Site navigation

Site subnavigation

Home Blog

YouthNet blog

An insight into youth issues, volunteering trends, charity life and more from the UK charity YouthNet

« Previous month (Aug 2006) | Main | Next month (Oct 2006) »

Friday Sep 29, 2006

Nonprofit 2.0

Nowadays it feels like you can’t go online without references to Web 2.0 popping up all over the place. It’s been pretty hard to miss the huge growth in sites like MySpace, Flickr and Digg and it really feels like how we use the web, and how sites interact with their users, is changing rapidly.

I was at a new media fundraising conference earlier this week and it was great to see some examples of how non-profits are using emerging web 2.0 type technologies to connect and interact with their audiences. Various different examples cropped up, from Unicef pod casts to a website redesign workshop looking examining different approaches to engage donors.

However, it does seem like here in the nonprofit world (particularly in the UK) we’re at the tip of the iceberg in terms of how we can take advantage of this new and exciting world.

Paul Lamb from CNET has some interesting ideas as to how we can apply the growth of social networking sites to society as a whole, and makes a great point about the larger social good, rather than commercial gains, driving how we connect and interact with each other.

For me, the growth in user created content, the eager uptake of social networking tools and the way technology is changing the way we live our lives represents a massive opportunity for charities to reach and interact with more people. Whether its donors, beneficiaries or other nonprofits from around the world, we should be at the forefront of these advances. Apart from the obvious issue of funding, there’s no reason why we shouldn’t be – after all aren’t we all about engaging with our audiences in a meaningful way?

I think what’s needed is enthusiasm, a willingness to learn and make occasional mistakes, and an acceptance of a higher level of risk in terms of allowing the people that use your site to contribute (a lot of cash is also pretty helpful too).

So who’s out there pioneering new and emerging technology for nonprofits? I think MySociety are doing some great work here in the UK and other really interesting examples overseas include Youth Noise in the USA and The Salvation Army in Canada.

Here at YouthNet we think we’re doing a good job as well – do-it.org.uk has used technology to offer people volunteering opportunities on their doorstep and TheSite.org gives young people support and guidance on their PCs and on their mobiles, as well as peer to peer support on the discussion boards.

Has anyone else got any good examples?

Posted by Sam Thomas ( 4:29 PM ) Link to this post Comments[4]

Thursday Sep 28, 2006

The Durning Report - part two

Don’t worry, this isn’t another long piece about voluntary sector infrastructure.

It’s a short one.

Just to note the case against The Durning Report’s recommendation that most of the work of the sector’s Hub partnerships should be done by Capacitybuilders (a government agency) instead.

"There is a real risk of the Government taking on responsibility for commissioning when it doesn't have the expertise," says [Ben] Kernighan [from NCVO]. "If the Government believes it understands the support needs of the voluntary sector better than the sector itself, then I think it's deluded." [As reported by Third Sector]

Admittedly NCVO have a strong vested interest in the Hubs but expect to hear this argument repeated in the run-up to Capacitybuilders making a final decision on 22 November.

Posted by Tom Green ( 12:02 PM ) Link to this post Comments[0]

Tuesday Sep 26, 2006

Youth tax

A new report (PDF file or read the press release) from Reform, a think-tank, has claimed that young people (21-35 year-olds) face an effective tax rate of 50% over the next decade thanks to a combination of rising taxes, student debt repayments and pensions contributions.

Andrew Haldenby, Reform's Director, said: "Young people are in danger of drowning under a sea of rising taxes and new compulsory payments. They are in desperate need of a lifebelt, in the form of a long term commitment to public spending discipline and tax reductions. If politicians want to re-engage with young people, they will find great value in this agenda."

One of the problems, as The Economist points out, is that young people are increasingly reluctant to vote. In 1964, 11% of those aged 18 to 24 claimed not to vote, according to the British Election Study. At the general election last year that figure rose to 55%.

The challenge is to make them feel that voting is worth the effort – and, The Economist says, the opposition parties are starting to sense an opportunity.

David Willetts, the Conservative shadow education secretary, said in a speech last year that the young "could be forgiven for believing that the way in which economic and social policy is now conducted is little less than a conspiracy by the middle-aged" against them. The Liberal Democrat commission on tax policy worried in August about inter-generational unfairness too.

There will be more of such talk. For the Tories, it offers a way to discuss reducing spending without sounding as if they are merely the mouthpiece of the wealthy. It gives Lib Dem leaders a way to argue activists out of promising to out-spend Labour. And it might even persuade some of those gloomy 25-year-olds to vote.

Posted by Tom Green ( 9:19 AM ) Link to this post Comments[0]

Monday Sep 25, 2006

Quick! Celeb in danger needed!

So this is how you do it:

1. Watch as a well known celebrity such as a TV presenter or pop star gets into trouble.

2. Spark up your charity engines and save the celebrity from the dangerous situation.

3. Find your organisation plastered all over the media and watch the individual donations pour in.

4. For bonus points (and cash), have the celeb's family endorse your campaign and see the financial floodgates really open!

I've got nothing against Yorkshire Air Ambulance, but the fickleness of charity giving makes me incredibly depressed. Posted by Dom Waghorn ( 11:58 AM ) Link to this post Comments[1]

Friday Sep 22, 2006

The Durning Report

Have you read Jo Durning's Review of the ChangeUp National Hubs (Word document) yet?

Though not. Unless you are directly involved in a piece of voluntary sector infrastructure reviews of them are unlikely to prove very compelling.

My attention was caught by this report, however, because I remembered being astonished when its commissioning was announced. Haven't the Hubs have only just got started? How can they be considering their future already?!

A quick recap: the Hubs are umbrella body partnerships set up to deliver the national programmes of the Government's ChangeUp infrastructure initiative, may
be living on borrowed time. Since April this year ChangeUp has itself been managed by Capacitybuilders, an agency "at arms-length from government" (albeit funded by the Home Office) that is "led by experts from the community and voluntary sector."

Got that? Third Sector has a good piece on the history of the Hubs if you're really keen.

Setting up these Hubs was quite difficult. Partnerships had to be formed, territory fought over, terms of reference established. The final funding arrangements were only confirmed less than a year ago.

The report

Which brings us to Jo Durning's report, based on interviews with the Hubs, stakeholders and the public.

It starts with what can only be interpreted as praise for what the Hubs have achieved.

In their first year of operation, the ChangeUp hubs have set up websites and helplines, launched standards, codes and frameworks, run conferences, seminars and training, undertaken research and consultation, produced briefings, guidance, toolkits and other materials, held meetings to exchange good practice. Most of this has happened over the past few months. As one contributor to the review observes, there has been an explosion of activity in the sector. All this has been achieved while working to very tight timescales, with teams mainly recruited in the course of the year, now with 50 people in place. The hubs have largely delivered on the business plans they agreed with the Home Office in 2005, though there was some slippage against timetables, and the Finance Hub had a significant underspend.

There are also criticisms: that the Hubs haven't been co-ordinated enough, that they haven't reached down to local level and that they haven't all developed coherent strategies.

But the root of many of these problems seems to lie with ChangeUp rather than the Hubs. As Durning says:

There is a need for a strategic roadmap, with milestones, targets and priorities to get from here to 2014. The ChangeUp document is a vision statement, not a strategic plan.

In her conclusion, Durning says that:

The present system was established less than 2 years ago, after widespread consultation. The hubs are largely delivering what they signed up to do in the business plans, and there have been some impressive achievements. The hubs and their engaged stakeholders point to the value of the partnerships they have forged, in bringing a broad range of expertise to the strategies they are delivering, and in securing buy in.

But despite this, and the fact that "...there is no sign that the conditions in the sector are more favourable now for a central agency than they were when the idea was first canvassed," a central agency is exactly what she proposes.

It will be harder to drive delivery of the national ChangeUp programme through 5 or 6 independent partnerships, with wide ranging remits and the tensions identified in this report, than through direct commissioning by a central body which can take a strategic overview.

Therefore, she recommends that Capacitybuilders should take on most of the work of the Hubs, including commissioning. The Hubs would "continue as centres of excellence and advisory bodies, with small budgets to enable them to identify and promote good practice" (apart from the Volunteering Hub which was only ever Volunteering England in the first place).

I have no experience of the Hubs. I don't know if they have done a good job or not, nor whether they are a good idea or not. But when you set up such a big and complex piece of infrastructure on the back of a large-scale consultation surely it makes sense to give it a fair chance. Doesn't it?

Had Durning's report been filled with evidence of incompetence, failure and wrongdoing then one might think differently. But she seems to be saying that the Hubs are doing a pretty good job. Am I missing something?

Posted by Tom Green ( 10:55 AM ) Link to this post Comments[1]

Monday Sep 18, 2006

Arms Trade goes green

BAE Systems announced today that it will start designing more environmentally friendly munitions in an attempt to reduce their impact on the environment. According to The Times, the initiative has the backing of the MOD, who are keen to produce quieter warheads to reduce noise pollution and grenades that produce less smoke - very comforting if you happen to live in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Is this an example of a company following good CSR practice - looking at what they produce and how they can reduce its impact on the environment? Or is it complete and utter greenwash? As one of my colleagues quite rightly pointed out, there is a desperate need to stop weapons like land mines from taking lives long after their purpose has expired. The MOD have also got a fair point when they say:

"A concept of green munitions is not a contradiction in terms. Any system, whatever its ultimate use, can be designed to minimise its impact [on the] environment."

I find it quite hard to get my head round though, and I get a similar feeling when I look through British American Tobacco's Social Report.

I may be hopelessly naive, but I sometimes feel like there's a huge elephant in the room that some of these companies won't tackle - the fact that what their products are ultimately damaging to those that come into contact with them (as a smoker I'm willing to admit some level of hypocrisy here - questioning their CSR credentials whilst dragging on one of their products).

Ultimately I don't know where the CSR line is here - does it encompass each and every element of a business, including the impact of their products on society? If it does where does that leave the BAE Systems and the BAT's of the world?

Posted by Sam Thomas ( 4:53 PM ) Link to this post Comments[0]

Friday Sep 15, 2006

Just say it's young people's fault

The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, the "independant (sic) expert body that advises Government on drug related issues in the UK" published Pathways To Problems, (pdf file) this week, arguing that:

The Government should do more to ensure that young people are aware of the real hazards of tobacco, alcohol and other drugs, using a variety of routes including the media, the school system and higher education.

Other recommendations were for the drink-drive limit for young drivers to be reduced and for the legal age at which cigarettes can be bought to be increased from 16 to 18.

The Government has shown little willingness to accept the recommendations. Proper drugs education (i.e. something more enlightened than "Just Say No") is a political minefield unlikely to be approached, while a differential drink-drive limit just seems confusing.

On TheSite.org, discussion board users have been sharing their own experiences of the inadequacies of drugs education and complaining about the Advisory Council report's tone.

"...what I hate about virtually all the measures to cut under age drinking and drug use, [is that] they are largely just about criminalising the under 18's." (Buddha)

Posted by Tom Green ( 9:55 AM ) Link to this post Comments[0]

Wednesday Sep 13, 2006

David Miliband and the death of wiki

One of my regular moans is that politicians are, without exception, totally out of touch with the real world. I don't think they all are when they first enter politics (although some are), but after a year or two cocooned in the bizarre, sheltered world of Westminster, they start talking in strange ways and bit by bit, shed any personality and honesty they may have once had

It's hardly surprising then that politicians are respected about as lowly as cockroaches and estate agents (OK, not quite as low as estate agents). Young people, in particular have no time for these self important men and women in suits and voting turn-out is depressingly low among this age group.

So what to do about it? At YouthNet, whenever given the chance, we tell politicians that they need to rethink the ways that they engage with the public. Come to where they are; talk in normal language, not wonk-speak, speak honestly and most importantly, LISTEN.

One of the ways they can do more of this is through the internet and other emerging technologies. We've had some good discussion on TheSite.org with politicians who have opened themselves up more than usual and we intend to do more of these sorts of things in the future. The politicians involved should be encouraged to do more.

And some are. David Miliband has been blogging for a few months and has even set up a wiki on the Defra website, asking the public to feed into the government's views on the environment (wikis are collaborative online documents which anyone can edit - more here). OK, so this is all toe-dipping rather than a big government dive into the New World, but it's a start.

Still, Miliband has been slated for it in some quarters, mainly because the consultation is too limited, too controlled - some of the comments and thoughts of the public have even been deleted. It's a tricky balance: if you open up and agree to consultation, you can't choose what comments you like or don't like. But doesn't some responsibility lie with the public to at least be civil? Respectful of the process?

Maybe not. Perhaps Miliband should take the rough with the smooth. The danger though, is if these consultation exercises get too heated or noisy, then the politicians will use this as an excuse to retreat back in to their ivory towers, relying just on managed focus groups for their public involvement. Which is hardly a big conversation, whatever way you spin it. Posted by Dom Waghorn ( 8:41 AM ) Link to this post Comments[0]

Tuesday Sep 12, 2006

Intelligent Giving

If you've ever thought that there isn't enough information available about what charities actually do, then Intelligent Giving might prove to be the answer. Their researchers (see their blog, The Charity Sleuths) are looking through charity annual reports in order to compile a comprehensive website providing everything that a potential donor needs to know.

I asked David Pitchford from Intelligent Giving about the project.

How did the Intelligent Giving project come about?

Like most things, a combination of factors, including:

An obsessive donor (Dave Pitchford) who thinks people should give more and who wants to know how to choose between charities.
An appetite for researching and comparing charities - inside and outside the sector - that wasn't there even five years ago.
A sufficiently populated online environment making a collaborative web site possible.
Support from several wealthy and influential people who also want to see the work done

What's the idea behind it and how will the website work?

The primary function of the site is to make people more interested in, and inclined towards, giving. We hope to do this by hauling charities off their pedestals and into the same environment as all other services in society - subject to the same analysis, comparison and comment.

We'll do this by extracting a variety of criteria from the charities' annual reports and
highlighting and discussing them in reviews.

We will also provide a very wide range of guidance on giving, from how to
donate your mobile phone to how make the most of community foundations. There will be features and opinionated articles from experts too. And questionnaires. The style is that of a fairly lightweight consumer magazine.

How is it funded?

Peter Heywood, an ebusiness entrepreneur who co-founded lightreading.com is paying for most of it. Volunteers' contributions represent probably 20% of the work. And the Bromley by Bow Community Centre's Beyond the Barn organisation has helped out with a range of equipment and training. We're very cheap. We'll probably spend £140,000 this year.

How many people are working on it?

It varies from month to month. Normally the office has seven people in it, two full-time. Most are interns fresh from Oxford or Cambridge.

What interesting findings have you made so far?

There's a long list, ranging from the generally dismal reporting by religious charities, the generally good reporting by international aid charities, the sensitivity of the sector to the publication of salaries, to our conclusion that very few charities duplicate each others' work. The Advertising Standards Authority might be interested in some of the claims we've found.

When will the site launch?

1 November 2006, unless the office goes down with a cold.

Posted by Tom Green ( 11:57 AM ) Link to this post Comments[2]

Friday Sep 08, 2006

Volunteers or colonialists?

A few weeks ago overseas volunteering charity VSO kicked off a brief media panic about young people wasting their gap years.

"Some gap year providers seem to pay little attention to whether young people are actually making any long-term difference to the communities they are working in,"...said [Judith Brodie of VSO]. "It's an 'all about us' attitude. There seems to be a colonial attitude, whereby it is assumed that just because a young person is from the UK, they will be of benefit to their host community."

The Guardian asked volunteers what they thought and there were plenty of concerns, especially about volunteers without specific skills.

For someone interested in volunteering overseas, assessing the worth of organisations is a tough challenge . You can read all the information and speak to lots of other people but ultimately you are going to have to venture into the unknown (normally at a considerable cost).

It would be great if organisations could be regulated so that people knew that there contribution would be worthwhile but overseas development is such a complicated and controversial area that it's difficult to see how anything other than the most basic regulation can happen.

On YouthNet's volunteering website, do-it.org.uk, we (with a few exceptions) only list overseas volunteering organisations that are UK-based registered charities – that, at least, gives some measure of official approval. Hearing about other people's experiences is also incredibly useful – that's why do-it has an overseas volunteering blog. This post from is a reminder of what a great experience it can be.

I could write a million things about what we experienced in Nepal. Sitting on the floor and eating rice with our hands, Danni's beautiful open-air concert in Durbar Square, the elephants who's bristly thick skin made them appear a bit like giant long-nosed pigs, Paul's little fan club who he carried about, one on each arm... The football club, playing games with the little ones in Kathmandu, being fooled in to believing we have lice by the girls in Hetauda. Nepal was an experience none of us will ever forget.

Posted by Tom Green ( 10:08 AM ) Link to this post Comments[0]

Thursday Sep 07, 2006

Boys too hard to reach - so let's give up

It must be bloody hard being a young man growing up in 2006.

For these boys' fathers, life was much more clear-cut and focused: finish school, go to university or straight into a job, get married, have children, work some more, retire, die. But not anymore. The world is changing rapidly. There are a million options in life, choice is seen as paramount, and although this flexibility brings benefits, it also brings anxiety and enormous pressure to succeed.

The media meanwhile, tells them that they're thugs or hoodies, they're lazy, and deserve to be locked up or sent to boot-camp. It tells them that girls are the ones succeeding – in exams and careers - and they'd better watch out else they'll be left behind.

Unlike girls, boys also usually deal with their issues alone. They don't generally talk to each other about their problems - or their parents, or anyone really. All this when they're going through the biggest physical and mental transitions of all: from child to adult. Is it then a surprise that depression, self harm and suicide amongst young men is on the rise?

Thankfully, there are plenty of services out there to help young men through this transition, right?

Well, not really.

Young, male and hard to reach

Let's look at this on a wider level first.

The teenage boy - as all media experts agree – is a difficult nut to crack. As magazines, websites and books aimed at young women propagate widely (and sometimes successfully), very few companies have managed to create propositions that work for boys aged 12-18.

Teen lifestyle magazines aimed at boys have never taken off – we're told they'll read about wrestling or football or music, but won't buy a magazine focused and marketed directly to boys. OK, so soft porn mags Zoo and Nuts have made some success of it recently but only by focusing on lowest common denominator stuff: tits and footballers. It's superficial and slightly depressing and doesn't offer young men much in the way of creative thought or useful experience.

Something useful

So what about the narrower world of advice provision? Plenty of people have tried to support young men, but often the reaction is that no matter what you say, they don't listen. They are, apparently, just too hard to reach.

In this sphere of IAG (information, advice and guidance provision – don't blame me, I didn't make it up), getting messages across to young men about safe sex, health issues, drugs awareness or relationships sometimes feels like banging your head against a wall: say whatever you like, but you just won't get through to young men. Often, they don't seek advice because it's not cool, or think it will make them look weak or pathetic.

But just because it's hard reaching young men, does it mean you should give up? As mentioned above, no other group of people is so desperately in need of support as teenage boys.

Not on the beeb

So it was a bit of a surprise to see that the BBC has removed its online advice site for boys. They have beefed up and re-branded the girls site, now called Slink, but given up providing any information for the boys.

I asked Sarah Dain, Senior Producer on Slink, to explain the decision – and it basically came down to resourcing. "We've got four staff and a small budget and the figures for the boys' site were low. We decided to focus on girls".

Sarah said that investing all their energy in the girls' site provided better value for money and that they were exploring ways to ensure the boys' needs were met elsewhere. Fair enough, and in time the BBC might be spending more in this area (the recent Creative Futures strategy document includes providing "a new teen brand" – not sure whether this will be just glossy entertainment or also include useful advice though).

But it still feels like the BBC is shirking their responsibilities to a group which needs help the most. YouthNet thinks you can reach young men; you just need to be a bit more creative about it. Interactive tools; games; content syndication and partnership agreements; "stealth advice provision"... it's not easy but it can work.

Another part of the new BBC strategy focuses on the corporation partnering more with other companies and agencies. This is a cultural shift for an organisation so used to doing everything itself but YouthNet, for one, would be more than happy to supply content to the BBC if it means more young people are supported. (In fact, we have already supplied a few pieces to Slink but it's a small drop in the ocean.)

It would be good to hear your views on reaching young men and boys and how successful you've been – or otherwise. Post your comments below. Posted by Dom Waghorn ( 10:34 AM ) Link to this post Comments[2]

Monday Sep 04, 2006

Transforming the public sector

In the ongoing debate about the proper role for voluntary organisations in providing public services, comes an interesting booklet (PDF file) from Ann Blackmore for NCVO.

She questions the current focus on procurement processes – ie how best to enable voluntary sector to bid for contracts – and call instead for fundamental reforms.

The key point for Blackmore is that "Many VCOs have a greater ability to engage with and understand the needs of users and communities than statutory agencies are able to do" (p7). That's why they "have a strong track record in generating innovative learning about people's real needs and in creatively designing and delivering services that reflect those needs."

The key to transforming public services is not just to have a different organisation providing the service, but to provide the service in a completely different way.

The challenge, as Blackmore recognises, is that this kind of approach requires a more sophisticated contract commissioning process, more understanding of the way voluntary organisations work and, sometimes, more money.

It's not the quick-fix solution that contract commissioners, be they in local or central government, so often seem to want.

Posted by Tom Green ( 1:40 PM ) Link to this post Comments[0]