survey of organisations - crae€¦ · children’s participation in decision-making: survey of...

www.participationworks.org.uk

Children’s participation in decision-making

Survey of organisations

Dr Ciara Davey, Jo Lea, Catherine Shaw and Tom Burke

www.participationworks.org.uk

2

Children’s Participation in Decision-making: Survey of Organisations

The Children’s Rights Alliance for England (CRAE) protects the human rights of children by lobbying government and others who hold power, by bringing or supporting test cases and by using regional and international human rights mechanisms. We provide free legal information and advice, raise awareness of children’s human rights, and undertake research about children’s access to their rights. We mobilise others, including children and young people, to take action to promote and protect children’s human rights. Each year we publish a review of the state of children’s rights in England. For more information visit: www.crae.org.uk

NCB’s mission is to advance the well-being of all children and young people across every aspect of their lives. As the leading support and development charity for the whole of the children’s sector in England and Northern Ireland, NCB provides essential information on policy, research and best practice for our members and the members of our wide range of networks and partnership bodies, operating under our charitable status and based in our London headquarters. For further information visit: www.ncb.org.uk

The National Participation Forum (NPF) brings together organisations and associations within the public, private and third sectors. By raising awareness of participation and its value to organisations and individuals, NPF aims to strengthen the commitment to participation amongst leaders and decision-makers. For more information visit: www.participationworks.org.uk/npf

The Office of the Children’s Commissioner is a national organisation led by the Children’s Commissioner for England, Dr Maggie Atkinson. The Children’s Commissioner is a position created by the Children Act 2004 and is there to champion the views and interests of all children and young people in England and has UK-wide responsibility for issues relating to asylum and immigration. We aim to help build a stronger society, to develop healthier families and to improve the well-being of children and young people by putting across their perspectives. For more information visit: www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk

Participation Works enables organisations to effectively involve children and young people in the development, delivery and evaluation of services that affect their lives. We are a consortium of six national children and young people’s agencies made up of the British Youth Council, the Children’s Rights Alliance for England, NCB, the National Council for Voluntary Youth Services, Save the Children and The National Youth Agency. We offer a comprehensive programme of activities and resources on participation – including workshops, training sessions and practitioner networks – designed to support organisations and practitioners that work with children and young people under 25 years old. For more information visit: www.participationworks.org.uk

Participation Works is based at National Children’s Bureau.Registered charity number 258825. Registered in England and Wales No 952717.Registered Office: 8 Wakley Street, London EC1V 7QE. A Company Limited by Guarantee.

http://www.crae.org.uk

http://www.ncb.org.uk

http://www.participationworks.org.uk/npf

http://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk

http://www.participationworks.org.uk

3


Acknowledgements

We are grateful for comments on drafts of the report to Barbara Hearn, (NCB), Carolyne Willow (CRAE), and Anne Mason and Ross Hendry (Office of the Children’s Commissioner). We would also like to thank the Association of Directors of Children’s Services for supporting this research; and Mike Lindsay for helping to design and conceive the project.

We thank the members of the advisory group who helped to steer the wider project. Members included: David Kerr (National Foundation for Educational Research), James Cathcart (British Youth Council), Ben Wright (Council of Ethnic Minority Voluntary Sector Organisations), Kate Martin (Council for Disabled Children), Jenny Willmott (National Council for Voluntary Youth Services) and Connie Wessels (UNICEF).

5


Contents

Introduction 7 What do we mean by participation? 8

Aims of the current report 8

Methodology 8

Survey distribution 9

1 Key findings 11 1.1 Responding organisations 11

1.2 Is children’s participation supported by an organisational policy or strategy? 14

1.3 How and at what levels are children engaged in decision-making about policies and services? 15

1.4 How much influence do children have on decisions made by organisations? 22

1.5 Which groups of children are involved in decision-making? 25

1.6 What resources are available to support children’s participation? 29

Training and support for children 31

1.7 How is participation monitored or evaluated? 31

1.8 Organisational attitudes towards and perceptions of children’s involvement in participation 32

1.9 Ways to promote children’s involvement in decision-making 34

2 Comparing these findings with research conducted in 2004 37

How and at what levels are children engaged in decision-making about policies and services? 37

How much influence do children have on decision-making? 38

Which groups of children are involved in decision-making? 38


6

What resources are available to support children’s participation? 38

How is participation monitored or evaluated? 39

Organisational attitudes towards and perceptions of children’s involvement in participation 39

Ways to promote children’s involvement in decision-making 39

Conclusion 41 Aim 1: To examine the levels and ways in which organisations

involve children in decision-making 41

Aim 2: To identify the barriers to promoting a culture of inclusive decision-making 41

References 43

7


Introduction

In 1991, the UK Government ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). This human rights treaty guarantees to all children and young people1 the right to express their views freely in all matters affecting them and for these views to be given due weight in accordance with the child’s age and maturity (Article 12).

In the autumn of 2009, NCB and the Children’s Rights Alliance for England were commissioned, by the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, to examine children’s participation in decision-making in England. The overarching aim of this study was to provide an up-to-date insight into the levels and ways in which children are currently involved in decision-making, in order to inform the National Participation Forum in developing a National Participation Strategy for England from 2010 onwards.

The study was spilt into five distinct parts, which have been written up as individual reports2,in addition to an overarching summary document http://www.participationworks.org.uk/npf/publications. The reports cover:

a review of policy and research on where children influence matters •affecting them and how their involvement in decision-making has changed since 2004;

an online survey of senior managers with responsibility for participation, •examining the levels and ways in which organisations in England currently involve children in decision-making and the barriers that limit children’s participation in decision-making processes3;

an online survey into the levels and ways in which frontline participation •workers involve children in the development, delivery and evaluation of policies and services, and into the participation workers’ training and support4;

focus groups with children examining the extent to which children feel they •have a voice and influence in matters affecting them and how this varies by setting and level of decision-making5;

a nationally representative survey of 1001 children aged 7–17 years in •England looking at the participation of children in decision-making processes more generally6.

A version of the overarching summary document that is aimed specifically at children and young people has also been produced.


8

What do we mean by participation?Article 12 of the UNCRC grants a child who is capable of forming a view the right to express that view freely in all matters affecting him or her; and that these views be given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. Other rights in the UNCRC – for example, to access information, freedom of association and expression, and respect for the child’s evolving capacity – actively support the implementation of Article 127.

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child’s (2009) General Comment on the child’s right to be heard considers the meaning of participation8:

A widespread practice has emerged in recent years, which has been broadly conceptualised as ‘participation’, although this term itself does not appear in the text of Article 12. This term has evolved and is now widely used to describe ongoing processes, which include information-sharing and dialogue between children and adults based on mutual respect, and in which children can learn how their views and those of adults are taken into account and shape the outcome of such processes.

Whilst ‘participation’ is the most common term used for the process of listening to and engaging with children, the exact definition remains contested9. There is no one fixed meaning or definition that has universal agreement.

Participation Works has adapted Treseder’s definition of participation, which is used in this review10:

Participation is a process where someone influences decisions about their lives and this leads to change.

We are interested not just in whether children can freely express themselves, but also in whether this expression has influence on a decision and brings about change. The exact change which is brought about will vary on the context but may relate to both process (how children are treated) and outcome (the end result of a decision). It may be a change in law or policy, how a service is delivered or in the values, attitudes and behaviours of adults or children.

Aims of the current report The current report focuses on the findings from the online survey of organisations (or departments within larger organisations). This report has two main aims:

to examine the levels and ways in which organisations involve children in •decision-making

to identify the barriers to promoting a culture of inclusive decision-making.•

Methodology An online questionnaire was developed, to be completed by senior managers within organisations who had an overarching responsibility for children’s participation or who managed participation workers. The design of the


9

questionnaire11 was closely modelled on a previous questionnaire, used in research conducted in 200412, with similar aims.

Although the current study was based on questions posed in the 2004 research, the fact that changes were made to the original questions (to reflect changing trends in how organisations engage children in decision-making) means that the statistics from the 2004 research are not always directly comparable with the findings of 2009. Changes in how organisations are structured (primarily as a result of the introduction of Children’s Services Departments in local authorities) also mean that it is not possible to draw comparisons between equivalent organisations in 2004 and 2009. That said, both surveys do cover the same broad themes and, as such, provide a basis from which to broadly examine how the participation map has changed between 2004 and 2009, and to assess the current level of participation at a strategic level.

The current questionnaire consists of 34 questions, grouped into nine key themes:

information about the organisation•

organisational policy/strategy for involving children in decision-making•

how and at what levels children are engaged in decision-making about •policies and services

how much influence children have on decision-making•

which groups of children are involved in decision-making•

what resources are available to support children’s participation•

how participation is monitored or evaluated•

organisational attitudes towards, and perceptions of, participation•

ways to promote the involvement of children in decision-making. •

The survey was piloted before it went online in November 2009 and was taken offline in December 2009. The data was then cleaned and analysed using the SPSS software package.

Survey distribution Due to the limited timescale and resources available for this exercise, it was not possible to construct a nationally representative sample of organisations. Instead, information about the survey together with a hyperlink to the questionnaire was distributed to:

the children’s statutory sector via directors of Children’s Services, who •were contacted by email13;

the voluntary sector via the extensive networks and contacts of NCB, •CRAE, Participation Works, and those of other leading children’s organisations.


10

In both cases, contacts were asked to pass the link on to relevant colleagues within their own or other organisations. Before the survey closed, a reminder email was sent to all relevant contacts to boost response rates. This method of electronically cascading information about the research was successful in generating interest in the research across England.

The questionnaire itself was accessed via a hyperlink on a dedicated web-page on the Participation Works (PW) website, which also outlined the aims of the research. Respondents were assured that their responses would be treated confidentially.

While our strategy aimed to ensure that statutory and voluntary organisations working at local, regional and national levels were included in the research, we did not use a stratified sampling strategy and it is therefore not possible to make generalisations about voluntary or statutory sectors more widely, or to compare progress and issues across different sectors. For these reasons, this report can provide no more than a very general insight into organisational policies and working practices with regards to the involvement of children in decision-making.

11


1 Key findings

1.1 Responding organisationsA total of 231 questionnaires were completed. The vast majority were from statutory sector organisations (81 per cent), while 18 per cent were from the voluntary and community sector. There were two responses from private sector organisations; these responses were removed from subsequent analyses, leaving a working data-set of 229 statutory and voluntary sector organisations.

Most organisations were operating at a local level (79 per cent), with 6 per cent working at the regional level and 15 per cent at the national level. However, Table 1.1 shows that the split between national, regional, and local is not evenly spread across the statutory and voluntary sector – with the vast majority of statutory organisations having a local focus, and most of the voluntary organisations operating at national level. This is almost certainly a reflection of the survey distribution strategy, whereby the statutory sector was initially approached via local authority contacts, and the voluntary sector via national organisations and networks. Although 229 respondents completed our survey, it is noteworthy that the n value is sometimes less than 229 because of missing data.

Table 1.1: Sector of organisations by national, regional or local focus (n=226)

local regional national total

statutory 170 8 6 184

voluntary 9 6 27 42

total 179 14 33 226

As shown in Figure 1.1, senior or strategic managers working in the statutory sector at the local level were most the most likely to complete our questionnaire (making up 74 per cent of the overall sample), followed by senior or strategic managers working in the voluntary sector at the national level (making up 12 per cent of the overall sample).


12

Statutory local 74%

Statutory regional 4%

Statutory national 3%

Voluntary local 4%

Voluntary regional 3%

Voluntary national 12%

Figure 1.1: The breakdown of sectors by national, regional and local focus (n=226)

While the questionnaire was directed at senior or strategic managers with responsibility for participation within their organisations, we nevertheless asked respondents to indicate what their role was. In response, 60 per cent stated that they have a strategic/senior managerial role, 35 per cent described their role as operational/service manager, whereas 14 per cent indicated that they worked as a participation worker. Respondents could tick more than one box, indicating a range of roles, so percentages add up to more than 100.

While Figure 1.2 shows that around half of the sample organisations have more than 250 staff, this masks potential differences between voluntary and statutory sector respondents. For example, while over half (53 per cent) of statutory sector organisations had over 250 staff, less than a quarter (24 per cent) of voluntary sector organisations were of an equivalent size, and around half had fewer than 50 paid staff.


13

250+

100 to 249

50 to 99

10 to 49

9 or less

24%

53%

48%

Voluntary Statutory Total

14%

15%

15%

12%

8%

9%

36%

15%

19%

14%

9%

10%

Figure 1.2: Number of employees in responding organisations (n=224)

Respondents were asked to indicate the focus of their organisation from a list provided and the findings are presented in Table 1.2. It was possible to indicate more than one area, so percentages do not total 100.

Table 1.2: Focus of responding organisations/departments (n=229)

sector per cent

youth and community work 58

social care 37

education 34

health 25

crime and community safety 18

Table 1.2 shows that more than half of all sample organisations (58 per cent) had a specific youth and community focus. This focus on the older age groups is borne out by Table 1.3, which shows the age groups that responding organisations provide services for. A high proportion of organisations worked with children aged 11 to 18, whereas less than half worked with under-5s.


14

Table 1.3: Age of children organisations work with (n=229)

age per cent

Under 5 45

5 to 7 55

7–11 67

11–14 86

14–16 90

16–18 87

18+ 72

As shown in Figure 1.3, the distribution strategy was successful in encouraging respondents working across the nine government regions of England to complete the online survey.

London

West Midlands

North West

South East

North East

South West

Yorkshire and The Humber

East of England

All of England

East Midlands

All of the UK

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

18%

13%

12%

10%

10%

9%

9%

9%

7%

6%

4%

Figure 1.3: Region in which organisations were based (n=229)

1.2 Is children’s participation supported by an organisational policy or strategy?

Overall, 96 per cent of the organisations and departments surveyed stated that they involved children in participation work, decision-making or both, leaving just a handful that did not do this at present. Three main reasons were given for this.


15

The organisation had just begun to develop its participation work and •therefore a strategy to support the work was not yet in place.

We are in the process of considering the best way in which to involve CYP [children and young people] internally in decision-making. There is commitment throughout the organisation to this but we are at the early stages of development in this area of work.

Participation work was not embedded across all departments in the •organisation.

There are pockets of work taking place but this is ad hoc and relies on personalities.

There were difficulties in engaging particular groups of children in •decision-making about policies and services.

Working with children in the birth to five age group. There are difficulties in gaining the opinion of young children about strategic service delivery.

Two-thirds of organisations (68 per cent) had a written policy or strategy for supporting such engagement; and this was in development in a further 20 per cent (see Figure 1.4).

Yes 68%

No 9%

This is being developed 20%

Not sure 3%

Figure 1.4: Does the organisation have a policy or strategy for involving children in decision-making? (n=228)

1.3 How and at what levels are children engaged in decision-making about policies and services?

Respondents were asked to indicate at which levels they involved children in decision-making. Figure 1.5 shows that children were involved in a variety of decision-processes. They were most likely to be involved in decisions made about them as individuals; asked for ideas about changing existing policies or services; or asked to comment on proposed new policies or services (in more than three-quarters of organisations in each case). Although children were less likely to be involved in ‘setting the agenda’ (by identifying policies or services of


16

concern to them) or in actually delivering services, it should be noted that this was nevertheless reported to be taking place in around two-thirds of organisations.

Children are involved in decisions that aremade about them as individuals

Children are asked about their ideas forchanging existing policy or services

Children are asked to comment onproposed new policies or services

Children are involved in monitoring orevaluating services or policies

Children are involved in the deliveryof services

Children are involved in identifyingthe policies or services they are

concerned about55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80%

79%

79%

76%

70%

68%

66%

Figure 1.5: Type of involvement (n=229)

Figures 1.6 and 1.7 suggest minor differences between statutory and voluntary sector organisations, and between organisations working at the local, regional and national level. The most marked apparent difference is in relation to children’s involvement in decisions made about them as individuals (which is lower in national and in voluntary sector organisations). It is likely that this difference arises from the specific make-up of our sample (which is heavily weighted towards statutory sector local organisations, that is, towards children’s services).


17

Children are involved in decisions thatare made about them as individuals

Children are asked to comment on proposed new policies or services




Children are involved in identifyingthe policies or services they are

concerned about

64%

82%

71%

81%

67%

79%

71%

70%

64%

68%

62%

67%

Voluntary Statutory

Figure 1.6: Types of involvement in statutory and voluntary sector organisation (n=229)


18

Children are involved in decisions that aremade about them as individuals


Children are asked to comment on proposednew policies or services



Children are involved in identifying the policiesor services they are concerned about

52%

86%

84%

National Regional Local

73%

71%

81%

61%

79%

79%

64%

79%

70%

52%

79%

70%

55%

64%

68%

Figure 1.7: Types of involvement at the local, regional and national level (n=229)

As shown in Figure 1.8, the most common methods for engaging children in decision-making alongside adults were to: involve them in consultations, make them members of decision-making bodies or committees, gather their opinions via a service user forum, or to utilise public meetings or events (these methods were used by around two-thirds or more of the organisations in each case).


19

Consultation documents

Involving children as members ofdecision-making bodies or committees

Service user forums

Public meetings and events

Question and answer sessions

Interactive websites

Complaints/suggestion schemes

Opinion polls

Citizens’ panels

None of the above

Referendums

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

75%

70%

66%

65%

51%

47%

44%

34%

28%

3%

1%

Figure 1.8: Methods of engaging children in decision-making alongside adults (n=229)

There were some differences between organisations operating at local, regional and national level. Children were more likely to be members of decision-making bodies and committees in local and regional organisations (74 and 71 per cent respectively) than in national organisations (52 per cent). A similar pattern is evident with respect to service user forums (71 per cent of local organisations, 64 per cent of regional organisations and 42 per cent of national organisations). These differences may simply reflect the types of organisation and services delivered, and also the relative difficulties associated with convening meetings for national level organisations. Citizen’s panels were potentially more likely to be used at local level (and within statutory organisations), although not widely used overall.

Respondents were also asked, if, in addition to children working alongside adults to change or review a policy or service, whether their organisation used any specific child- or youth-centred methods to engage children in decision-making. The findings (in Figure 1.9) show that youth councils/forums, arts-based projects, service user groups and consultation documents designed for children were each used by over 65 per cent of organisations. Topping the list was conducting focus groups with children, which were used by 72 per cent of organisations.


20

Focus groups

Youth councils/forums

Arts-based projects

Children’s service user groups

Consultation documents designedfor children

Public meetings and events for children

Polls/surveys of children

Other project work

Interactive websites specificallyfor children

Visioning exercises

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

72%

71%

70%

69%

65%

60%

55%

47%

40%

37%

Figure 1.9: Specific methods of engaging children in decision-making (n=229)

Respondents were also asked about the specific tasks children undertook for, or through, the organisation, to enable them to engage in decision-making. As shown in Figure 1.10, the most common tasks were representing the views of other children, attending meetings, and in the recruitment and selection of staff (over 70 per cent of organisations in each case). At the other end of the scale, children were involved in setting budgets and in developing complaints procedures in just 15 per cent of organisations.


21

Representing the views of children

Attending meetings

Recruiting and selecting staff

Organising events

Promoting services to other children

Developing policies, strategies,objectives or plans

Assessing services

Assessing grant applications

Training other children

Campaigning for change in policyprovision

Researching the needs of children

Developing youth charters

Training staff

Helping secure money and resources

Working with wider communityto improve relationships

Mapping existing provision

Developing frameworks for assessingservices

Setting budgets

Developing complaints procedures

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

79%

76%

72%

68%

65%

57%

57%

54%

52%

49%

48%

47%

43%

43%

42%

32%

31%

15%

15%

Figure 1.10: Tasks undertaken by children in responding organisations (n=229)

The data suggests that national organisations may be generally less likely to involve children in all of these tasks than local or regional organisations; however, the findings are difficult to interpret given the small numbers and different types of organisations involved.

The findings suggest that there may be a difference between statutory and voluntary organisations in relation to assessing services (including developing assessment frameworks) and in assessing grant applications; in each case, statutory organisations were more likely to involve children than voluntary organisations.

The data in Figure 1.11 shows that children were most likely to be involved in decisions relating to leisure, recreation and play activities; youth services; and


22

education. However, they were much less likely to have a say in the regeneration of their local area; housing; environmental issues; and transport. This is very likely related to the survey distribution strategy (via children’s services and organisations) and the specific focus of responding organisations.

Leisure/recreation/play

Youth services

Education

Health issues

Community safety/crime

Social care

Transport

Environmental issues

Housing

Regeneration

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

75%

74%

65%

64%

57%

56%

41%

38%

28%

23%

Figure 1.11: Issues that children are involved in making decisions about (n=229)

Statutory organisations appear more likely than voluntary organisations to involve children in decisions about education (69 per cent compared to 45 per cent); community safety/crime (62 per cent compared to 33 per cent); and environmental issues (43 per cent compared to 19 per cent). National organisations also appeared to be less likely, than either regional or local organisations, to involve children on the same issues, suggesting that the differences may be due to the specific composition of the national sample (which largely consists of voluntary sector organisations).

1.4 How much influence do children have on decisions made by organisations?

As Figure 1.12 shows, 92 per cent of respondents thought that children’s involvement in decision-making within their organisations or departments had increased over the last five years (2004–2009).


23

Increased 92%

Decreased 1%

Stayed the same 5%

Not sure 2%

Figure 1.12: Change in involvement of children in decision-making within organisations and departments in the last five years (n=212)

We asked participants to provide an overall assessment of how much influence children have on the decisions made by their organisations/departments. The findings are displayed in Table 1.4.

Table 1.4: Influence of children on decision-making by sector (n=205)

amount of influence statutory (%)

voluntary (%)

total (%)

a great deal of influence 20 35 23

some influence in particular areas 74 60 71

very little influence 4 5 4

no influence 1 0 1

not sure 1 0 1

Just under a quarter of respondents (23 per cent) felt that children had a ‘great deal of influence’ on the decisions made within their organisations, and a further 71 per cent suggested that children had ‘some influence’. By comparison, only one in twenty organisations (5 per cent) suggested that children had ‘little’ or ‘no’ influence. Respondents were also asked to explain their answers.

Those who thought that children had ‘a great deal of influence’ often said that the structure to enable this to happen was deeply embedded in the culture of the organisation. Examples were provided where children had a wide-ranging and deeply embedded influence.

It is becoming embedded practice to involve young people in a wide spectrum of decision-making, consultation, information sharing, etc. This takes place within youth work settings at a relatively low level through to engagement of young people on the Children and Young People’s Board of the Trust.


24

[Organisation] is a member-led organisation working with 10–26-year-olds. At club level, members are trustees of their own charities and work to develop their own programme based on the needs of members. Members are represented at county, regional and national level to ensure that all programmes and activities meet the needs of members by providing new experiences and challenges. All programme and activities are developed by committees representing young people’s views and are evaluated accordingly.

At a more general level, respondents who thought children had a great deal of influence tended to take a more rights-based approach to their work, and referenced participation guides such as Hear by Right 14 as enabling them to develop this approach. In their comments, words such as ‘embedded’ were frequently used to describe how participation had been integrated into the working of the organisation alongside examples of children being involved in governance of the organisations. Some of these respondents were ambitious for further influence, recognising that there is still more work to be done.

When asked to explain why they thought children had ‘some influence in particular areas’ most responses focused on how and why their organisation fell short of giving children more power in decision-making as opposed to explaining why children only had a partial influence in particular areas. Three main issues were apparent in these responses. These issues, illustrated with quotes, are:

there is only patchy development of participation work across departments•

As our organisation covers many different departments and disciplines CYP involved in our work do not currently influence all areas. The engagement of CYP in decision-making is evident in many of the departments but the amount of power sharing and influence does vary, as does the appropriateness and the amount of influence the staff has on the area.

participation work is effective on the ground, but not embedded at the •strategic level

At a project level, children and young people are more actively involved than they are at an organisational level.

Young people have a great deal of influence over their groups and the action plans developed for those groups but not so much influence at a strategic/policy level.

embedding participation takes time but work is in progress:•

Feedback from CYP’s surveys are formally used to inform service planning for the coming year. However, the surveys are relatively new so have had only a small influence in particular areas to date.

The current phase of the participation strategy has a focus on selected social care, youth and community services. The ultimate ambition is to broaden this participation to more mainstream areas of service development.


25

Respondents also made some thought-provoking comments about the difficulty of evidencing the influence of participation. As will be noted later in the report, the issue of evaluation and monitoring was lagging in many organisations and, as suggested in the quote below, this may have been due to the difficulty in identifying and evidencing outcomes at the strategic level.

Where the involvement of children and young people is on a tangible issue, for example a product aimed at children or the public, they have significant influence and effect on the outcome and we have a more effective product or service, as a result, that we can evaluate. Where the involvement is about strategic decisions, we have little means of evidencing the effect and ... [whether] the outcome of the decision reached would have been the same without the involvement of children and young people.

When asked why children had ‘very little’ or ‘no influence’ on decisions, the general tenor of responses was that there had been some progress towards involving children in decision-making and plans had been put in place. However, at least one respondent was struggling to keep service users engaged; and others were very critical, about the lack of consultation or listening to children within their organisation, more generally. Typical comments included the following.

Despite a lot of work we have found it very difficult to keep young service users engaged in the task – they have been reluctant to be involved with service development in our CAMHS service. The successes have been in involving them in information and poster work regarding how to cope with and survive depression and ADHD.

Insufficient participation work done. YP [young people] are not consulted about potential changes to services. YP’s opinions are ignored when they do not fit what we want to hear.

Very little influence at the moment, but taking steps, through a two-year work programme to increase this to ensure that disabled CYP are as fully involved as their older peers. This will include developing a Youth Forum and shadow Trust Board.

1.5 Which groups of children are involved in decision-making?

When asked to specify the age, gender and type of group their organisation is involved in decision-making with, the data showed that 99 per cent of organisations included both boys and girls in participation.

Figure 1.13 shows the age groups involved in decision-making processes. As most organisations worked with multiple age groups, the percentages do not add up to 100. The broad pattern of involvement, increasing with age, reflects the age groups that the organisations in question provide services for (see Table 1.3 in Section 1.1 above).


26

under 5

5 to 7

7 to 11

11 to 14

14 to 16

16 to 18

18+

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

21%

34%

53%

77%

81%

83%

63%

Figure 1.13: Age of children that organisations involve in decision-making (n=229)

It should be noted that only 21 per cent of organisations involved children aged under five in participation, even though 45 per cent of organisations were responsible for developing policies and services for this age group. Similarly, 55 per cent of organisations were responsible for developing policies and services for children aged five to seven years, yet only 34 per cent involved children of that age in participation activities. For older groups, the numbers are more closely in line.

Figure 1.14 shows that children from a variety of marginalised groups were engaged in participation, although we have no way of knowing whether our responding organisations specifically target these marginalised groups (or, indeed, have a particular remit to work with specific sub-groups); or whether such children are involved as part of a broader participation strategy (that is, they are included as part of the general population). It is therefore difficult to draw inferences from the data. Nevertheless, it is worth noting the low proportions of organisations apparently involving young refugee and asylum seeking children, and young Travellers in participation work.


27

Black and minority ethnic groups

Disabled children

Children not in education,employment or training

Young parents

Young offenders or those at riskof offending

Children living in poverty

Lesbian, gay, bisexual andtransgender childrenChildren affected by

violence/abuse/neglect

Young refugees and asylum seekers

Young Travellers

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

68%

65%

62%

56%

50%

43%

41%

38%

32%

22%

Figure 1.14: Groups of marginalised children involved in decision-making (n=229)

As well as asking for information on the particular groups of marginalised children involved in decision-making, we also asked about the quality of this work. Respondents were asked to assess how well their organisation involved marginalised groups of children in decision-making and to explain why they had opted for that particular choice (see Table 1.5).

Table 1.5: Involvement of marginalised groups by sector (n=202)

how well organisation involves marginalised groups of children

statutory (%)

voluntary (%)

total (%)

very well 7 23 10

quite well 65 41 60

not very well 20 26 21

not at all well 5 5 5

not sure 3 5 3

The majority of respondents opted for ‘quite well’ (60 per cent), with only one in ten describing their organisation as doing ‘very well’ in securing the voices of marginalised children in decision-making processes. However, Table 1.5 shows that voluntary sector organisations appear more likely than statutory sector organisations to assess their organisations as doing ‘very well’, with nearly a quarter (23 per cent) doing so. Overall, just over a quarter of all organisations (26 per cent) were judged to be doing ‘not very’ or ‘not at all’ well in this respect.


28

As with the data in Figure 1.14, it is difficult to fully interpret or understand these responses without knowing more about the organisations involved and whether they have a particular focus on specific marginalised groups. However, when asked to explain their responses, respondents sometimes provided greater insight into the context of their participation activities.

For example, the following respondent rated his or her organisation as doing ’very well’, and goes on to describe the efforts made by a local authority to engage and involve a range of specific groups of young people.

‘[Local authority] is a fairly middle-class and ‘white’ county, but we have worked to build up relationships with other service providers who work with more marginalised groups. The use of YOF [Youth Opportunity Fund] money has also helped us establish new relationships with some hard to reach groups such as travellers and LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] young people. We work in an ongoing way with all these groups, ensuring they are involved in key areas of consultation and engagement, e.g. CYP’s plan, YOF funding panels and we have seconded roles on [County] Assembly of youth for disabled young people, homeless young people and LGBT – these roles are nearly always filled.

Respondents who thought their organisation did ‘quite well’ at involving marginalised groups, acknowledged that they had overcome some barriers in engaging hard-to-reach groups in participation, often because of the particular approach they had adopted, but that there was still room for improvement.

A lot of the marginalised groups’ involvement is done through outreach work and taking things to them rather than waiting for them to come to us.

In most of [the] planning of participation work we have money in the budget to support the engagement of children who may have higher support needs, i.e. need to have a support worker paid for to come along to work with us.

We have done well with asylum-seeking young people and a small number of disabled young people but had limited success with younger children.

Those who rated their organisation as doing ‘not very well’ at engaging marginalised children in participation tended to refer to the low numbers of particular groups of marginalised children living in a particular area. Typical comments included the following.

Disabled CYP from minority groups and/or other marginalised groups may be seen as doubly disadvantaged – but are also much harder to reach and engage with; particularly within a small borough where the numbers are quite low.

We have few marginalised groups in our county with few numbers so constant involvement can lead to overkill and children not wanting to be involved.


29

1.6 What resources are available to support children’s participation?

We asked respondents if their organisations provided specific resources to support the involvement of children in decision-making. Figure 1.15 shows that only 8 per cent of organisations failed to dedicate at least some resources to children’s participation, and that just under three-quarters of the sample (74 per cent) had a dedicated participation worker. However, less than half of the organisations provided administrative support. Respondents could indicate more than one type of resourcing, so percentages do not add up to 100.

Dedicated participation worker

Transport and other expensesfor children

Training and events costs

Use of premises/office space

Dedicated admin time

No resources specifically allocated

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

74%

72%

68%

65%

44%

8%

Figure 1.15: Resources used by organisations to support children’s participation (n=229)

Although most organisations ring-fenced some resources to support participation, it was generally adults who controlled how these resources were spent (see Figure 1.16). Indeed when asked if children involved in participation work were allocated a specific budget that they could control, only 8 per cent of the sample said this was always the case and 18 per cent said this had never happened. Most organisations (67 per cent) only allowed children to control a budget ‘sometimes’.

Not sure 7%

Never 18%

Sometimes 67%

Always 8%

Figure: 1.16: Are children allocated a specific budget that they control? (n=199)


30

Two-thirds of our sample (67 per cent) reported that their organisation had identified a specific individual at senior level as a champion for children’s participation (see Figure 1.17).

Yes 67%

No 20%

Not sure 13%

Figure 1.17: Does your organisation have a senior level individual as a champion for children’s participation? (n=198)

To gain an insight into the extent to which training to support children’s engagement in participation was embedded in organisational practices, we asked respondents whether board/elected members, senior officers, staff working directly with children and specialist participation workers had received training or support related to children’s participation (see Table 1.6).

Table 1.6: Do members of the organisation receive training and/or support related to children’s participation? (n=229)

yes (%)

no (%)

not sure (%)

n/a (%)

board/elected members 38 33 26 3

senior officers 59 22 18 1

staff working directly with children

85 6 8 2

specialist participation workers 81 4 7 8

Responses to this question showed that there was a distinct bottom-up approach to training opportunities in participation. For example, while over 80 per cent of organisations had supplied training opportunities for specialist participation workers and staff working directly with children, similar opportunities were extended to lower proportions of senior officers and board/elected members (59 per cent and 38 per cent respectively). These findings would suggest that more work needs to be done at the senior management and governance level before participation practices are embedded into all echelons of the organisational ladder.


31

Training and support for childrenWhile it is encouraging to note that 91 per cent of organisations offered training and support to children who were involved in participation, it is also worth reflecting on what this means for the one in ten that did not. The data in Figure 1.18 shows that a range of training opportunities were offered to children to enable them to engage in decision-making. Where training was provided, this was most likely to be for a specific role; or to explain in more detail the procedures or structures that underpinned a particular policy or service (each provided by around two-thirds of organisations). At the other end of the scale, access to staff training opportunities was made available to children in only a fifth of the organisations.

Training for specific roles

Training to explain proceduresand structures

Training on democratic proceduresand/or skills training

Peer mentoring

Youth work/pastoral support

Pairing/mentoring by adults

Access to staff training

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

67%

66%

50%

50%

47%

39%

20%

Figure 1.18: Types of training promoted by organisations to children involved in decision-making (n=229)

1.7 How is participation monitored or evaluated?More than two-thirds of respondents (69 per cent) reported that their organisation had monitored or evaluated children’s participation in decision- making. Figure 1.19 shows that children’s engagement in participation was monitored and evaluated in a number of different ways. The most common method was to gain feedback from children on the participation process, and this was used by just over half of the sample (55 per cent). Other frequently used methods included monitoring children’s attendance/engagement in decision-making processes and evaluating the impact of participation on the children involved (over 42 per cent of organisations used these methods). Only 37 per cent of respondents reported that the impact of participation on their organisation was evaluated. This is perhaps unsurprising as this is probably the most challenging of the evaluation tasks listed. However, if organisational impact can be demonstrated, it can provide powerful evidence of the value of such work. It is interesting to note that one in ten organisations had commissioned independent external evaluation of their participation activities.


32

Feedback from children on theparticipation process

Monitoring of attendance/engagementprocess

Evaluation of the impact of participationon the children involved

Collection and analysis of demographicinformation about children

Evaluation of the impact of participationon your organisation

Independent external evaluation

Not sure

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

55%

48%

42%

38%

37%

11%

3%

Figure 1.19: How has children’s participation in decision-making been monitored or evaluated? (n=229)

To gain more of an insight into evaluation and monitoring practices, respondents were asked whether (and how) children themselves had been involved in evaluating participation work. The findings revealed that 60 per cent of organisations had involved children in evaluating participation, although this still means that a small minority of organisations (9 per cent) had carried out evaluations of participation work to which children had not contributed.

Even where children had been involved, it was relatively unlikely for children to have led the evaluation (16 per cent), or even to have been co-evaluators alongside adults (27 per cent of organisations) – see Figure 1.20.

Children contributed to the evaluation

Children were co-evaluators

Children led the evaluation themselves

Not sure

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

43%

27%

16%

4%

Figure 1.20: How organisations involved children in evaluating participation (n=115)

1.8 Organisational attitudes towards and perceptions of children’s involvement in participation

To understand why organisations may have developed particular practices in relation to participation, we asked our respondents (mainly senior and strategic managers) to what extent they agreed or disagreed with a number of key statements associated with participation. Their responses are presented in Table 1.7.


33

Table 1.7: Views on children’s participation

statement strongly agree

(%)

agree (%)

disagree (%)

strongly disagree

(%)

not sure (%)

children have a right to be involved in decision-making (n=210)

86 14 0 0 1

children should only be involved in decision-making where there is clear evidence about the benefits of their involvement (n=209)

23 33 27 14 4

it is too difficult to involve children under eight in decision-making (n=209)

2 2 41 48 6

there are no decisions in which children cannot be involved in, providing they are properly supported (n=209)

40 40 12 3 4

children’s participation is integral to the work of my organisation (n=211)

55 35 7 1 1

my organisation always ensures that children are told about the results of their involvement (n=211)

26 49 20 1 5

our services have not improved as a result of children’s participation (n=211)

2 5 50 37 7

senior managers in my organisation do not value the right of children to be involved in decision-making (n=210)

3 7 49 37 4

senior managers understand the practical implications of involving children in decision-making (n=211)

18 51 21 6 4

The findings largely speak for themselves, indicating a very strong general commitment to children being involved in decision-making, and the value of participation. For example, every single respondent either strongly agreed or agreed that children had a right to be involved in decision-making. This commitment was apparently enshrined within the vast majority of organisations: 90 per cent of respondents either strongly agreed or agreed that


34

children’s participation was an integral part of their organisation, and nearly as many indicated that services had improved as a result. High proportions supported the rights of very young children to be involved, and of children’s right to be involved in decisions of every type, if supported.

Whilst these figures are encouraging in suggesting that the vast majority of respondents are very supportive of participation, there did appear to be room for improvement. For example, although 86 per cent suggested that senior managers valued the right of children to participate, a somewhat lower proportion felt that senior managers understood the practical implications of involving children in decision-making. Although both of these proportions are high, the disparity between them would suggest that strategic support for engaging children in decision-making processes may not always be matched in terms of resources or time allocated to the work.

Perhaps the most interesting finding is the apparent ambivalence about whether children should be involved in decision-making where there is no clear evidence of benefit. Given the patchy evaluation practices reported earlier (Figure 1.20 in Section 1.7), this must leave respondents with something of a dilemma.

1.9 Ways to promote children’s involvement in decision-making

Looking forward towards how to better promote children’s participation we asked respondents to choose, from a list of options, the three things that would improve how their particular organisation worked with children. A separate question also asked them to rank three things they thought the government needed to do to promote children’s participation in decision-making. The data displayed in Figures 1.21 and 1.22 shows the numbers of votes accorded to each of the suggestions received.

Measure the impact of children’sparticipation

Better promotion of the benefits ofchildren’s participation

Better senior management commitmentto children’s participation

More training/capacity building forchildren

More training/capacity building forparticipation workers

Encourage better partnership work withother organisations

Have written policies on children’sparticipation

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

126 votes

109 votes

90 votes

88 votes

72 votes

69 votes

51 votes

Figure 1.21: What can organisations do to promote participation? (n=229)


35

Figure 1.21 shows that the top suggestion for how organisations could better promote participation was to measure the impact of children’s participation. It was previously noted that less than half of the organisations in the sample actually evaluated the impact of participation on the children involved, or the impact of participation on their organisation. Although data from a previous question showed that a high proportion of respondents felt that services had improved as a result of children’s participation – without concrete evidence of this, it is difficult to make a business case for the strategic involvement of children in organisational decision-making. Better evaluation would also provide material with which to support the second choice (better promotion of the benefits of children’s participation). It is perhaps not surprising that respondents (largely senior or strategic managers themselves) identified mainly strategic issues, and that ‘senior management commitment’ was felt to be a higher priority than, for example, capacity-building for participation workers. This supports other findings that suggest that senior-level commitment to and understanding of participation may not be deeply embedded across all organisations and departments taking part in the survey.

Long-term funding for participationwork

Incorporating requirements to consultchildren in all funding streams

Increased legal requirements forparticipation of children

Action to promote attitudinal changeamong adults

Targeted funding to support specificinitiatives

Better promotion of participationwork to organisations

Training/capacity-building for adults

More resources (e.g. toolkits andguides) for supporting participation work

Training/capacity-building for children

Regional participation officers tosupport local action

National centre promoting andsupporting youth participation

More conferences and events topromote participation

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

152 votes

86 votes

85 votes

69 votes

51 votes

33 votes

32 votes

29 votes

28 votes

27 votes

18 votes

6 votes

Figure 1.22: What should the government do to promote participation? (n=229)

When asked what the government needed to do to promote participation, the need for long-term funding for participation work strongly emerged as the number one priority (receiving 152 votes, nearly twice as many as the second and third priorities). In addition to the need for a public commitment from the government to financially sustain children’s engagement in participation, respondents also wanted legislative changes to be made to the way organisations worked with children. In fact, the second key action which the government needed to take was to incorporate requirements to consult children


36

in all funding streams and, following on from this, to have increased legal requirements for the participation of children in decision-making. The second action point is particularly important, given that only 15 per cent of organisations currently involved children in setting budgets. Respondents also identified a need for the government to promote attitudinal change among adults. Other options were markedly less popular among these strategic-level respondents.

37


2 Comparing these findings with research conducted in 2004

As noted at the beginning of this report, it is not possible to draw direct comparisons between the findings from this research and the findings from a similar study conducted in 2004, due to differences in organisations involved, together with some necessary updating of questions. However, to broadly assess how the participation map may have changed over the last five years, the key findings from both surveys have been themed into specific subject headings.

How and at what levels are children engaged in decision-making about policies and services? Comparisons between 2004 and 2009 show that there appears to have been a steady growth in the participation sector over the last five years. For example, around eight out of ten organisations in the 2004 research were involving children in decision-making; whereas in 2009, this had risen to well over nine out of ten organisations. It is also worth mentioning that over nine out of ten organisations surveyed in 2009 said that children’s involvement in decision-making had increased over the last five years.

There has, however, been little change in how organisations involve children in decision-making. For example, it remains common for organisations to ask children for their opinions about existing or new policies or services, but children tend not to be involved in service delivery. However, it is encouraging to note that around two-thirds of organisations in 2009 were involving children in the aforementioned levels of decision-making. Children also appear to be involved in decisions that seem to have an obvious impact on their lives, such as leisure, recreation and play activities; youth services; and education. However, they are unlikely to have an input into decisions about regeneration; housing; environmental issues; and transport. Although this may be due to the specific focus of responding organisations who took part in both research studies, the reporting of this finding in 2004 and 2009 could suggest that in regards to particular decisions, many organisations are still operating with a narrow view of the types of issues children should have a say in.

It should also be noted that asking children to represent the views of their peers and to attend meetings has remained a common strategy for involving children in decision-making over the years, although the numbers of children who are involved in more strategic level tasks, such as developing frameworks for assessing services and setting budgets, has remained low in 2004 and 2009. More children are, however, becoming involved in the recruitment and selection of staff.


38

Changes have also occurred in how organisations engage children in decision-making alongside adults. For example, whereas in 2004 public meetings, consultations, and question-and-answer sessions were used to elicit the views of children; in 2009, the most frequent ways of engaging children in participation were through consultations, making children members of decision-making bodies and committees, and through service user forums. The move away from using public meetings and question-and-answer sessions may be due to the growing recognition of the need to use more child-friendly methodologies and knowledge gained from evaluating participation.

How much influence do children have on decision-making? The data also suggests that there has been an increase in the amount of influence children now exert over decision-making. In the 2004 survey, around one in ten statutory organisations and over a quarter of voluntary organisations said that children had a ‘great deal’ of influence on their organisation. In 2009, this had risen to one in five statutory organisations and around a third of voluntary organisations. That only 5 per cent of organisations in 2009 thought that children had ‘very little’ or ‘no’ influence on decision-making suggests that there has been a gradual shift in the importance that organisations are now attaching to children’s views.

Which groups of children are involved in decision-making?In both 2004 and 2009, children from a variety of marginalised groups were engaged in participation, although in both studies it was unclear whether the responding organisations specifically targeted these marginalised groups or whether such children are involved as part of a broader participation strategy (that is, they are included as part of the general population).

What was clear, however, was that in both 2004 and 2009, the most likely group of children to be involved in decision-making were those aged 14 to 19, whereas children aged under eight were the least likely to have a say in decision-making processes. The relative absence of the voices of very young children in participation across both surveys is interesting given that, in 2004 and 2009, a sizeable number of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that there were no decisions that children could not be involved in, provided that they were properly supported.

What resources are available to support children’s participation?There has been considerable investment in resources to support children’s participation between 2004 and 2009. In particular, there has been a marked increase in the number of organisations offering training and support to children involved in participation.

In 2004, approximately three-quarters of organisations provided some dedicated staff time to support participation, and over half the respondents said their organisation met the cost of training or events, made premises available,


39

and met transport and other expenses for children involved in participation. In 2009, a similarly high number of organisations had a dedicated participation worker. But there was a marked increase in terms of additional resources, with over seven out of ten organisations now reimbursing transport and other expenses incurred through participation work. In 2004 and 2009, a high proportion of organisations had identified a senior member of staff to be a champion for participation.

Training courses in participation for those working directly with children were frequently provided, although in both 2004 and 2009, senior staff were less likely than front-line participation workers to receive such training.

How is participation monitored or evaluated?In 2004, the use of monitoring and evaluation was fairly limited with only half of the responding organisations monitoring participation, while fewer than two-fifths carried out a formal evaluation. In 2009, almost seven out of ten organisations said they had monitored or evaluated children’s participation in decision-making. Here the most common evaluation method was to gain feedback from children on the participation process (this was used by over half of the organisations surveyed). Other frequently used methods included monitoring children’s attendance/engagement in decision-making processes, and evaluating the impact of participation on the children involved. However, just over a third of respondents evaluated the impact of participation on their organisation. These statistics suggest that, whilst there has been some progress in the importance attached to monitoring and evaluation over the years, more work needs to be done in this area to ensure that the impact of participation on both children and the organisation is seen as an integral part, rather than an additional add-on, to all participation work.

Organisational attitudes towards and perceptions of children’s involvement in participationIn both 2004 and 2009, there was a great deal of enthusiasm and support for participation work with children. In both years, a high percentage of respondents agreed that children have a right to be involved in decision-making and that there are no decisions that children cannot be involved in, if they are properly supported. However, in 2004, respondents (particularly those in the statutory sector) expressed doubts about their organisation’s ability to put participation into practice. Although a lower proportion of respondents expressed the same doubts in 2009, a disparity still remained between the commitment of senior managers to support participation work and their understanding of what this support would entail on the part of front-line participation workers.

Ways to promote children’s involvement in decision-making When asked, in 2004, to select from a list of options the three actions that respondents thought organisations could take to promote effective participation by children, the top two suggestions were: more senior management commitment to participation; and specific staff to support


40

participation. In 2009, the priorities had changed slightly (possibly because almost three-quarters of organisations now had a dedicated participation worker). Although better senior management commitment to children’s participation still remained a priority in 2009, this was superseded by the need for organisations to measure the impact of participation and to better promote the benefits of this type of work.

In both 2004 and 2009, the need for more long-term government funding to support participation work emerged as the number one priority (by a significant margin). In 2004, the second most pressing issue that respondents wanted the government to address was to promote attitudinal change among adults, whereas in 2009 the emphasis was more on incorporating requirements to consult children in all funding streams and on providing increased legal requirements for the participation of children.

41


Conclusion

To contextualise the information in this report, the conclusion will focus on the key issues that emerged under the two broad aims of the study.

Aim 1: To examine the levels and ways in which organisations involve children in decision-making

One of the overarching findings from this report is the high level of organisational support for the involvement of children in participation. This was illustrated in a number of ways. For example, over nine out of ten organisations were currently involving children in participation work; nine out of ten organisations said this involvement had increased over the last five years; and two-thirds of organisations had a written policy or strategy to support this work. Organisations also largely supported the claim that there were no decisions which children cannot be involved in, providing they are properly supported, and that the involvement of children in the work of their organisation was integral to improving services and policies that directly affect children.

Organisations were also shown to be involving children in a range of decision-making processes. For example, over three-quarters involved children in decisions that concerned them as individuals, or asked children for their ideas about changing existing policies or services, or to comment on new policies or services. Although children were less likely to be involved in identifying policies or services of concern to them or to be involved in service delivery, this was nevertheless reported to be happening in around two-thirds of organisations.

It was also noted that just under a quarter of organisations felt that children had a ‘great deal of influence’ on decisions made within their organisations, and around seven out of ten organisations thought children had ‘some influence’. Whilst these figures are encouraging and should be welcomed, it would be interesting to see if they matched children’s own perceptions of their influence over decision-making processes. This is a possible area for future development given that just over a quarter of children involved in organisational decision-making processes had either led an evaluation of participation or were co-evaluators alongside adults.

Aim 2: To identify the barriers to promoting a culture of inclusive decision-making

At an organisational level there emerged three key barriers to involving children in decision-making. The first was the low number of organisations that were proactively measuring the impact of children’s participation on their organisation. The lack of evidence to show how participation benefits individuals and organisations can lead to a lack of impetus to reflect on, or


42

change current participation practices and could result in a lost opportunity to ensure that organisational policies and services relating to children are fit for purpose. Although a high proportion of respondents felt that services had improved as a result of children’s participation – without concrete evidence of this, it is difficult to make a business case for the strategic involvement of children in organisational decision-making.

The second and third key organisational barriers limiting children’s participation in decision-making processes concerned the need for better promotion of the benefits of engaging children in decision-making, and related to this, the need for better senior management commitment to children’s participation. These barriers could be surmounted if there was more consistent monitoring and evaluation of participation, alongside more opportunities to promote training opportunities to senior officers and board/elected members on the positive impact children’s participation could have on their organisation. The data showed that just over a third of respondents evaluated the impact of participation on their organisation, and that more work needed to be done at the senior management and governance level in regards to training in, and support related to participation. Addressing these points could help give senior managers a more grounded understanding of what the involvement of children in participation actually entails on the part of the participation workers, and as such, is likely to lead to better work and resource planning. Organisations also identified a need for longer term government funding for participation work; they wanted children to be consulted in all funding streams; and for participation to be made a legal requirement.

The data suggested that most organisations were fairly well resourced in terms of participation (just under three-quarters of organisations had a dedicated participation worker and over two-thirds had a budget for training and participation related events). However, these resources were largely targeted at specific groups of children. For example, children aged under seven were less likely to be involved in participation than older aged children. This was the case even though over half of the organisations were responsible for developing services and policies for children aged 5–7, and most respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that ‘it is not too difficult to involve children under eight in decision-making if they are properly supported’. This may, of course, be partially a reflection of the types of organisation who participated in the research, and the age groups they provide services for, as opposed to evidence of a selective approach to participation, on the basis of age. However, given that the research in 2004 also showed that relatively few children aged under eight were involved in decision-making, this could be a possible area for future development.

It is also important to note that just over a quarter of organisations rated themselves as doing ‘not very’ or ‘not at all well’ at involving marginalised children in the work of their organisation. The need to ensure that the voices of different groups of marginalised children are adequately represented in the work of organisations is particularly important given that the key task children undertook for organisations to enable them to engage in decision-making was representing the views of other children. A similar point could also be made for the one in ten organisations which did not currently offer training and support to children engaged in participation. Both of these issues could be areas for future development if the voices of different groups of children are to effectively inform decision-making processes.

43


References

1 For the remainder of the report children and young people will be generically referred to as children as this term constitutes the legal definition of a child under the age of 18.

2 These reports can be downloaded from www.participationworks.org.uk/npf3 A total of 231 questionnaires were completed by senior managers, of whom 81

per cent worked in the statutory sector and 18 per cent in the voluntary and community sector.

4 A total of 280 questionnaires were completed by front-line participation workers, of whom 80 per cent worked in the statutory sector and 20 per cent in the voluntary sector.

5 A total of 86 children aged 3–20 years old, living across England, took part in 12 focus groups. These included children who were highly involved in decision-making (for example in school councils, local youth forums, etc.) and children who often struggle to be heard or influence decision-making (including very young children, asylum seeking children and children in care). The format of the interview was adapted for children with disabilities and very young children.

6 This survey was undertaken by ICM. 7 Burke, T. (2010) Listen and Change: An introductory guide to the participation

rights of children and young people Second Edition, Participation Works.8 UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (2009) General Comment Number 12:

The child’s right to be heard.9 Lansdown, G. (2009) ‘The realisation of children’s participation rights – critical

reflections’ in Percy Smith, B. and Thomas, No. (eds) A handbook of children and young people’s participation – perspectives from theory and practice. London: Routledge.

10 Treseder, P. (1997) Empowering children and young people. London: Save the Children.

11 A copy of this questionnaire is available on request. Please contact [email protected]

12 The 2004 research was commissioned by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) and carried out by the National Youth Agency (NYA) and the British Youth Council (BYC) who surveyed 849 respondents in the statutory sector and 160 respondents working in voluntary organisations, most of whom held senior posts.

13 Approval was obtained from the ADCS research group.14 Hear by Right is a standards framework for organisations across the statutory and

voluntary sectors to assess and improve practice and policy on the active involvement of children and young people. It uses measurable standards to map the current level of young people’s participation across a wide range of service providers and then strategically develop an action plan to further this.

The National Participation Forum invites you to join us in this journey. If having read this research you are thinking about what needs to happen to enable our youngest citizens to have their voices heard in delivering a better society for us all, post your ideas and thoughts on www.participationworks.org.uk

We will post constructive commentary and ideas for other readers to see. Sharing ideas can lead to sharing action, saving effort and increasing impact.

Participation Works8 Wakley StreetLondonEC1V 7QE

[email protected]

June 2010

Published for Participation Works by NCB 2010

© CRAE and NCB 2010

http://www.participationworks.org.uk

survey of organisations - crae€¦ · children’s participation in decision-making: survey of...

Documents