Kaizen Partnership

It is time that young people had their say on Brexit

kaizen_superadmin — Mon, 05 Mar 2018 19:56:24 +0000

Photo by KATHY DEWITT

We know the UK isn’t great at asking young people their views under Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), or more generally in upholding our responsibilities under the UNCRC. In fact in the most recent KidsRights Index, the UK had dropped from 11^th best to 11^th worst performing nation (out of 165 countries) and was “urged to do more to foster the rights of their youngest generation”.

And here we are, with Brexit being the biggest decision in living memory which will impact young people in all manner of ways for many years to come, and we haven’t yet asked young people what they think about it, or what they want to happen.

Asking young people their views is routine for any other area that affects them (both at strategic and individual levels) and is a foundation of good practice across the youth sector. At a national level, no significant area of youth policy or law could be brought in without including the thoughts and voices of the young people themselves. There are numerous benefits to doing this and it is also of course rooted in international law, in Article 12 of the UNCRC, which states ‘Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.’

So it is clear that we have to very quickly now engage with and hold a vote, amongst young people age 11-18, to understand and quantify their views. I can think of no other way that we can credibly gather their views and ensure that young people are listened to both individually and collectively. The same argument applies to also hearing from 18-20 year olds who were too young to have voted in the June 2016 referendum.

I hope that a few large youth sector organisations will come together and coordinate the process and vote: in schools, youth clubs and Universities across the country. I suggest the vote takes place in October. If nearly a million 11-18 year olds voted last year in Make your Mark, then surely a similar number could be engaged to discuss and vote on Brexit. Not on the terms (which are still very unclear) but on whether they think it should happen at all – do they want it or not?

We have a moral, pragmatic and legal duty to hear what young people think about Brexit. Obviously, it won’t be binding; it will however be very interesting and enlightening, providing a clear steer on their views which are to be given due weight in this most fundamental decision which directly affects them.

It is time that young people had their say.

#youthvote2018

#youthvoice

@JonnyZander

The post It is time that young people had their say on Brexit first appeared on Kaizen Partnership.

To Consult or not to Consult?

kaizen_superadmin — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:52:31 +0000

When and how is it OK to consult with children and young people?

This may seem like a straightforward question but actually, as these things often are, it is a little more complex than on first sight, as it involves balancing the rights of the child with our responsibilities for safeguarding children. It is also a question that may well be looked at differently from within the youth sector as opposed to by professionals who are outside of the traditional youth sector.

A Local Authority client has recently told us they want us to consult with teenagers as part of a wider community consultation about how money should be spent locally, given that providing support and services to teenagers is a top priority issue for residents. However, because of their guidelines around consulting with young people (in this case the Market Research Society code of practice), this means if we want to speak with under 16’s we either need to get formal (written) parental consent, or it has to take place in a school where a teacher (who has presumed responsibility) can give permission.

For various reasons, neither securing parental consent nor working via schools is feasible in this instance, and so in practice, this means that young people are being excluded from a community consultation where services for teenagers are a top priority theme for enquiry. This is clearly ridiculous and has highlighted this grey area where safeguarding procedures, and traditional research protocols actually go against the rights of the child and the best interests of the community (which would undoubtedly be to include and engage young people).

Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child clearly establishes that every child has the right to say what they think in all matters affecting them, and to have their views taken seriously. This Article is referenced all over in guidance and toolkits around consulting young people, including even in Local Government Association guidance to councillors on engaging young people where they say:

“Elected representatives therefore have a duty to actively consider the views of children and young people in their work, and to create a culture where those views are forthcoming and given due weight.”

And yet, some Local Authorities, and it is likely other groups, clearly still stick to the old approach that to consult with under 16’s you need to first speak to their parents to get permission.

A more balanced approach can be seen in the Health sector where case law (and common sense) has dictated an approach, known as the Gillick Competency, where under 16’s are able to make their own decisions if they are deemed to be capable. Lord Scarman, in his summing up of the famous case of Gillick vs West Norfolk, (which went all the way to the House of Lords), said:

“parental right yields to the child’s right to make his own decisions when he reaches a sufficient understanding and intelligence to be capable of making up his own mind on the matter requiring decision.” Lord Scarman

And in the health sector, the Gillick Competency deals with much more serious issues than whether a young person can give their views in a community consultation – issues such as whether or not a child under age 16 can consent to their own medical treatment without parental consent or involvement.

Youth charities across the board do, of course, routinely consult with young people and it is my belief that most (if not all) would take the view that youth consultation is very important as this quote exemplifies:

“Children and young people have the right to participate in decisions which affect their lives, the lives of their community and the larger society in which they live. Participation should run alongside decision making at a local and national level.” Save the Children, Consultation Toolkit

In fact, within the youth sector it is generally accepted that you have to consult with young people if you want to design and develop youth provision which meets their needs – it is not only good practice but essential practice and this is echoed by funders such as the Big Lottery:

“In order to ensure that projects attract and meet the needs of young people that they target, you must take account of young people’s perspectives at all stages.” Big Lottery Foundation Research – Engaging Young People in Evaluation and Consultation

But this common practice does not always translate into guidance, as the same toolkit mentioned above nicely illustrates, where under the heading of consent, they advise:

‘Where consultation involves research (e.g. a questionnaire) with persons under sixteen years of age consent should be obtained from parents or from those ‘in loco parentis’ Save the Children, Consultation Toolkit

Clearly there is some confusion on this issue and it concerns me that as a result of this confusion, young people may be commonly excluded from giving their views in public consultations.

But do young people actually want to give their views? Our experience at Kaizen and research from the field suggests without doubt they do….

For example, research by the British Youth Council in 2011 (with over 1000 young people across the UK age 7-25) found that 82% believe it’s important for them to speak up about their local area, and 75% want to have a greater influence in decisions made in local areas, on topics such as how the local community is run, and what happens to local services.

In our work at Kaizen we regularly consult (in the community) with young people as young as 9 – we find young people of all ages ready and willing to engage about topics that concern them and the communities where they live.

Sometimes we do get consent, for example in a recent consultation with young people with disabilities as part of getting their views to shape the Local Offer in Central Bedfordshire. But often this is neither possible or appropriate – for example last year we did a street consultation with young gang members in Peckham and Brixton to get their views on a large gangs programme design which was in the final stages of getting Lottery finding and the funders wanted evidence that the young people thought the new approach could work. In another recent project we were working for a local funder in Islington who wanted to hear from young people about how money should be targeted and again, while we did consult within schools and youth clubs, street outreach was key to hearing from young people who would not have been reached through the other channels, and a need to get parental permission would have meant we could not have engaged the range of young people in giving their views.

We fundamentally believe that it is vital that young people are included in conversations about their community and are treated with respect and shown that their view matters. We often hear the old saying that with rights come responsibilities, but that goes both ways – if we want young people to act with maturity and feel a part of the community, then we have a responsibility to treat them with respect, to include them and listen to their views.

There are obviously times and places where it is wholly appropriate and necessary for parental consent to be sought, but this is surely in the minority of cases and therefore I believe that the starting default should be to get consent from the child themselves (as long as they meet the Gillick competency) and then, in each situation to look and assess if it is also necessary to get consent from the parent. It may be necessary to get parental consent, but the presumption should be that, in most cases, the young person is capable of making this decision for themselves.

I believe it is time that guidance is updated to take into account not only shifting attitudes to young people (thankfully we have moved past the seen and not heard attitudes of yesteryear), but also the shifting dynamics in consultation brought on amongst other things by digital engagement and consultation methodologies which make parental consent impossible. It would be helpful to have a clear framework to set out the circumstances where parental consent ought to be sought that would give clarity on this issue.

Young people are ready to be consulted with and it is our belief at Kaizen that doing so does not put them at risk as long as the purpose of the consultation is clear, the people doing it have been DBS checked, they are given the choice whether to participate and can stop at any point they chose. It is surely their decision whether to give their views and participate, not ours, and Local Authorities and other providers should be strongly encouraged to consult widely with young people rather than be fearful of it.

The post To Consult or not to Consult? first appeared on Kaizen Partnership.

We all need to be resilient

kaizen_superadmin — Tue, 12 Nov 2013 17:14:26 +0000

Last week I co-facilitated a session on resilience at the wonderful CreativeCollisions conference. Way over 100 youth professionals and young people spent nearly 2 hours engaging with the subject, focussing on the following question:

• How can we increase resilience in young people and communities?

This is a critical question and gets right to the heart of community empowerment and positive youth development.

Resilience is one of those in vogue concepts that is used all over the place, but few people seem to be clear with what it actually means. In the session last week the first question I asked was who felt confident that they could define resilience – almost no hands went up. At a fundamental level this is important – it you can’t say what something is, how can you take steps to increase it.

There are lots of ways of looking at resilience – I like to see it as bounce-back-ability, like an elastic band that you can stretch out but will then return to its original shape afterwards. This capacity is vital for young people and communities and is a prime determinant on how we will cope with the inevitable stressors in life. We are all too aware of what happens when a rubber band gets stretched beyond its capacity – it snaps. This is also what happens to individuals and communities with similarly devastating consequences.

After the session I was reflecting with my co-facilitator, Tom Currie from Leap Confronting Conflict, and it occurred to me that there was a key area of resilience that didn’t get mentioned once – the resilience needed to be effective as youth and community professionals. We talk about developing resilience in others, but where is the talk about also developing this in ourselves?

Being a youth/community professional is incredibly rewarding, but also very challenging. We are faced with having to grapple with ‘wicked’ problems, with heart-wrenching sorrows, with unsolvable dilemmas, with pain and misery and injustice. No matter how hard we work our work is never done. No matter how much of ourselves we put into our work, we are not able to stem the flow of issues we face in our communities. And in the current economic climate we are facing increasing challenges with reducing resources.

It takes a lot of resilience to stay positive and active in the face of these challenges. Resilience is increasingly being recognised as an important factor and there are organisations looking at the issue creatively and holistically – both in terms of personal and organisational resilience (obviously there’s a connection as if individuals aren’t resilient, this impacts the ability of the not just the individual but the organisation to make a difference.)

When we aren’t able to stay resilient, we burn out and either leave the profession for other careers, or stay and pay an immense personal price (often measured in failed relationships and health breakdown). Neither option is a good one.

Now I’m not against people leaving the youth and community sector (it’s not a life sentence) but I do think that we are doing something wrong as so many people are leaving because of burnout. Aside from the personal cost, as a sector we cant afford to lose so much talent, experience and skills. We need them now more than ever.

So what can we do, as individuals and organisations?

• We can play the long game, and recognise that if we want to still be active, passionate and engaged throughout our career that we need to take care of ourselves
• We can invest in developing and nurturing resilience in ourselves, just as we do for others
• We can encourage funders to invest in maintaining and supporting existing professionals so that we can continue to be effective and reduce the amount of burnout

There are no easy answers, we will always be faced with the issues we grapple with today.

I personally fully intend to continue in this sector as long as I am working and able to contribute – there is no work I would rather be doing. I have been in the profession for over 20 years and feel as excited and committed now as when I started. I hope that I can say the same thing in another 20 years; and I believe that if I cant, then the fault will be mine for not doing what I need to do, to stay resilient.

@JonnyZander

The post We all need to be resilient first appeared on Kaizen Partnership.

Kaizen and the Street Focus Group

kaizen_superadmin — Thu, 15 Aug 2013 07:37:55 +0000

Kaizen is a Japenese word that means continual improvement through small incremental steps. We chose the word Kaizen for our organisation because we believe that it is a great fit for our work in the community sector, where we should always be looking to improve what we do. No matter how successful something is, we will talk about how we can improve it the next time.

Here is a recent example of this process in action, with the result being what we think is a really useful innovation in consultation.

In most consultations it is a good thing to include some form of focus group as part of the methodology. But there is a fundamental problem with focus groups that is as follows: in general, only a very certain type of person will attend. The customary response to this fact is to widen that group by use of straight out bribery – free food, gifts or other incentives. This in turn has the result that the focus group may well be attended largely by people who are interested in the loot, not the discussion. These are serious limitations on the reliability of the information coming out of most focus groups.

We do a lot of consultations and community research. In the past year alone we have engaged and spoken with several thousand people in the community, and with a particular focus on people who don’t normally get involved with or participate in consultations. (Typically about 60% say they have never been consulted with before and another 20% or so say they have, but not much). We have engaged with people at 6am in the gym, and 2am in a nightclub; at train stations and bus stops (including jumping on the bus to continue a conversation); in parks and estates, cafes, hairdressers and a very wonderful array of other places. (If you want to see an example of the type of thing we do, have a look at pages 9-10 in this report on the consultation and engagement we did for one of the DCLG neighbourhood community budgets in East London.)

Photo by Qavi Reyez

Now, these are one-on-one conversations, they produce great qualitative and quantitative data, and really work well. But they aren’t group discussions; and there is something different and exciting about having a discussion about the issues rather than working through the medium of a questionnaire.

There are various issues with the traditional focus group. The first is the reason above – the people attending are a self-selecting and niche group, who have the inclination, time, capacity etc for that type of process. The second issue is not about the focus group itself, but about a challenge in doing street engagement. When you are out doing street engagement there are often times and situations when you cant always isolate an individual to do a one-on-one questionnaire because they are in a group. Examples of this could be mums outside the primary school, teenagers hanging out in an estate late at night on a summers evening, a family having a picnic in the park. People in groups are in this way excluded from most street consultation, and that means their voice is not heard.

So, in response to these issues, we have pioneered what we call “street focus groups”. Just as it says on the tin, it is a focus group discussion, held on the street – with no bribery and no incentives, beyond the conversation itself.

Photo by Tracy Woodford

And it works. It works really well.

This is an exciting new technique that we now use in all our consultations, and it means we can effectively have lots and lots of focus groups, with different sorts of people, in different sorts of places. These street focus groups last from between 15-30 minutes and cover a range of questions, in a semi-structured process. We may talk about just one aspect of the project or cover several – it really depends on where the conversation goes.

On a recent project for the Canal and River Trust as part of a medium size engagement (500+ people) we conducted 23 street focus groups with over 130 people participating in them. We also did 1 normal focus group, well, normal except for the fact that we held it on a moving boat which meant we literally had a happy, but captive audience for 1.5 hours.

So, its not like we are abandoning sit down focus groups of the traditional kind, but they will from now onwards be the exception not the norm for us. If there is a particular reason that has them be a reliable methodology we will use them. But I couldn’t think of ever doing a community consultation again that didn’t have street focus groups as a central part of the methodology.

There is no magic to the street focus group, and we think that it could really add benefit to lots of consultations that genuinely want to reach out beyond the usual / bribe-able suspects.

So…..

If you do consultations, then I encourage you to try it out and see what you think.

And…

If you commission consultations, then I encourage you to start asking delivery organisations to do them.

@JonnyZander

The post Kaizen and the Street Focus Group first appeared on Kaizen Partnership.

Where is the good news?

kaizen_superadmin — Sun, 12 May 2013 20:04:14 +0000

“Youth is disintegrating. The youngsters of the land have a disrespect for their elders and a contempt for authority in every form. Vandalism is rife, and crime of all kinds is rampant among our young people. The nation is in peril.”

Quote from an Egyptian Priest, circa 2000 BC

It is all too easy to find out negative stats about young people in the UK – from unemployment to crime to teenage pregnancies. But why is it so hard to find positive stats that highlight how amazing, wonderful and talented our young people are?

Some recent research has shown that over 75% of media stories about young people are negative, and there is all sorts of evidence that public perception of young people is very negative and that this has a significant impact on young people themselves and on adults’ experience of young people (eg. if you see a group of young people and assume they are a “gang” rather than a group of friends, it is predictable that you might feel anxious and fearful).

Kaizen are mid process on a consultation with young people and youth professionals on behalf of a large national company who are wanting to make an impact with youth. We have conducted one on one interviews with over 400 young people and 93 professionals have also been a part of the research. The data (both quantitative and qualitative) is depressing – especially in answer to the question “how are young people seen and treated in your community”.

A few days ago I started looking for some positive stats about young people in the country, and pretty quickly it became clear that while they may be there, they are not at all easily found. I believe this is a significant issue and one that can actually easily be addressed (in contrast to all the other significant issues in the youth sector that can’t be solved so easily).

So what would be the benefits of having clear positive stats and data? There would be many including:

It will help us to redress the balance of negative information and mis-information about young people
We can use positive reinforcement to encourage wanted behaviour, attitudes and attributes
We can actually be more representative of the true nature of young people
We can celebrate the difference they (and we) make

Just to be clear I am talking about the following types of things (these are just examples):

How many young people are employed (we know there are 1m unemployed, but how many are in employment or training)?
How many young people volunteer, how many hours of volunteering does it represent, and what do they do?
How many young people are carers?
How many young people set up businesses and how much income/impact do they generate?
How many young people are part of shaping local or national strategy, from school youth council members, to youth trustees of charities?
What % of young people are law abiding (rather than what % commit crimes)?
What is the gap between what adults think about young people (on all sorts of metrics) and what is actually the case?

One possible route would be to take every easily available negative stat and find the positive reflection of it. But I think it would require a deeper dive to really pull together a comprehensive set of positive stats that could potentially help to reshape how we think about the youth of the country, and how they think of themselves.

We should be very proud of our young people – they are wonderful and talented – and I would love to be able to back this belief up with stats….

I am sure that there must be a funder out there who would commission such a piece of research……any thoughts on moving this idea forward, anyone???

The post Where is the good news? first appeared on Kaizen Partnership.

We Must End This State Sanctioned Child Abuse

kaizen_superadmin — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 15:20:36 +0000

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

The post We Must End This State Sanctioned Child Abuse first appeared on Kaizen Partnership.

Gamesmakers, Olympic Ideals & Legacy

kaizen_superadmin — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 21:20:48 +0000

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 3^rd 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 12^th.

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.

The post Gamesmakers, Olympic Ideals & Legacy first appeared on Kaizen Partnership.

Some thoughts on community participation

kaizen_superadmin — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:48:03 +0000

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

The post Some thoughts on community participation first appeared on Kaizen Partnership.

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

kaizen_superadmin — Thu, 31 May 2012 22:43:21 +0000

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 6^th 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

The post A torch to host, not to own – how the Olympic torches could bring a lasting legacy first appeared on Kaizen Partnership.

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

kaizen_superadmin — Sat, 14 Apr 2012 11:21:35 +0000

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

The post When is cyber-bullying in fact online self-harming? first appeared on Kaizen Partnership.