Last week, Jewish Chronicle editor Stephen Pollard wrote a rather dreadful comment piece in The Times lamenting the role of the Children’s Commissioner and suggesting that there wasn’t any need for such a position: “How about a Ginger’s Commissioner, for the rights of us redheads?” he asked. “What about a Wii Commissioner, for those who want access to computer games?”
As I’m sure many others did, I sighed, tutted and wished once again that columnists of his ilk would get out of their trendy Islington townhouses and dig a little deeper before putting pen to paper. So I was glad to see that Sathnam Sanghara composed a fantastic response to the piece; answering the criticisms with a robust defence. His standfirst said it all: “If this column were about puppies being held in indefinite detention with no judicial oversight, my inbox would be full.”
Attacking government quangos and those paid to head them up is easy fodder for op-ed writers, and I’d be lying if I hadn’t ever seen the title of a government agency and thought: ‘my taxes go to pay for that!?!’.
But I struggle to think of a section of society more worthy of a publicly-funded body that stands arms-length from government and calls it to account. Those under 18 are heavily reliant on the state, from the education they receive, the healthcare they need, or the thousands of them who are looked after through fostering, care-homes or social services. Many young people come into contact with the state through getting into trouble with the police, but for every young person under 18 with an ASBO, there are around 200 who are providing substantive care to a parent or sibling*; massively subsidising the nation’s social care bill as part of a workforce that would be illegal if it was recognised. All this, and yet because they haven’t yet turned 18, the state isn’t accountable to any of them. Earlier this year, young people were even banned from entering Parliament.
Perhaps Stephen thinks that young people should get together and form their own lobby group to ensure their views are heard and counted, just like every other sector does. There are, of course, organisations that do this, and I’ve seen some brilliant examples of where this is occurring (tomorrow for example, young people will sit in the House of Commons chamber to discuss some of those issues). But, by the very nature of their age, young people don’t have the financial resource, or the time, or the knowledge of how the system works, to effectively campaign amongst professional policy makers and politicians. They need adult support and funding. Especially if English isn’t their first language, or they’ve had an unstable upbringing, or they are simply too young to engage in a debate with adults.
Stephen picks on a single comment made by the current Children’s Commissioner, Sir Al Aynsley-Green, as demonstration of the pointlessness of the role. Last year, Sir Al was quoted as saying that using stop and search powers to prevent knife crime could antagonise young people, and this was seized on as ridiculous both by a government minister (Tony McNulty) and a raft of pundits who get paid as much as Sir Al does to file their columns. The original quote follows the introduction of new powers that the police were given to stop and search people even if there was no reasonable suspicion that they were carrying a weapon. Sir Al, quite reasonably, said: “There is a balance here. On the one hand for young people to feel safer by having the presence of the police – but on the other hand making sure the new powers don’t create further antagonism by increased stopping and searching.” To my mind, that is exactly what someone paid to stand up for the rights of children should be pointing out: especially when I know teenagers who line their walls with the Stop and Search receipts they’ve received.
Sathnam highlights the work 11 Million (the organisation that the Children’s Commissioner heads) has done defending the rights of children who are detained, without legal representation, because of the action of their parents.
But if I was to highlight another reason we need a Children’s Commissioner, it is the effect Sir Al and his team had on the use of Mosquitoes, the devices that emit a high-pitch audio sound that only younger people are able to hear. It is appalling that it took the intervention of the Children’s Commissioner to highlight how indiscriminate these devices were before councils and other agencies started considering and regulating their use. Until then, it seemed no-one in authority concerned themselves with the legal, let alone ethical, consequences of using these devices.
Perhaps when red-heads are subjected to audible irritation because their demographic is deemed a nuisance; or gamers are locked away in cells, without access to any medical facilities, because their mums and dads broke the law, then they will deserve a commissioner who makes sure the government is looking out for them. But whilst the UN deems the UK to be the worst place in the developed world for children to grow up in, then we absolutely need someone paid to argue the case for young people.
Like Stephen, I would love to compile a list of government quangos that should be got rid of, and put the Children’s Commissioner on that list. But unlike Stephen, I’d like that to happen because the state recognises and respects the rights that young people have, rather than his approach: simply deny there is a problem in the first place.
* Calculation based on the statistic of 869 ASBOs issued to young people aged 10-17 in England in 2007, against 175,000 under 18s who are classed as Young Carers by Ofsted’s Supporting Young Carers report.
Melissa Suffield is an actress in Eastenders. Despite the fact the programme is made less than a mile from where I live, I never watch it. It’s only through osmosis that I know her character is Ian Beale’s daughter, Lucy.
On Tuesday night BBC Three aired a documentary, as part of their adult season, looking at the issue of lowering the voting age to 16. It was an authored piece by Melissa, who is 16 herself. If it was a requirement of contract agreement, she did an excellent job of appearing genuinely interested in the issue. In actual fact, it was pretty obvious that she was bothered about politics, and as one caller to a radio show that featured on the programme said “when you give up playing Lucy Beale, you’ve got a good job ahead of you as a political reporter.” (Good news, given her Eastenders profile lists political journalism as her future career ambition).
The set-up for the programme was that she had four weeks to find out about the issues around votes at 16. This involved extensive travelling around the UK, and the Isle of Man, in order to investigate whether the voting age should be lowered. It would have been all too easy to fall into the trap of mixing a few celebrities with a few opinionated teenagers, but refreshingly the programme steered clear of all the usual suspects. And along the way it tackled issues as diverse as volunteering, young carers, the BNP and citizenship ceremonies.
Being television there has to be some “visuals” to make the documentary more than just talking heads, and apart from a couple of silly costumes and a slightly pointless meeting of 30+ young people in Trafalgar Square, the programme was light on the fluff and actually allowed the interviewees to do the talking. Among the more poignant moments was the 17-year-old young carer, who had to look after her autistic(?) brother, who despite Melissa’s observation that she was one of the most mature 17-year-olds she knew, said she didn’t think she was old enough to vote. That reminded me of BYC chair Emily Beardsmore’s assertion that the very fact young people think that way is a demonstration of their maturity.
In fact her’s (apologies, I haven’t got names as iPlayer isn’t working very well on my computer) and a child psychologist’s were lone voices against the lowering of the voting age. There was a good sequence in the Isle of Man, the first country in Europe to have lowered the voting age, that offered some proof that young people would take their responsibility seriously. Asked whether there was a risk young people would vote because they liked the name or the colour of a party rather than its policies, the Speaker of the House of Keys (IoM’s parliament) pointed out that plenty of people in the UK voted for the Monster Raving Loony Party. And they were all over 18.
If I had a few criticisms of the programme they were that it focused on national politics, and didn’t look at devolved or local governments (who’s decisions tend to have far more of an effect on 16-17 year olds), and that in an effort to show that people were apathetic about politics asked the question “How many parliamentary constituencies are there?” Yes it was depressing that most people guessed numbers under 100, but actually not knowing what a constituency is doesn’t mean you are apathetic towards politics. (Being a political geek that I am, I can tell you there are currently 646).
The most interesting bits were the two sequences filmed inside a polling booth, at the recent European elections. The first was recorded on a mobile phone by a Brazilian woman who had just got her British nationality, and therefore was voting for the first time. The second was Melissa and her mum (who had decided to let Melissa choose who she should vote for). Both times, and I’m guessing this was just coincidence and not a very clever bit of electioneering, the party that was chosen was the Liberal Democrats. Moreover, I always thought it was an offence (with a custodial punishment) under the Representation of the People Act to communicate how someone voted.
Which, given that overall I thought it was a good piece of television, did leave me wondering whether it would go the way of another great BBC Three documentary, Tower Block Dreams. That programme fell foul of the 1949 Wireless Telegraphy Act that prohibits any promotion of illegal radio services; meaning that whilst it is perfectly legal to interview a terrorist, you risk being thrown into jail if you do a programme about pirate radio. As a result, the series will never be screened again.
I hope that isn’t true of this programme. And that this isn’t the last time we see Melissa the political journalist.
Photo courtesy of David Spender. Used under licence.
There’s been quite a lot of discussion over the last couple of weeks about the decision to allow BTCV and the Wildlife Trust to run a programme of volunteering for young people in London to regain their free travel passes.
Former London Mayor Ken Livingstone introduced a radical scheme that allowed every young person under 16 the right to free transport on the capital’s buses. It was widely heralded as a positive step in order to tackle social exclusion, on the simple premise that if young people couldn’t get to places they couldn’t participate.
Young people who’ve caused anti-social behaviour, and other offences, have had their passes taken away (which in itself has led to discussions about whether that is the correct punishment). In order to get them back, they need to undertake a period of volunteering with the above charities, as outlined last week.
It’s just another example of the increasing stretching of the term volunteering, particularly by government, to fit a whole host of programmes and projects. I may be a volunteering purist, but I get worried that too many initiatives are muddling volunteering with participation, work experience or community service.
Volunteering obviously comes from the word “voluntary”, which means optional. If you are asked to make a voluntary contribution, you can decide not to give. If you are asked to volunteer some information about yourself, you can choose not to. All this makes a mockery of both the government and opposition proposals for compulsory volunteering.
But volunteering isn’t just about making a choice to do something. My favourite definition of volunteering is “philanthropy of your time”. The great 19th-century philanthropists (and today’s philanthropists) didn’t donate their money for personal gain, but because they believed in the greater good. The libraries, art galleries, hospitals and trusts that enriched public life in this country came about because those people understood the basic principles of social return on investment.
And that’s why some schemes appear to be betraying the concept of volunteering on two related fronts. Firstly, whilst I’d never deny the right of volunteers to use their volunteering to develop skills and gain experience, nor that people should be stopped from volunteering because they want to improve their CV, I get particularly worried when volunteering is promoted as primarily about skills development and increasing job prospects. Hospital radio has always been the way budding DJs got to practice their ‘art’, but certainly at my hospital radio station it was always made clear that you were there to serve the patients; the skills you developed were a by-product. Volunteering is not simply about personal gain.
Which is my second point – volunteering is about doing something that makes a positive difference for someone else (or at least something else, in the case of environmental volunteering). That’s why I get a bit nervous by things like the National Talent Bank that appear to be about promoting volunteering without a single mention that volunteering is a means to an end; not the end in itself. Even v appears to be about counting the number of volunteers placed rather than the effect those volunteers can have.
And if I could have a third point, it would be that volunteering has to involve a sacrifice. I’m all for new ways of volunteering, including current thoughts around micro-volunteering, but I’d get slightly worried if you could count yourself as a volunteer because you had re-tweeted a message on Twitter. That’s akin to counting yourself a philanthropist because you dropped your 1p of spare change into a collecting tin.
Does this matter? Well, I think so. Five or so years ago, before the current rush to push volunteering, lots of people (including young people) engaged in positive volunteering opportunities because they believed in the cause and wanted to make a difference. I certainly don’t want to rubbish the new initiatives that have tried to engage new people into volunteering, but we need to be careful we don’t lose or de-value that level of volunteering, or muddle good citizenship (participation) with the extra effort required for an activity to be counted as volunteering. Because, if a young person who helps run a Brownie night every week is compared equally with a young person who once spent an afternoon in a recording studio making a music track, we’re in danger of losing the real value of volunteering. And that is the effect it has on others.
So what do I think should have been done to give back travel passes to young people? Well, my suggestion would have been the creation of young people’s courts, to introduce the principle of being judged by peers. Part of what the “jury” would look at was what pro-social activities the young person had been involved in. That could include volunteering, but it wouldn’t make the direct connection between volunteering and returning the pass. And the jury should of course focus on the effect that the volunteering had.
On Thursday the BBC broadcast one of my favourite programmes of the year, Schools Question Time. It’s the annual edition of the regular Question Time but with a distinctly youth flavour: produced by student winners of a competition; a young audience; and for the third year running a “young person” on the panel. Because I was out on Thursday evening, I’ve only just got around to watching it.
For whatever reason, this year’s programme felt significantly more small-c conservative than previous editions. The audience definitely was older than before*, and the panellists, with the exception of 18-year-old Suzanne Burlton, could have been on any edition of the programme. And whilst all credit to Suzanne for her ability to participate in the discussion, I couldn’t help thinking she was a fairly predictable wannabe-politician and brought little to the table that wouldn’t have been said by someone twice her age. It’s a theme similar to my previous two posts, we need to engage young people on their level: not dress them up in suits and tell them to act like grown-ups.
Even the comments from the audience seemed a lot more restrained than other years, and certainly they seemed less vocal than we’ve seen on the programme over the last few months. A young person who suggested that others turn to drink because there was nothing for them to do on a Friday night was rebuked with the suggestion she should read a book. (Meanwhile a friend on Twitter said “they have the internet now FFS!” – I can’t quite work out whether he was joking).
Where was anyone, in the audience or on the panel, championing the right for young people to hang-out with each other on a Friday night? With the exception of one audience member, there seemed little support for the idea that young people might actually want places to go on Friday night and the weekend, and pointing out that if there isn’t the provision of suitable activities then they’ll create their own. There are moves to increase weekend opening of statutory youth clubs, but it’s still sketchy as best and there is plenty of resistance to the idea. And yet we know that young people respond positively to having activities to do – it’s often that there aren’t the adults to support them.
All this said, I still like the fact that we have this programme and would love to be invited to work on the show (or be in the audience one time).
On a related note, I was glad to see that John Bercow, the recently-appointed speaker of the House of Commons, stepped in to reverse a decision made by Commons authorities to prevent Cub Scouts being able to lobby their MPs because they were not old enough to vote. Luckily most MPs appear to have thought this was a patently absurd decision, but you do have to wonder how anyone reached that decision in the first place.
* it’s worth pointing out that reading up on how the programme is put together, I think the young producers can choose the age of the audience as well as the panellists.
Photo, showing David Dimbleby at another Schools Question Time event, courtesy of eyedropper. Used under licence.
Sorry, I haven’t blogged for a while, primarily because my new job (details) that kind of took over the last couple of weeks (plus my birthday).
During that time, two interesting new pieces of news broke. Firstly the report of the Youth Citizenship Commission, and secondly the launch of The Youth of Today, the butterfly that resulted from the caterpillar that was the National Body for Youth Leadership.
I’ve been wanting to blog about the Youth Citizenship Commission since it reported the Friday before last, but having seen the reaction from others it doesn’t exactly set the world alight. Perhaps I should at least read the whole report prior to writing about it, but if the press release is anything to go by I can’t exactly imagine it being a riveting read.
Yes, there are some interesting nuggets of ideas, including keeping schools open when polling is going on and proper funding of UKYP, but essentially it boiled down to revealing that young people felt disengaged with politics and that there needed to be better citizenship education in schools. Hardly earth shattering.
What was even more disappointing was its stance on Votes at 16. Personally I’m in favour of a reduction of the voting age, although I don’t actually think it’s the number one priority and I understand there are quite reasonable arguments against reducing it. So what annoyed me the most about the commission’s finding was that they didn’t come to a conclusion. If the Government of the day produces a Green Paper, asks a commission to investigate various elements of it, it doesn’t really want it to come back going “erm, we don’t really know – make your own mind up.” That’s a bit like a forensic scientist saying “well, what do you think happened?”.
And, once again, I see mandatory volunteering being bandied about: this time for Key Stage 4 pupils. I’m all for using lesson time to allow young people to help in their community (I used to help out at a local school instead of do PE), but I really worry when I see words like compulsory being thrown into the mix. Before it becomes compulsory, someone has to at least answer the concern that it could alienate a generation of future volunteers.
Perhaps what is most depressing though is that I can’t help feeling somewhat cynical that the much more radical Power Inquiry came up with far more exciting solutions to these problems, yet it faded into nothing. What is the point of these inquiries if change doesn’t come about from them?
The Youth of Today looks a more promising proposition. I’ve already blogged about it when the original proposal was announced, and I still really hope it is a catalyst for recognising the importance of developing young leaders. But, as other commentators have pointed out, my reaction was that it seems a bit too heavy on the institutionalised mandate: leadership appears to be about MPs, councillors and similar elected bodies. I realise there are other schemes that promote innovation and individual excellence, but I’d hope the Youth of Today takes a broader, more grassroots approach to what leadership is. With the exception of our friend in the States, I struggle to think of many politicians who really fit my idea of what good leadership is. And not all young leaders get excited by the prospect of a trip to the Houses of Parliament.
As an example of what I mean, I’ve been party to conversations about the Young Achievers Awards, an independent charity that seeks to recognise inspirational youth volunteers (colleagues of mine are trustees for the charity). Young Achievers Awards are presented to people like Ryan Hartson, a 23-year-old from Rotherham, who was described by his MV co-ordinator as “an all round mentor and role model to literally hundreds of young people.” Ryan initially helped and then ran dance lessons, before organising a Battle of the Bounce competition that attracted over 200 young people. He’s gone into schools to talk about his work, not bad for someone who had to deal with bullies when he was younger due to a speech impediment.
As part of his prize for winning a Young Achievers Award, Ryan met with Jonzi D, artistic director of Breakin’ Convention (an international festival of hip hop dance). As a result of that meeting, Ryan was invited to audition for this year’s convention in Nottingham. His company was successful, and got the opportunity to perform with some of the biggest names in hip hop theatre. They’ve also performed in Bradford as part of the Breakin’ Convention there, as you can see:
Apart from being a great opportunity for Ryan, what was brilliant was the feedback from the Breakin’ Convention, which included him being described as “very organised and a complete joy to have on our stage.” To me, Ryan absolutely symbolises what a young leader should be about, and exactly the sort of person that The Youth of Today should be championing.
Incidentally, you might like to know that this year’s Young Achievers Awards are now open. You’ve got until the 27th September to nominate a suitable young person.
Last week I ended up interviewing Meryl Roberts, the young person who I’d seen speak the week before at the Hansard Society debate. We like doing case studies at work on young people with interesting/inspiring stories and I thought someone who at 22 wanted to be an MP was pretty interesting. You can watch my interview here.
What I found fascinating was that otherwise very pro-youth participation colleagues and friends had quite interesting reactions to Meryl’s interview. One described it as “a little sad”. And I sort of understand where they are coming from.
When the Electoral Commission last looked into Votes at 16 and decided it wasn’t viable, they instead recommended that the age of becoming an MP/councillor be lowered to 18. Their rationale was that there was no logical reason why it should remain at 21. The law was amended accordingly, although given that the youngest MP was 26, it wasn’t as if there was an urgent demand for this change at national level.
Meryl isn’t alone in being someone under the age of 25 who wants to get elected. Emily Benn (granddaughter of Tony and niece of Hilary) must rank as Britain’s youngest PPC (prospective parliamentary candidate), winning nomination to stand for Labour in East Worthing and Shoreham whilst she was still 17 (on the basis that the election would be after her 18th birthday). Admittedly, her constituency is a fairly safe Tory seat, so it’s unlikely she’ll be taking her place in the House of Commons quite yet, but it’s still a pretty impressive achievement.
Not far behind, whilst still at university Claire Hazelgrove got the nod for Labour’s PPC in Skipton and Ripon (Interview with her). However, again it’s a fairly safe Tory seat. And then there is Georgia Gould, the 22-year-old daughter of Lord Gould, who lost her opportunity to be selected for the safe Labour seat in Erith and Thamesmead after accusations of dirty tricks.
That they are all Labour is probably not a coincidence (I’m sure there are some fairly young Lib Dem PPCs, not so sure about the Tories but I’ll try and find out and compile a list at some point. And of course there are no doubt young PPCs from other parties). That two of them are related to existing politicians is perhaps not surprising. That they are all female is rather encouraging.
But, whilst I think there is a real need for diversity in politics, I worry the focus on getting young people through the doors of Westminster misses the point somewhat.
The “professionalisation” of politics has changed the way people become MPs. Traditionally (and I realise this is very generalised), someone would work in another career for several years, get involved in local politics, and eventually get chosen to represent the seat they lived in. Nowadays, it appears that the most recent bunch of MPs and PPCs all appear to have only ever wanted to be MPs. They did politics at university, worked as researchers for MPs or other jobs directly connected to their chosen party, before being dropped into a suitable seat wherever they can get in. They know nothing other than the world of party politics, and forefeit their youth to get to being an MP (as Sarah Teather told the BBC on getting elected).
One young person I know, who has plenty of plaudits and suggestions that he could make high office, is totally happy in the company of older adults but struggles to chat to anyone his age or younger. I shudder and think of 16-year-old William Hague addressing the Tory Party conference in 1977.
And this is the real rub, and where I worry that we’re missing the point about getting young people into elected office. My concern is that politics changes them, not the other way around: that they adapt to be accommodated, not that the system adapts to accommodate them. I jest slightly, but looking at Claire Hazelgrove’s pictures you’d think she only owns a suit and her only friends are other politicians. Where are the PPCs in jeans and trainers? Or, better still, where are the politicians who can skate?
Yesterday, after work, I headed from where I’m based in Old Street to Westminster to attend the Hansard Society’s debate on the role under 18s have in politics. Given the tube strike, getting there was an achievement in itself, although I was impressed it only took me 45 minutes to walk the three-and-a-half miles.
On the panel were the ever amenable Jo Swinson MP, BYC’s chair Emily Beardsmore, 22-year-old Meryl Roberts, who was shortlisted to be Labour’s prospective parliamentary candidate in Keighley (although she wasn’t selected) and 16-year-old Gerald Owusu, who is a activist in his local community as well as MYP for the UKYP.
The debate covered the typical ground of votes at 16, the negative portrayal of young people in the media and by politicians, the low turnout by 18-24 year olds and the fact that only a handful of MPs are under 35 (Jo being the youngest at just shy of 30). Wearing my trustee hat, it was heartening to see many of the young people in the room say that they wanted better citizenship education.
Years ago, when I had the one of my first career wobbles whilst at the BBC, I applied and was interviewed for a job on the education team at the Electoral Commission. I was asked to present my ideas on engaging more young people, and I suggested a website that they could debate and vote on issues. My interviewers nodded in enthusiasm for the idea, but then promptly shot it down because the Electoral Commission can not be involved in anything that could be seen to favour one political party. And whilst I can understand that the regulator needs to remain objective; it seems a little daft that they are the statutory body charged with promoting political engagement. As someone said yesterday, politics is nothing without a difference of opinion.
Like many of these debates, the people in the room were broadly in agreement that something needed to be done, and in the wake of the expenses scandal there is a feeling that now is a good time to seize the opportunity. The debate was on the day Gordon Brown announced he wanted to introduce changes to the electoral system. Unfortunately, as one speaker from the floor passionately pointed out, no-one who could change the situation was in the room to hear this call. And, much that I like supporting these events, it does feel sometimes that we gather in a room, agree something needs to change, and then go back to where we were before.
So what could be done? Well, much that it pains me to say it, young people (and those who support the idea of young people’s greater participation) could learn from the BNP. The BNP managed to secure victories in both the local and European elections; but more than that, they have massively shifted the debate about immigration so that both the Tories and Labour are trying to prove their credentials at being tough on asylum seekers and other migrants.
The greater the number of people who don’t vote, the more power you have if you can get them into a polling station and ticking your box. In the last two (possibly three) elections, had the non-voters had a party to vote for, it would be in government. And if, as many young people claim, they are disenfranchised by existing political parties, that sounds very like the reasons people choose to vote more fringe parties such as the BNP.
Emily Beardsmore said she never wanted to be an MP. But even if she didn’t get elected, the threat that she could be elected by voters who think she will better represent them than other people would be enough to wake up the other parties. And, unlike the BNP, existing politicians couldn’t complain about their fundamentalist undertones. Although they might just try fitting a mosquito to the Houses of Parliament.
So, anyone want to start a political party?
Image artwork by Borf, phot courtesy of After Yesterday. Used under licence.
Although this possibly is outside the remit of this blog, I’ve been caught up in the discussion about whether the voluntary sector needs an ombudsman (an independent person who helps resolve issues between an organisation and individuals). With recent proposals for compulsory volunteering for young people, I think this discussion is very timely.
Rather randomly, I originally got involved because my colleague, Patrick Daniels, is one of the directors of the Association of Volunteer Managers (AVM), and had launched their new website. He wanted people to try the poll he’d added, and so I did. The question was ‘The case for a volunteer ombudsman is strong‘, and I’d ticked agree because that was my initial reaction.
It turns out that the AVM don’t share my view, and there has been opinions in the trade press and on blogs about whether a volunteer ombudsman is the right way to go. There’s an interesting discussion in this week’s Third Sector (reg. required). I think John Ramsey from AVM makes some valid points about the problems of formalising an external complaints procedure, and the desire to use resources to improve standards rather than to create a system of regulation is a laudable one.
That said, I still think there is still significant inadequacies when it comes to protecting volunteers. Perhaps the argument is about semantics-I’m not sure a volunteering “ombudsman” is necessarily the right term-but I still think a standardised external complaints procedure would be a good idea.
Jon says that research suggests volunteers generally felt satisfied with their volunteering, and I’ve no reason to disagree with that. However, most consumers are probably generally satisfied, but that doesn’t negate the need for Trading Standards, the OFT or media outlets like Watchdog, You and Yours or the consumer rights experts that appear in weekend papers. Without knowing the details of how this survey was conducted, volunteers generally self-identify, so those people who leave having had a negative experience of volunteering may not class themselves as volunteers.
From personal experience, there have been a number of times I’ve left volunteering opportunities as a result of bad practice or what I deemed unacceptable behaviour. What prompted me to leave was not necessarily the negative experience, but a feeling there was little I could do about it that would create change within the organisation. And I don’t think I’m alone in having that experience.
Although there are hundreds of ways to volunteer, away from the big cities it’s likely that there are limited opportunities for someone interested in a particular issue or skill. Therefore, I don’t think it’s as easy as saying if a volunteer doesn’t like the organisation, they should simply leave. Equally, whilst I think the independence of the voluntary sector should be protected; there is a genuine moral concern about an organisation that dominates a particular sector being able to remove volunteers without any form of accountability.
My idea would be to have an independent organisation that conducts an annual audit on the state of volunteering and promotes good practice. They could receive evidence of malpractice from individuals (or other organisations) that helps form their report. In the most severe of cases organisations would be named, and the complaint and subsequent investigation written up in the style of Ofcom’s Broadcast Bulletin. It would detail what the complaint was, a response from the organisation responsible and a commentary from an independent panel (not a judgment as there wouldn’t be a formal code to base decisions on).
In his Third Sector piece, Jon Ramsay says one problem would be the limited sanctions an ombudsman would have on an organisation. But I think it would a massive impact – a commentary that reflected badly on an organisation would be picked up and noticed by their funders, benefactors and the public alike. Look what happened when Intelligent Giving highlighted a lack of accountability at Children in Need. The result was a radical change to its accountability procedures. I do think something similar for volunteering could really make people take their volunteer management seriously.
I imagine it’d be similar to the Fundraising Standards Board, which investigates instances of bad practice around giving money to charities. They have a complaints procedure that comes into play if an organisation’s own system doesn’t produce a satisfactory result. The main downside of the FRSB is that it only investigates charities who are members.
That’s not to say all this should come at the expense of promoting good practice, and there needs to be development of incentives such as those best company to work for surveys (of which Patrick and I work at the best charity to work for, apparently). But assuming that the quality of volunteering is going to rise without fixing what is wrong is, I’d argue, somewhat naïve. Some organisations, with large reserves of money and a good public image, won’t necessarily have the motivation to change unless there is an independent assessment of their volunteering practice.
On Wednesday we had a meeting at work to discuss recruiting new trustees for YouthNet, and in particular the desire to get “youth trustees” onto our board. We’ve been having similar discussions at the charity I’m a trustee of, the Citizenship Foundation, where I think I am if not the youngest, I’m certainly not that much older than the youngest.
It’s an issue that a lot of youth charities are trying to tackle. The perception is that traditionally trustees were the great-and-the-good, retired professionals brought in for their contacts, experience and (often) wealth. It was therefore reassuring to see that of the 10 people sat around the table at our meeting on Wednesday, all but two were trustees and none of those were over 40 (I think). It’s worth saying that it was a self-selecting group, so I guess people interested in developing our board are more likely to be trustees themselves. And YouthNet has a pretty proactive workforce.
Like many youth charities, YouthNet already has ‘user panels’ that help guide staff how on decisions that affect the services we provide. We also regularly receive feedback from users, undertake consultations and surveys and get out and meet young people (although possibly not as often as we’d like). So why, in addition to this, is there a feeling that young people should also be involved as trustees of a charity?
Trustees provide the governace of a charity; they are there to keep it accountable. It makes sense that a charity should be accountable to its benefactors. Many charities also see being a trustee as a development opportunity in itself. Charities like the Young Achievers Trust and British Youth Council recruit only young trustees for those reasons.
But for other youth charities, having young people on their board ensures the other trustees can fuse their knowledge and expertise with the benefactor’s personal experience. Young trustees often help remind everyone the real reason the charity exists. My previous employer, Headliners, had ‘graduate trustees’ – young people who had recently been benefactors but were then recruited on to the trustee board alongside other trustees.
Ultimately trustees are there to prevent the organisation from abusing its charitable status. They are financially liable for the decisions that the charity makes and as a result can’t be aged under 18 [Edit: see comments]. Charities with multi-million pound turnovers need trustees who can scrutinise complex spreadsheets, understand employment law and hold senior management to account. They need to think strategically, take an external view of the charity, ask difficult questions and challenge perceived wisdom within the organisation. Whilst there are undoubtedly young people who can (and do) do that adequately, those are big asks for anyone who doesn’t have significant experience in management.
So how do you ensure that young people are involved in the governance of charities, without it becoming tokenistic or simply involving high-achieving young people? And should the organisation be involved in supporting the young person who is a trustee, or should that be down to the trustees themselves?
I have my own views, but I’d be grateful for others thoughts on involving young people as trustees.
Photo courtesy of IRRI Images, and shows the International Rice Research Institute Board of Trustees, presumably with some benefactors. Used under licence.
Gordon Brown has announced that he wants to require young people to undertake 50 hours of community service, and that this will form part of Labour’s manifesto for next year’s (presumably) general election. It’s not particularly surprising; David Cameron and the Tories have long been floating the notion and Gordon Brown was responsible for the setting up of youth volunteering charity V and generally pushing for young people to be more active in their community.
But I think it’s a horrendous idea. The suggestion is that it will help charities, but personally I can’t think of anything worse than third sector organisations being expected to provide opportunities for young people mandated to do “goodly works”. Compulsory volunteering is a total misnomer.
There’s loads of reasons why I hold that view.
Firstly it will force an unnecessary formalisation of community service. Alongside the (disgracefully) large number of young carers in this country, there are many other young people who help others in their community by running errands, visiting, looking-out-for or taking them on trips. It’s unlikely that these activities will count towards compulsory community service, and if they do they will have to be formally assessed, agreed and recorded in a way that destroys both the relationship the young people had with the person they were helping and the reason they were helping them out.
It removes any form of social entrepreneurship: how are you going to be able to prove your community service if you have set up your own activity. Setting up an online support site, tidying up somewhere close to your house or running a street football league: these are all legitimate community activities that a young person could do without any involvement of an official organisation to oversee their contribution. Why should a young person be told that these are not acceptable activities but joining an organisation is? And if these are acceptable, how are you going to ensure that people are actually doing these activities and not just saying they are? How are you going to ensure the scheme recognises social entreprenuers but isn’t used by those wanting to duck out of getting involved?
My concern is that this creates a dangerous connection between the government and the third sector. Just as no-one is forced to give to charity, there is something wrong with government forcing people to volunteer.
Secondly, what is the scope for deciding what and what isn’t community service? Is being involved in your school council? Is being involved in a political party community service? Is playing in a community orchestra, football team or performing street dance community service? If it isn’t, is tutoring or mentoring others in those activities community service? (and if so does your training count in those hours?).
Thirdly, only this week a story broke that many teachers think that the efforts to increase literacy have led to children losing the enjoyment of reading for pleasure. I think the same will be true of compulsory community service.
Many young people volunteer to improve their CV or to develop a skill, but many more volunteer because they want to make a positive contribution. They don’t want to undertake volunteering to tick boxes or simply get a record of their achievements. This was one of the failings of Millennium Volunteers, repeated with V and going to be far worse where there is a mandatory requirement to do this. From a personal perspective, one of the reasons I didn’t want to do my MV was that it seemed to be more about achieving a set number of hours than the value you added to a project.
Indeed, Volunteering England wrote something similar last month (about using volunteering as a way of assessing people applying for permanent UK residence):
Active citizenship activities should be meaningful and enjoyable to present a good image of community participation in the UK and not imply that volunteering is purely a means to an end. If activities do not serve a community need or if the verification arrangements are too simplified, the process could become a “tick-box exercise” and provide the applicant with little benefit.
Finally, why is it just young people? What message are we trying to convey if we say that only those under 19 should be mandated to be involved in community service whereas everyone else only needs to choose to?
And I as every youth organisation will tell you until they are blue in the face; the lack of the young people isn’t the problem: it’s the youth leaders needed to support them. I volunteered for many years as a youth leader, but I don’t think I would have done so had I had to work with young people who didn’t want to be there apart from whatever threat the government will use to get them to complete their community service.
Yes, I definitely want more young people to volunteer and be involved in their community. But I don’t think it’s through forcing them to complete a certain number of hours or tick a particular set of boxes, any more than using volunteering as a stick to reduce student tuition fees etc.
Young people need to be engaged citizens, active in their community, not because they are forced to but because they want to. It would be so much better if Gordon Brown and David Cameron both changed their pledges from making every young person undertake community service to making a society where every young people wants to undertake community service.
