Kaizen Partnership

Specialists in Consultation and Engagement

kaizen_superadmin

We Must End This State Sanctioned Child Abuse

By Leave a Comment

I have been working in the youth sector for over 20 years and am not easily shocked.

But I am truly stunned and sickened by the news that I read yesterday, that there have been 43,960 strip-searches of young people in custody, in a mere 21 months.

This is institutionalised child abuse on an industrial scale.

Lets dig into the numbers (that have come from a FOI request) and were reported in the Guardian here

  • 21 months is approximately 638 days.
  • That works out to on average, 69 young people strip-searched every day. Or about 3 every hour, every day of the year.
  • Astonishingly, only .0001% of searches unearthed any illicit items at all – that is one time every 1000 strip-searches
  • To put this into perspective…I have seen it reported that Ladbrokes have odds of 500/1 that Tony Blair will be the next Pope so bookies would rate us having Pope Tony as being twice as likely as a strip search unearthing anything illicit.
  • In only .0008% of the searches was any contraband at all (usually tobacco) found.
  • On not one time was it recorded that drugs or knives were found
  • On 50 occasions physical force was used to conduct the search. This is getting right into the territory of violent sexual assault.

 

This is appalling. It must be stopped. Right now.

 

I believe the following 3 measures ought to be immediately put in place:

1. Rules governing the use of strip-searches need to be made so restrictive that unless there is a very clear, and extremely significant danger (that would warrant the invasion of privacy and emotional abuse that results from strip searches) that they cannot be conducted.

2. Any child who is subjected to a strip search ought to have the right to sue for damages if the situation did not warrant such extreme action. Looking for contraband or tobacco can never, ever be a justification for child abuse.

3. Any staff member who conducts an unwarranted strip search should lose their job and be never allowed to work with young people again.

I have trained and led crisis intervention teams working with some of the most challenging young people in our country and I am a qualified restraint training instructor. I have never ever thought it necessary to conduct a strip search – I have never even considered conducting such a search. In order to decide to put my hands on a young person I need to feel very sure that if I didn’t do so, that there was a significant danger they would be about to seriously hurt themselves or another person, or to dangerously damage property.

It is without doubt that subjecting anyone, and particular a vulnerable young person, to an intimate body search must be an even more extraordinary event that could only be acceptable in the very most extreme and unusual circumstances.

Finally I hope that the full data set from the FOI is released and that a thorough enquiry is launched to see if (as I fear may be the case) this may have in some cases gone beyond awful practice into deliberate abuse, and whether there are grounds for prosecution against any of the people who have been conducting these searches.  The enquiry should obviously begin with speaking with all of the young people who have been subjected to strip searches and that support for them should be made available as needed. This is a massive child protection situation and needs to be dealt with accordingly.

@JonnyZander

 

 

 

Gamesmakers, Olympic Ideals & Legacy

By

Everyone is in agreement that the London 2012 Gamesmakers are doing a sensational job. They are a fantastic tribute, to themselves; to the British and non-British people who live in this country; to the spirit of volunteering and to the Olympics itself.

To set the context for this blog, I have been managing Olympic programmes for 4 years and am not an unbiased bystander to this whole thing:

  • I am currently managing the Waltham Forest Welcome, the Olympic volunteering programme for the Waltham Forest, one of the host Boroughs
  • Kaizen delivered all the training for the Hackney hosts, and the core and team leader training of the Hackney Olympic Volunteers
  • We also delivered another large Olympic training programme, for 3 years.
  • I have been a member of the LOCOG Changing Places Programme Board for the past 3 years.

Modern Olympics are dependant on volunteers to be their life-blood; and the volunteers are consistently excellent role models and hosts.

If we apply the core Olympic principals to ourselves as Gamesmakers, then this role involves not only being the best that we can be, but also building on the achievements of the fantastic volunteers in past Olympic Games. It is this second aspect that is interesting me right now as it feels like we are absolutely nailing the first aspect.

I think we can lift the bar on Olympic volunteering. So what could this look like? I would love to sit down with some other Gamesmakers and see what could be possible/what we want to be possible

There are somewhere over 100,000 primary volunteer Gamesmakers, and probably an equal number of secondary volunteer Gamesmakers.

Let me clarify what I see to be the difference:

  • The primary volunteers are all the Gamesmakers, whether LOCOG, London Ambassadors, Local Borough Volunteers, Ceremony Volunteers, transport volunteers, police volunteers, volunteers associated to other 3rd sector organisations (eg religious institutions, school staff, business volunteers; and others who work directly on the Games in one way or another.
  • The secondary volunteer Gamesmakers, are the husbands, wives, partners, children, parents, friends, employers and colleagues who are enabling the primary volunteers to do what they are doing. They are the invisible Gamesmakers but no less important for that. You can’t have 100,000 of the primaries without perhaps several times the number of secondary. While the primary volunteers get all the glory and thanks, I do think it is very important that we don’t forget all the people who enable and support them.

I have heard that this is the largest civil mobilisation of volunteers since WW2. That’s an amazing thing, and it ought to be surely possible for us to find ways to harness that energy and network post September 12th.

There may well be succession/legacy plans in place for the Gamesmakers, but I haven’t seen or heard of any. If there are not plans then now is the time to at least start the conversation – so we can transition post Games.

I think it is our responsibility as Gamesmakers to take ownership and lead the process. I am certain that we have the knowledge, skills and experience within our body to do this.

So what could this look like? I have a few thoughts but would be interested to be part of a wider group of Gamesmakers to chew this over and see what comes out. Here are 2 ideas, one immediate one longer term:

  • Gamesmakers could start and manage a campaign to collect donations of Olympic pin badges to raise money for charity (or to establish the organisation I mention below). The badges could then be auctioned. 100,000 Gamesmakers could surely collect 200,000 of them (and probably way, way more). What if spectators could show their appreciation for the Gamesmakers by donating a pin badge to our campaign. Imagine how many badges that could bring in. If they auctioned for an average of £10 that could raise millions.
  • London 2012 Gamesmakers could establish an International Gamesmaker Federation, to include volunteers from all past and future Olympic Games. We could co-initiate a global day of volunteering to involve Gamesmakers from across the world.

These are 2 ideas, I am sure that many, many more will come if we ask ourselves the question, what can we do to raise the bar?

If we can carry forward the Gamesmaker energy and passion into a post Games process then we would genuinely have created an extraordinary legacy for the UK and opened up a new dimension for Olympic volunteering. This is the very first Games with widespread social media activity. We have opportunities to mobilise and connect that have never been there before.

This is the Olympics, and for most of us we will never have this chance again. Lets squeeze every drop of benefit and magic that we can from it, and embody all aspects of the Olympic ideals.

 

 

 

 

 

Some thoughts on community participation

By

Everyone wants to involve the local community in services, projects and local initiatives. But…

What does this actually mean in practice?

How can we, as professionals in the sector, ensure that we are providing an effective and attractive menu of participation options for people to take up?

And

How can we measure the effectiveness of our participation strategy?

We have developed the following model/framework to identify and explain what we see to be the different core archetypes of community participation. It can be applied at all scales and in all sectors; from a national perspective explaining the concept of how individuals can participate in the Big Society, to a local level, in a school looking to increase parent engagement, or a local authority wanting to address anti-social behaviour.

So, what does it mean to participate in your community?

We think it means you are doing one of these 7 things:

 

 

Reactive

  • You react to things that happen and say when things go badly, or when they go well.
    • Examples of this could be calling up to report a burnt out car, telling your child’s school that they are being bullied, or writing to thank the nurses at the hospital who gave such wonderful care to your mother

Responsive

  • You respond when asked for your view or opinion
    • Examples of this could be filling in a survey about your area, attending a community meeting, being part of a focus group, voting, or having any conversation with someone who works in your area, when you are asked: “what do you think about….”

Strategic

  • You operate at a strategic level and influence policy, projects or organisations
    • Examples of this could be being a parent governor at a school, being on your local tenants association or being a trustee of a charity

Supportive

  • You support projects and schemes that are already happening
    • Examples of this could be volunteering at the local charity shop, doing your recycling, being a special constable, or staying at the nursery for stop and play sessions

Generative

  • You generate new projects, organisations or initiatives, based on seeing something is missing
    • Examples of this could be being a social entrepreneur and setting up your own organisation, to establishing a free school, to starting a new project within your organisation

Engaging

  • You engage, catalyze, connect or encourage others
    • Examples of this could be network building, introducing two people (or organisations together) or facilitating and engaging others to be a part of a project, or to change their mind

Helping

  • You help out by doing things
    • Examples of this could be assiting your elderly neighbour with her shopping, or taking a pot of soup around to someone who is ill, or picking up some litter off the street. The difference between this type and being supportive is that this is informal, not on behalf of an organisation or programme.

 

All of these things help to build community.

All of them can apply as much to organisations as to individuals; in life and online.

This is not a hierarchy where one way of participating is better than another.

It is not a progression where one way leads to another.

What we know, is that at different times, for different issues, we all will contribute and participate in our communities in different ways. This is because at different moments in our lives, different things are important to us, we have different opportunities and interact with different people.

We use these archetypal models in all our community engagement and community building projects. We find the following benefits from using it:

  • Assessment of Opportunities: The model can be used as a framework for assessing the participation offer being made to a community. Gaps can be identified and filled. The model can be used to create a menu of opportunities that means there can be “something for everyone.”
  • Targeting: It enables us to devise engagement plans that are targeted, based on how someone might participate rather than purely by demographics. Even if engaging just one type, eg generators, there are sub-categories – they are not a homogeneous group (eg experienced and inexperienced generators). The model gives a framework to identify and engage sub-groups by looking at the needs of the individual.
  • Support: Different types of participation have different needs that have to be met to ensure effective and sustained involvement. By using the model we can identify and target support where it is needed, and design systems that make this happen. For example, for people to be able to be supportive they need to know what local schemes and projects exisit for them to be a part of.
  • Appreciation: It encourages the appreciation and valuing of all the different types of participation, rather than focusing on just one type. For example, reactive participation is almost always seen as complaining. Adopting this model can change the way people think and therefore act, so that someone calling up to complain about something being broken could be treated as a community member who is actively engaging with the council, and be valued for it, rather than being related to as a nuisance complainer.
  • Shared Understanding and Language for Partnership Working: the model creates a shared language that supports partnership working in engagement. For example, one person could tell another that they were seeking to engage people to be generative, rather than supportive, and there would be a clear understanding of what was meant for the collaboration.

If genuine and widespread community participation is wanted, then a vital role for government (central and local) and for third sector organisations, should be to ensure that there is a very wide range of opportunities, in each of these areas for people to participate.

And, if we, as individuals want to be involved and help to build our communities, then all we have to do is step up, and do more of the things that we can do.

It really is that simple.

 

@JonnyZander

 

A torch to host, not to own – how the Olympic torches could bring a lasting legacy

By

I have to admit to feeling pretty upset, reading the stories of Olympic torches being sold. This not only feels totally out of keeping with the spirit of the London Olympic bid, which was rooted in the concepts of community and regeneration, but is also an incredible missed opportunity to create a significant legacy for the country.

To carry the Olympic torch is a great honour – an extraordinary recognition of the contribution that a person has made in whatever field or endeavour they have excelled. To profit financially or materially from it is to turn a unique experience, representing us all, into a personal cash bonus – this is not right. Surely the honour of being selected and the amazing experience is enough – and if not, then I would suggest that the wrong people were selected.

So, what could be done….how could we collectively benefit from the 8000 Olympic torches?

I propose that the torches become an ongoing legacy to raise money for charities across the country. In this time of financial turmoil, charities need money more than ever to sustain their vital work that we all benefit from.

So how could this work?

The torches could be bought from LOCOG, either by the torch bearers or by sponsors, who would then put them up for auction with the proceeds going to charity. The person/organisation who wins the initial auction would host the torch for one year, at which point it would again be placed for auction to find another host. And so on, with the names of the hosts engraved onto the torch as it passes from person to person. This would take the concept of the torch relay into a new dimension.

An annual auction could take place –  July 6th could be the ideal date – and each year an Olympic legacy would cascade across the country, 8000 new hosts would be found, and millions of pounds would be raised. Ideally a volunteer led organisation could coordinate the events and the auctions and to help facilitate the dispersal of funds.

Let’s do the maths on this: if each torch raised £5000 each time it was auctioned (and some would likely raise far more) this would represent an annual total of £40,000,000 raised from the 8000 torches. Think of the difference that this could make in our communities.

So I call on all the torch bearers – starting with the first one, Ben Ainslie – to put the community first, to cherish the memory of being a torch bearer, to feel very proud to have been selected to represent Britain, and to do the right and honourable thing.

An Olympic torch is something to be shared and hosted, not owned and sold (whether now or in the future). Let’s celebrate community and giving, and create a peoples’ legacy for many rather than a personal windfall for a few.

 

@JonnyZander

 

When is cyber-bullying in fact online self-harming?

By

The world we live in is rapidly changing due to the digital revolution, but human beings are not changing so fast, and what seems clear is that we are taking the same patterns (healthy and destructive) from the non-digital world and adapting them to the online sphere.

Over the past year, I have asked a lot of people in the education and community development fields if they have ever heard of the term (or concept) of online self-harming. I have yet to meet one single person who has said yes.

This is very worrying indeed.

Everyone knows about self-harming, everyone knows about cyber-bullying, but no one seems to be even aware of online self-harming. As an indicator of this, in the wikipedia entry on self-harm it doesn’t even get mentioned.

I came across the concept from an excellent blog by ever insightful Dana Boyd (@zephoria) which is the only reference I have ever seen to it, anywhere.

For the sake of clarity this is how I would define it:

‘Online self-harming is the writing and public posting of mean, hurtful, shameful or abusive messages or other content (eg video) about yourself; or deliberately damaging your own online identity.’

To the outside this would likely appear as cyber-bullying and actions would be taken accordingly. But bullying is different to self-harming and I am wondering how many young people are not being given the support they need because of the miss-identification of what is actually going on.

So why would someone do this? Dana Boyd puts forward 3 possible factors, though there will likely be others:

  • A cry for help / attempt to be noticed
  • To look cool / be important – while this is a bit counter intuitive, Dana asserts that in some schools you have “to be cool to garner hate/jealousy”
  • To trigger compliments – negative comments online can cause friends to jump in with positive responses and reassurance

I would add in a further thought:

  • To gain some power and control – this is also perhaps counter-intuitive, but a dynamic of self-harm is that the person is both the victim and the perpetrator. If you are “doing” the bullying you get a sense of control over something that otherwise you have no control of.

It is very hard to estimate the number of people who self harm (physically), but it is thought that perhaps as many as 10% of young people may try and hurt themselves at some point. Given that the outward signs of physical self-harming are actually observable, how much harder will it be to assess the amount of online self-harming that is taking place?

What is absolutely certain is that online self-harming is happening, it is likely that it is pretty widespread, and we can only assume that the incidence of it will only increase in the future.

My guess is that much of what we already know about physical self-harming will also apply to online self-harming, but I would caution against assuming it is exactly the same phenomenon in a different sphere.

So what to do?

1.    Research – we urgently need lots of research on this issue, which would include major consultation with young people and professionals, as well as development of indicators, treatment and support approaches etc. We need to know what we are dealing with, how to spot it, and what approaches will work to counter it.

2.    Increase understanding – it is essential that understanding of online self-harming becomes universal in the education, health and community sector, as well as of course amongst young people and parents. This would include development of all types of materials and resources.

3.    Support for online self-harmers – self-harming of any type is always an indicator of an underlying issue/s. The earlier and more effectively this can be spotted and addressed the better for everyone.

I hope that this short blog can stimulate a debate here in the UK on this issue and play a role in highlighting this very important and concerning issue.

 

@JonnyZander

Talk to us about your engagement needs: Contact Us