Kaizen Partnership

Specialists in Consultation and Engagement

Blog

A Monumental Error in the Making – The curious case of the expansion of the National Citizen Service

· ·

Something very odd indeed is going on. In the middle of the most severe cuts in living memory where youth service budgets are being decimated, the government has announced a massive, and very costly, expansion of an unevaluated programme that has yet to demonstrate that it works at all. And to make matters even more bizarre, there has been, up until now almost no outcry from the sector.

I am talking about the National Citizen Service (NCS), and the fact that the PM has just announced that it will be increased by 900% up to 2014.

Let’s look at a few facts:

  • This year was the pilot, and an evaluation has yet to be published. It is very poor practice at any level for a programme to be expanded before an evaluation is done, let alone a major national programme.
  • It is very expensive – costed at £1,182 per person (I do not know if this is based on the anticipated cohort of over 11,000 or the actual of 8500). By contrast the scouts reportedly cost £600 for an entire year and Germany can apparently provide a full year-long volunteering programme for £1,228. I do not see how this 6-week programme remotely provides value for money.
  • The stated plan is to increase from 11,000 places this year to 90,000 places in 2014.
  • This year an astonishing 23% of places were not filled. This is either a serious indictment of the engagement for the programme or a reflection on a poorly designed programme (or both). Either way it does not bode well for an expansion and ought to set alarm bells ringing.
  • The Prince’s Trust, who were a delivery provider this year for the pilot, did not even bid for the programme delivery in 2012, which is noteworthy.
  • The government has recently failed to provide information in the required timescale from a Freedom of Information request from Third Sector magazine for the social and economic background data of the participants on the pilots.
  • In a report published in June 2011 the parliamentary education select committee said it “cannot support” the programme. They argued that if 50% of 16year olds were to participate it would cost over £350 million – this is more than the entire amount spent on the youth service by Local Authorities in 2009-10.
  • Figures from the Challenge Network (the largest provider this year) do not seem to add up. The government has said that 18% came from “low income families” whereas the BBC had the same organisation stating that 79.9% receive free school meals. One of these stats must be correct, but I cannot see how they both are possible.
  • 5% of places on the NCS with the Challenge Network were taken by young people who are in private schools. This is an astonishing waste of public money on those who are least in need of it.

Personally I have not seen any accounts of any of the “youth led” community projects that were supposed to have happened. If 8,500 young people were delivering imaginative and constructive community projects why has this not been reported in the media? Particularly given the riots this summer, the positive community building activities ought to have been much more noticeable and widely reported (think of the reporting on riot cleanup).

I could go on, but I am not a journalist, and nor am I out to get the government. I think it is absolutely fantastic that the government is wanting to commit such substantial sums to youth development. But I think they are being poorly advised and that these funds can be much more effectively invested.

There are innumerable well established youth programmes, youth centres and other projects (with demonstrated results) that are currently either on the edge of collapse or seriously scaling back that I would argue ought to be funded instead of this programme.

In this time of budget constraints, what we need is intelligent commissioning of programmes that provide the best value for impact; a need made more urgent of course by the riots.

Our national portfolio of youth initiatives ought to be diverse, and scaled to fit with individual need and impact desired, where those that need (and deserve) more support and training, get more; those that really don’t need it or need less, get less or even don’t get it at all. We ought to have a wide diversity of types of initiatives and programmes rather than investing such a substantial percentage of the national youth budget on one cookie-cutter style scheme. These are not radical suggestions – they are common sense.

My hope is that there will be full disclosure and independent scrutiny of all the data surrounding this programme and a healthy debate, led by the sector, as to whether the NCS is the best and most effective way to use these funds to achieve the aims. The following is the data I would like to see:

1.    Full demographic breakdown by location for the pilot

2.    A complete list of all the community activities undertaken broken down by location and cohort

3.    A full list of all the community activities that were initially planned and committed to by the groups broken down by location and cohort, ie what did the young people say they would do as compared to what they actually did.

4.    Full breakdown on participation numbers, down to numbers per phase of the programme and per session, broken down ideally by location, demographics and cohort

5.    Full costs breakdown (including hidden costs and cross subsidies). I think the DCLG £500 line would be a good benchmark to follow.

6.    Results from interviews of those who did not complete the programme as to why they said they dropped out

7.    A comparison with the costs of other youth engagement and empowerment programmes and an assessment of impact comparison.

8.    Full disclosure of the individual contract details with providers, including fees and targets, in order that value for money can be compared.

9.    The evidence base from consultation with young people that they think this programme would be the best way to invest the money in training and support for young people to secure the outcomes desired.

On the one hand, as a youth professional I am deeply distressed by the ill thought out funding of this particular programme. On the other hand, I am thrilled by the prospect that if enough of us in the sector let our views be known we can shape the direction of this pot of gold for young people, into programmes that really will make a difference.

We could be putting it into programmes for (amongst others) employment and skills, empowerment, rehabilitation of offenders and restorative justice, and a variety of early intervention projects. The funding from this one scheme could go some way to replacing the money lost to youth provision from the cuts. This is truly exciting and a glimmer of good news in amongst the tide of economic disaster and challenge in the youth and community sector. In order to make this happen, the sector will need to speak – loud and clear.

So my request to fellow professionals and youth and community organisations is to state your views, so that we can have a constructive national debate on the issue. And my request to government is to pause and take stock, and to then take on board the views of a wider range of people on how best to engage and inspire the nations young people. A monumental error is in the making and we will all be responsible if we allow this to happen on the quiet.

 

By Jonny Zander

Kaizen Director

@JonnyZander

There are no single causes of complex events

· ·

The recent riots have quite correctly occasioned an outpouring of emotion, debate and commentary. Much of it now is focussed on the question of what “caused” the riots to happen with debate raging and all sides using the situation to back up and trumpet their own pre-existing beliefs.

There has sadly been a tremendous amount of premature analysis and faulty conclusions and there is evidently significant confusion over some basic features of this type of event in respect to identification of causes.

The riots were clearly a complex event and any explanation attempting to identify single headline “causes” (or clusters of related causes) will be inherently flawed (this goes for left wing analysis, right wing analysis and everywhere in between). Complex events like this have myriad influencing factors that will include background contextual factors and immediate triggers and fuel for the fire.

Complex events are non-linear and include amongst others, factors that are societal, organisational, individual, environmental, and perception based that all will have contributed in different ways, in different locations, for different people in the past weeks riots. It is further already clear that the rioters are not confined to one particular demographic  and this further complicates the web of influencing factors.

So, there will be no “truth” to be found, no “cause” to be identified, and no single “solution” to magically resolve the problems and ensure it never happens again. It is essential that we take a more nuanced view of what has happened, and consequently of what to do now.

The following visual gives a range of the factors that conceivably influenced the riots (click to enlarge).

This is not a complete list by any means, but aims at highlighting the complexity of analysis that will be needed if we are to make any kind of sense from this situation. It is time for us to show collective maturity and approach this situation with the rigour and understanding that it clearly warrants. The solutions to the problems will be varied and need to reflect the complexity of the problems themselves.

We are all responsible for the part we have played in creating the communities we live in. We will all be responsible for how we chose to approach the problems we face.

Where is Justice?

· ·

Everyone agrees that the rioters must be punished; but what will be the best ways to serve justice – for victims, for our communities and for perpetrators? I was delighted to see today reported in the Guardian the news that the government will be initiating a community based “riot payback scheme”, though it remains to be seen how comprehensive or well thought out this will be.

In the past days we have moved from mob rioting to mob vengeance with calls from almost all parts of society for the most vigorous and punitive use of prison as appropriate punishment for the rioters. I vehemently oppose this on ethical and practical grounds while at the same time understanding the emotional response of fear and desire for revenge that it comes from.

This is the time to implement a massive programme of community based restorative justice.

This will not be a soft option for convicted rioters and will force them to repeatedly face the consequences of their actions, to face the individuals and community they abused and to make amends. It will not only provide the most likely means of rehabilitating the individuals but also would play a vital role in the even more important task of rebuilding of our communities and re-establishing the moral basis for our country. While there will be violent offenders for whom this would not be appropriate, they will likely be a minority.

In amongst the hysteria of the past days there have been obscene examples of court decisions the like of which ought to bring deep shame to anyone who believes in the rule of law and justice. To put on remand a mentally ill man for stealing cake or a 17year old for stealing M&M’s is repugnant and without precedent in modern times in the UK. Vast numbers of people bemoan the crisis in morals and the culture of avoiding responsibility – the remedy is not to abandon our moral compass in the dispensation of justice. It will take courage and leadership to stand up to the mob and I am deeply concerned that moral leadership on this issue is not coming from the 3rd sector at large or the public sector.

Aside from anything, under British Law a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. As such, someone accused of a very minor offence ought not to have their liberty restricted unless they pose a clear threat to public order or until after they have been convicted of an offence that warrants it. Satisfying public calls for vengeance is not reason to give up on the central tenants and practice of our legal system that is admired across the world and provides one of the core foundations of our society.

From a practical point of view, as Frances Crook, CEO of the Howard League recently wrote in an excellent blog: “I doubt the efficacy of imprisoning a looter for months or years will instil in them a new found and firm civic duty and sense of community responsibility… Would it not be better to sentence them to some community service so they work in their neighbourhood to repair the damage in constructive way. Everyone would benefit from that.”

Further, prisons are over capacity already and are incredibly expensive on the state and there is scant evidence that they work, in fact on the contrary. Reoffending rates are disgracefully high and as the saying goes: “prison is an expensive way of making a bad person worse”.

The fact that some of the rioters have already been through the criminal justice system and spent time in prison, itself shows the ineffectiveness of the prison system to moderate and change behaviour. We must do something different.

So what might restorative justice look like?

  • Training of community members to facilitate and manage restorative justice in their community
  • Work with victims to support them to be able to listen to the people who committed crimes against them
  • Work with convicted rioters to have them appreciate the gravity of the crime they committed and appreciate the consequence of their actions
  • Facilitated dialogue between victim and perpetrator where the victim is able to express their feelings and experience and the perpetrator is able to appologise
  • Creative thinking on how reparation can be made.
  • Design and implementation of restorative work by the perpetrator
  • Community meetings where community members can address the perpetrators in a controlled manner
  • Community activity by perpetrators to improve the local area

This approach would bring something positive out of the ashes of the riots.

  • It would allow for victims to speak directly to perpetrators
  • It would predictably be more likely to result in rehabilitation of offenders
  • It would leave a legacy of community facilitators of restorative justice
  • It would be in itself a process of community healing
  • It would enable us as a country to hold our head high in how we have dealt with the consequences of the riots – putting our principals into practice
  • It will also be the most cost effective means of distributing justice which is not irrelevant in this economic climate

We must learn from the extraordinary compassion and humanity of people  such as Mr Jahan (and Ashraf Rossli), and take the hard road of peace and reconciliation not the easy low road of retribution. If Mr Jahan can do this in the face of an unimaginably devastating experience, then so can we all – and shame on us if we do not do so.

This would truly be the application of justice: for victims, for our communities and for the perpetrators. With this in mind, I also urge magistrates and judges to follow the guidelines set out for both decisions on whether to place accused on remand and for subsequent sentencing.

In the words of Martin Luther King:

“The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.”

So, what do we stand for in terms of justice, both collectively and individually? It is time we decided and then acted accordingly.

A Tool to Aid Implementation of Co-production

· ·

There is no “one size fits all” approach to co-production. Local circumstances, history, culture, community cohesion and engagement, needs and professional capacity will all have an impact. Different localities will be seeking different outcomes: for some it’s ensuring strategic commissioning approaches deliver real value across the board, for others it might be a particular service that requires transformation at times of budget cuts.

At Kaizen we have developed a “Co-production Readiness Tool“ to help identify what support will be needed in moving towards the adoption of a co-production approach. This could be used in respect to individuals or groups and can operate as a guide to benchmark where things are at, where they will need to be for effective co-production and identify the areas that need improvement.

In order for effective co-production to occur, each and every party in the co-production needs to have a sufficient level of core capacity. We divide this capacity into 3 areas:

  1. Knowledge – what does a person need to know, be aware of or understand.
  2. Skills – what does a person need to be able to do. This can further be sub-divided into “hard skills” which are practical in nature (e.g. proficient in use of IT or in understanding financial statements) and “soft skills” which are interpersonal (e.g. able to resolve conflict, able to communicate effectively.)
  3. Attitude – what attitudes does a person need to have. Underlying attitudes can be beliefs about self, others or the world – which can be positive or negative.
(please click to enlarge)

The Co-production Readiness Tool, can be used in a number of ways:

  • In the planning stages of a project to assess the current situation in order to identify possible barriers to a successful co-production implementation
  • In a “live” situation (such as a training workshop or facilitated meeting) as a self assessment tool for each group
  • For assessing the training needs of a group at any given stage in the process

We have used the examples of these four groups, but the same approach can obviously be used with any set of groups or individuals.


Talk to us about your engagement needs: Contact Us