Communities in United Kingdom
Empowering young people in the community
GOOD PRACTICE TITLE: Brantwood Park Residential District
KIND OF PRACTICE: Community Building
DOCUMENT AUTHOR (ORGANIZATION AND AUTHOR NAME):
Mary Seacole Housing Association, Lennox Adams
PLACE: Luton
CONTEXT, FIELD OF INTERVENTION:
Learning about community modelling by tackling an important social issue
The urban area of Luton is very different from the surrounding rural areas of Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire. The rural areas are wealthier than the national average but Luton has high levels of social deprivation. The deprivation, although visible, is largely hidden by the fact that Luton has a surplus of employment. As a result, many immigrants from Eastern Europe, South Asia, West Africa and the Middle East have been attracted to Luton. Many do not speak English and find it difficult to integrate in British society. As a result of this, social needs are constantly changing but hope lies with the young people, who speak English well and who are more eager to integrate. Policy-makers in Luton are looking to young people to strengthen community cohesion.
PERIOD:
June 2018 – June 2019
POPULATION, PARTICIPANTS:
3 administrators
3 experts (MSHA, University of Bedfordshire, Bedfordshire Constabulary)
10 young ambassadors
150 trainees in 15 difference settings in Luton and Bedfordshire
50 non-participating supporters
Members of the public
COORDINATORS:
MSHA
METHODOLOGY (HOW THE PRACTICE WORKS):
Youth-led: The methodology employed in empowering young people is influenced by real youth experiences with training delivered by the young leaders.
Challenging: The methodology requires that any young people involved in the initiative must have challenging work. Most will not have been placed in such a situation before. Project participation demands professional levels of communication, social interaction, empathy and transferable skills
Progressive: In developing empowerment, young people will feel more empowered to tackle personal and social projects, perhaps volunteering and gaining work experience
Socially impactful: Participation means young people will become more aware of their roles in the community. Above all, they will be encouraged to consider aspects of social cohesion that, previously, they would have ignored.
Reflective: In raising awareness of a social issue and the consequences of that issue, young people will be forced to look at their actions critically and be more careful in their criticism of others.
Embedded: MSHA wants the project to be life-changing in a positive way for the participants
As a result of these constraints on the methodology the best practice approach is:
-
Stage 1 – train young people to become leaders by using train-the-trainer approaches
-
Stage 2 – get young people the opportunity for young people to meet the public in a controlled setting, where each young person is given a single public-engaging task, such as “asking people to select one social issue, from a list, that affects them most.
-
Stage 3 – training other young people in a familiar setting such as a youth club, school or other
-
Stage 4 – recording the learning from the experience in written or oral communication. It is best if the experience is first written and then delivered in a public speech.
In these 4 steps we believe the key measures of the methodology will be achieved.
PARTICIPATORY PROCESS:
Participation is open to all young people in Luton aged 14-24, especially those with disabilities or who are vulnerable or who are disadvantaged. It is likely that individuals in the target group will not have participated in a major social initiative outside the home, except schooling. MSHA worked with Dr Joan Bailey (Social Studies Department / Youth Studies / University of Bedfordshire) to identify a strong core of young people. As a result, we identified 10 persons, aged 16-20, from a broad range of social and ethnic backgrounds in Luton. This group now formed the core of young ambassadors, whose task was to engage other young people.
TIME TO BE SUCCESFUL (HOW MANY TIME THE PRACTICE TAKE TO ACHIEVE THEIR OBJECTIVES):
We believe that for successful completion the young person must go through the entire 4-stage process at least once. If the young person is able to go through the entire process a number of times then that person develops expertise.
VALIDITY (IF THE PARTICIPANTS THINK THAT THE PRACTICE RESOLVED THE PROBLEMATIC):
The testing period runs from June 2018 to June 2019 with the first interim report in September 2018.
The report in September 2018 indicated young people may want to be involved in important social issues, especially if they will receive paid employment. Even so, these same young people do not always have basic knowledge of social issues, such as, “What is hate crime?”. Most feel that hate crime is linked to immigrants and homosexuality – for these is what they see in the media – but do not see the broader aspects of hate crime. In fact most did not recognize images of hate crime beyond reports of what happens to immigrants. The preliminary work indicates the need for awareness-raising in a number of areas regarding community modelling. The participants now understand the broad scope of community modelling and will concentrate on the small area of “Raising awareness of hate crime in the community”. The second interim report is expected in December 2018.
IMPACT:
The September 2018 interim report identified the following impacts / lack of impact:
• Older people from ethnic groups (especially women) are not willing to participate in community action that does not originate from their own ethnic group
• Young people from ethic groups (especially young women) are willing to participate in community action if there is immediate or personal benefit
• Older British (male and female) are happy to support community action once they understand they are socially aware
• Younger British (male and female) are happy to support (and help out in) community action in a voluntary role.
Support increase greatly if there is some personal benefit. Word-of-mouth dissemination is main process by which people from this group become involved.
Despite lessons in schools and public announcements many issues requiring community action are ignored or left to the authorities (such as Luton Borough Council or Bedfordshire Police)
INNOVATION:
The main innovation is using young people to engage and teach other young people. It is not unique.
RESOURCES OR CONDITIONS NEEDED FOR THE PRACTICE:
The following resources were developed for the practice, in conjunction with Youth Social Action “Don’t hate: Stay Safe Project”:
• Train-the-trainer manual
• Portable gazebo for meeting the public
• Dissemination materials
• Training materials and dissemination goods for awareness-raising in schools, youth clubs, etc
LIMITATIONS:
• This initiative could not be accomplished in the frame of Community Life Models Project alone. It required the involvement of Luton Borough Council, Bedfordshire Constabulary and University of Bedfordshire.
• The initiative is young-people led using loose guidelines for young people to develop (hopefully) strong ideas of their own
• The initiative is costly and could not be funded from Community Life Models / Erasmus+ alone
LEARNED LESSONS: :
See Impact
The next interim report, after the outreach training sessions in youth clubs and schools, is expected to identify new lessons to learn
SUSTAINABILITY:
The initiative is highly sustainable as long as there is funding. The education process is likely to be long and slow with frequent updates for the desired effect to be achieved. Luton Borough Council is looking closely at the findings via the “Your Say, Your Way” portal.
REPLICABILITY:
The initiative is easy to replicate, even if it only covers “Awareness-raising of hate crime and its effects on community modelling”. This topic alone is of great value to Europe, especially in the current climate of immigration and other trans-national movement. We see that awareness-raising (including comprehension of the issue and a willingness to comply) is the start of the process of combatting many problems.
CONCLUSION:
Although this practice is not directed at MSHA staff for action by MSHA staff, there was a great deal to learn from the first interim report. MSHA staff will use the findings to improve their services.