YouthNet blog
An insight into youth issues, volunteering trends, charity life and more from the UK charity YouthNet
All | Events | Youth | Technology | Volunteering | YouthNet | Charity World
Friday Apr 28, 2006
Think local
If you live in Wales, you subscribe to digital TV and can be mostly found watching rugby. You have a pre-pay mobile and don't have a landline.If you live in Scotland, you have access to high-speed broadband, you use your mobile phone loads and watch digital telly more than anyone else.
If you live in Northern Ireland, you send lots of text messages, rely heavily on your mobile and don't have very good access to broadband.
If you live in London, you almost definitely have access to high speed broadband, and use your mobile for phone calls more than texts.
All this comes from an Ofcom report into the uptake of different technologies across the UK's countries and regions. What can we make of all this? (Apart from the conclusion that a quick blog post can do real injustice to a thorough piece of research.)1. Broadband availability may be ubiquitous in terms of exchanges set up to deal with it (99.9% according to BT), but it's no good if you live more than 5km from an exchange - which is quite possible if you live in rural areas. Interestingly, the report says that internet take up in rural areas is actually higher than in urban areas. So the demand is there, just not the high speeds. For website publishers like us, it's a crucial point: we'd love to develop exciting, bandwidth-heavy services but if it stops many users from accessing it, then we just can't do it.
2. Apart from in London, most people use their phones for texting more than calling. Considering this was a service that none of the mobile strategists predictied, it's a great example of how users and their behaviour can surprise and flummox the "experts". What technology is going to next come from left-field?
3. Who watches what on digital TV? Midsomer Murders is big in the West of England, Doc Martin in the South West of England, Heartbeat and Emmerdale in Yorkshire, Hogmanay Live in Scotland, Wales on Saturday in Wales, EastEnders in London and Coronation Street in the North West. So what? Well it shows that local content still rules (although there's no excuse for Doc Martin, anywhere). As a London-based organisation whch covers the UK, we need to be aware of these regional differences.
Posted by Dom Waghorn ( 1:41 PM ) Link to this post Comments[0]Top 5 conference hates
When was the last time you came back from a conference and thought, "Excellent - a day really well spent"?
The voluntary sector has always been conference-rich. But weirdly, new media conferences, which you might think would be considered rather un-web 2.0, seem to be multiplying.
My top five conference hates:
1. The ministerial speech (in which the least informed person in the room reads a speech written by a civil servant)
2. The host chief exec's speech (in which the most excited person in the room tells you how excited they are and tries to make jokes)
3. The host chair's speech (at least it's normally shorter than the chief exec's)
4. Lunch (goujons anyone?)
5. Ice breakers (no phrase spreads more dread)
Feel free to add your own list of hates. Or, (who knows?) what you love about conferences.
Posted by Tom Green ( 8:53 AM ) Link to this post Comments[5]
Tuesday Apr 25, 2006
McDonalds fights back
McDonalds have come in for a huge amount of criticism recently (or rather for the past decade or so) about everything from the McJobs label popularised by Douglas Coupland in Generation X, to a lack of transparency over food quality and ingredients.
Today in The Guardian Steve Easterbrook, President and Chief Operating Officer of McDonald's, responds to more accusations from Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation and Chew On This.
As Steve says
"We don't claim to be perfect, and we're committed to continual improvement by listening to our customers and others, but we don't accept the convenient shorthand of those who equate us with society's ills."
I might be setting myself up to be shot down in flames here, but I think Steve's got a point. As I referred to last week, what are companies meant to do when they're labelled as a result of previous mistakes and bad practices?
Sometimes I think it's all too easy to criticise the same old high profile companies without at least looking at what they're doing to change the way they do business. Whatever you think about McDonald's (and personally I'm not a huge fan), it's important to look at the facts before giving them both barrels.
I can't help thinking there are quite a few companies out there that are very pleased the same level of scrutiny hasn't been applied to the way they work and how they treat their staff.
Posted by Sam Thomas ( 11:37 AM ) Link to this post Comments[1]
Monday Apr 24, 2006
Tony's mark of Cain
Even the government's chief advisors are turning against government policy - but will Tony and co listen? (Answer: no)
He told the Independent:
"There are adverse consequences of fixing a mark of Cain to a child's forehead. We should not forget the lessons of the 1960s and 70s of the labeling effect. The argument is that if you give a dog a bad name then the dog may live up to the name."
I've got a lot of sympathy for this view. But it isn't just the government which gives the dog the bad name. Here at YouthNet we get media alerts every day which pull out headlines from the main papers for stories that cover young people. Yobs, thugs, happy-slappers, drug addicts... I reckon at least nine out of ten stories are about teenagers involved in petty crime. Is it any wonder that older people fear groups of kids hanging out at bus stops?We're doing some interesting research at YouthNet into this issue of young people, fear and respect. Watch this space. Posted by Dom Waghorn ( 4:50 PM ) Link to this post Comments[0]
Should charities ever pay celebs?
In the aftermath of the gargantuan fundraising effort that is The London Marathon it seems strange to suggest that charities would ever consider paying celebrities for their time. After all, if Steve Redgrave, Gordon Ramsay and Zoe Salmon can run 26 miles to raise cash, why should anyone else expect to be actually given money for charity work?
Apparently former basketball star Denis Rodman sees things differently, with reports saying that he requested payment to pose for Cosmopolitan magazine as part of a series where the fee normally goes to the Everyman campaign.
"We approached him about posing for us as part of the Everyman Campaign and he said he would be happy to do so," a spokesman explained. "But there was a snag - he was demanding $13,500 for his trouble.
"So he was told in no uncertain terms he would not be required. Some celebrities just do not understand the meaning of charity."
It's hard to have much sympathy with the rich and famous, but we do need to be beware of double standards. Millions of people earn their living working for charities - why shouldn't celebs be entitled to do the same?
It's one thing if they're pretending to be doing good, but it's not unheard of for charities to pay famous people to give speeches or chair events and while it's obviously better if they can be persuaded to volunteer, fame shouldn't automatically bar them from the right to work.
Posted by Tom Green ( 9:37 AM ) Link to this post Comments[0]
Friday Apr 21, 2006
Too many forms?
Think-tank nfpSynergy are carrying out a short survey on the formalisation of volunteering. The survey closes at 5pm on 26 April.
nfpSynergy are also offering a free report on The 21st Century Volunteer.
This report aims to help voluntary organisations understand the current volunteering environment and to anticipate how volunteering will change over the coming years. In particular, it aims to disseminate the ways in which volunteer management will need to develop in order to accommodate changes in the external environment.
Posted by Tom Green ( 8:36 AM ) Link to this post Comments[0]
Thursday Apr 20, 2006
AOL censorship
I was going to have a go at McDonalds, but since Sam beat me to that I'll throw out another dig at our second favourite company round here.
The Guardian is reporting that AOL has been blocking emails to its members that contained links to a website that was critical of their service. The site in question, DearAOL.com is a website dedicated to stopping the suggested AOL policy of charging companies to send emails to its members without running anti-spam filters. Essentially it's a pay-to-send policy that's already come in for some criticism on this blog and others, not to mention an open door to spammers and conmen if people can pay to ignore anti-spam filters.
It seems that if an email was sent containing the DearAOL.com link then the email wouldn't make it through, if it didn't contain the link it would go through fine. Now the problem, it seems, is that the very anti-spam filters that AOL is willing to ignore for backhanders had identified DearAOL as spam and was blocking the messages. The problem was fixed within 24 hours but it raises a number of serious questions.
How could an organisation the size of AOL make such an obvious mistake? Given that the organisation was blacklisting a website critical of its own policies you'd think someone would have been checking this didn't happen.
The other question for me is the nature of the ban. AOL has blacklisted a company because their link was appearing in a large number of emails, not because it was spam - as any investigation of the messages would reveal this.
It's a double whammy for people sending emails, even it seems those involved in campaigning - if you get popular and you get mentioned in a lot of messages then AOL's system appears to automatically add you to a blacklist, with no manual checking. Then, in the future, the only solution to this would be to sling some grubby fivers in their direction to be allowed to send your messages.
So AOL's vision would seem to be - 'only the rich will be heard'.
Posted by Jim Valentine ( 3:00 PM ) Link to this post Comments[2]Poor old McDonalds
The Observer published an interesting article last weekend on the Ethical Index published by The Fraser Consultancy. The index surveyed over 1,300 consumers, asking them to rank UK and overseas brands according to their 'ethical profile'.
To my mind there weren't any great surprises (although, interestingly, Camelot came in at number 8), with McDonalds topping the list.
As The Observer points out, the Index suggests that public perceptions are often based on past controversies, rather than current initiatives and efforts by companies to change the way they do business.
I'm strongly committed to consumers encouraging (forcing?) companies to adopt ethical, responsible business practices, but I also think it can be all to easy to blame the 'usual suspects', without looking into what these companies are doing to change.
For example, the McDonalds CSR blog doesn't exactly seem to be packed full of challenging comments from consumers. Is this because we can't get past thinking it's all spin, or because it's just easier to take a pop at evil Uncle Ronald without engaging in open and honest dialogue with them?
(Or is it just the slightly scary Terms and Conditions of the blog - they don't exactly encourage open debate!).
Posted by Sam Thomas ( 12:41 PM ) Link to this post Comments[0]Guidestar runs into problems
According to Professional Fundraising, more than 450 charities have questioned Guidestar about the details held about their organisations, with 150 of them querying the way their financial information has been presented.
Some charities have expressed concern that the analysis of accounts published on Guidestar differs to the analysis published by the Charity Commission for its Standard Information Return.
It's important to remember that Guidestar is a massively ambitious project - the site contains 32 million pieces of information on over 167,000 charitable organisations, so there are bound to be some teething problems as organisations and the public get used to using it.
Of course transparency and accountability is vital in the voluntary sector, but surely this should begin with clear, consistent reporting by the very bodies that give the public a window onto the how charities use the money they raise?
I sometimes think if it's this confusing when you work in the voluntary sector then what must it be like for the average donor in the street?
Posted by Sam Thomas ( 10:07 AM ) Link to this post Comments[0]Submit ideas for mySociety's next project
Civic/community website builder, mySociety, is inviting proposals for new projects.
It's two and a half years since our last call for proposals, which led to us building four projects including PledgeBank.com and WriteToThem.com. At the time we had almost no funding and could only promise to try and raise money to build the projects. That worked, and now we've got a little bit of a surplus (charity language for a profit) left over from our government support.
The time has come to open the call for proposals up again, this time with one difference: we pledge to build the winning project, using a combination of some of the leftover cash and the help of any willing volunteers.
Even if you're short of inspiration for your own ideas, you can read and comment on other people's proposals.
Posted by Tom Green ( 9:09 AM ) Link to this post Comments[1]
Wednesday Apr 19, 2006
Digital inclusion conference
The (deep breath) National Digital Inclusion, Connectivity and Content Conference 2006 will be taking place on 26 April in London.
It will bring together speakers and delegates from the public, private and voluntary sectors to explore how technology can help bring about digital and social inclusion.
As if that wasn't enticing enough, it will be chaired by YouthNet's chair Martyn Lewis and speakers will include YouthNet's Chief Exec, Fiona Dawe, and Head of Digital Interactive Services, Dominic Waghorn.
Posted by Tom Green ( 9:15 AM ) Link to this post Comments[0]
Tuesday Apr 18, 2006
Capacity Builders
This month The Government handed over responsibility for ChangeUp (its policy for the basic architecture of support for the voluntary and community sector) to an 'arm's-length agency', Capacity Builders.
According to reports it will be undertaking an open-ended review of the six 'national hubs of expertise' set up as part of the ChangeUp process.
Simon Hebditch, chief executive of Capacity Builders, said the review in the summer would examine the best ways of providing guidance to groups at a local level. "It could be one agency or devolved out regionally and locally," he said. "Equally, you might say that, with a bit of tweaking, the national hubs are the right way of doing things. I don't know the answer to these questions - it will be an open review."
Third Sector has a debate this week about whether hubs are the best way to build sector capacity. But surely, with only a few weeks gone since the first hubs conference, and most people still getting used to how the new system works, it must be too soon for any major changes.
Posted by Tom Green ( 9:34 AM ) Link to this post Comments[0]
Thursday Apr 13, 2006
Cutting the mustard
As predicted, the branding of the post-Russell Commission charity has provoked plenty of discussion, helped by the decision to carry out consultation via an online survey .
I contacted Jonathan Rigby from branding agency LOVE Creative to ask him more about the process.
The consultation exercise is open until next Tuesday 18 April, so please get as many people as you can to give us their thoughts – their views really count.
First of all we spent time in a series of broad discussions with a wide number of youth groups –drawn from our contacts at organisations including Connexions, Millennium Volunteers, Positive Steps, Livity etc
A longlist of names were generated through a series of working sessions with V20 [the Russell Commission's advisory group of young people]. LOVE then worked with V20 members to develop the basic look and identity for each.
We then presented the ideas back to The Russell Commission and recommended the shortlist of 5.
We then commissioned three separate pieces of consultation/research :–
1) A quantitative research study amongst 16-25 year olds (1,000 + split 75% non-volunteers, 25% volunteers).
2) An in-depth qualitative research study comprising 10 groups of 16-25 year olds – again a mix of volunteers and non-volunteers.
3) A broader piece of public consultation open to all ages – volunteers, volunteer organisations, volunteering opportunity givers, employers, education authorities etc.
The decision will be made having weighed up all of the feedback we've been given – but as you can see, we are putting a lot of emphasis on developing and choosing the name in collaboration with as many young people as possible. (This is what The Russell Commission rightly suggested, and this is exactly what we've done)
It's worth bearing in mind that brand creation is a somewhat curious business. Who would have thought that Orange would be a good name for a mobile phone company? And creating logos be even harder.
It might have been sensible to have presented at least one option in the survey that was quite traditional, however, and used the word "volunteering". Perhaps that had already been rejected by V20, and it might have got rejected after the survey, but at least people (jnclduing young people) would have had the chance to vote on it.
Posted by Tom Green ( 9:05 AM ) Link to this post Comments[0]
Wednesday Apr 12, 2006
Where are the corporate volunteers?
A study commissioned by Heart of the City has revealed that over half of the voluntary organisations they spoke to have noticed no increase in volunteers over the last year, despite the high profile Year of The Volunteer Campaign (something we've posted about before).
40% of the community groups also said they struggle to find corporate volunteers for key projects. However, those that did recruit said the value added was really significant. You can download the press release with some more stats here - "Please Give Staff Generously".
Matching the business skills of corporate volunteers with the needs of community organisations is a real hot topic at the moment, and it's something we've used to great effect here at YouthNet.
Personally, I think a move away from team challenges to specific roles that make the most of skills gained in the corporate sector would benefit a huge number of charities, as well as allowing the volunteer to have a genuine, lasting impact on the capacity of the charity they choose to support.
The big challenge is to make this quick and easy for both the volunteer and the charity.
Posted by Sam Thomas ( 11:13 AM ) Link to this post Comments[0]
Tuesday Apr 11, 2006
MySpace acts on parents' safety fears
According to CNET, MySpace will announce today the hiring of a former Justice Department prosecutor as Chief Security Officer. Their remit will be to handle all education, safety, privacy and law enforcement programs for MySpace.
How much information young people give out on MySpace has stirred up a great deal of concern amongst parents recently, but there seems to be a lot less debate about why young people are so happy using it.
Of course online networking sites should be safe for the young people that use them, but surely anonymity and confidentiality are key components (and something we value very highly here at YouthNet).
The more parents demand control over what their kids are posting the more they might end up alienating themselves from their children.
As one MySpace user said:
"Now, not because I don't trust Myspace, but because I feel my prvacy (sic) has been invaded by my parents, my blogs will cease to be personal. I feel I can no longer rant on here because I fear my parents are going to see it."
Obviously finding a balance between parental control and user anonymity is going to be really hard, but surely the process should start by looking at the pros and cons of socialising online rather than focussing purely on the risks?
Posted by Sam Thomas ( 12:35 PM ) Link to this post Comments[0]Volunteer recruitment cost
The Year Of The Volunteer Legacy Report reveals that the Government spent around £7 million on the Year. The main purpose was to recruit more volunteers – so how many volunteers did they get for their money?
The Legacy Report is inconclusive:
There is clear evidence that the injection of money into the sector as part of YV05 added to the capacity of the sector and helped it to better respond to enquiries from new volunteers, responses which included the innovative use of newer technology. However, the data on actual volunteering numbers are less certain – while HOCS [the Home Office Citizenship Survey] shows and increase between 2001 to 2005, most of the increase pre-dates YV05. There again, there were events prompted solely by the Year which did attract new volunteers and there may well be a lag effect with interest in volunteering building in the medium term as a result of YV05.
The problem starts, of course, with actually measuring how many people volunteer. Here at YouthNet, for example, we know how many people apply for opportunities via our do-it.org.uk site, but it's much harder to get accurate information about how many actually take them up and for how long.
The Russell Commission charity has tried to put a number on the cost of recruiting and placing volunteers. They are aiming to spend £150 million to recruit a million new young volunteers – £150 per volunteer.
That includes targeting people in hard to reach groups, which is likely to be more expensive. Plus, it's impossible to say at this stage how much the Commission charity will spend on creating new opportunities or whether it will primarily act as a signposting service.
Still, it's a starting point and it would be interesting to hear from other organisations about how much they reckon it costs to recruit each volunteer. Is £150 per person good value or not?
Posted by Tom Green ( 9:15 AM ) Link to this post Comments[0]
Monday Apr 10, 2006
Is MySpace just a fad?
It's hard to pick up a paper (or click on one) these days without reading another story about the "phenomenon" of social networking websites. Mostly, the stories revolve around the moral panic that comes with any innovation that young people get and older people (including most journalists) don't. This frightens the pants off parents, editors and politicians. Which, as an aside, is a Good Thing.
So what are we actually talking about?
Hugely popular websites such as MySpace (65 million registered users, worldwide), Facebook, FaceParty and Bebo offer their users the chance to meet people, chat, comment on bands, movies and anything else in their lives. The metaphor often used is that of the town square (or more realistically, the local bus stop). It's somewhere where young people can hang out with their mates, chat and maybe, just maybe, hook up with a new partner - but that's not the main purpose for most.
(As an aside, there are also many 'grown up' versions of these sites, such as Linked In, which basically work on the same principle but are more tailored to getting a new job than getting laid. So of course, they're not in the news much.)
The criticism of MySpace, et al, is that they are unsafe, anarchic free-for-alls; that our young, innocent children are walking blindly into a den of sex maniacs, paedophiles and drug dealers. If only it was this exciting. If anything, MySpace strikes a blow against those who see user generated content as the future. Most of it is drivel. But this is also the point. It might be drivel to you or I, but that's because we don't get it and it wasn't written by a friend of ours. To those involved, it's a great opportunity to think creatively and hang out with your friends.
The question remains though: is this a fad or here to stay? NewsCorp obviously hope so as they try to figure out how to monetise MySpace.
Already, some journalists are touting an end. "MySpace is over", claimed The Observer at the weekend (strangely suggesting that the "new" place to be is FaceParty, a site which has been popular with our users for about five years). In some ways, The Observer is right. Just a couple of years back, Friendster was the place to be. It's not any more.
The best insight you'll get on this is from Danah Boyd, a PhD student in America who writes often about these sites. On the question of whether MySpace is a fad, she points out that different generations look for different solutions:
"The primary value (of MySpace) right now has to do with identity production and sharing, practices that are more critical to certain populations at certain times in their lives and it is possible that "growing up" will be marked by leaving MySpace (both for the teens and the 20-somethings). It is also possible that getting on MySpace will be marked as "uncool" by the next generation (in the same way that fashion changes across generations)."
In the meantime, MySpace rolls on and spawns associated sites, the weirdest for me being MyDeathSpace, where MySpace members who have died are remembered.
Posted by Dom Waghorn ( 1:52 PM ) Link to this post Comments[1]
Thursday Apr 06, 2006
Year of the Volunteer legacy report
The report from Gfk Social Research for the Home Office on the Year of the Volunteer has now been completed.
It's an interesting document and I'd recommend it to anyone who was involved in YOV, and here's soem teaser from the executive summary's conclusion if you want to skip ahead to the end.
"There was clearly a lot of activity undertaken to celebrate the contribution of volunteers throughout the Year, which could only have helped promote the benefits of volunteering."
"There is clear evidence that the injection of money into the sector as part of YV05 added to the capacity of the sector and helped it to better respond to enquiries from new volunteers, responses which included the innovative use of newer technology"
"Partnership working across sectors was central to the delivery of YV05, as a result of which new links were forged and existing relationships improved and reinforced"
You can access the executive summary and the full report from this page at the Home Office
Posted by Jim Valentine ( 2:57 PM ) Link to this post Comments[0]User generated Tories
David Cameron continues to wash the blue-rinse from the Tories and show that Dave is down with da kids.
Actually, I think this is pretty cool:
"The Conservatives are asking the public to send in video clips from webcams and mobile phones to create "personal political broadcasts" for television. The party wants 30-second broadcasts in answer to the question: "What would you do to improve your local environment?" The clips will be edited and used in all three slots made available to the Conservatives for their party political broadcasts before May's local elections."
From The Guardian.
Posted by Dom Waghorn ( 1:25 PM ) Link to this post Comments[1]ASBOs slapped, but not beaten
The totally unrestrained use of ASBOs (Antisocial behavioural orders) by police, the courts and local councils to deal with problem citizens has always been a depressing symptom of the government's failure to deal with underlying social problems.
ASBO concern, a campaigning group which is lobbying for a full review of ASBOs, reports that over 7,000 ASBOs have been given out since they were introduced in 1999. 43% of these were handed out to young people or children.
Lots has been written before about ASBOs. About how they circumvent the justice system. And how they are often vague and too loosely defined. About how they are almost universally handed out to the poor or the young. Suffice to say, you know it's not going well when a community website has delusions of being the 'FBI most-wanted site' and starts posting pictures of all those with ASBOs in their borough.
Now, finally, two High Court judges have dealt a minor blow, saying that some ASBOs are too vague. They pointed to one ASBO that prohibited a teenager from acting "in an antisocial manner in the city of Manchester" for two years. This, according to the judges, wasn't specific enough.
From The Times:
"Lord Justice Richards and Mr Justice David Clarke said that orders must be closely linked to the behaviour that they were trying to prohibit. "In our judgment, such a wide provision as 'not to act in an antisocial manner', without further definition or limitation, should never again be included in an ASBO," they said in a joint ruling."
It doesn't mean the end for ASBOs. But it should mean that when courts impose them, they will be clearer and more defined than they have been.
Posted by Dom Waghorn ( 1:12 PM ) Link to this post Comments[0]
Monday Apr 03, 2006
Russell Commission brand consultation
Youth marketing agency Love is running a consultation survey on the brand for the new post-Russell Commission charity. This brand will be at the forefront of trying to get young people excited about volunteering: no pressure, then.
Posted by Dom Waghorn ( 3:54 PM ) Link to this post Comments[1]Understand urban youth in one day
This, from London city newspaper The Capital, which is aimed at workers in the financial districts:
"A new course dreamt up by corporate entertainment company Boardroom Bookings is likely to get your average pinstripe running for the hills. The "jolly", if it can really be so described, offers "a team building day designed to gain an understanding of youth culture". It gets cooler - lucky participants will also be given "intense schooling in grafiti art, tagging, breakdancing, MC-ing, beat box mixing and scratching hip-hop tunes".
And the cost? £8,000.
The idea that a colony of smarmy financial analysts and bankers would "understand urban youth culture" after a day spent learning to beatmix is... well, is this a late April Fools? Probably not.
What next: learn about aged people by drinking Horlicks and playing on a stairlift? Get inside the heads of the disabled by having wheelchair races and drinking through a straw?
Posted by Dom Waghorn ( 2:03 PM ) Link to this post Comments[0]
