Home > Latest News > UKYP responds to Review

The following comments are set out under the headings in the report:

Executive Summary

Whilst openly accepting many of the developmental needs raised by the Review, the process could have been more positively constructed without losing the key issues, and we have expressed our serious concern about this.  The review needs to read in context of an agreed action plan with Government which is available on request.

In particular we have concerns about the final paragraph at the bottom of page 6 and the first on page 7.  This section includes a perception of UKYP as “unwilling to recognise the legitimacy of criticism”!  We are very open about our weaknesses, but many forget that we have effectively been running for three years and have already had a very positive OfSTED monitoring exercise which takes this into consideration.

The criticism of the UKYP’s failing to take on board the reality and implications of devolution and emerging regional structures in England is surely an anecdotal perception rather than an overall reality – we have regional posts with regional participation responsibilities beyond UKYP, jointly funded by regional assemblies, RDAs and GOs and in fact in only 2 regions do we not yet have joint arrangements in place or under negotiation. Equally we have either full agreements or understandings with the organisations representing young people’s views in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales and through which UKYP exclusively operates in those nations.

Equally in the following paragraph the report talks of “waning support” whereas a couple of pages before the report states that interest in the UKYP is growing and mentions record levels of attendance at the most recent Annual Sitting. We are first to admit that there are very great expectations upon UKYP which we are not always able to meet but the phrase that support is in “danger of disappearing altogether” is inappropriate – we have record levels of local authorities signing up to the UKYP Service Level Agreements for example, many making this a very public commitment to UKYP.

We are aware of often very verbal criticisms from youth workers and other partners and acknowledge the need to take them on board where they are accurate and appropriate, and equally acknowledge our failure to address some of these in the past.  But worded as it is the report implies that the perceptions are all reality and badly damage UKYP’s ability to address those many issues which are justified.

Under “Diversity and Representation”, we should appreciate that this is stressed as a perception as we have statistical evidence that this is not the case – with either gender or ethnicity.  The phrase “In the absence of greater diversity” implies that this is the case.

In 2003/04, 45% of our MYPs are female - compared to 18% in the House of Commons.  20% of our MYPs are from black and minority ethnic communities – compared to 2% in the House of Commons, and 7.8% of the population as a whole; and 3% of our MYPs have a disability – compared to just 0.3% in the House of Commons.

Recommendations

Social and Policy Outcomes

We agree with this section’s findings that the value of young people becoming involved needs to revisited and restated in a way which makes it understandable and accessible to many more young people (and other stakeholders).  We believe that the UKYP needs to align itself more publicly in terms of the contribution it can make to help achieve the five outcomes for young people that Every Child Matters rightly identified as being at the heart of all organisations working with young people:

• enjoying good physical and mental health and living a healthy lifestyle
• being protected from harm and neglect and growing up able to look after themselves
• getting the most out of life and developing broad skills for adulthood
• making a positive contribution to communities and society and not engaging in anti-social behaviour
• not being prevented by economic disadvantages from achieving their full potential and economic well-being

We should also like to see more respect given to UKYP’s unique contributions to society – the fact that it is based on the principles and practice of democracy and representation and inclusion.  We would want to emphasise the need to show more how young people in the UK can “effect positive change” and that their voice will be heard.  We would like to see a recommendations that UKYP:

• reiterates its democratic foundations and identifies some short, medium and longer term outcomes linked to the 5 Every Child Matters Outcomes
• Undertakes a review of its structures based on these, with the aim of strengthening and extending young people’s belief in these as aspirations
• identifies successes and positive changes which MYPs either individually or collectively through UKYP have achieved

We also feel that the use of the term “the reform of UKYP” is not helpful with its connotations of “the removal of abuses” (OED).  The term “development” would apply equally and is a more neutral term.  Similarly references to “the new structure” immediately negates all the existing structures, none of which are more than 3 years old and many of which are already subject to major developments, including the Board of Trustees.  A secondary point here is the absence of mention of the Procedures Group which decides on policy issues, and which would be a more appropriate forum for the involvement of more vulnerable young people than the board of management of the trust.

It may also be worth pointing out that the report states that the “reform of UKYP needs to be driven by a clear vision of the social and policy outcomes it is seeking to achieve” needs to be compared to the findings of OfSTED in September last year and widely circulated, that “UKYP is a dynamic organisation with a clear vision”.

Engagement

The report stresses that “widening engagement and developing more uniform involvement and support across the country are crucial” and recommends:

• outreach and training at a local, regional and national level,
• more varied voting procedures
• better publicised elections,
• increased consultation on policy development.

These are in fact reflected in UKYP’s aims and objectives and therefore activities and we feel this needs to be acknowledged.  There are some detailed recommendations on developing localised strategies for widening involvement in each region based on an “organic” spreading of the word on UKYP which can be looked at by working groups/Procedures Group/regional groups which we would very much support.

The recommendation that local and regional meetings should be publicised and opened up to all young people who wish to come overlooks that it has always been stated UKYP policy that regional meetings are open to all young people.  There are questions of logistics, resources and child protection raised by the idea of openly and widely publicising these meetings which we would be happy to explore with DfES and OPM.

The review, whilst acknowledging that there is no evidence to back this up, suggests that there is a perception amongst “stakeholder organisations” that “socio-economic diversity is very limited and that some groups of young people are completely excluded” within UKYP. Although it does acknowledge excellent representation from young people from black and minority ethnic groups, this is clearly a question of perception rather than reality as is borne out by UKYP’s equal opportunities study into the characteristics of its MYPs.  This is in no way diminishing the need for UKYP to continue and develop its activities aimed at increasing involvement from all groups and to improve communications about its “image” with partners/stakeholders.

The Review suggest closer working with NGOs (charities, voluntary groups etc) and developing networks and partnerships to achieve this which is something which we whole heartedly support, are aware of and which we look forward to developing.  The recommendation does overlook the existing 10 formal working partnerships that UKYP has centrally in addition to local arrangements and of course, most importantly the voluntary partnerships which it has with several hundred local authorities and agencies in the devolved nations, which we are very conscious of.

The review also recommends that MYPs receive training in outreach working, which raises a lot of child protection issues which again we would like to discuss further with DfES and OPM. We fully endorse improving work with youth workers in developing training in this area. It might be appropriate to work more closely with youth services who are already undertaking outreach working to tie in UKYP with their existing agendas for participation.  A working group of youth workers is already being established to take this and other youth work related issues forward.  This could help make youth workers feel more involved, including with the sitting, and training and support at regional levels etc.

We also note that the recommendations for the basic functions of  the Regional Co-ordinators echoes our existing job descriptions, and emphasis that any underachievement in fulfilling these roles successfully is often down to a lack of resource (a half time post in each region and nation would cost £180k p.a. in salary terms alone).

We would like to suggest that the priorities should include:

• enhanced UKYP research on the nature of “participation” in UKYP – standing for election, voting, attendance at meetings, outreach etc which would identify underrepresented or disadvantaged groups
• Procedures Group and Regional groups to address the best means of widening participation in their localities, prioritising target groups accordingly
• A working group of youth/participation workers to identify how this work can be supported (and also to look at the wider issue of youth worker/participation worker involvement)
• a working group is established of the Board of Trustees with involvement of PG etc to look further at the role of Regional Co-ordinators 

Funding

The report states “The government has made a policy commitment to youth participation and to the UKYP and has therefore, we believe, an obligation to ensure that it provides appropriate funding to allow it to function.  We recommend that funding for UKYP is increased…and is “uniform… for a minimum period – for example, three or five years.” We would very much endorse this recommendation and look forward to further discussions and understanding from Government on this issue, particularly when the report acknowledges that “the more strategic approach we are recommending is difficult when funding is certain for only the next year.”

We echo the suggestion that funding should be targeted and more locally focused i.e. at regional levels and where possible more locally accountable (specific funds going to each region for travel, local projects etc).

The report makes little comment on obtaining external funding and this has been a problem for UKYP particularly with the private sector related funding agencies, trusts etc who assume that UKYP is or should be, by its very nature, a publicly funded body.  UKYP is making every effort to obtain other funding, which it has had some success in, by bidding competitively for funds or develop sponsorship or partnership arrangements.  We would welcome some acknowledgement of this in the report with associated recommendations, and that funding other than the core and regional funding from Government accounted for over 50% of UKYP income last year.

Networking and Partnership

We would fully endorse the recommendations that UKYP develops more formal and informal working partnerships with “as many different organisations as possible” to provide access to a range of expertise and influence and at all levels. 

Whilst the extent of existing partnership working needs to better communicated (BT, NCB, Princes Trust, Oxfam, YWCA, LGA etc) and there can be few organisations working across the UK with over 150 local authorities and devolved institutions, there is a clear need to develop work at a policy and strategic level with partners – for example National Children’s Bureau at a central level and local authorities in a broader sense than is often the case presently (i.e. beyond youth and community services). 

Three recent developments:

• UKYP has joined the National Council for Voluntary Youth Services (NCVYS)
• UKYP has issued a statement about working more closely with the British Youth Council (BYC)
• UKYP has joined the Children's Right's Alliance for England (CRAE)
• UKYP is working with the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) on an initiative around young people and governance

Relationship with Government

The report suggest the need to structure and forward plan meeting with ministers and government which would be helpful to youth services in terms of making appropriate arrangements but would need persuasion on ministers as meetings are often cancelled or called at very short notice and for which UKYP gets the criticism. The report urges UKYP to work with Government departments individually which we are now again doing after a hiatus whilst the Review was underway!

The Government is also encouraged to “provide high-profile demonstrations of its commitment to UKYP” which we would echo and would also wish to explore in more detail the other more generalised encouragements to develop relationships.  One missing element here is the requirement on UKYP to continue to develop parallel relationships with the Opposition parties at Westminster, both with front benches and via select committees and APPGs which should have been emphasised.

We would suggest an additional recommendation that UKYP undertakes a stocktake on existing partnerships and external working relationships, and relates existing and previous partners against the development needs of the organisation.

English Youth Parliament

The continuation of our operation across the UK does raise other issues which need addressing in the medium to longer term – the question of adequate representation from the smaller nations, the need to inform debates amongst young people across the UK of differences of policy and practice in various parts of the UK and the need to recognise the “UK” aspect of UKYP in the type of funding offered and the “home” department for UKYP – an issue which was raised with OPM but which doesn’t feature in the Review.  There are aspects of their recommendations – e.g. an event at which the four nations come together on equal terms numerically which are being actively pursued.

Leadership and Management

UKYP supports the general thrust of this section.  It has been clear that there is a lack of clarity between the responsibilities of the board and those of the Procedures Group which needs to be addressed and a model for management at central and regional levels developed following this which could be highlighted.  However we are not sure that the recommendation for a Scrutiny Committee of young people recognises that the functions that this group would undertake are already being fulfilled by:

• the Procedures Group - entirely composed of young people elected by their peers and
• the Board of Trustees - with a majority of young people similarly elected

There would seem to be little if any value in creating another group, and that the two existing groups further clarifying their roles would answer this point.

Regarding the recommendation that all issues to do with the running, structure, staffing and organisation of UKYP should be taken by young people already is the case with the two groups mentioned above.  There are also numerous other examples of young people taking the lead, for example in staff interviews.

There also needs to be an acknowledgement that all the young people involved with UKYP are doing so in a voluntary basis and spending their own time doing so.  Expecting serving MYPs to undertake management functions as well may well affect their study time – UKYP has the Board and a growing “friends” network of “older” young people who are increasingly undertaking executive functions.

Also as the central management team is being reduced to 1 full time and 1 part time person, we would welcome the substitution of “revisited” for “streamlined”.

We would therefore suggest the inclusion of a recommendation that the Board and Procedures Group meet as a matter of priority to produce a clear set of guidelines on the roles and responsibilities of each group, and that a sub group of the Board with help from MYPs, revisits the role and responsibilities of staff to take account of the recommendations etc and staff requirements in general.

We also steer clear of the word “national” as UKYP covers four nations.

COMMUNICATION

The report makes several specific recommendations about improved communications which UKYP recognises.  Whereas we feel that we have achieved a great deal on very limited resources, e.g. the website, e-groups etc, UKYP feels that many of the points made in the report can be answered by improved communications both to and from MYPs, to and from staff, and to and from partners and stakeholders – the issue of how representative UKYP is one example.

The Board has in fact established a working group on communications to identify key areas where improvements are required and draw up an action plan to address these which would include work to identify partners to assist in website, database and associated ICT development and management.

We hope that these comments will be accepted in the manner in which they are made.  As we have mentioned above, we are committed to working together with DfES and OPM in the future to ensure that UKYP meets the expectations of young people across the UK.

ENDS

For more information please e-mail us.