1

LYPF Task Group Meeting

Minutes:20.01.10

Time: 15:00 – 17:00

Venue: British Youth Council central office.

Present:

Alexandra Molano Chair/ Minute Taker(AM),Rachel CassMinute Taker (AB), Emma Bird (EB), Carlo Roberts (CR), Fiona Wyton (FW), Lisa Wintersteiger (LW), Jane Leighton (JL), Selina Papa (SP), Helen Deakin (HD), Paul Bower (PB), Nicola More (NM) and Jacqueline Macaulay (JM)Chloe Newman (CN) – Southwark Young Advisors.

1. Introduction

Full introductions of members carried out.

2. Apologies

Gethyn Williams – London Service Voluntary Council (LVSC)

Susi Farnworth – Y Gen

3. Introduction to the forum

3.1AM The aim of the forum is to meet the youth led sector’s specific needs and to influence policy, focussing particularly on raising awareness of the youth-led sector amongst funders, commissioners and the third and public sectors in general.The forum also acts as a point of contact for organisations to share information around opportunities that arise for young people around the 2012 Games. The forum will feed this information to the wider membership to ensure that youth-led organisations are aware ofthese new opportunities.

3.2AMThe Network membership is mostly for smaller youth-led organisations and infrastructure organisation that do not have the time to engage as a Task Group member. Through the Network membership the forum will be able to consult them about existing youth-led organisation needs for funding, policy and other issues.

3.3Alexandra Molano from IARS acts as the Forum’s key co-ordinator and central point of contact for all members.

3.4AM IARS disseminates a bulletin containing information about volunteering opportunities around the Olympics which should be distributed as widely as possible amongst Forum members and their wider contacts.

4.Olympics Bulletin- Presentation by Paul Bower

4.1PB - The Big Opportunity, which sits within London Civic Forum, produces a bulletin for the community sector regarding the 2012 Olympics to inform organisations about opportunities that exist around the Games.

4.2PB The London Civic Forum undertook research into what the voluntary sector wanted out of the Olympics in order to provide LOCOG with a core voice representing the third sector and their view of the 2012 Games.

4.3The Big Opportunity provides a phone line to the community sector for organisations to get in touch with their queries regarding the Olympics as well as offering a series of free and subsidised events.

4.4The Big Opportunity advocates for the policy promise made in the bid which won London the right to host the Olympics, and for the important role of the community and voluntary sector in delivering this promise.

4.5LOCOG is an events agency; there is less confidence in their ability to deliver on the promised legacy of the redevelopment. There is also a question regarding how they listen to young people and how can we make them listen

4.6JL – How is the Big Opportunity funded?

4.7PB – The Big Opportunity had originally been funded by the City Bridge Trust through the London Civic Forum and the LDA through LVSC and managed by Greater London Volunteering. It is now run independently with money from CityBridge.

4.8CR –Are there any other voluntary organisations trying to get the rest of the sector to think about the Olympics.

4.9PB – No, only the Big Opportunity. LOCOG is doing some work to bring in volunteers. There would be scope for doing something with young people if funding could be accessed for young people to go through some kind of events management training in relation to this.

4.10The Step Up programme run by the BBC trains about 100 young journalists and was launched in Scotland. There is scope for this to be developed elsewhere.

4.11CR – Looking more at 2012 as a regional project could fit into programmes promoting training in vocations such as social work, youth leadership and community work.The Olympics represents an important opportunity for community development in the five Olympic boroughs.Need for support for community organisations that are well established in the Olympic boroughs to cope with the enormity of the Olympics.

4.12PB – The LDA have been passing on work to the Legacy Now Panel.

4.13JL –During the first year of running of the Legacy Now Panel, young people were genuinely engaged in its activities. The Olympic Park Legacy Company has taken on the work of the Legacy Now Panel. Now contracted by the OPLC to run the panel and it is more apparent that the inclusion of young people is more of a marketing ploy creating difficulties in establishing a line for youth involvement that should be drawn upon.

4.14There is significant difficulty for anyone trying to get involved in decisions around the bid and planning for the Olympics.

4.15LW – In summary of discussion there is a need for support to community organisations, particularly in the Olympic boroughs, for help to maximise on the opportunities and changes entailed in the Olympic development and in ensuring that they also profit from the legacy of the Olympics.

4.16PB– Will be attending a meeting with London Funders 2012 Group on week of Feb15th and will raise the above issue summarised by LW on behalf of the Forum.

4.17AM – To provide PB with a summary of the key questions to be taken to the London Funders 2012 Group

5. Youth-led Article

5.1RC – As background to the Briefing on the youth-led approach, which was decided should be written at the last Forum meeting, IARS is writing an article on the youth –led approach, based on in-depth research (which will feed into the concise briefing) and be published in IARS’ forthcoming Youth Voice Journal.

5.2The purpose of the article is to explore the underlying principles of the youth-led approach ratherthan seeking to establish rigid guidelines and definitions of youth-led work.

5.3LW – Need to be clear about how this feeds into the final briefing. Is it to provide a collective education on this approach? Is it promotional? For funders? Commissioners?

5.4Many organisations may want to understand how the youth-led approach can bring value to what they already do.

5.5JL – There are lots of drivers through funding for organisations to adopt a youth led approach. This is mostly based on tick boxes on funding application forms and is often misguiding.

5.6There is also a need to highlight the fact that adopting a youth led approach can be frightening.

5.7SP – REACH have some kind of checklist for organisations trying to set up youth led projectswhich might be useful for feeding into the briefing.

5.8LW – The briefing should be used as a tool to educate commissioners.

5.9Briefing on the youth-led sector should be short and should highlight a snapshot of 2-3 case studies of youth-led organisations/ activities. This would be better placed than providing a definition of what youth-led is. The brief should therefore try to influence commissioning services and how they are relating to young peoples services.

5.10NE-Commissioners tend to not understand youth-led groups.

5.11JM – It would be good if we could create a briefing that would be directed at local businesses, encouraging them to take on youth led projects and demonstrating how the youth led approach would be of value to them.

5.12JL – There needs to be some form of advice to overcome the problem of only engaging with a certain group of young people when undertaking youth-led work.

5.13 JM – The briefing needs to reflect how youth led work should be flexible, for example, highlighting difficulties young people face in obtaining things such as CRB checks.

5.14AM – The briefing should also promote the youth-led approach as an important means of public bodies meeting their requirements regarding the Duty to Involve. It would be worth consulting NM, SL and FW about this further.

5.15AM-IARS to draft a brief that will be sent round the task group for comments. The seconddraft to be signed off at the next meeting.

6. London Councils

6.1General consensus that the Forum should be responding to these kinds of consultations, particularly as some members would not have the opportunity to respond independently.

6.2RC – Suggested the Forum should respond to Challenge five, Challenge six and Challenge seven of the consultation which was agreed upon by all.

6.3Consensus that the Forum’s response should be an opportunity to stress the importance of the youth-led sector as a method that increases the impact of work to support young people by helping young people to help other young people.

6.4SP – It would be worth making contact with one of the commissioners and ask them to provide us with a briefing on the way in which they have consulted with young people themselves as part of the London Councils Consultation.

6.5RC – To write up Forum’s response and submit the completed document on their behalf

7. Survey

7.1The draft survey was circulated by AM amongst Forum members.

7.2SP – V are undertaking a similar survey so care should be taken not to duplicate theseefforts.

7.3FW–The survey should seek to find out what support organisations need to help them to be youth-led.

7.4NM – The survey should enable respondents to rate how youth led their organisations are and thebarriers they face in becoming more youth led.

7.5JL-Since the term ‘youth-led’ can be ambiguous, to ensure that organisations that do define themselves as youth-led respond to the survey it should be piloted through the Network first.

7.6AM – will make amendments to survey

8. Date of next meeting

8.1Provisional date set for 21st April 2010. NM will find out whether London Youth can host the meeting. AM will confirm date and venue via email to Task Group members.