participation—for a change: disabled young people lead the way

CHILDREN & SOCIETY VOLUME 18 (2004) pp. 143–154Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/CHI.821

Participation—for a Change: DisabledYoung People Lead the Way

Virtually every Government programme for children and every

Government Department in the UK is expected to involve children

and young people in its policy development and service delivery

(Children and Young People’s Unit, 2001). It is the new orthodoxy.

Yet, hard questions are often avoided when reciting the mantra of

participation. Why bother? What has changed as a result? This paper

first seeks to explore the constraints and limitations of this drive in

public policy in England. Secondly, by looking at one specific

example, it considers elements of practice to enable participation to be

effective as a catalyst for change. Third, it proposes a framework that

sets out an agenda for social inclusion that is itself influenced by

children and young people and not reliant on the changing and often

clashing fashions in Government. Copyright # 2004 John Wiley &

Sons, Ltd.

Face the facts

In October 2003, the annual update on the state of children’srights in England was launched (Children’s Rights Alliance forEngland, 2003). This reviewed Government action in Englandin law and policy affecting the rights of children and youngpeople. Its benchmark was the international legal require-ments set out in the Concluding Observations of theCommittee on the Rights of the Child in October 2002. Thereport indicated some progress, especially in promotingcollective opportunities for participation and tackling poverty,but deterioration as affecting asylum seeking children andyoung offenders and standstill in crucial areas such as theneglect and abuse of children and their experience in thelooked after system. The Guardian newspaper also ran a highlycritical report on its front page (Boseley, 2003). It gave tenyoung people’s experiences of poverty, bullying, abuse,neglect and sexual exploitation, being a young carer, a youngmother, in care, an asylum seeker, drug abuse and imprison-ment. In response, the following day, Margaret Hodge, theFirst Minister for Children, Young People and Families,suggested the reporting was somewhat negative and failedto acknowledge significant progress.

Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Bill BadhamThe National YouthAgency, Leicester

Correspondence to: Bill Badham,

Development Officer, The

National Youth Agency, 17-23

Albion Street, Leicester LE1 6GD,

UK. E-mail: [email protected]

Yet the facts remain, as set out in the Alliance’s annual review. The UK is the fourth richestcountry in the world, with 32 per cent of our children and young people living in relativepoverty. Those from minority ethnic families are at particular risk, with 65 per cent beingin the bottom 30 per cent of income distribution. Socially excluded children and youngpeople face barriers in achieving their potential, with poverty impacting upon education,health, living environment, life opportunities, training and jobs. Seventy per cent of youngpeople in care leave school with no GCSE qualifications. Homelessness is at an all timehigh, with 100,000 children and young people in temporary accommodation. Of the half amillion disabled children and young people, the 100,000 with severe impairments cost onaverage three times as much to the household. Asylum seeking families, often destituteand traumatised, get 24 per cent less financial assistance than other poor families. In theUK, we lock up more young people than any other country in Western Europe. Blackyoung people are six times more likely to be locked up than white young people. Twelveyoung people have killed themselves while in custody in the last five years. Conditions aredescribed by the previous Chief Inspector of Prisons as ‘unacceptable in a civilised society’and as ‘institutionalised child abuse’ (HMSO, 1997).

This is the context in which national and local government promote the participation ofchildren and young people. A comprehensive set of tables, listing key Governmentprogrammes and policies in England with specific requirements to involve children andyoung people, is given in Willow (2002, pp. 21–27). They cover the environment, socialexclusion and neighbourhood renewal, local democracy, early years, education, youthsupport, health and social care, youth justice and crime prevention. However, it is oftenunclear how the process of participation is meant to link to better outcomes for theintended beneficiaries.

Current issues about the participation of children and young people

In 2001, the England Government launched Learning to Listen: Core Principles for theInvolvement of Children and Young People (Children and Young People’s Unit, 2001). It setout the expectation that ten key national Government Departments would develop actionplans promoting the participation of children and young people in their core mission andwork. These were signed off by Cabinet Committee and are subject to annual review andupdates. They are available from www.cypu.gov.uk/corporate/publications.cfm. Pro-gress has been patchy. Some Departments have suffered from lack of dedicated resourcesor perceived status. Others have made tangible headway through establishing trainingand consultancy for staff on the active involvement of children and young people,improving consultation and feedback processes on specific areas of policy developmentand establishing advisory boards and reference groups.

During Local Democracy Week in October 2003, run by the Local Government Associationin partnership with The National Youth Agency among others, many local authorityschemes and structures were heralded for promoting young people and local democracy:local council youth assemblies, youth parliaments, local forums, young mayors. Whilemany indicated innovative polling methods improving electoral turnout and laudablemeans of connecting young people and local authority councillors and officials, fewshowed the tangible results of this activity in improved services for these youngestcitizens—the biggest single consumers of local authority services, including health,education, leisure, transport and housing.

144 Bill Badham

Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 18, 143–154 (2004)

Some of these tensions and seeming contradictions were explored at a recent seminar,reported in Reflections (The Children’s Society, 2002). All quotations that follow are takenfrom adult participants at the seminar and indicate in broad terms some key concerns.

There are endless papers promoting participation. But it isn’t clear that anything has actuallyhappened as a result. There has been large-scale consultation but no continuity of action(Caroline Owen, Merthyr Tydfil).

There are unintended consequences that result from this gap between listening andresponding.

There is a danger of disempowering children by the processes that we are encouraging them toget involved with. Children need to see results. (Rachel Grant, Wessex).

One of the reasons for this emerging chasm between process and outcome is adult policymakers’ and professionals’ lack of attention to power in participation.

There may be a danger that participation is seen as a magic solution. Children’s rights to beconsulted may be enshrined as a model to build consensus but it can also be seen as a model ofsocial control. For example, Connexions is a way of managing childhood to produceeconomically productive adults (Jeremy Coombe, Hampshire).

Participation is easier to say than to put in practice. It hasn’t worked because it is ultimatelyabout distributing power and it can’t work until those who hold the power are willing to let itbe equally distributed (Biant Singh, Nottingham).

This tension is particularly evident for young people where state authorities play asignificant role in their individual lives.

Looked after children are some of the most marginalised children and young people, alreadydamaged by society’s treatment of them and the lack of opportunities open to them. For thisgroup it is hard to start talking about participation in the wider picture when they have nopower over the most fundamental things in their own lives. There must be individual rights,not just collective rights (Chris Osborne, national programme manager).

For example,

At our project our starting point is that all children and young people can communicate.Disabled children and young people have become skilled presenters. They have spoken topolicy makers and made their needs known. However, they need to see change. What hasn’thappened for them is a change in their personal situation regarding friends and a social life,education and money. If none of that changes for them then what is the point?’ (LucySaunders, York).

Participation is not politically neutral. Attempts to anaesthetise participation sharpen thecontradictions.

The emancipation of children is an explicitly political issue. Children and young people as asocial class are powerless; practitioners need to look at ways to tackle this social injustice. If atthe end of the day there has been no change then the process will have been meaningless. It isimportant to create opportunities for children and young people to act politically; to campaign

Participation—for a Change 145


for change on what they see as important, not on what the adults consider important (LiamCairns, Durham).

During the seminar, three main questions arose from these reflections on the widening gapbetween the rhetoric and reality of participation.

Participation—what’s changing?

It is often not clear what is changing for children and young people through theirinvolvement. Neighbourhood renewal programmes, for example, specifically require theparticipation of local community groups to ensure effective responses to local needs. Yet,evidence from Nottingham’s Radford New Deal for Communities indicates that, wherethis is not built in but bolted on, neither the local authority nor the local population havemuch real say over how this central Government money is spent. Perhaps direct increasein household income would be more effective. It has £50 million to spend over ten years inan area consisting of about 4000 households. If this were kept simple and passed straighton to all households, that would add £1250 a year, or £24 a week to each household incomefor ten years. There is little evidence of the programme’s equivalent impact for children(Office of Deputy Prime Minister, 2003a). The example indicates the risks of policyinitiatives hiding behind the smokescreen of user involvement, choice and participationwhile failing locally to impact on poverty, unemployment, poor health and loweducational achievement.

Participation—whose agenda?

At a UK-wide seminar on children and young people’s participation and social inclusionin Glasgow in 2003, children’s participation rights advocate, Roger Hart (Hart, 1992, 1997),expressed surprise and concern at how managed and top down much participationactivity seemed to be in the UK. He identified that, while this may bring status andresources, it risks stifling bottom-up participative democracy. A recent initiativedemonstrates the problem. In 2003, the Department for Education and Skills establisheda consultation fund to enable non-governmental organisations to promote children andyoung people’s participation activity as part of encouraging their active involvement anddemocratic engagement as young citizens. The inaugural meeting to scope the nature ofthe fund occurred in February 2003, four days before two million people of all agesmarched through central London against the invasion of Iraq. During the meeting, oneperson asked whether, in principle, this Government fund would pay for young people toparticipate in this legal, democratic expression of dissent. The smile on the face of the leadcivil servant froze. Meanwhile, thousands of young people across all sections of societymobilised to protest. One young person-led organisation, HandsUp4Peace, blossomedinto a mass movement enabling children and young people to make their views knownabout what was important to them (www.messengers.org.uk). At the same time, someteachers locked school gates to prevent students leaving their classrooms and some policeintimidated peaceful young protestors (Barrett, 2003; Hopkinson, 2003).

For participation activity to flourish and affect change, more attention needs to be paid tothe individual and collective voice of children and young people on issues that concernthem, as set out in Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN, 1989).

146 Bill Badham


Representational democratic structures and experiments, in the school, local authority orUK-wide, are vulnerable to tokenism and adult manipulation if not built on these strongfoundations. Adults should not always be in the lead, setting the agenda. Young peopleare coming through the ranks themselves, leading, bringing the wisdom, passion andcommitment borne from the struggle to be heard, experienced at first hand.

Participation—what’s the Government’s priority?

The above example indicates the tension between the opportunities Government policymakers are prepared to provide for children and young people to take part in and what thechildren and young people themselves say are their priorities for action. There is a gapbetween national campaigns such as voter engagement and children’s desire to be activecitizens where they live and achieve better services: safer streets, cleaner parks, cheaperand more accessible transport and leisure facilities (The Children’s Society, 2000). Thetrend seems set to continue with the Government’s green paper for children and youngpeople’s services, Every Child Matters (DfES, 2003). It is strident about young people’scollective engagement in local democracy (for fear of ever worsening electoral turnouts?)and muted about children and young people’s right to advocacy and representationon individual concerns, such as in parental divorce proceedings or school exclusionhearings.

Yet, there are also signs of hope across some significant national programmes where theparticipation of children and young people is contributing to their success in tacklingsocial exclusion. SureStart, the Children’s Fund and Quality Protects are three suchprogrammes. Each has arisen in response to a national Government concern, coordinatedcentrally and delivered through local partnerships and each requiring the involvement ofchildren and young people in its local design, delivery and evaluation. A benefit may bethe focus on participation to achieve better outcomes for children and young people,rather than promoted as an end in itself. In the next section, I explore these issues ingreater detail through one specific example, initiated under Quality Protects, aprogramme set up in response to a range of enquiries into failures in child protectionand towards children in need.

Ask Us!

Somewhere in the West Midlands

In a park in the West Midlands, there was a party in May 2003. Young people, councillorsand officers of Solihull Council and workers at St Christopher’s Shared Care Project, hadsomething to celebrate. After five years of campaigning, these young disabled peoplesecured from the Children’s Fund £30 000 worth of play equipment to be used by able-bodied and disabled children and young people alike. ‘The parks man’ (as the young peoplecalled him) at the council had asked them about their concerns and then done somethingabout it. ‘If he can do it, so can you’ said one of the young people behind this success.

The young disabled people from Solihull were just some of the activists in Ask Us!—anational peer research project of disabled children and young people from across England,



run by The Children’s Society (The Children’s Society, 2001, 2003). Ask Us! arose from theDepartment of Health’s National Disability Reference Group for the Quality Protectsprogramme whose objectives included improved involvement and services for youngdisabled people and their families. In 1999 it commissioned The Children’s Society, withsupport from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, to undertake a national consultation. Theinnovative use of multi-media helped make the consultation inclusive of over 200 disabledchildren and young people, including some with severe and multiple impairments(Willow, 2002; Willow and Badham, 2002).

The result was that in 2001, six local CD ROMs were produced by groups of disabledchildren and young people and project staff, each focusing on different areas of exclusion,such as access to play, leisure and education and relationships with friends and families.They shared their concerns and ideas through graphics, cartoons, video and songs thatthey composed and sang. In addition, a summary CD ROM of their key messages wascompiled about the young people’s experience of inclusion, consultation and participa-tion. This was targeted at key people in local and national Government to seek widerchange in attitudes and services.

Recognising the impact of Ask Us! on both Quality Protects and wider policy and practice,a second phase began, funded by the Department of Health. Eight local consultations with180 young disabled people took place. They were based on the principles of rights,inclusion, choice and independence that are central to Valuing People, the Government’sstrategy for learning disabled people.

The second summary CD ROM starts with disabled young people declaring thatparticipation is manipulative if it does not lead to improved services. ‘Know your rights!’calls out one young man (Ask Us! 2003). They go on to show the practical changes neededto fulfil their rights:

� to be included, to go out in the community, with the necessary public, personal andsupport resources;

� to receive appropriate services that promote choice and independence;� to participate in meetings and reviews; and,� to be safe.

The evaluation of Ask Us!

From the very earliest clips on the local CD ROMs, it was apparent that the use of multi-media was an excellent means of enabling young disabled people to speak out and thathearing their views so directly was very powerful for the viewer. Since then, the youngdisabled people have hit the national headlines, won awards, spoken at numerousconferences, presented vital evidence to the international committee on children’s rightsand influenced Government policy. But, despite applause and awards, what lastingimpact did Ask Us! have for young disabled people? The news from Solihull gives hopelocally, because it shows their research as the catalyst for change, not dead-endconsultation. It was this desire to appreciate the lasting impacts of Ask Us! that led toan evaluation, funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. First, the views andexperiences of the young people were recorded as researchers and contributors, bothlocally and nationally and these were collated onto a CD ROM.

148 Bill Badham


Second, an evaluation of the impact on external systems and services was undertaken tolearn the lessons from the first phase (Badham, 2002). Questionnaires were sent out in theearly summer of 2002 to those who had bought or been sent Ask Us! Fifty-nine responseswere analysed. Fourteen follow up telephone interviews were made to a smaller group togain more detail. This small-scale evaluation indicated change occurring in both attitudesand action.

Attitudes toward disabled young people among social care workers and managers andparents and carers were challenged repeatedly by the young people’s message, withwords like ‘inspired’ and ‘humbled’ often used by respondents. For a number of people,the greatest impact of Ask Us! was gaining ‘a greater understanding of how it is to be adisabled child’ and a sense of what can be done—‘It made me feel like I could actually dosomething constructive.’

Action frequently followed on from the challenge to attitudes and perceptions of disabledyoung people. Some reframed consultation processes and developed new traininginitiatives. Others, including practitioners and senior social care staff, changed theirpriorities and spawned new projects. ‘Its greatest influence was to inspire us to do ourown project locally with local children and young people.’

Perhaps the young researchers’ greatest victory was on the national stage over access toparks. A Department of Health official indicated informally that he was confidentGovernment’s introduction of a Code of Practice on accessible parks and playgrounds fordisabled young people was largely down to the influence of Ask Us! In time, this will havean impact on every play area in the country (Office of Deputy Prime Minister, 2003b).

Lessons from the parks man

‘The parks man’ in Solihull in the West Midlands, was the head of Landscape andEnvironmental Maintenance in the Community Services Directorate of his local authority.In his interview for the evaluation, he was asked why he felt Ask Us! in this case, had hadsuch an impact locally. What made Ask Us! both a powerful means of communication andan effective lever of change in key services for disabled young people? What would hewant others to consider?

The key message I would want to give to others in a similar position to me is:

� Allow a group like this the freedom to access and assess.� Don’t be afraid of the message back.� It will be hard hitting, though not necessarily new.� The young people will help give the issues higher profile.� Continue the dialogue; be clear about what can and can’t be done and what we can do

together.� Implement the changes and let people know what you have done.� A core group like this would be useful to push on the cross cutting issues across the

local authority.� This is not a local authority issue; it is a community issue (Badham, 2002, p. 16).

What is evident with the parks man and too often lacking in participation activity, is theinfluence of sustained contact, build up of trust and recognition of mutual benefit, the time



to move from the general to the specific, such as action on a particular park anddeveloping a ten-year strategic plan. The evaluation indicated that Ask Us! was at its bestwhen linked to ongoing lobbying strategies on specific issues raised by the children andyoung people targeted at specific points of influence in the relevant system, in this case alocal authority. This is a long way from participation as empty consultation rhetoric.Participation becomes the means of achieving change on issues raised by young people,with adults joining in rather than taking over and Government implementing specificchanges as a result, through improved play resources locally and, through national policydevelopment, promoting accessible play provision across the country.

Participation for a change

Disabled people have come to see research as a violation of their experience, as irrelevant totheir needs and as failing to improve their material circumstances and quality of life (Oliver,1992).

There have been pockets of progress since Oliver’s assessment twelve years ago, pointingtowards a significant shift where research becomes consciously part of the process of socialchange. In describing research with Access-ability in Lothian, John Davis describes how‘disabled children are active agents capable of stimulating processes of change and theresearcher and other adults are helpful, but discrete allies’ (Davis, 2000). Similarly andcrucial to the success of Ask Us!, the young researchers themselves took charge of themedium and the message.

In her book, Participation in Practice: Children and Young People as Partners in Change,Carolyne Willow based one of her six case studies on Ask Us! She drew out four furtherelements, which she suggested were the significant ingredients for this effectiveparticipation to achieve social change with and for young disabled people (Willow,2002). First, staff involved drew upon a social, not medical, model of disability,recognising the challenges faced by disabled young people as being due to discriminationin society, not individual incapacity. Article 23 of the Convention on the Rights of theChild (UN, 1989) stresses their right to ‘social integration’ and ‘active participation in thecommunity’. Yet this is rarely their experience.

Second, there was a striving for equality, with adults recognising the young disabledresearchers’ unique contribution and encouraging them to take as much control of their livesas possible. Third, children and young people were supported in choosing their own meansof communication, not straitjacketed by professional forms and norms. Fourth, Willowindicated that perhaps most important to the integrity and success of Ask Us! was that theyoung people felt they were instrumental in achieving the changes outlined above. As oneperson concluded: ‘I enjoyed for once being on the other side of the fence . . . and I enjoymaking a difference to other young people’s lives’ (Willow, 2002, p. 103.)

Righting wrongs

The first section of this paper reviewed some of the pitfalls in assuming the participation ofchildren and young people was in itself ‘a good thing’ and that it was always a benign

150 Bill Badham


contributor to challenging the social exclusion of our youngest citizens. The second sectionappraised a specific piece of work led by young disabled people and drew out pointers forsome of its successes in process and outcome. This final section considers a framework foranalysis about social inclusion that reduces the risk of it degenerating into meaningwhatever is politically required of it and encourages an agenda for action influenced bychildren and young people themselves. It is also one with which the Government mustcomply under international law.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

The Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN, 1989) is often considered the mostimportant document for anyone under 18 across the world, unless you live in Somalia orthe USA. These are the only two countries not to have ratified this international humanrights treaty for the protection, provision and participation of children and young people.The UK Government agreed to fully implement the Convention in December 1991.

The Convention defines children as those under 18 and applies to all children and youngpeople without discrimination. The Convention is a crucial framework and route map forall groups working to promote the social inclusion and advancement of children andyoung people, especially those most at risk of social exclusion. Every five years or so,governments are held to account for their progress in implementing the Convention. In2002, it was the UK Government’s turn to report.

On 4 October 2002, The Committee on the Rights of the Child published its ConcludingObservations (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2002) a comprehensive assessmentand series of recommendations for Government action to fulfil its legal obligations to the13.5 million children and young people of the UK. Compliance is required in internationallaw under Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969. TheGovernment, therefore, needs to give considerable weight to these findings and put inplace effective means of tackling the significant problems highlighted by the Committee.

The first reporting process in 1994–95, either passed people by, or was greeted with vitriolor disdain by many in the media and parliament. When asked what actions it intended inresponse to the first Concluding Observations (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 1995)the Government’s response in both Houses was to say ‘none’ (Hansard, 9 February, 1995)and ‘we have no plans’ (Hansard, 2 March, 1995). In 2002, the Government’s response wasmore honourable, in part because of more orchestrated and effective action from non-governmental organisations, including a range of children and young people. It is harderto dismiss the Committee as irrelevant or uninformed when children and young peoplethemselves have been at the heart of the reporting process. They submitted their ownreports, presented their case to the Chair of the Committee and went to Geneva to delivertheir evidence in person as part of the formal delegation to the Committee.

What children and young people said

On 18 May 2002, over 80 children and young people, including young people representingAsk Us!, met at an event organised by the Young People’s Rights Network, a young people



led organisation. In attendance was the Chair of the Committee on the Rights of the Child,Jaap Doek, gathering evidence from them as part of the formal reporting process. It wasthe first time in the world that such an event had occurred in the 12 years of theConvention’s history. The event was staged as a pretend court hearing, with Mr Blair,courtesy of PowerPoint, in the dock. With three judges presiding, young barristers puteach charge in turn, calling on witnesses to give testimony to the human rights violationsexperienced by children and young people in the UK. The children and young people’scharge sheet is presented below.

1) I am what I am� Young people’s experience of race, age, sex, disability discrimination and homo-

phobia� The pressures of growing up

2) Stolen childhood� Poverty� Homelessness� Employment and minimum wage� Leaving care

3) Include us: we are citizens too� Government has little meaning to young people� Promotion of the Convention� Children’s Rights Commissioner� Voting age

4) I’m a person not a problem� Juvenile justice� Refugees and asylum seekers

5) Just because I’m little . . .� Smacking and family life� Play� Environment

At the end of the day, all the children and young people in the audience (the jury) were askedfor their verdict on whether the Prime Minister was guilty as charged. He was’ (Children’sRights Alliance, 2002, p. 4).

Avideorecordingofthegivingofevidencewasmadeand,alongwithsupportinginformation,presentedinJune2002byadelegationofyoungpeopletotheCommitteeinGeneva,takingoralevidence from non-governmental organisations in preparation for its examination of the UKGovernment in September 2002 (Young People: Rights Network, 2002).

What needs to be done?

The Committee gave a full and comprehensive appraisal of the Government’s treatment ofchildren and young people under the Convention. It acknowledged progress in someareas, including making Government more open to children and young people, theimportance of the Human Rights Act 1998 and setting up children’s commissioners inWales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (though not in England at that stage). However, itsrecommendations were a powerful indictment of the Government’s treatment of youngasylum seekers and offenders, health and educational inequalities and violence and abuse

152 Bill Badham


of children and young people (Children’s Rights Alliance, 2002; The National YouthAgency, 2002). It is beholden on all those working with and for children and young peopleto be the independent scrutinisers of Government, monitor its practice and policydevelopments and evaluate them alongside the requirements of the Convention and theCommittee’s recommendations. The reporting process under the Convention on theRights of the Child is the only external accountability faced by the UK on its legalobligations to respect children’s rights. The Concluding Observations need to becomeestablished as the agenda for action to tackle the social exclusion of children and youngpeople in the UK within the framework of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

It has become popular among children’s rights activists to recommend the incorporationinto domestic law of the participation rights in the Convention on the Rights of the Child(UN, 1989). Yet, this may only serve to exacerbate the gulf between the process ofinvolvement and the concrete change needed to ensure that every child matters andexperiences a good childhood. The All Party Parliamentary Group for Primary Care andPublic Health is calling on the Government to include the whole of the Convention on theRights of the Child in domestic law. It believes that only full incorporation would ensurethat children and young people and their advocates could challenge and get redress forany failure to respect their rights to a good childhood within British courts. It wouldensure that all legislation, such as that emerging from Every Child Matters, would have tobe compatible with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It would bring recognitionof the primary place that participation has in the Convention as a means to an end.Participation is the keystone of the arch that is the Convention. It is unique and holds thewhole structure together. Without it the framework falls. Without the active participationof children and young people in the promotion of all their rights to a good childhood, nonewill be achieved effectively.

Conclusion

We have explored key concerns about the gap between the high tide of rhetoric ofparticipation and the low tide on effective delivery of improved services for those mostsocially excluded. By taking one practice example, Ask Us!, linked to a key Governmentobjective in England, it has been possible to draw out means of bridging the gap. Ask Us!offers pointers about how to move beyond participation as an adult driven end in itself, toinfluencing change with significant implications for the lives of particular groups ofchildren and young people. And, finally, the Concluding Observations (Committee on theRights of the Child, 2002) give us what could and perhaps should be the Queen’s Speechfor children—the Government programme to fulfil its obligations under international lawand achieve participation for a change that benefits some of the children and young peoplemost on the edge of the fourth richest nation in the world.

References

Badham B. 2002. So What’s Changed?—An Evaluation of the External Impact of Ask Us! The Children’sSociety and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation: London. Available from [email protected]

Barrett S. 2003. Anti-war protests: young protesters lose exclusion appeals. Young People Now, 2–8February: 5.

Boseley S. 2003. Special report. The Guardian 9, October: 1–5.



Children and Young People’s Unit. 2001. Learning to Listen: Core Principles for the Involvement ofChildren and Young People. Department for Education and Skills: London.

Children’s Rights Alliance for England. 2002. State of Children’s Rights in England: A Report on theImplementation on the Convention on the Rights of the Child in England. Children’s Rights Alliance forEngland: London.

Children’s Rights Alliance for England. 2003. Convention on the Rights of the Child: Review of UKGovernment Action on 2002 Concluding Observations of The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.Children’s Rights Alliance for England: London.

Committee on the Rights of the Child. 1995. Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights ofthe Child: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. UN: Geneva.

Committee on the Rights of the Child. 2002. Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights ofthe Child: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. UN: Geneva.

Davis J. 2000. Disability studies as ethnographic research and text: research strategies and roles forpromoting social change? Disability and Society 15(2): 191–206.

Department for Education and Skills. 2003. Every Child Matters. HMSO: London.Hansard. 1995. Extract from the House of Commons. Col 370. February 9. HMSO: London.Hansard. 1995. Extract from the House of Lords. Col 1577. March 2. HMSO: London.Hart R. 1992. Children’s Participation: From Tokenism to Citizenship. International Child Development

Centre UNICEF: Florence.Hart R. 1997. Children’s Participation: The Theory and Practice of Involving Young Citizens in Community

Development and Environmental Care. Earthscan: London.HMSO. 1997. Young Prisoners: A Thematic Review by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and

Wales. HMSO: London.Hopkinson A. 2003. Standing up for what’s right. Young People Now, 2–8 February: 19.Office of Deputy Prime Minister. 2003a. Research Summary 7 New Deal for Communities The National

Evaluation 2002/03 Key Findings. Neighbourhood Renewal Unit: London.Office of Deputy Prime Minister. 2003b. Developing Accessible Play Space—A Good Practice Guide.

Office of Deputy Prime Minister: London.Oliver M. 1992. Changing the social relations of research production? Disability, Handicap and Society7(2): 101–114.

The Children’s Society. 2000. My Vote Counts Too! The Children’s Society: London.The Children’s Society. 2002. Reflections: A Discussion Day on the Participation of Children and Young

People. The Children’s Society: London.The Children’s Society. 2001, 2003. Ask Us! The Children’s Society: London. Both Ask Us! CD ROMs

are available from: [email protected] National Youth Agency. 2002. Righting Wrongs: Taking Action to Implement the UN Convention on

the Rights of the Child, Spotlight, Issue 6. The National Youth Agency: Leicester.UN. 1989. The Convention on the Rights of the Child. UN: Geneva.Willow C. 2002. Participation in Practice: Children and Young People as Partners in Change. The

Children’s Society: London.Willow C, Badham B. 2002. Telling it like it is: young disabled people join forces. Children and Young

People’s Participation, Hart R, Lansdown G (eds). Children’s Rights Information Network, Number16/October.

Young People’s Rights Network. 2002. Children and Young People of England Present the Case against theUK Government. Mouth that Roars: London.

Contributor’s detail

Bill Badham has campaigned for the participation of children and young people for over 20 years, intheir neighbourhoods, in prisons and in local and national government. He writes regularly forCommunity Care and has published on children and young people’s participation in regeneration andlocal democracy.

154 Bill Badham


participation—for a change: disabled young people lead the way

Documents