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
Monday Feb 26, 2007
Young Guns (Go for it)
At a time when young people are increasingly stigmatised, demonised and patronised by the media, let’s hear it for Arsenal’s Young Guns who, with an average age of just over 20, came within a whisker of beating Chelsea in yesterday’s Carling Cup final.
Admittedly their manager is French and few of the players are British, but we live in a multinational society. Better the sublime skills of the Spanish Cesc Fabregas (19) than some yeoman clogger with a British bulldog tattooed on his chest.
What the likes of Theo Walcott (17) and Armand Traore (17) should remind us is that young people can handle responsibility and pressure. Yes, they are only playing a game. But it is in front of 70,000 people and a TV audience of millions. And they have to live and work with self-discipline and supreme dedication.
Watching my own team, Charlton, thrash West Ham 4-0 at the weekend, it was impossible not to be struck by the composure and maturity of midfielder Alexandre Song (19) – loaned, inevitably, from Arsenal. A true role model.
Footballers tend to make the headlines for their occasional bad behaviour. But, when they perform like Arsenal’s youngsters, it’s a chance to celebrate youth rather than castigate it.
Posted by Tom Green ( 4:44 PM ) Link to this post Comments[3]
Friday Feb 23, 2007
Donna's 14 miler
Well things are going well. I'm running a regular 4 –5 miles every other day and actually enjoying it.A talk and lunch was arranged for all the runners at work last week and Bud Baldaro was inspirational – really helped.
Work kindly bought me an MP3 player this week and although it sounds rather overdramatic, it has changed my life. Obviously Rocky is still on there but now have the Flashdance album and a bit of Pink. Also downloaded the Chris Moyles podcast and looked like an idiot last night running with Solo and laughing my head off!!! However, it takes my mind off distance and getting tired so all good.
Tomorrow, Saturday is my biggest run yet. 14.25 miles. Scared to death – the worst thing is that although it is a ruddy long way, I'd still have 12 miles on top of that on the day – oh my god.
However, am looking forward to the challenge – am downloading the Grease soundtrack today so I can have a bit of karaoke all the way. If I can walk on Monday I'll update in the next blog.
You can support Donna's run for YouthNet here: www.justgiving.com/donnashaylerrunsthemarathon Posted by Sam Thomas ( 3:18 PM ) Link to this post Comments[1]
Tuesday Feb 20, 2007
Non-profits and accountability - again
Ever since I read Michael Schrage's article in the Financial Times on transparency in the voluntary sector I've been mulling over why it gets my goat so much.I think part of it is that I'm getting seriously bored hearing the same thing about accountability and transparency. I also think the article contains quite a few huge generalisations that aren't particularly helpful to the whole debate.
To kick things off, Michael says:
"...corporate results are measured in the marketplace while philanthropic results are not. That invites mischief and mismanagement."I'm sure this has been written to provoke debate (or wind up people like me in the voluntary sector), but I don't think you can draw immediate comparisons between the private and voluntary sectors when it comes to measuring results. I don't believe outcomes for non-profits are as clear cut as the financial performance of a company.
For example, how do you measure the success of a young person leaving the care system managing to budget for their weekly shop for the very first time? Is that comparable to a strong performance over the financial year? I'm being slightly facetious here – I know he's talking about financial performance in both the private and voluntary sectors, but I still think it demonstrates the point that solutions for the voluntary sector don't always involve replicating what the private sector does.
All too often it feels like "big business" thinks it can rock up and tear into the way charities operate – don't get me wrong, of course there are an awful lot of lessons the voluntary sector can learn from the business world, but there seems to be little or no reciprocation in terms of the private sector taking things from successful non-profits.
Later, Michael says:
"Freedom and fairness demand individuals and institutions have a right financially to support lawful ideals and causes. That right does not entitle philanthropists to policies subsidising inefficiency and opacity."
I completely agree – but he seems to miss the point that all this transparency and opacity comes at a cost. Who should fund the time, systems and processes needed to bring all this transparency in?
Increasingly, non-profits find themselves spending more of their time reporting on how they've spent donations, which of course is central to the push for accountability.
However, I wonder how many donors would be happy to know that rather than their donation funding 10 vaccinations, or a new well for example, the charity has used it to send time reporting on how they've spent a donation from someone else?
If the business world is so exasperated by the lack of transparency in the voluntary sector, rather than moaning about it perhaps it should put its hand in its pocket and provide the resources (and cash) that charities need to improve.
Interestingly enough, another article in today's FT says that:
"Consumers in five of the worlds leading economies believe business ethics have worsened in the past five years and are turning to "ethical consumerism" to make companies more accountable."
So, perhaps the corporate sector has still got some work to do around accountability then.
Or maybe I'm just feeling a bit defensive about it all...
Posted by Sam Thomas ( 5:12 PM ) Link to this post Comments[4]Destination 2014
Consultation lovers will, no doubt, already have discovered the Destination 2014 website. It's where you can have your say about the plans of Capacitybuilders in the aftermath of their decision to play a more central role in running the voluntary sector infrastructure at the expense of the sector Hubs.
NCVO, one of the organisations that stands to lose most from the Hubs reduced role, has produced an interesting briefing about the Destination 2014 document, welcoming some proposals but expressing strong concerns about what appears to be an extension of Capacitybuilders role.
3.4 Capacitybuilders appears to have given itself a much broader focus, describing its vision for the sector as a whole, and setting out its remit in a way which goes substantially beyond its agreed mission... And yet the consultation does not ask whether voluntary and community organisations agree with the role Capacitybuilders sees for itself and how it plans to move forward and achieve change and its key objectives. Capacitybuilders needs to seek agreement with the sector as to where it should prioritise its energies, in order to then determine its operational activities.
It will be interesting to see how many people express similar comments throughout the consultation, and how Capacitybuilders - an organisation launched only a year ago and currently funded solely by government - responds.
Posted by Tom Green ( 9:50 AM ) Link to this post Comments[0]
Tuesday Feb 13, 2007
Charitable quangos
When is a charity not a charity? When it gets most of its funding from government.
That's the view of Nick Seddon, anyway.
It used to be the case that a charity in need of some money turned to the public for support. But this is no longer so. Some of the biggest and most famous charity brands are now all but dependent on the state. These include Barnardo's (78% of annual income), NCH (88%) and Leonard Cheshire (88%).
The state has now become the biggest donor to charities in the UK, outweighing contributions from individuals, trusts or companies.
Politicians are beginning to define what charity is: it's what the government will pay for. And this relationship gets uncomfortably close when government departments use government-funded charities to carry out research that supports government policy. Thus the National Family and Parenting Institute (97% state funded) and NCH (88%) produced an inquiry into the relationship between the state and the family that reads just like an official government report. This little arrangement is convenient for the government because it carries all the authority associated with an "independent" charity.
The counter argument is that putting money into charities allows the government to deliver services in a greater variety of ways. While state funding inevitably follows a certain agenda, politicians are primarily looking for solutions to social problems and the third sector has a good track record of coming up with them.
Seddon does, in fact, acknowledge this point. The danger, he says is that smaller charities are in danger of losing out and he suggests categorising charities according to how much state funding they receive.
If we don't want to do away with the big charitable quangos, as much of what they do is important, we will have to make sure we don't do away with the charities that take not a penny from the state - the many small, local organisations that play a vital role in creating inclusive communities, and which are increasingly struggling to survive.
Update: Martin Narey, chief executive of Barnardo's, rebuts Seddon's argument.
Posted by Tom Green ( 12:57 PM ) Link to this post Comments[0]
Monday Feb 12, 2007
'Senior Ministers' unite against democracy
The writers of the BBC's The Thick of It must be rolling on the floor with laughter tonight. In their recent Christmas special they showed the horror of modern politicians at blogs or anything online that made them vulnerable to public comment. It seems life hasn't taken long to catch up with art.
Touted as a great leap forward in e-democracy the number 10 website has been allowing people to set up their own petitions and try to rally support for them, with an understanding that the government will then be prepared to at least consider the results.
Well the problem seems to be that it is working, people are looking at petitions and people are signing them. This kind of horrendous abuse of democracy has clearly ruffled a few feathers, with Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander forced to defend new government policies on road tax that one petition targets.
That petition has already seen over 1,000,000 people sign up to it, and to be clear, that requires a UK address and email verification. So will the government listen to this petition or will they find a way to ignore it?If it is ignored it means that the whole scheme has been little more than a wheeze, a fop to the idea of e-democracy that was never intended to do anything more than pretend people could use the internet to participate in their government. If that's the case then expect it to be replaced by a nice little website asking people to leave personal statements about how nice Tony is in real life.
But if it does work, well, this could be the start of something that really matters, a way of creating an instant and significant response to political proposals that provides a permanent record of real public opinion. Agree with the petition or not, it would be a significant step forward for the possibilities of net activism.
Hopefully the later will be true, but I wouldn't hold my breath for it. If over a million people marching can't stop a government policy, it'd be a surprise to see a million clicks manage it. Posted by Jim Valentine ( 9:50 PM ) Link to this post Comments[3]Fartlek Training here I come...
Here's the latest update from YouthNet marathon runner Donna:Well, things are going well. The run on Sunday went better than planned, ended up doing 11 miles in 2 hours so very pleased (although Monday was a very stiff day!). I also did a 6 mile run on Saturday so back on target. The weather helped considerably, it has to be said.
Talking of the weather, the freezing cold really got to me this week. Tuesday did a good 2 mile at the gym at lunch, and then only managed 3 miles on Tuesday night but I think that was partly due to the 11 miles on Sunday and my legs feeling like lead.
Thursday, again very good at the gym but after walking the dogs after work, it was looking very dangerous to actually run on the streets of Newark. Therefore it was decided I wouldn't (and reviewing the London Marathon website, the editor even said it was a bad idea). Friday I hit the treadmill again.
The weekend went ok. Lot of home stuff to deal with this week so mind not really on it, but feeling a lot more positive today (Monday). Started to do 8 miles quite comfortably and did a very good run on the treadmill yesterday, but the temperature is up again so it is back to the streets with Solo this evening.
Have great hopes for this week, with 9 weeks to go have to get some Fartlek training in. Here is to good weather, good running and a dog that doesn't want to pee too much!
Support Donna and YouthNet through her fundraising page.
Donna has raised £375 of her target.
Posted by Sam Thomas ( 1:30 PM ) Link to this post Comments[0]
Thursday Feb 08, 2007
Fundraisers wreak their web 2.0 revenge
I picked up a very interesting online conversation highlighted by Beth Kanter on her blog yesterday.
The conversation started when Ami Dar from Idealist.org felt compelled to express his disappointment at the lack of consistency in terms of feedback and grants from the Omidyar Funding Network. As Ami points out:
“In meetings and conversations with colleagues across the sector, as well as in our own experience at Idealist.org, the story is always the same: organization X meets with people from ON (Omidyar Network), the ON people are invariably very nice, and make the organization feel that funding will be forthcoming, easily and quickly. The organization is ecstatic and counts on this (since when 99% of funders make you feel this way, they mean it), but then nothing happens. Emails and calls go unreturned, often for months at a time, meetings get cancelled, and people are led on for a year or two until they finally give up.”
The first interesting thing to note is that Ami posted this on the Omidyar Network Community site. I have to say I do have a lot of sympathy (as I’m sure all fundraisers do) with Ami’s point when it comes to funders in general.
What’s most interesting for me though, is as Beth points out on her blog, this is a great example of the era of transparency that web 2.0 has ushered in. It’s fantastic that someone is able to express their opinion on a sensitive subject, as well as have a conversation with others about it right where it counts – on the website of the very organisation that they’re commenting on. Posted by Sam Thomas ( 10:15 AM ) Link to this post Comments[8]
Wednesday Feb 07, 2007
Young, dumb and full of debt
Yesterday the Financial Times reported that Education Secretary Alan Johnson has decreed that lessons in financial literacy will remain part of the PSHE (Personal, Social, Health Education) part of the curriculum – which is completely voluntary in schools.
This is what Alan Johnson had to say about the importance of financial literacy for young people:
"It's more important than ever that today's school pupils understand how to manage the benefits, responsibilities and risks of making, borrowing and spending money."
From that quote you'd be forgiven for questioning why on earth it's still voluntary – given the pressure on resources in schools is it ever likely to be taught?
From our experience on TheSite.org, we're finding that this is increasingly an area that young people are concerned about. From threads on our discussion boards, to money questions on askTheSite, to the content on our "Money" section, it's definitely something that's relevant and worrying for young people and we're continually looking to develop how we support them with money worries.
Given that we're now over a trillion pounds in debt in this country isn't this something that should be a serious priority for both the Government and the private sector?
Posted by Sam Thomas ( 5:36 PM ) Link to this post Comments[0]
Monday Feb 05, 2007
Times Online relaunch
Schadenfreude is wrong, of course. Even when the suffering is being endured by part of Rupert Murdoch's globe-encompassing media empire.
But anyone who has struggled to launch a new or redesigned website could have been forgiven a smile this morning if they clicked onto The Times Online. At time of writing the homepage looks fine, albeit painfully slow to load. The section homepages are OK. But dig a little deeper and you get pages like this.
Update: read more about the relaunch and the explanation that it was vastly increased traffic that caused the problems. Of course it was!
Posted by Tom Green ( 10:40 AM ) Link to this post Comments[0]
Friday Feb 02, 2007
New on TheSite.org
New Content on TheSite.org
The first-year student diary: Boredom rules
Updated content
askTheSite archive questions
Virtual volunteering
We've just finished a new section of articles on do-it.org.uk (YouthNet's volunteering website) about virtual volunteering - opportunities that you can undertake from home.
We found some interesting case studies, including roles such as journalism, managing charity eBay eccounts and even writing to American prisoners on Death Row. Yet, there's a sense that this is an approach to volunteering that has still not taken off.
In America, where it's also known as online volunteering, projects have been running since 1997, and the United Nations volunteering service has had an online programme since 2000. But, despite TimeBank's efforts, there's still nothing comparable in this country.
There is a virtual volunteering category on the V-Base software that organisations use to upload their opportunities to the do-it database but until more virtual opportunities are created there's no point making it a searchable category on the website for potential volunteers.
Here at YouthNet , even though we've had some success with virtual opportunities of our own, we've learnt that they're not as easy to manage as you might at first think. In my experience, recruiting volunteer journalists, there's no problem getting people to sign up, but as few as 5% actually go on to write an article. And less than half that small number complete more than one assignment.
Perhaps I'm not a very effective volunteer manager, but I think colleagues have had similar experiences. It's very easy for someone to register for a virtual opportunity but very hard to actually get them started. It can be done, but it seems that, while virtual volunteering clearly has huge potential, it, like any other volunteering opportunity, still requires management time to succeed.
Posted by Tom Green ( 9:52 AM ) Link to this post Comments[0]CSR and companies - come on, don't be shy!
The folks at Intelligent Giving released an interesting piece of research this week. Called the Ethical Bonuses Index, it looks at how companies support their staff with time off to volunteer and matched funding for payroll giving amongst other things.
It’s a useful piece of research, but what I like most is that they’ve been quite open about who responded and who didn’t. This naming and shaming has sparked off an interesting discussion on their blog about how well companies communicate these policies to their staff.
These are the kind of conversations that need to happen more often within companies (as well as in the “real world”). I get the impression that all too often CSR managers lack the resource, budget and genuine backing from senior executives in their business to seriously promote innovative, effective community investment programmes to their staff.
Whilst I don’t want to simplify the whole debate, for me it does boil down to the usual business case issue with CSR – is it worth a business spending time and money on CSR initiatives, and do they deliver any value to the bottom line? Of course I’m going to say yes, but it would be nice to have a really open and honest discussion with businesses about it.
On that point I was really encouraged to hear about Marks and Spencer’s “Plan A” – their “100 point plan to tackle some of the biggest challenges facing our business and our world”.
They called it Plan A because there is no Plan B - which is a pretty clear indication of their commitment.
Posted by Sam Thomas ( 9:38 AM ) Link to this post Comments[0]
