Tag Archives: national citizen’s service

NCS : A Calculated Tale of Monetised Benefits?

Posted on by
3

 

The government’s flagship National Citizen Service (NCS) scheme is returning up to £2 for every £1 invested!

Want to be sure of a job or a place at university? Then you need The Challenge to gain the skills that you can’t master at school – the real world skills that employers and universities look for.

National Citizen Service (NCS) supports the Government’s vision for building a Big Society. It will act as a gateway to the Big Society for many young people by supporting them to develop the skills and attitudes they need to become more engaged with their communities and become active and responsible citizens. NCS will make a positive contribution to local communities, requiring close working with schools, local authorities, businesses and other neighbourhood groups to create a more cohesive, responsible and engaged society.

Summer is almost upon us and with it the second coming of Cameron’s pet project, the National Citizen’s Service [NCS]. For a couple of weeks I’ve been meaning to write something, but to no avail. I put this down to the fact that I suspect I’m the only sad soul. who has read the Evaluation of the NCS Pilots in its entirety. As will become clear I found the experience mind-numbing. Those responsible for  my diminished mental state comprise yet another consortium, made up of the NatCen Social Research, The Office for Public Management, New Philanthropy Capital and Frontier Economics.  They claim to be independent. Their research lacks any social or political context – in this light see below Bernard Davies’s resignation from his role as Visiting Professor at the De Montfort University. Their findings just happen to suit the Coalition with the Prime Minister gushing. “Every time I meet young people taking part in NCS they tell me what a difference it has made: they feel more confident about their future and more connected to their community. I am delighted that the independent evaluation reflects this and shows that NCS makes a real difference to the lives of young people and to our country.” Fair enough the spewing of such a spin on what is hailed as a ground-breaking mix of the residential experience, group work and community action is inevitable, but at the very least a few questions need to be posed.

In trying to do so I will take one step at a time. So to begin I’ll pick up on the remarkable claims about the financial impact of NCS, signalled already by Neil Puffett in Children and Young People Now.

Government hails success of National Citizen Service scheme

Based on analysis of last year’s pilots, involving 8,500 young people, the government says that of £200m it will have invested in the scheme by 2014, it could reap as much as £400m in benefits to communities.

The return ratio is estimated based on the value of community work carried out by young people on the scheme and their improved educational outcomes, as well as an approximation of the wages that young people could earn in the future.

“More than £10m in increased earnings, including almost £3m in increased tax revenue, can be expected from increased confidence, improved leadership and communication,” the report said.

This information drew the following comment from Peter White as a comment on CYPN.

At last we have it – a price tag on the value of young people! Finally we know how much they are worth; not only can we get value for money from our investment but we can itemise the bill.

Surely an outcomes-driven approach has gone too far when young people become economic units; when social mixing and increased well-being become outcomes that were ‘also found’ and the youth service is primarily for 30,000 16 year olds!

In truth the speculation is staggering in its erstwhile simplicity – much like those projections about bank holidays costing £2.3 billion – but such is the empty arrogance of what passes as economics.  On the other hand we might ponder why a similar formula has not been drawn up in the past to measure the value of open access youth work? Obviously it’s easier to do with a discrete short-term programme like NCS, but to be honest in recent years we’ve amassed a mountain of statistics  with which to conjure. Do we detect here a lack of political will by successive administrations? Do we suspect that the figures, we might have concocted, would not have suited their shared desire to undermine universal youth work provision?

To give you a greater insight into the mysteries of the formula utilised to calculate the ‘monetised’ benefits of NCS the report argues:

The net present value of the benefits to society as a whole are estimated to be up to £28 million, which is made up of:

  • the equivalent of £618,000 in time donated by volunteers over the course of the programme
  • £10.2 million in increased earnings for NCS participants because of increased confidence in teamwork, communication, and leadership; and
  •  Up to an additional £17.1 million increase in earnings for NCS participants because of greater take up of education opportunities.

It’s a flight of fancy, but, given the information I had in my hands as a Chief Youth Officer in the past and using the above ‘formula’ , I reckon I could have come up with some mind-boggling figures about the financial impact of a local Authority Youth Service. Anybody out there,  care to speculate in the same vein? In the next post relating to the Evaluation I’ll need to stay with the supposed ‘monetised’ benefits as the NCS is compared to other programmes, including some in the USA. I know you’re on tenterhooks! After that it will be forward to the more interesting area of ‘non-monetised’ benefits.

As a postscript because he doesn’t want a great fuss to be made, you will find below Bernard Davies’s resignation letter sent to the Youth and Community Work Division at the De Montfort University. The background to this decision is to be found on the NYA site at Intensive Practice Placement.

The National Youth Agency (NYA) working with De Montfort University (DMU) is pioneering a new intensive kind of practitioner placement for student youth workers linked to the government’s flagship National Citizen Service (NCS) programme for 16 year olds.

Around 25 youth work students from the Leicester-based university will be employed by the NYA to work with 16-year-olds on a residential programme this summer for National Citizen Service, which the NYA in partnership with O2, is helping to deliver in Kent and Warrington. The O2 Think Big programme offers young people a summer of fun, friendship, new skills and adventure as part of NCS. With O2 Think Big, these participants will get the chance to develop and deliver a social action project that will transform their local community.

The NYA and DMU have now put steps in place so that five youth work students in their second year will be able to use this experience to formally count as a placement towards their professional qualification.

As a leading figure in the work Bernard needs no introduction, which makes his eloquent stand all the more significant.

I am aware that my appointment as a Visiting Professor in the
Youth and Community Work Division is due to finish at the end
of 2012. However I have decided I need to resign from that role
immediately as a direct consequence of the YCW Division’s
decision to be involved in the National Citizens Service.

I know that from the start you set out some clear ‘bottom lines’
for this involvement, all of which I would certainly wish to
support. I do however have principled reservations about the
whole scheme which I have made public on a number of
occasions, verbally and in writing, particularly through my
contributions to the In Defence of Youth Work campaign. These
focus on its claims, within a very limited time frame but at a very
high cost, to be providing young people with a significant
developmental experience when facilities which offer this
through sustained and regular local open access youth work
services are being decimated.

These reservations are deepened by the evidence that is now
accumulating on how the scheme is in many areas being
implemented, with in some cases no job descriptions for staff
being provided, very low pay levels being offered and minimum
training and preparation being arranged. These in my view
constitute a wholly inadequate basis for any youth provision.
Moreover, given that residential experience is said to be central
to the NCS projects, they also carry very significant potential
risks, especially for the young people involved but also for the
staff running the scheme.

For all these reasons I would not wish to be associated with the
NCS initiative, even indirectly and even allowing for the
safeguards which I know you have sought to build in. Please
therefore accept this as my letter of resignation, to be passed to
the appropriate office within the University.

As I indicated when we talked on the phone, given the public
stances I have taken within youth work circles on NCS, I will be
seeking a way of making my resignation known to key groups
and colleagues with whom I am working closely.

Finally can I add that I have taken this decision with
considerable regret? Though I have recently felt that my VP role
has become too ‘honorary’ and not sufficiently actively
contributive, I have much valued the link with the YCW Division
and above all the opportunity to be involved in its two Inquiries
into the state of youth work.

With best wishes.

Bernard

Youth & Policy and CONCEPT hit the streets

Posted on by
Reply

As ever a warm welcome to the new issues of Youth & Policy and CONCEPT, both now available online. The articles in both are concerned with the present mess we are wading through and well worth your time and effort,

In Y&P Tony Jeffs gets the show on the road in his inimitable style. Pondering the incessant demand that youth work proves itself, his riposte is cutting.

Introduction – Running Out of Options: Re-Modelling Youth Work. Tony Jeffs

But what sticks in the craw is that amongst those baying for hard evidence that ‘youth work works’ are privileged individuals who have benefited from sustained contact, often over many years, with a wise and mature house master or mistress or college tutor; who it goes without saying, would never envisage such roles being occupied by short-term contract workers or rewarded via a payment by results system. They know from their own experiences that all that is taught and learnt cannot be measured. That is why they are willing to spend so much sending their own children to public schools and elite universities. Therefore it is legitimate to ask the question why they seek to deny those less privileged than themselves an opportunity to access a cut-price version of the informal education they enjoyed. If it is because they think  those less rich than themselves must be denied anything but the thinnest educational gruel then they must say so; if it is in order to reduce their tax bill again they must say so; if it is to prevent the off-spring of the poor getting the jobs they think are the birth-right of their own children again they must say so.


In a slightly amended form these same questions need to be asked of high-paid public sector managers who rant on about ‘evidence based practice’ and ‘show me that informal education is important’ then spend a small fortune on activities, holidays, coaching and even counselling for their own children. The spending patterns of the rich and the managerial class provide all the evidence one needs that informal education and youth provision are important – much as a day wandering around a top public school or five minutes looking at the notice board of an Oxford college will do. Demands for evidence that such things are important for the less well-off members of our society carry more than a strong whiff of hypocrisy with them. The more generously inclined amongst us might view them as just a smoke-screen, a diversionary tactic. Whatever the judgement,those of us who cherish such things and believe in the liberatory potential of informal education,would be well advised to dismiss them as such.

Other pieces include:

Freedom, Fairness and Responsibility: Youth Work offers the way forward. Viv McKee

- following upon Tom Wylie’s argument, Youth Work in a Cold Climate, in Y&P 105, Viv pushes the case for a pragmatism, which ‘works’ against ‘grandstanding and soap-box campaigns’. For a sharp response to Tom Wylie’s caricature of ourselves  as idealist romantics, see Bernard Davies on Critical Exchanges

Youth work stories: in search of qualitative evidence on process and impact. Bernard Davies

- ironically, given Tom’s charge that we are of an old-time religious persuasion, content to tell ‘heart-warming tales told of young brands plucked from the fire, of lives turned around’, Bernard on behalf of the IDYW Campaign contributes a group of stories of practice, complemented by an interrogation of their contradictions and significance. As it is we have been granted funding by UNISON and UNITE to produce an extended and developed version of this interaction of anecdote and analysis – more news soon.

Struggles and silences: Policy, Youth Work and the National Citizen Service. Tania de St Croix

- just as the Education Select Committee Inquiry questions the efficacy of Cameron’s hobby-horse, it is enlightening to read Tania’s scathing critique of its premise and intent.

Liberation or Containment: Paradoxes in youth work as a catalyst for powerful learning. Annette Coburn

- in a challenging piece rooted in conversations with young people Annette explores the paradox of containment and liberation within youth work, arguing for ‘a border crossing pedagogy’, which could engage with the increasing compromises made around the voluntary relationship.

An Opportunity Lost? Exploring the benefits of the Child Trust Fund on youth transitions to adulthood. Lee Gregory

- being pretty ignorant about the Child Trust fund and the notion of the ‘asset-effect‘ I’m still absorbing Lee’s argument.

The editorial begins:

This edition of Concept is full of „big ideas‟ – which turn out on closer inspection to be not so big at all. Indeed, whether the Big Society, „Happiness‟ or Community Engagement, the articles in this issue demonstrate how these warm, comforting-sounding policy ideas have a function of concealing the harsh reality of economic inequality and the impact, or even the implementation, of more significant policies which exacerbate this. Nonetheless, there are always opportunities in any policy climate to respond with critical educational action.

Articles include ;

The Big Society : What’s the Big Idea Mae Shaw

Reflections on community development, community engagement and community capacity building Gary Craig

Smiling through the Depression: the ‘Happiness’ Movement Iain Ferguson

The Attack on The Spirit Level Nigel Hewlett

Just in the middle of dipping into the contents, but yet again I’m struck by how the articles  raise issues and dilemmas that need to be debated – so a reminder that our sister site Critical Exchanges is set up to stimulate discussion and we would love to post responses there to any of the above pieces.

Education Select Committee and Government At Odds?

Posted on by
Reply

Having followed the comings and goings of the Education Select Committee Inquiry  I wondered if it might find itself at odds with the Coalition’s cavalier assault on youth services in general and youth work in particular. The chair, Graham Stuart came across as knowledgeable and independent, whilst Tom Wylie, former HMI and Director of the National Youth Agency had been brought in as a behind-the-scenes adviser. I was put off the scent by a chummy and uncritical last session involving the smug Minister, Tim Loughton. However, in the event, the Committee’s Report - read it in full – has been welcomed by UNITE/CYWU in the following press release as illustrating that ‘the government is negative for youth’.

MPs confirm the government is negative for youth

The government has no policy for supporting young people beyond slashing youth services and handing provision over to the market, a committee of MPs has warned today.

Unite, the country’s biggest union and the union for community and youth workers, says the findings of the education select committee confirms its worse fears – that the government does not value professional youth services and believes they are best provided for by the private sector.

Further, the select committee of powerful cross-party MPs, disagrees with the minister, Tim Loughton, parliamentary under-secretary for children and young people, who claimed that money spent on youth services, which equates to just £77 per young person aged 13 – 19, was ‘large slugs of public money’, instead praising the sector for its ingenuity in sustaining one of the longest-running professional welfare services in the country on limited resources.

The report tears into the government’s ‘only flagship youth policy’; the National Citizens Service (NCS), as it warns that the cost of funding the six week programme will far outstrip the £350 million spent by local authorities on the year-round youth service.

Unite urges the government to take heed of the committees’ call for the additional funds earmarked for the NCS be diverted back into the year-round youth services which have suffered the biggest cuts.

In its report the Committee recommends:

  • The scrapping of the government’s National Citizen Programme and turning this into an accreditation scheme for all programmes.
  • That the government publicly declare its intention to retain the statutory duty on local authorities to secure young people’s access to sufficient educational and leisure activities, which requires them to take account of young people’s views and publicise up-to-date information about the activities and facilities available,
  • That local authorities recognise that an open-access service could be more appropriate than a targeted one for improving certain outcomes for young people, or that both types may be needed.
  • The creation of an Institute for Youth Work to consider the issue of the lack of workforce development in the youth service, a move Unite has long advocated.

The union has been warning for over a year that youth services were first for the axe by cash-strapped councils. So severe were the cuts that vast parts of England will be left without youth provision altogether.

Unite national officer Doug Nicholls said: “One year into this government and this country’s world-class, constantly evolving, fifty year old youth service is on its knees.

“What a damning indictment of “compassionate conservatism”, which, in yet another government gimmick, is pretending to be ‘positive for youth’, while doing the opposite.

“Between them, the ruling parties have managed to achieve what recessions, downturns and changes of the previous decades had not – the near wipe-out of a service loved and valued by millions of young people and their families, and with it the loss of an excellent, dedicated workforce.

“What will follow behind is extremely worrying. Government’s belief that the market will provide is neglectful in the extreme. Will it really be prepared to put the resources into supporting a young person through thick and thin and into adulthood?

“One million young people are on the dole now. Hundreds of thousands more will be priced out of education. To then deny them youth and community support to keep them on the right path is a scandal.

“Government must heed the warnings within this well-balanced report and stop the cull of this service before it is too late.”
For further information, please contact : Chantal Chegrinec 020 3371 2063 / 07774 146 777 Unite press office or Doug Nicholls Unite national officer 07970 345 381

——————————————————————————————————————————————–

Meanwhile CYPN has also picked up on the rejection by the Committee of the National Citizen’s Service under the headline, Cost of National Citizen Service ‘not justifiable’, quoting the Chair as saying:

“The government’s idea of using the National Citizen Service to inspire young people to engage with their communities, mix socially and build their skills is a good one.

“However, the pilots are proving to be expensive and full roll-out would be hard to justify when cuts, which the government itself calls disproportionate, are impacting existing youth services provided by local authorities. The NCS should be adapted so that it accredits existing programmes while introducing a new focus and resources into the sector.”

Given the Coalition is prone to about-turns the report offers the prospect of increasing the pressure on the government. However, responding to the report’s findings, children’s minister Tim Loughton said: “I am disappointed that the select committee has sought to undermine NCS pilots before they have even got off the ground. I agree with the committee that we need evidence-based policies to ensure appropriate and quality services, which is precisely what the NCS pilots will provide.”Loughton added that all NCS money was additional money for youth services, not an alternative and that it was down to local authorities to decide how best to deliver youth services for their communities.

As for our campaign we need to  utilise the report positively, whilst at the same time delving deeper into its ideological agenda, not least its abandonment of a commitment to the ‘voluntary’ relationship between worker and young person. Having skimmed its contents, it’s time for a more careful read!

TT


Charging for Citizenship

Posted on by
Reply

Becoming a citizen might have its costs, dependent on who you are, where you live…? As for the Field Studies Council -  why is this outfit an expensive option? Your better insights welcomed.  Ta to Sue Atkins for the link.

While you’re musing, don’t miss Tania’s critique of National Citizen’s Service in the latest Youth & Policy.

Question in the House

Tessa Jowell: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office which National Citizen Service pilot projects charge participants to take part; and how much each such project charges per participant. [54974]

Mr Hurd: 12 providers are running National Citizen Service (NCS) pilots in 2011. The NCS pilot programme aims to test a range of different approaches to the delivery of the core NCS programme. One of the dimensions we are seeking to test is the impact of levying a small charge on participants. Half of the 2011 pilot providers are levying a charge for participation while the other half are not. Those providers levying a charge offer a range of discounts and bursaries, and are required to ensure that financial cost is not a barrier to participation for any young person who wishes to take part. The maximum charges by NCS provider are shown in the following table.

Pilot provider Charge? Maximum charge (£)
Bolton Lads and Girls Club Yes 20
Catch22 Yes 50
Challenge Network Yes 50
Connexions Cumbria No —
Field Studies Council Yes 95
Football League Trust Yes 50

CUTS! BLAME THE YOUTH WORKERS!

Posted on by
1

Paul Oginsky, the adviser on youth policy to David Cameron declares:

“If youth work is being closed down, then youth workers aren’t communicating how effective and beneficial youth work is to their local authority.”

Go to Oginsky’s Clichés for a glimpse into his amazing grasp of youth work history, policy and practice.

I was moved to the following understated response on the Children and Young People Now Forum. It begins:

Evidently Paul Oginsky is ‘chirpy and down-to-earth’, a chummy fellow-traveller – despite their differing backgrounds – of the smooth-talking, privileged Etonian, David Cameron. Viewed through a different lens he strikes me as being bloody cheeky, on another planet and a Tory toadie. Now call me old-fashioned, but I expect an adviser on youth policy to have some knowledge of the history of youth work and youth policy. However Oginsky reveals himself to be both ignorant and arrogant, knowing little, being no more than the empty voice of the oh-so meaningful, yet meaningless sound-bite.

Continue reading →

TOWARDS A NATIONAL YOUNG PEOPLE’S SERVICE!

Posted on by
Reply

Most of you will have seen the Coalition’s shallow and weary resuscitation of a form of National Service for Young People.

David Cameron unveils pilot plans for a National Citizen Service designed to teach 16-year-old school leavers social responsibility as part of the prime minister’s “big society”.

Photograph: Christopher Furlong/PA

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/22/david-cameron-national-service

Doug Nicholls responds in combative style, arguing that we don’t need short-term gimmicks; that we already have the flesh and bones of a universal service for young people; and it is this Service, which needs to be defended and extended. His opening salvo begins:

Since 1961 we have had a national youth citizens service. Participation in it is voluntary. It operates 365 days a year. For every £1 invested in it, at least £8’s worth of voluntary activity is generated. It organises around 500,000 committed adult volunteers to support it and 40,000 trained youth support workers and over 7,000 fully professionally qualified youth workers. Their work generates hundreds of millions of hours of voluntary youth involvement each year.

Read it in full and circulate – Our National Youth Service

You will find attached too the August edition of RAPPORT, the CYWU’s journal with its front page, DON’T BREAK BRITAIN – CUTS KILL COMMUNITIES

AUGUST RAPPORT