both the NSF project and other projects. Although the NSF project might have been an important contract, and these staff might have lost their work in the event of losing NSF funding, they were also part of the wider work of the organisation.
Project workers’ survey, n93.
Re-engaging young people
Community Development Foundation
●
37
Chapter Three: The NSF project, the community organisation and the community
Management committee involvement in NSF projects As the people legally responsible for the NSF project, members of the management committee needed to have an involvement with the NSF project. There was a high level of overseeing, but less direct management of, or direct involvement in, the projects (see top chart below). The case study projects provided examples of how the management of NSF projects worked in practice. In 2 of the 4 projects the NSF project and project worker were managed by a centre manager who answered to the management committee. However, in one of these organisations and another of the case studies, the project worker was
relatively self-managed. One worker described this as a ‘hands off ’ approach, which was confirmed by the management committee. In this instance, the management committee member argued that the expertise needed for working with young people meant that the committee could do little hands on management. This may be due to a downside of project based funding. As the organisations know that the funding will end, they may see the work as time limited. The management committee has less incentive to become deeply involved, as any learning will be worthless. This seems to be more the case in the non-specialist organisations, and less prevalent in the youth organisations (see bottom table below).
Ensuring project is operating Ensuring finance/budgets are correct Making decisions/suggestions Promoting the work of the project Visiting/attending shows or events Management of project workers Setting targets/monitoring progress Applying for funding Volunteering 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Source: Parent bodies’ survey, n86
Organisation type
Number of organisations
Members of management committee involved in volunteering
Members of management committee involved in making decisions or suggestions
Members of management committee involved in applying for funding
Non-specialist
21
3
12
5
Youth specialist
21
12
19
13
Skills
24
7
15
6
Issues based
20
6
17
4
Source: Parent bodies’ survey, n86
38
●
Community Development Foundation
Re-engaging young people
Embedding the NSF project in the organisation and the community
This pattern is to be expected. As the youth specialist organisations will have management committees with expertise in young people, members are very likely to be willing to be fully involved. Particularly where the organisations did not work with young people previously, management committee members may have felt unable to be fully involved.
Again there were differences in community involvement across the 4 project types. However, these differences were less marked than those of management committee involvement. This suggests that the skills issue is less important to volunteers, probably because, unlike the management committee, they have not formed a relationship with the organisation with a specific role in mind (see bottom table below).
Community involvement in NSF projects
55 of the 93 projects said they provided training for community members to become involved in this way. Project workers were also asked why community members would get involved and what stopped them.
As well as management committee involvement, NSF projects also had members of the community acting in a range of roles. The most common involvement was volunteering, with 57 of 93 projects reporting community involvement in this way (see top chart below).
24 of the 93 projects described the ‘selfimprovement’ that was available through volunteering, specifically the training, skills and experience that could be gained. Sixteen of the
Volunteering to work on project activities Involved in recruiting young people Involved in the project’s steering group Working as mentors to young people Deciding on the activities that the project offers Involved in recruitment of project staff Involved in budgeting/accounting Deciding on where young people go for a trip Choosing what young people do 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Source: Projects’ survey, n93
Organisation type
Number of organisations
Members of community involved in volunteering on NSF project
Members of community involved in recruiting young people onto NSF project
Members of community involved in NSF project’s steering organisation
Non-specialist
21
11
4
5
Youth specialist
21
14
11
17
Skills
21
13
9
10
Issues based
20
14
12
6
Source: Parent bodies’ survey and project workers’ survey combined, n83
Re-engaging young people
Community Development Foundation
●
39
Chapter Three: The NSF project, the community organisation and the community
projects focused on the improvements of the area, the lives of young people or intergenerational relations.6 The most common barrier to volunteering mentioned by project workers was a lack of time (11), whether due to a need for childcare, or because people were at work. The other barriers mentioned were: ●
CRB checks (7 projects)
●
fear of young people/age barriers (5 projects)
●
lack of confidence (4 projects).
As with young people’s involvement, these last 3 barriers could be overcome through a gradual, developmental approach. Instead of a community member ‘becoming a volunteer’, the case study research suggested they were more likely to begin by helping out on a one-off occasion such as a festival. Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) checks are time consuming, but they are not necessarily a requirement for the first time a community member helps out at a young people’s project if they do not have unsupervised access to young people. The fear and lack of confidence can be overcome at a pace comfortable to the community member, as opposed to being dropped in at the deep end. The barriers to involvement are more likely to erode than be knocked down.
Other aspects of community involvement This community involvement is not all ‘one-way traffic’ and can bring further benefits to the community organisation. Both the survey data and case study research show that the new audience brought by the NSF activity did get involved with the community organisation as a whole. First and most obviously, young people were brought into the organisation as NSF participants. 92 of 100 organisations surveyed said that ‘involvement in NSF increased the extent to
6
Projects’ survey, n93.
7
Parent bodies’ survey/2006 annual report, n100.
8
Ibid.
40
●
Community Development Foundation
which young people use the organisation’.7 27 organisations said they had young people as staff, 25 had young people on the management committee and 73 had young people volunteering.8 Here, the main difference was between the nonspecialist/youth organisations and those that were skills/issues based. Non-specialist and youth organisations were more likely to have young people as staff, management committee members and volunteers. Second, the friends and family of the NSF young people had a new point of contact with the organisation. As is common in playgroups, this could lead to parents volunteering to help with sessions in which their children are participating. Although teenagers may not see this as ideal, if handled well this is a possibility. In one of the case study projects this new contact led to a parent of an NSF participant joining the management committee of the parent body. Finally, the new work implied by the creation of the NSF project created a new space for volunteers and involvement. A community organisation focused on toddlers and pensioners cannot offer anything to people who have no interest in these areas. There may be local people who would like to get involved in community activity, but their interests coincide more with work with young people. The examples given above of ‘creatives’ with interests in hip hop, music production and graphic design, are much more likely to be attracted to work with young people. This all means that the NSF work created a new ‘audience’ for the community organisation. The word audience is used because the work involves not just a new client group, but also a new set of people, who have differing roles, but who share an interest in the work. The potential is then created for this new audience to become involved in the wider work of the community organisation. In particular, where young people have previously not been involved at all, the project’s ‘halo effect’ may also promote trust in the parent body.
Re-engaging young people
Embedding the NSF project within wider educational provision
Organisational change Of course, this creation of new work, and involvement of new people, especially teenagers, requires a degree of organisational change. The end of this chapter will discuss the capacity building elements of this change, but first it should be noted that the community organisations need to begin by coming to terms with the addition of the new work and people to their space. All the case study organisations had concerns that adding a youth project would create havoc for their centre. Staff worried that teenagers and other groups could not exist in harmony. In one centre a pensioners’ group assumed that young people were stealing their tea. Concerns over the noise created by teenagers were also raised. Initial teething problems were overcome by careful management of the environment. Young people had ground rules about how they could use the centre. Other groups would know when to expect young people to be present. After this, organisations found that the different groups all started to fit in with each other, get used to each other and even started to work around and with each other. At one project, adults and youth project members used a gym at the same time, with some adjustments in use so that people did not have to queue. These issues extend to staff across the organisation. The introduction of young people to the community organisation means all members of staff have to be aware of this new client group. Where an organisation’s employees have contact with young people, the same protocols and policies apply as to the youth workers themselves.
Embedding the NSF project within wider educational provision As the lead agency responsible for reducing the number of NEET young people, the Connexions service was the most obvious partner for NSF projects, and at one point it was assumed that NSF projects would eventually be funded and managed by Connexions. Changes in the structure of Connexions and the emergence of Children’s Trusts Re-engaging young people
have complicated this, but it is still the case that Connexions was a key partner. However, projects have become part of wider educational provision in many ways. The vast majority of NSF projects developed working relationships with Connexions and their local schools, and many have gained funding through these relationships.
Projects’ working and funding relationships Work with
Funding
Connexions
82
29
School
79
24
Youth offending team
52
8
Local education authority
48
14
Pupil referral unit
30
4
Source: Projects’ survey, n93
The main ways these projects were working with Connexions were: ●
Connexions’ Personal Advisors (PAs) delivering drop-in sessions in NSF organisations
●
permanently hosting PAs in their project
●
applying for/receiving funding from Connexions
●
using two-way referral systems for young people.
(Docking 2004) Referral and funding was common to NSF projects’ relationships with many local bodies. This kind of collaborative work, however, shows a more substantial partnership. This was also demonstrated in projects’ work with schools. 2 of the 4 case studies had some work that was fully embedded into wider educational provision. These were school-based activities – an alternative education session and an after-school music, dance and photography project. At the former activity, the local school invited the NSF workers to do a number of sessions in the Community Development Foundation
●
41
Chapter Three: The NSF project, the community organisation and the community
school library in school hours. The deputy head felt the project’s success in engaging young people who were almost lost to the system could be replicated within the school. The 2 workers therefore ran ASDAN accredited sessions with low achieving young people, in place of GCSEs. The deputy head felt that the informal manner of this work, combined with work experience, helped to keep young people in school at a point when they might have been self-excluding or disruptive. This work also contributed to the further aim of fostering links with the community. The low status previously given to education meant that few parents trusted the school and only 40% attended parents’ evenings. The school hoped that inviting representatives of a community organisation would help to bridge this gap. In the latter activity, the community organisation began to use the school as a place to gain a new audience. Originally the project operated from the community centre. Although this is less than 500 metres from the school, only those in the surrounding streets knew of it, so the catchment area was limited. By moving the project into the school they were able to work with young people from a wider area, and thus increase numbers. However, there is potential for these approaches to undermine the community nature of the projects. In earlier work, we found that projects were used precisely because they were off school premises. Firstly, young people excluded from school cannot attend evening youth activities if based on the school site. Secondly, the project can become too associated with school and become just another lesson. At meetings with project workers, it was noted that projects had differing ways of funding work done for the school. Some were directly paid by the school, and in the later survey one organisation was taking young people at ‘£20 per pupil per day’. As the school would lose its funding for pupils if they were permanently excluded, this is a good deal if the young person could remain in full-time education. At others, no payment was made and the project used the NSF money to provide work for the school. These arrangements were not 9
Projects’ Survey, n93.
42
●
Community Development Foundation
limited to work within school buildings but were more commonly providing alternative education at the organisations’ venues. As the NSF funding came to an end these links enabled projects to feel more secure about their future role and funding. When asked about how their work had developed due to the NSF work one project wrote:
‘We have secured an SLA [service level agreement] with the local authority, and have also secured various other funds. Our NSF work has helped us develop strong links with Connexions and other service providers.’ The organisations’ links with the local education infrastructure put them in a good position to gain continuation funding for the financial year following the end of the NSF programme.
Learning through partnerships These relationships with other organisations working with young people had an impact on both the NSF project and the partner organisations. The work was ‘Influencing policy and programmes from the perspective of communities’ (Community Development Xchange 2004). 63 projects (of 93) said these partnerships affected the way they operated.9 These effects were largely positive, including the introduction of new ideas, data sharing, new ways to recruit and engage with young people, and opportunities for referral on to the partners.
‘It has made us more responsive to most of the needs identified by other projects and has resulted in our project being able to deliver more opportunities and work with other marginalised young women.’ A small number of projects also experienced negative effects from these partnerships. Two said that the partnership had resulted in an increase in bureaucracy, taking time away from the actual work. Another felt that the extra referrals were taking something away from the community ethos:
Re-engaging young people
Capacity building
‘Work[ing] with school … risks excluding others from [the] programme. Fine balancing act between referrals to NSF project and the ability of young people to self refer.’ Fifty-seven projects reported they had an influence on the work of others.10 Again, new ideas about working with young people and the use of referrals were mentioned. Project workers also mentioned the building of respect for the voluntary sector and changes in the way that these bodies treated young people:
‘A good example of this would be the Young Parent Group we run in conjunction with SureStart. Since running this group the workers at SureStart have adopted a more relaxed non-judgmental approach and this has worked well and strengthened their relationship with the young parents.’ ‘I hope some organisations have found a positive but critical partner that has helped to enhance their delivery.’ Projects also spoke of very specific influences on their partners:
‘Making them aware of deaf issues and budget for interpreters.’
Capacity building Most obviously, the NSF activity built the capacity of the parent organisation to work with young people, specifically by gaining funding, staff, facilities and an enhanced reputation for this work. In addition, the evaluation found that the project built capacity across the organisation by creating new networks and new ways of operating.
New work and new money As mentioned at the beginning of his chapter, some of the organisations managing the NSF projects
10
Ibid.
11
Parent bodies’ survey/2006 annual report, n100.
12
Ibid.
Re-engaging young people
had not worked with teenagers before, and a majority had not specifically worked with young people at risk of exclusion. However, the experience of doing this work led to further work of this kind. 92 of 100 organisations said that ‘involvement in NSF directly led to the development of other work with young people’.11 Examples included expansion of work with 13–19 year olds outside the NSF project, and working with people younger and older than the NSF participants. Some organisations also had specific projects ‘spin off ’ from the NSF project. This occurred where a new project led by the young people themselves was created or where NSF participants wanted to continue after they had become too old for the project.
‘One group of young mums have set up their own group and receive funding from SureStart to do this and run a programme.’ Many organisations also included their work with Connexions. Connexions’ Personal Advisors were working in the community organisations’ space, and thus could be available for both NSF participants and other young people.
‘Connexions have recognised our project and have provided a PA based at our centre. Other external agencies such as schools and youth centres direct young people to our project and we have built strong relations.’ Those organisations that said they did not develop further work with young people usually said they already did a lot of work with them. However, one organisation felt it did not have time to develop more work as it was too busy with the NSF work. Many of the organisations were also managing to diversify and increase their funding as a direct result of their NSF work. 76 of 100 parent organisations said they had gained additional funding.12
Community Development Foundation
●
43
Chapter Three: The NSF project, the community organisation and the community
As this funding was of various forms, for example one-off grants, yearly funding or ‘per outcome’ contracts, it is difficult to calculate exactly how much extra funding was gained. Discounting small contracts and assuming contracts would be for an average of 3 years, we estimate that these projects each gained an average of £121,000 of additional funding. Across the CDF/NSF programme (i.e. including those that gained none), the average extra funding gained by projects was £84,500. Fifteen gained funding from 4 or more additional sources. Some gained very small amounts of additional funding, with 1 project getting a £200 grant from a local Soroptimist club. Others gained very large amounts, with 1 organisation describing how the NSF project had been part of a ‘matched funding’ bid to the European Social Fund that had resulted in a successful £1.7 million funding bid. Most of this additional funding came from UK public sector bodies. Of 132 individual pieces of funding, 65% was of this kind, 17% came from Connexions partnerships, 5% from schools, and most of the rest came from locally held budgets, including primary care trusts, drug action teams, youth offending teams and youth services. 8% was from lottery sources, 5% from European sources and 19% from charitable sources. These charitable sources were a mix of well- known national charities, such as Children in Need and Esmée Fairbairn, and the very local. These very local funders included recently-created personal foundations such as the Jack Petchey Foundation, set up in 1999 by an east London businessman, and the Scurrah Wainwright Charity, set up in 1990 by a Leeds politician. There was no significant difference between the amounts of funding given by the different kinds of funders.
Continuation funding After 6 years of NSF funding and the support provided by the umbrella bodies and the regional advisors, the vast majority of organisations have been able to continue working with young people
13
Parent bodies’ survey/annual report, n100.
44
●
Community Development Foundation
at risk. CDF’s support focused on equipping them to improve and demonstrate, not only the quality of their work with young people and the outcomes achieved, but also their overall organisational competence and ability to manage a contract. This help was particularly useful for the transition to new contracts after April 2006. At the end of the programme DfES was able to offer Government Offices one year’s additional funding to continue NEET reduction work. In most cases this funding stream is managed by the local Connexions partnership following discussions with the local area agreement bodies. Because NSF projects had a proven track record locally and were usually well known to their local Connexions Partnership, 109 projects, out of 120 operating at 31 March 2006, were able to secure funding for 2006–07 to continue a version of their NSF project.
Long-term benefits The parent bodies felt they gained long-term benefits from this new work and funding. The learning, infrastructure and engagement with young people and others will not just disappear, even if the project ends. Most commonly cited were long-term benefits in how they work with young people. However, the host organisations also noted benefits to physical infrastructure and organisational capacity that should benefit all areas of the organisation’s activity, not just the work involving young people. The table opposite lists the number of organisations (of 100) that reported these long-term benefits: As mentioned earlier in the chapter, organisations also gained through their new audience. This included an increase in the number of volunteers, both young and older, and improved trust from the community.
Learning through new work The long-term benefits described above as ‘nonphysical infrastructure/capacity’ were further examined through questions on the changes in working practices prompted by NSF work. 86 of 100 community organisations surveyed said that the NSF work had led to new ways of working.13
Re-engaging young people
Long-term benefits
Organisations Youth related Networking with organisations working with young people
95
Credibility to work with young people
92
Specific youth activities
83
Improvements in youth work skills
80
Physical infrastructure/assets Equipment
81
Improvements to premises
40
New premises
10
Community involvement Involving young people in decision making
85
Involving young people as volunteers
68
More members or participants
66
Trust from community
64
More volunteers
50
Non-physical infrastructure/capacity Partnerships
88
Knowledge of accreditation schemes
77
Publicity
73
Capacity for managing projects
72
Skills for dealing with funders
67
Improvements in your organisation’s administration
56
Improvements in your organisation’s financial management
45
Source: Parent bodies’ survey/annual report, n100
24 mentioned their partnership work, 17 mentioned the NSF work itself as new, 13 mentioned the use of the monitoring regime and 12 mentioned the use of accreditation.
14
Some of this change is very basic. One organisation realised that the project would need staff ‘working unsocial hours to suit the needs of young people on the project.’ Other change is more radical:
‘Staff structure has changed to ensure volunteers, NSF participants and students are supported well, whilst animal welfare and other farm activities are maintained. All posts now relate more clearly to groups using the farm and work needed.’ Of particular importance is the potential for a change in the organisation’s focus due to new work, a new audience and, ultimately, a new role.
‘The organisation worked with young people within the church but now it works with hard-to-reach young people from the community. Outward looking, not only inwards.’ Organisations were also asked what they had learned from their 6 years of running an NSF project. 25 mentioned the value of, and how to have, partnerships.14 They also mentioned the skills gained by the organisation and its staff and their new knowledge of young people’s needs.
‘Learnt that the young people’s issues are very complex and at times need multiple agency involvement e.g. Connexions, Youth Offending Team, Social Services etc.’ ‘After 6 years we have become a highly skilled team able to respond to the complex needs of our target group. We have used this model for other young people going through crisis.’ Furthermore, this learning about young people’s needs also extended to their involvement:
‘The importance of young people being involved in the decision-making process.’ ‘The importance of greater involvement by local people in the management of the project; the long-term benefits of young people’s involvement in planning and evaluation of programmes.’
Ibid.
Re-engaging young people
Community Development Foundation
●
45
Chapter Three: The NSF project, the community organisation and the community
Finally, projects valued the long-term nature of the NSF funding. Six years’ funding allowed organisations to invest time in the development of projects:
‘Has given stability to develop programme fully.’ ‘The value of a long-term ongoing and funded programme.’ ‘That working with a funding body can be straightforward (other bodies are not, particularly local government).’ 86 of 100 organisations also said that ‘these benefits and learning had an impact on other aspects of [their] work’.15 25 mentioned how this learning extended to their other work with young people and 13 described how the learning extended to work with other age groups. This included work where young people were part of, but not all of those being worked with:
‘Other aspects of the work involve working with families. The knowledge gained through group work has enhanced case workers’ understanding of young people’s views and experiences. This enables our staff to work more successfully in a family setting.’ More generally, some organisations had benefits that applied across their work. These included: ●
enhancement in profile and reputation
●
experience of partnership working
●
experience of working with external funders.
Some projects also mentioned the confidence that the NSF work had given them:
‘I think as an organisation we have become more positive in our general approach to work in the local community’
15
Ibid.
46
●
Community Development Foundation
Conclusion The organisations that took on the NSF work were chosen due to their community ethos. This does not mean that all were ‘cradle to grave’ local community centres. All the organisations could point to the community they served, whether one of locality, ethnicity or need, and the vast majority had community involvement through governing bodies, staff and volunteers. These organisations provided data that gave a picture of how they developed over time. Both the surveys and the case study research showed that organisations began with people getting together to address some identified need. The need could be a lack of facilities, failures of the statutory sector to address inequality, or to save a facility threatened with closure. However, organisations do not just stop there. They identify further needs, do further work and find new ways to resource this work. The NSF programme and projects were part of the organisations’ development over a 6-year period. They were not semi-detached, discrete pieces of work that were funded, completed, and then forgotten about, with minimal long-term impact on the organisation. NSF projects were, in the main, embedded into the organisation and as such helped the organisations develop both their work with young people and their other work. Much of this development is technocratic. Organisations developed their capacity to work with young people through the training and support of CDF. At the same time, having an NSF project helped organisations learn about working with funders, and then finding further funding streams. They gained experience in working with other partners such as Connexions, schools and other local statutory bodies. This learning and capacity building is necessary if the organisations are to continue doing work of this kind. More important, though, is the development of the organisations’ communities, and it is their motivation that will see work of this kind continue. The NSF projects created a new interface for engagement, particularly where organisations were
Re-engaging young people
Conclusion
previously concerned with the oldest and youngest age groups. A new set of people has been introduced to the organisation. NSF participants, their friends and their families have been ‘touched’ by the community organisation. A new activity creates new opportunities for volunteering and helping out. This new engagement is not one-way but is multi-dimensional. All these new people may get involved in more than the NSF project. A participant or parent may join the management committee; a ‘creative’ volunteer may decide to work with pensioners as well as teenagers; and a worker may find a new role that they enjoy. These developments of the organisation’s capacity and community stop the organisation stagnating. The NSF work, because it was with a new section of the community, brought opportunities to refresh
Re-engaging young people
the community organisation through new blood in the management committee, the staff, the volunteers and the participants. Finally, these developments can also empower the organisation and individuals across the topic of young people. An enhanced position in local civil society, gained through the work and the associated networks, enables the organisation to engage with other services for young people from a position of experience and knowledge. Furthermore, this can empower young people and their families, through both the additional confidence the organisation can bring, and the organising of, for example, young people’s forums. Instead of a single parent tirelessly campaigning for a change to local school policies, here an organisational framework can foster real change.
Community Development Foundation
●
47
Conclusions
Six years of evaluative research, including 4,571 interviews with young people, focus groups and case study research, has shown that CDF’s NSF programme achieved its original aim. Young people who were not in education, employment or training (NEET), or were at risk of becoming so, were worked with for an average unit cost of £1,172, of which £1,032 was the project’s spend. The vast majority showed positive outcomes, both with regard to education, employment or training, and improvements in the ‘soft outcomes’ that are the background to these ‘hard outcomes’. However, the community-based nature of these projects had extra impacts – for the participants, those around them, and the organisations that ran the NSF projects. Participants were encouraged and helped to get involved in the host organisation and other bodies, as well as the project itself. Furthermore, the introduction of new participants, the links made to their friends and family, and a new topic or activity, became part of the development of the parent body. We believe they are left stronger due to this work.
Improving young people’s lives Across the programme as a whole this research suggests that approximately 6,400 young people joined NSF projects as NEET, and of these 4,500 moved, or will move into some form of education, employment or training. A further 43,000 young people identified at risk of becoming NEET joined NSF projects. Of these 37,300 will remain engaged 1
Using the second cohort’s four waves of data.
48
●
Community Development Foundation
in education, work or training, perhaps with short breaks in participation.1 Of course, both the programme and the research can be affected by selection bias, particularly where participation is voluntary. Just as youth club participation could be associated with social exclusion through the ‘most at-risk adolescents … choosing youth clubs almost as a pathway for negative outcomes’ (Feinstein et al. 2005), so NSF participation could be associated with positive outcomes because, of all those who are NEET or who are at risk of becoming NEET, the most motivated young people decide to join. Similarly, the most motivated could be those who want to participate in interviews. However, it is undeniable that these young people were at risk of exclusion. Throughout the research we interviewed young people who were in trouble with the police, excluded from school or just troublesome. At 1 of the case study projects we spent time in the company of a young boy aged 12. He already had a background of drug use, via his parents, and at first his main aim seemed to be to disrupt the NSF session. More importantly, though, he was attending the drop-in session and not staying at home or on the street, and after a while was to be found concentrating on a craft project. It is possible that the projects engaged the ‘hard-to-reach’ but not the very ‘hardest-to-reach’ young people, who make a conscious choice not to attend. However, local circumstances and a gradualist approach made the NSF project reach as
Re-engaging young people
Not just qualifications and jobs, but confidence
far as any non-coercive participation. As in the case of youth clubs, often the NSF project was the only activity of this kind available for young people. Young people needed to be motivated, but did not need to be motivated to do NSF activities over some other activity. The gradual engagement of young people is specifically designed to overcome these kinds of barriers, and so the motivation to take part can itself be developed.
The NSF project, the community organisation and the community
Young people, the project and the community
Most of the organisations had not done this kind of work before, and some had not worked with young people at all. Therefore the work was a departure from their usual activities, and as such required some organisational change to add the youth element.
The gradual developmental approach helped with both the initial engagement and with any eventual involvement in the governance of the project or organisation, volunteering, or activities beyond the organisation. First, young people were brought in through a combination of comfort and attractive activities. ‘Working with the grain’ meant that young people were with their friends, often in a venue that was known and local. Young people were drawn in by activities they liked, and through drop-in and informal sessions, so no one was scared off. Projects built on this, using young people’s own desire for progress, to improve skills and introduce an educational and sometimes accredited element to the activities. Again, by not forcing the issue, young people could participate at their own pace. Second, within the constraints of the project, young people could be involved in helping out, volunteering and managing. Again the support and training allowed young people to approach this kind of activity from a position of comfort and confidence. Due to the position of the project as part of a community organisation, this led on to opportunities across a range of topics wider than just a single youth project. Finally, the evidence shows that this involvement did not end at the boundaries of the project. Few teenagers would have the confidence to be involved in national bodies such as the Youth Parliament, yet NSF projects have instilled the confidence in their young people in order that they can participate at this level.
Re-engaging young people
In addition to the impacts on young people, the existence of the NSF projects has also had a profound impact on the parent bodies. This can be seen as part of the long-term development of the organisations.
However, this change brought with it myriad opportunities. The new audience of young people, their families and friends were introduced to the organisation, not just as part of the NSF project, but as potential users, volunteers, and trustees of the whole organisation. The work was a new string to the organisation’s bow, enabling it to apply for new streams of funding, perhaps attracting ‘professional volunteers’, and prompting it to make new relationships with voluntary and statutory sector bodies. Finally, the position of strength gained through expertise in this work allowed the organisation to have influence on new partners, on behalf of the organisation and its members or participants.
Not just qualifications and jobs, but confidence A key element to all of these impacts is confidence. Organisations need the confidence to believe they can work effectively with young people, and the confidence to work with new funders and partners. Community members need the confidence to help out and volunteer, instead of believing that working with young people is something only for professionals. Finally, young people need the confidence to get involved in the NSF project and beyond. Indeed, it is interesting that the NEET discourse sees young people who are not in education,
Community Development Foundation
●
49
Conclusions
employment or training purely as a problem. This problem is only applied to working-class young people, because at the same time middle-class young people are actively encouraged to spend time as NEET, in the form of a ‘gap year’ spent volunteering or travelling in a faraway country before they go off to university. For these young people, horizons are widened through activities that are natural when one has the confidence and belief that one can do this. NSF projects have helped young people in deprived circumstances to gain the confidence and belief that one is not limited to leaving school and
50
●
Community Development Foundation
getting a job in the nearby factory. 24% (66) of those interviewed in the follow-up survey mentioned ‘confidence’ when asked how the project had helped them. This confidence meant that their recent activity and plans for the future included ‘an African expedition’, ‘going to Jamaica to work in a deaf centre’, as well as going to college and university and getting employment. Indeed, one young person who was not interviewed would certainly have been noted as NEET if he had been available. His mother said we would not catch him as he was on his way to a sixmonth trip to China. This is unusual on the most deprived estates in England.
Re-engaging young people
Appendix A
Methods
This evaluation research was carried out using a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods and aimed to get the perspectives of a wide range of stakeholders. In addition, as the evaluation of a second 3-year funding programme, this work builds on and develops the evaluation of the first 3 years of NSF. The majority of the work was carried out by the NSF researcher, with the help of interviewers for the large-scale surveys. Associates conducted some additional work on cost effectiveness and community-based work with young people outside the NSF programme. As described in the introduction, this evaluation was designed to focus on the ‘community-based’ approach to working with young people. It therefore examined process as well as outcomes; the ‘how and why?’ as well as the ‘what was achieved?’.
Background studies To begin answering these 2 questions, meetings were held with experts within CDF and beyond, in order to create a picture of the ‘ideal communitybased youth project’. These meetings, and previous writings on community-based work with young people (West 1999; Lightfoot 1990), provided ideas about the kinds of attributes to examine, and thus the questions to ask. This was used to operationalise the concept of ‘community development’ in the context of working with young people. These were supplemented by qualitative research examining the role of community and networks in the work of NSF projects. Using theories of social and cultural capital (Bourdieu 1984; Putnam 2000) in particular, the NSF researcher held meetings with the Re-engaging young people
NSF management team, project workers, and groups of young people to find out how the NSF project and participants interacted with the host organisation and the wider community. Visits to projects helped to ground this into a sense of place and community. In addition, a study by Stuart Read of the consultancy, PRAES, helped to create a question bank for studies of ‘distance travelled’. As NSF projects worked with young people at risk of exclusion, the hard outcomes of exams passed or educational status needed to be measured alongside soft outcomes such as an increase in confidence and an improved attitude to authority. Stuart’s work contributed to the creation of the surveys of young people.
Surveys of young people Throughout the 6 years, young people were interviewed as part of the evaluation of the programme. Trained interviewers with no connection to the project or the young people conducted the interviews. The resulting data can be used to create a fuller picture of the young people’s backgrounds and destinations. The interviews also gathered data on participation patterns, attitudes to work and education, and attitudes to barriers and opportunities. In total, 2,617 young people were interviewed in 3 separate cohorts, beginning in June 2000, January 2002 and November 2005. This sample represents approximately 5% of the NSF participants and demographic analysis shows that each cohort was broadly representative of the participants at the time of the first interview. Details of the interview schedule for the 3 cohorts are as follows: Community Development Foundation
●
51
Appendix A: Methods
Cohort
Number of interviews
Respondents
Dates
1
2
Wave 1: 504 Wave 2: 215
June 2000 – Jan 2002
2
4
Wave 1: 1,332 Wave 2: 653 Wave 3: 481 Wave 4: 282
Jan 2002 – Sep 2005
3
2
Wave 1: 775 Wave 2: 329
Nov 2005 – March 2006
As with all longitudinal studies, these surveys had to contend with the problem of attrition. Only 21% (282) of the second cohort were interviewed by the fourth wave, and 42% (323) of the third cohort were interviewed the second time.1 It is possible that those ‘most likely to achieve’ were the easiest to contact. Further questions are raised when we consider the timing of the interviews. Most were conducted face-to-face at the projects themselves, and so were restricted by school term dates as some projects were closed in the holidays. The fourth wave of the first cohort’s interviews were largely conducted by telephone in the summer, so may overestimate the NEET status if being on holiday from school was not considered to be ‘at school’ by the interviewee. These issues also affect the composition of the original samples. Those most eager to take part in the surveys may have been those who were most engaged with school. For this reason interviewers began with NEET young people who were present in the project when the interviewers attended. Furthermore, becoming a registered participant may be a step in itself, and therefore this analysis does not capture the smaller benefits accruing to young people ‘touched’ by the programme but not becoming a joiner. Although the interviewers met young people at the NSF activity and so all young people attending could have been interviewed, workers helped to choose and were more likely to point out those who were properly registered and attending.
The analysis presented in this report is largely based on the surveys carried out since 2004, as previous results were presented in the evaluation of the pilot phase of NSF (Steer 2005). Most of the data refers to the 2 interviews with the third cohort. However, to gain a truly longitudinal perspective, the second cohort of young people interviewed as part of the previous evaluation were re-interviewed. 1,332 young people were approached, of whom 282 responded. This group were first interviewed in the first half of 2002; the last interviews were conducted in the summer of 2005. For the 163 young people who were interviewed in each wave, we have data about their engagement at 4 points over a 3-year period. The topics of these surveys were wide ranging. Each asked about current participation in school, college, training and work. The 2 surveys of the third cohort also asked about involvement in the project, the organisation and other community activities, attitudes to learning, activities enjoyed and much more.
Surveys of projects and organisations In summer and autumn 2005, self-completion surveys were sent to NSF projects and their host organisations. These were separate surveys as they aimed to examine the relationship between the NSF project and the wider work of the organisation from each party’s perspective.
1
Six young people who had not been interviewed previously were interviewed as part of the second wave of the third cohort.
52
●
Community Development Foundation
Re-engaging young people
Appendix A: Methods
These surveys asked of the organisation questions covering: ●
its history and role
●
its size and funding
●
the benefits of hosting an NSF project
●
the involvement of young people and the wider community.
All this helped to examine how the NSF projects worked in practice. Although a survey may find that some young people are involved in a forum, we do not necessarily know what this forum does and with whom. It also provided detail and explanation: for example, where a survey question asked ‘are the staff part of the community?’, the case study research revealed what being part of the community could mean.
The projects were asked about the community that was being worked within, the involvement of NSF participants in the project and elsewhere, and the involvement of the wider community. The 2 questionnaires combine to give a picture of the extent to which the NSF work was embedded in the host organisation and the wider community.
The case study research is written up in a short booklet (Bailey and Jones 2006), which aims to help community organisations that may work with or are thinking of working with young people. However, further material gathered for this research is used throughout this report to illustrate or explain the findings of the quantitative research.
Of 125 projects operating at the time, 93 projects and 86 organisations responded. A number of questions on capacity building were repeated as part of the 2006 annual report (that all organisations had to submit as part of their funding agreement), which meant that 100 organisations were surveyed on this topic.
Case studies In November and December 2005, the NSF researcher, Gavin Bailey, and the CDF research assistant, Kate Jones, conducted further qualitative research in the form of case studies. This helped to provide texture and explanation to the quantitative findings. Using the surveys of projects and organisations, the research team chose 4 organisations that seemed to most resemble the ‘ideal’ community organisation. The research team spent 2 weeks at each organisation. They interviewed management committee members, volunteers and workers, young people and parents, and other users of the organisations’ facilities. They took part in NSF sessions and other activities run by the host organisation, attended a management committee meeting and a young people’s forum. Memorably, they performed karaoke with a group of 12-year-olds.
Re-engaging young people
Other evaluation work Two other pieces of evaluation research were completed by outside contractors. The first, conducted by Vipin Chauhan of Lotus, examined work with young people conducted in a community setting outside the NSF programme. This drew attention to the fact that the NSF projects were not unique, as some community organisations have worked and will continue to work with young people, even those who are disaffected. However, it also showed the difficulties faced by these organisations, and highlighted how the support offered by the NSF programme helped to kick-start this activity. This is also published separately (Chauhan 2006), and also contributed to the subsequent research and analysis for this report. The second evaluation research, conducted by Neil Smith and Steve Evison of Resources 4 Change, looked at the cost effectiveness or cost–benefit of the NSF projects. It looked beyond the impacts of the projects on young people, it also tried to find ways of gauging the additional impacts on the organisation and the wider community. Again this is published separately (Resources 4 Change 2006), and also contributed to this report.
Community Development Foundation
●
53
Appendix B
The CDF/NSF vision
The history and vision The Community Development Foundation (CDF) has a history of working with young people in the community and seeing young people as part of the community. CDF was set up in 1968 as the Young Volunteer Force Foundation (YVFF), running small community projects in deprived areas that brought together young volunteers and older people. In the late 1980s, CDF worked with the National Advisory Committee for the Youth Service, examining ‘youth involvement in their communities’, and in 1999 CDF’s Chief Executive, Alison West, outlined a vision of ‘community development approaches to working with disaffected young people’. This contributed to the creation of the Neighbourhood Support Fund (NSF). Interestingly some of the NSF projects are in neighbourhoods where the very first YVFF projects were set up. Of course, this is not to say that NSF projects created something new and unique. As noted by Alison West, there are ‘in the region of 100,000 buildings where youth and community activities take place’ and ‘community groups organise youth activities, run playgroups and parent support groups … and so on’ (West 1999: 53). The point of CDF’s NSF programme was to develop this work by helping organisations to set up new work with disengaged young people or those at risk of dropping out, where they had not worked with these young people before, or by helping organisations to build their capacity for this kind of work. There are various community development approaches to working with young people, and there is no one ‘perfect’ or ‘ideal type’ of community youth project that can be held up as an example. However, we can examine work with 54
●
Community Development Foundation
young people in general, and how the community development approach may differ. ‘Young people find themselves in a society planned and run by adults … [and] the disadvantage common to all young people is that of age’ (Lightfoot 1990: 2). Adults often have negative attitudes to young people, and young people are ghettoised into youth-only activities and spaces, in which they are the consumers of provision organised by and for the convenience of adults. This is how schools and youth clubs can be characterised. Instead, a community development approach advocates the inclusion of young people as part of the community. Young people should be able to ‘participate in the development of society’ and also in the development of the youth activities. It ‘entails a commitment to working with the perceptions of that community and enabling it to identify its needs and formulate effective ways of meeting them’. This includes enabling ‘young people to gain the necessary skills and confidence to apply them’ (Lightfoot 1990: 1). Furthermore, this is all done in the context of young people as part of the community, as opposed to young people being their own community. West (1999) shows how this community approach may help address problems such as family breakdown, low self-esteem and confidence, and disengagement with work and education. First, the community offers support and is a necessary connection as young people move into adulthood. Second, ‘community development models start from where the young people are and can act as a buffer between the disaffected young person and the institutions trying to reach out’. Third, the community group is better able Re-engaging young people
Appendix B: The CDF/NSF vision
to power share, so involving young people and building confidence. To some degree, the community group can do this precisely because it is not the statutory sector. Where a young person has rejected school, educational institutions will find it hard to connect. The community group can act as an honest broker between the 2 parties. Similarly, young people may see a statutory sector youth club as part of ‘the system’. A community development approach disrupts this. However, these descriptions are relatively abstract and theoretical. Community-based work takes many forms, especially where young people are at different stages: for example participation in decision making can be anything from a management committee made up of young people to a leading adult having an open attitude to young people’s ideas. At the beginning of the evaluation attempts were made to create a guide to what the community development approach or communitybased youth project looks like in practice.
The community-based youth project At the very beginning of the 2003–06 evaluation research, the NSF researcher consulted experts in community development, both in CDF and elsewhere. He conducted a series of interviews that were then used to build a picture of the features that would be found in a community-based youth project. This picture was then used as background to the subsequent research. First, the community-based youth project would involve a wide range of people. The adults involved would not just be paid professionals from external organisations, but would include volunteers and helpers from the community. This voluntary activity would not be limited to parents and relatives of the young people. Paid staff could also be part of the community. Unlike some youth provision that is attended mainly by boys, this youth project would also involve girls. It would encourage generations, genders and those of different backgrounds to mix.
1
Second, the activities would be inclusive. They would be part of ‘a common enthusiasm’ so they would not be limited to young people, or a subsection of young people. They would be reflective of the community, not top-down, directed by a national curriculum. They would be organised to allow participation at many levels, so that ‘taster sessions’ and drop-ins would allow a gradual engagement. The activities would also help and not hinder the community, by linking into its needs, and to other community bodies. Third, the project would be community led and managed. This would mean a balance between the needs of young people and others. Young people would be involved as more than passive consumers, but they would not be the only stakeholder. Young people’s needs would be the starting point, but the ethos would be one of equality and mutuality, egalitarianism and participation. Adults and young people would be both facilitators and participators, on an equal footing. Of course, community work and youth work share this background of empowerment, and many training courses refer to them together as ‘community and youth work’. However, a key difference of these approaches is the community being worked with. In a school or a youth club the population being worked with is solely young people. Young people are worked with as a community of young people. Other than the workers, adults are rarely present. In this proposed community-based youth project, young people are worked with as part of a wider community. Local adults are also involved too, bringing with it added benefits. First, it may help young people. The fact that the adults are of the community should mean relationships are already there. Community-based provision is a safe and comfortable way to engage with the adult world due to its familiarity. Furthermore, if we assume that community adults share a culture with their young people, this enables the project to begin with young people’s own aspirations and codes and young people don’t have to change to fit in.1 This can be part of young people becoming an adult in that community.
However, it must be noted that in some communities some aspects of this culture may also hinder young people.
Re-engaging young people
Community Development Foundation
●
55
Appendix B: The CDF/NSF vision
Second, there are wider impacts of this networking produced by the project. Inter-generational engagement reduces prejudice in both directions, reducing feelings of ‘them and us’. It can keep young people on board when the community as a whole is trying to solve problems of deprivation. In addition, any relationships the community organisation has with the statutory sector can be used to provide feedback about how policies impact on young people. Finally, the community nature of the project builds capacity. Where local people are volunteers and workers they will gain skills, and these skills will remain in the community. Young people’s involvement may not be limited to the project, and so their energy and skills may
56
●
Community Development Foundation
contribute to the work of the community organisation. This is not to say that any of these ways of working, or their outcomes, are always found in the community sector and never found elsewhere. However, CDF believes they are more likely to be found in the community sector, due to the geographically and socially embedded nature of community organisations and their longevity, ‘Vulnerable young people sometimes complain about social workers who come and go’ (Bob Holman quoted in West 1999). People are less mobile when it comes to community and thus are more likely to be able to develop long-term relationships. Therefore community-based youth projects can be a long-term, sustainable solution.
Re-engaging young people
Bibliography
Bailey, G. and Jones, K. (2006). Our Kids, Our Community: A report of community-based approaches to working with 13–19-year-olds in four Neighbourhood Support Fund projects, London: CDF. Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Chauhan, V. (2006) Community Development Approaches to Young People, website publication, CDF http://www.cdf.org.uk/site/upload/ document/NSF/FinalReport_V7.pdf Commission for Racial Equality (2004) Resolving Youth Conflict http://www.cre.gov.uk/publs/ connections/04sp_conflict.html# Community Development Foundation (2004) Directory of Community Organisations Running Neighbourhood Support Fund Projects London: CDF Community Development Xchange (2004) What is Community Development? http://www.cdx.org.uk/ about/whatiscd.htm Department for Education and Skills (2004) Every Child Matters: Next Steps Nottingham: DfES
Gillborn, D. (1990) ‘Race’, Ethnicity and Education: Teaching and Learning in Multi-Ethnic Schools London: Unwin Hyman Golden, S., Spielhofer, T., Sims, D. and O’Donnell, S. Supporting the Hardest-to-Reach Young People: the contribution of the Neighbourhood Support Fund, London, DfES. Home Office (2001) Community cohesion: A Report of the Independent Review Team Chaired by Ted Cantle London: Home Office IMD (2004) Indices of Multiple Deprivation http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1128444 Lightfoot, J. (1990) Involving Young People in their Communities London: CDF MacDonald, R. and Marsh, J. (2005) Disconnected Youth? Growing Up in Britain’s Poor Neighbourhoods London: Palgrave Macmillan Miliband, D. (2006) Putting People in Control: NCVO 2006 Annual Conference Keynote Speech http://www. ncvo-vol.org.uk/events/speeches/index.asp?id=2382
Department for Education and Skills (2005) Evaluation of Education Maintenance Allowance Pilots Nottingham: DfES
National Council for Voluntary Youth Services (2004) Charity Commission Statement on Young Trustees http://www.ncvys.org.uk/pdfs/ 101204%20charity%20commission.pdf
Docking, J. (2004) Connexions Where It Counts London: CDF
New Economics Foundation (2002) Plugging the Leaks http://www.pluggingtheleaks.org/
Feinstein, L., Bynner, J. and Duckworth, K. (2005) Leisure Contexts in Adolescence and their Effects on Adult Outcomes London: Institute of Education http://www.learningbenefits.net/Publications/ ResReps/ResRep15.pdf
Osler, A., Street, C., Lall, M. and Vincent, K. (2001) Not a Problem? Girls and Exclusion from School http://www.npi.org.uk/reports/ schools%20exclusions%20girls.pdf
Re-engaging young people
Community Development Foundation
●
57
Bibliography
Prince’s Trust (2004) Reaching the Hardest to Reach, http://www.princes-trust.org.uk
Taylor, M. (2006) ‘It’s Official: Class Matters’ Guardian February 28
Putnam, R. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community New York: Simon and Schuster
West (1999) ‘Community Development Approaches to Working with Disaffected Young People’ Scottish Journal of Community Work and Development, vol 5
Read, S. (2004) Developing Indicators of Distance Travelled for the NSF Programme London: CDF
Williamson, H. (2005) Milltown Boys Revisited Oxford: Berg
Resources 4 Change (2006) NSF Cost Effectiveness Study London: CDF
Williamson, H. (2006a) ‘Communities Fearful of the Young’ Young People Now 8 March
Rogers, E. (2006) ‘Social Exclusion: Government and Connexions to work together on NEET data’ Young People Now 15 March
Williamson, H. (2006b) ‘Prevention is More Effective than Cure’ Young People Now 5 April
Sewell, T. (1997) Black Masculinities and Schooling: How Black Boys Survive Modern Schooling Stoke-onTrent: Trentham Books Social Exclusion Unit (1999) Bridging the Gap London: HMSO
Willis, P. (1977) Learning to Labour Aldershot: Gower Young People Now (2005) ‘Social Exclusion: Connexions Baffled by Growth of NEETs’ Young People Now 6 July
Steer, R. (2005) The Neighbourhood Support Fund Pilot Programme, 2000–2003 London: CDF
58
●
Community Development Foundation
Re-engaging young people
