1 The Saysomething Project An Independent Evaluation. David Crimmens Hull School of Health & Social Care December 2002 2 Contents The Saysomething Project. Page 3 The views and opinions of young people. Page 4 Young people as members of the steering group: Page 7 full partners or junior participants? The agencies perspectives: partnership in action. Page 9 The wider research and policy context. Page 13 Measuring local progress against emerging national Page 16 benchmarks. Conclusions: there are more questions than answers. Page 18 Recommendations for the further development of Page 19 Saysomething. References. Page 20 3 The Saysomething Project. The Saysometing project was set up by the Information and Research Team of the East Riding of Yorkshire Council. This project was conceived…as a way of exploring the potential of the internet as a way of consulting young people, particularly rural young people, about the public services and quality of life issues that affect them. (Back, 2002, p.1) The pilot phase of the project started in April 2001. The website, www.Saysomething.org.uk went live in September 2001 and continued in its original conception until the end of July 2002. After a „dormant‟ phase during summer 2002 the website maintained its operations during Autumn 2002. the current intention is to continue the project for at least a further year. The majority of the funding for the pilot phase was received from the government‟s „Invest to Save‟ budget. The opportunity presented by substantial government funding enabled the project team to develop a multi- agency approach, including young people from a local youth council. The partnership was reflected in the composition of the Steering Group (see Back, 2002 p.47). The Steering Group was committed from the outset to an independent evaluation of the project. Unfortunately the person awarded the contract to carry out the evaluation died before he was able to complete a report. The Hull School, of Health & Social care, University of Lincoln, was commissioned to carry out the evaluation in summer 2002. At this stage the activities of the pilot stage were effectively completed. The original project coordinator had moved on to other employment and the Steering Group was no longer meeting. The evaluation is therefore retrospective and missed the opportunity to gather more contemporaneous information as the project unfolded. Fieldwork was carried out during autumn 2002, using a semi-structured questionnaire and group discussions. All individual interviews were tape recorded and transcribed verbatim to represent the views and opinions of stakeholders in their own words. It is important to emphasise that when looking back at events, there may be a tendency to reflect more on the weaknesses of the project rather than the strengths. A contemporary evaluation could have produced more material on the excitement and challenges involved in negotiating the pitfalls in an innovative and unique approach to consulting with young people. Back (2002) provides a wealth of detail about the development of the project. He emphasises that Saysomething was a pilot and needed to be honest about its mistakes about the places where we failed and the lessons we learned so that others following this path can benefit from our experience and avoid repeating history. (p.1) 4 The views and opinions of young people. Interviews were carried out during October and November 2002 with young people from Beverley Youth Council who were members of the Steering Group and visits to three youth centres in different parts of the County. The success of Saysomething emerges from initial use in school where the technology is available and where young people were encouraged to access the site as part of a lesson. Those who have a PC at home linked to the internet may or may not access the site in their own time out of school. Many young people do not have access to the web outside school. Youth centres visited all had a range of IT equipment. Only one machine in one centre was linked to the web. That machine was strictly speaking for the use of staff, but was used under supervision by a group of young people to visit the site. The experience of a group 14 and 15 years old girls, highlights some of the difficulties. They reflected on a visit one evening in April 2002 and their attempts with the help of an IT skilled youth worker to complete one of the questionnaires on „shopping‟. They had heard about the site from the radio promotion and were attracted by the potential of winning a prize. They found the process of completing the questionnaire very slow, which is hardly surprising given the fact that they were sharing one machine. However a „technical problem‟ resulted in their contribution not being registered. The youth worker told them that their work would have had to be inputted again „so they didn‟t bother‟. The young people commented that the material on the questionnaire was boring and too hard, with too many „big words‟. They also felt it took too long to access the site and download the material. It is interesting to reflect that all 5 members of this group report that they have internet access at home. None have tried to access the Saysomething site since their last visit in April. „I heard about it on the radio, on Viking it‟s a really good radio and it sounded really good but when it came to it, it was really boring.‟ A visit to another youth club produced nobody who acknowledged that they had actually visited the site. A number of young people knew friends who had been into Saysomething at school. One young man had a friend who had won a prize and said he intended to visit the site. At the time a small group of 15 and 16 years old boys were using PC‟s as part of an activity involving making music, suggesting that they were both technically competent and motivated. This youth club had invested in IT technology and there were at least 10 PC‟s which were accessible to the members. A range of telephone points were also evident suggesting that they were specifically installed to facilitate access the Internet and email. However at the time of the visit there was no connection 5 between the PC‟s and the wall sockets. Youth workers were unclear about whether the lack of a live link was a result of outstanding technical problems, heath and safety issues or a financial problem about which budget would pay for the internet use. This youth club had been visited recently by a member of the Saysomething team. There was evidence of the publicity and promotion material on the walls of the club. The stickers were seen as „cool‟ as evidenced by the fact that a 16-year-old young man was wearing one on his „hoody‟. There was clearly a commitment by the staff team to use new technology for both educational and recreational purposes and there was expertise among both staff and young people. However there remains an access problem, which requires resolution before the „street credibility‟ of the Saysomething web site can be effectively road tested among the membership of the youth club. A more formal discussion with a group of 5 friends, 3 boys and 2 girls aged 15 and 15 years illustrates some of the strengths and weaknesses to the „Saysomething‟ approach. This group, recruited by a member of one of the locality youth councils from among her Duke of Edinburgh group, all have a PC with internet access at home, spend up to 25 hours each week using a PC including 3 hours in school, and use the internet to research school assignments as well as to pursue more recreational interests. They heard about the Saysomething web site on Viking Radio or from their peers. Their interest was reinforced by an input into a recent assembly at the school by a member of the Saysomething team [who they were able to mention by name]. Their interest was also reinforced by the fact that one of the group „won‟ a £10 voucher on her first visit to the site. What do the young people like about the website? [not in any particular order of priority] The monthly surveys Daily poll Prizes – CD player, mobile phone and goody bags mentioned. Picture of people who have won prizes – especially when they are people you know Free merchandise To be able to put your views forward Easy to navigate 6 Young people‟s suggested changes/improvements to website: Visually boring – the young people suggested flashing pictures, sound, changes of colour, music links, and access to ring tones would improve the visual imagery. Achat room (with moderators) Young people should be more involved Interviews with nice famous people More personal responses to email Change the name because there is another saysomething.org Music in the background Links to information for young people who want help eg childline Youth information eg purchasing music ticket 7 Young people as members of the steering group: full partners or junior participants? Members of the Beverley Youth Council who were invited to become members of the Steering Group of the Saysomething project provide mixed feedback on both their experiences of the web site and of their membership of the Steering Group. They saw their involvement initially as a good idea and something that needed doing. They were very positive about their initial experiences of selecting the web providers and the incorporation of their ideas into the design of the web site. They were not active advocates of the website by the time they were interviewed in October 2002. This factor was evident in responses to questions about whether they discussed the website with their friends. They were supportive of the way in which publicity was handled initially though thought that there should be more investment in going into schools to promote the web site. They were concerned about how far young people had access to the internet and whether there should have been other strategies used to consult with a wider range of young people. Strong opinions were voiced about what was described as a „one track‟ use of the questionnaire. While the young people expressed a view that their opinions had been taken into account in planning and designing the website they were concerned about the lack of consultation over the surveys. They suggested that individual agency concerns about their specific surveys tended to dominate meetings of the Steering Group and that their views were not taken into account in relation to, for example, the content of specific surveys, with the exception of the survey on the Youth Council which they constructed themselves. A major issue for one member was about how agendas were set for the Steering Group meeting, and the way in which the agenda then dominated the meeting. One consequence of this was the view that the meetings became very much about the individual agency interests and moved away from the issues of effectively consulting young people, raising a question about the purpose of having young people, as members of the group: „it became a case of the young people, were there for the sake of saying the young people were there.‟ This comment is in marked contrast to the consensus of opinion from the adult members of the Steering Group that the young people were always listened to and actively participated in the Steering Group meetings. One problem could be summed up by another comment from a young person that „It‟s fine to listen but not do anything about it which is just the same as not listening I guess.‟ It would be surprising in a pilot project of this nature if the views of adult and young people participants coincided. This is particularly true in a situation where the Steering Group meetings appear to have been conducted a conventional business meetings with little if any opportunity to explore the issues around the experiences of the young people‟s participation the group. A more contemporaneous 8 evaluation throughout the lifespan of the Steering Group, may have produced a spectrum of views rather than an impression from at least one of the young participants who saw himself as „window dressing.‟ The young people saw money as an important issue, which divided them from the apparent consensus of adult opinion. They were aware that different agencies had invested money in the project and that this appeared to give them a greater say. The young people had lots to say about different ways in which money could have been spent, both in promoting the web site and in involving larger numbers of young people in the consultation. „We‟ve never seen £100, 000 being put into a project before whereas these people have seen it all the time and it isn‟t their money and it‟s like their business and it‟s already been assigned to it and they haven‟t thought well what other way can we do it. Well I could go out myself and save many thousand pounds.‟ There is a dual message in this quotation, which should not be ignored. The young people had a keen sense of what might have been achieved for this level of financial investment and considered that the ideas they put forward were not taken up, but also that the planning tasks had not been sufficiently evaluated before activating the project particularly in relation to what was not likely to be achieved by dependence on one form of consultation: „I think they thought well you know we‟ll keep up with the times and we‟ll go for internet access because it‟s good and they hadn‟t thought of the drawbacks and everything.‟ 9 The agencies perspectives: partnership in action. Representatives of the agencies participating in the pilot project were interviewed in person or by telephone during September and October 2002. An overall level of satisfaction was expressed with the outcomes of the project, particularly in relation to: Networking potential of the Steering Group Involvement in an innovatory project The opportunity to contribute towards the youth participation agenda The usefulness of the information and feedback from young people The views and opinions of the adult stakeholders were collected retrospectively and individuals were invited to reflect on an experience, which was effectively in the past. Although the web site remained live after July 2002 the Steering Group did not continue to meet during the period in which the Saysomething team was working to secure a further year of activity and funding to enable the web site to continue. The distance between the final meeting of the Steering Group and the evaluation interview enabled each partner to reflect on what aspects of the pilot worked well for them and what aspects could have worked better. The following commentary therefore provides an agenda for change in relation to future activity. Agency representatives were clear about what the project had achieved for them: „I think that any level of involvement with young people that wasn‟t there before in a democracy has got to be welcomed as a good idea.‟ „We were keen to find a way of engaging potentially disadvantaged young people in East Riding‟ „I guess it can have a greater reach potentially than any other single method.‟ „We‟ve gained a lot from working with young people in the group. You gain contacts and colleagues in other agencies as well, so it‟s not just about the project itself, it‟s about what you can gain from meeting other people involved in those areas.‟ „It‟s a sort of gut feeling that we‟ve achieved what we set out to achieve ie we‟ve got access from young people in rural communities who would otherwise have difficulty in accessing information and them having a voice.‟ 10 [value for money] we did put a questionnaire on the site about [agency] so I guess for £X it was worth it. …. I‟m not sure how much it would cost us to get that number of responses through other means.‟ However, much of the positive feedback was delivered with important reservations. In relation to the ‟gut feeling‟ concern was expressed that the „hard‟ evidence of the levels of engagement with the target population, namely isolated and socially excluded rural youth did not really emerge from the available data: „but I don‟t think we‟ve really measured that properly so we haven‟t got an objective measure of success‟ Reservations were expressed about missed opportunities, which may have been possible from using the Steering Group more strategically: „It was a big project taken on by a small group and partners who were already committed in their own spheres of work, perhaps didn‟t have the opportunity to put in as much as we might have hoped for, to support it in the context of giving that little bit extra.‟ [the Steering Group] only really met at the meetings, there wasn‟t anything beyond that. You sort of listened to the reports that were coming back. The evidence suggests that members of the Project Team were expected to get on with running the website on a day to day basis and marketing and promoting the site: „We weren‟t as members of the Steering Group particularly expected to go out and market [the web site] amongst our own constituencies. There was no apparent sense of criticism in these observations but more a retrospective awareness of the narrow focus of the Steering Group‟s agenda. The adult feedback reflects comments by the young members of the Steering Group that the content of the meetings focussed on technical issues. There was a sense of missed opportunity to address process in relation to the role of the Steering Group. Two issues were emphasised; the marketing and promoting of the web site but more importantly furthering the youth consultation and participation agenda locally. „There was a lot of talk at the beginning about getting more young people and taking the marketing and the images of the site to youth clubs and things like that, to get an opinion outside the Youth Council. That never really happened.‟ 11 „We should have done more in terms of youth contact, wider range [of young people]‟ „It was schools oriented and maybe youth clubs played a part…I‟m not sure that we reached everything so I‟ve got to say we only went so far. Some concern was expressed that other departments of the local authority could have made use of the Project „It needed a push within the council itself with other departments and directorates to use it because it could be a useful tool if any department wanted to get opinions from young people. „I tend to think that a lot of the other departments in the council perhaps didn‟t know we were there or didn‟t want to get someone involved.‟ There was some concern about the use of local radio to promote the project „I think that the initial thinking was that the radio campaign, which was very expensive would be the key thing and they‟d all be flocking in their droves and it didn‟t happen. I think personally that the radio campaign was a waste of money. It was not as successful as we thought it could have been.‟ The Project Report (Back, 2002) acknowledges that there were „doubts about the cost-effectiveness of the radio campaign.‟ (p.4. s12) There is some evidence from young people who contributed to this evaluation and who have visited the site that hearing the promotion on Viking Radio may have established the brand name in their minds. The question about whether it led young people to actively make use of the site is more controversial as evidenced by the following comment: „Although the evaluation questionnaire indicated that many of the young people who used the site heard about it initially on Viking radio this may not have been the major reason why they logged on. They logged on because a lot of the time they did it in school so they had to. The teacher said we‟re doing IT, but they were then going home and in the evening spending time filling in the questionnaires.‟ The reliance on schools to promote the website is acknowledged in the Project Report. It was also recognised as a limitation on the potential of the project among some members of the Steering Group, one of who commented that „schools were kind of a captive audience‟. It is difficult to determine how far use went beyond schools and those who followed up initial visits to the website at school with a visit at home. There does not appear to be an analysis of postal addresses, which could facilitate mapping use across the County to demonstrate that the Project was reaching at least more 12 geographically isolated young people. There is some evidence of a pattern of use between schools with high levels of access to the website during school hours being followed up by additional log ons in the evening in the geographical areas served by those schools. „I think it has worked to a large degree to a minority audience‟ demonstrates the difficulties in building up a critical mass of young users necessary to justify the continued existence of the project. The schools base has provided a foundation for developing a constituency of young people, who can be mobilised in future consultations and which did not exist prior to the launching of Saysomething. All adult stakeholders were enthusiastic about the possibility of the project continuing for a further year and wanted their agency to continue to be involved. They did however recognise that the pilot had demonstrated some limits to the approach as well as demonstrating its potential. „It‟s perhaps something that should be a tool in our armoury, it‟s something which you should have amongst a number of other approaches, including traditional pen and paper questionnaires.‟ Two major challenges for future development were articulated. The first relates to how far a web site can interact with its users, becoming a more dynamic instrument for engaging with young people: „I would like to see a bit more of a two-way thing, and at the moment its very much young people filling in a questionnaire and then that‟s it. They get the results posted back on the website, 6% of you said this or whatever, but there‟s no real sort of reply as such. There isn‟t a two-way conversation.‟ The second challenge requires evidence of the impact of the data gathered on the policy formation and service delivery processes of the partner agencies. It centres on the key question of: what are you doing with the data? There is a need to revisit the objectives of the Saysomething Project to more finely tune the outcomes in relation to the engagement with young people. More specific outcomes should provide evidence, which addresses the following concern: But what have you actually done, how many concrete changes can you hold your hand up and say directly as a result of the web site we have now done this and this that the kids can actually go and see… what are we actually doing with this data? 13 The wider research and policy context. „ Providing meaningful opportunities for young people to be involved in shaping local government services will take time, resources and commitment. Involving young people may mean taking risks and making mistakes is part of the process of getting it right.‟ (JRF, 2002) Recent research (Combe 2002) by the Institute for Public Policy Research in partnership with the Local Government Association (LGA), identifies four crucial stages in developing initiatives to involve young people: 1. Creating the right environment - getting the right structures, systems and resources in place from the outset 2. Planning 3. Doing 4. Follow – up: to be effective councils need to follow through on their commitment to young people by ensuring the involvement exercises have an impact on services and on practice. Evidence from this evaluation suggests that insufficient attention was paid to the first stage and planning focused on identifying the best technical means to deliver the Saysomething project with less attention being paid to the processes by which the different agencies involved in the steering group would conduct their business. An unequivocal commitment by the members of the steering group to the involvement of young people was therefore undermined by the lack of attention to questions of how young people were going to be involved. The local authority has a clear and explicit commitment to involving its customers in the democratic processes of the council: „East Riding of Yorkshire Council is committed to Consultation and participation “To place customers first in everything we do, encourage increased public participation through the electoral and management processes and communicate and consult with all who live, work and have an interest in the East Riding of Yorkshire.” There is an existing statutory framework for consultation with children „in need‟ in the Children Act 1989. This commitment is strengthened in Quality Protects where Objective 8.0 aims „To actively involve carers and service users in planning services.‟ and sub-objective 8.1: „To demonstrate that the views of children and families are actively sought and used in the planning, delivery and review of services.‟ A report by the Association of Directors of Social Services (ADSS, 2002) sets out a vision for future services for children, emphasising that this must include greater involvement by children in the planning and delivery of services and that their views must be ascertained at the outset of the planning cycle (p.19). They go a step further in arguing that „children and 14 young people must be enabled to participate in the formulation of ideas‟. The ADSS emphasise that any vision must be framed by major statements of values which are explicit in the national objectives of government and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, where Article 12 provides a international framework for the participation of children and young people in stating that: States parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. A partnership between the LGA and the National Youth Agency (NYA) has produced a set of standards (Wade et al, 2001) for the active involvement of young people in local democracy, built around key principles for good practice. These principles provide a framework for enabling the active involvement of young people to work best when: The diversity of young people is recognised Young people are valued Involvement is underpinned by adequate resources of expertise, time, money and organisational systems and processes There are systems and processes for reviewing, evaluating and continuously improving young people‟s involvement In the foreword to the standards, Sir Jeremy Beecham, Chair of the LGA, links the involvement of young people with the improvement of service delivery and the reinvigoration of local democracy. He stresses that the standards „are not then end of a process but the beginning of one‟; „I commend these standards to you as a framework to help you think about what you currently do to engage children and young people and about what you can do in the future to ensure that children and young people are seen and heard‟ (p.v) George Simpson, a local government officer on secondment to Government Office for Yorkshire and Humberside to develop methods for involving young people, particularly in the Connexions strategies establishes a ‟Framework for taking young people‟s involvement forward‟ (2002). He identifies a range of factors which need to be on the agenda of any organisation developing youth involvement including: Establishing an effective culture Ensuring appropriate practice A range of engagement He maintains that „existing structures for children and young people‟s involvement are often limited by their reflection of adult activity‟. Simpson 15 emphasises that young people‟s involvement should be seen as „A process more than an outcome‟ echoing a Quality Protects publication from the Department of Health (2000) Participation is a process; children will only be able to participate actively in a climate that encourages their on-going involvement and empowerment [DoH, 2000] Simpson suggests that most models of engaging with young people are linear (Arnstein, 1969; Hart, 1992). Linear models tend to assume that adult engagement with young people may not get beyond the level of tokenism and as such does not enable young people to participate effectively because it does not address issues of power differences between adults and young people. Simpson offers a model of progress based on mutual learning: progress for adults and children and young people is rarely linear, more usually taking the form of a series of repetitive learning cycles based on a wave formation, with positive phases of activity, periods of challenge and difficulty, backward movement for periods of rebuilding and relearning and periods of inactivity. The model affirms that all the stages as positive, recognising that there will be periods of difficulty, but that these are positive and lead to important points of learning. It encourages questioning and challenge as healthy components of the learning process. 16 Measuring local progress against emerging national benchmarks. There are clearly many initiatives focussing on the involvement of young people taking place in the East Riding of Yorkshire. Some of these are detailed in the „Youth Newsletter‟ (ERYC, June 2002). These include A Young People‟s Policy, which was consulted on during summer 2002. A dedicated post to meet the Quality Protects objectives in relation to the participation of children in need particularly children who are looked after by the local authority The contribution of young people living in the East Riding to the development of the youth governance initiative at the core of the local Connexions strategy Consultation has been widespread but… „What has been absent have been a coordinated approach and a mechanism to share information acquired as a result of consultation.‟ (Youth Newsletter, p.4.) The absence of coordination and mechanisms for joining up the activities of the Saysomething Project have reduced the potential impact of the project and its contribution towards furthering the youth engagement process in the East Riding. Apart from the Information & Research Team who have developed Saysomething, evidence suggests that the only other departments involved in promoting the engagement agenda are Social Services with its statutory obligations and Community Education, which has responsibility for youth provision across the County. There is an absence of clear evidence of a participatory strategy for young people, which is endorsed by political members and is at the heart of all activities of the local authority. The evidence of departmentalism suggests a tendency towards marginalisation or ghettoisation of the Councils commitment to youth participation. It may become pigeon holed, for example, within discrete children and young people serving departments, defined as part of the Citizenship curriculum, and devoid of any political content in any active sense. The absence of both joined-up thinking and the consequent joined-up activity is evident in the application of New Technology across the local authority in areas directly related to children and young people. There has been significant expenditure on both PC‟s with the capability of accessing the Internet and using email in both Youth Centres and Children‟s Homes, the latter paid for out of the Saysomething budget. The continuing difficulties in linking up these IT sources exemplifies one of the difficulties of providing access to children and young people as part of a social inclusion strategy. Reasons given for delays include lack of a current budget, technical feasibility and issues concerning the safety of young service users, including child protection. These delaying factors are both relevant and important. They have had an adverse impact on the capacity of the Saysomething Project to 17 reach a wider sector of its target population during the pilot project. They are likely to impede and restrict the continuing development of the project, as the absence of a firm date for full implementation of existing commitments may well drift into the next financial year. They are one reflection of the inability of the local authority to knit everything together and are symptomatic of the absence of an overall corporate strategy for youth involvement. 18 Conclusions: there are more questions than answers Three key issues emerge from this evaluation, which need to be addressed to improve the quality and quantity of future engagement between young people and the project. Access: how far do young people have access to a PC with internet connection at home and in school? More importantly, what access do young people have in their leisure time when positive peer group influence could encourage more extensive use of the Saysomething web site? Competence: do young people have the skills and confidence to access the Saysomething website? What is the role of professional workers like Youth Workers, Connexions Personal Advisors and residential child care workers in facilitating the development of the skills and confidence needed to make effective use of a consultative instrument like the Saysomething website, especially among those groups of young people who are a particular targets of the Social Inclusion agenda? Motivation: what strategies are needed to encourage young people to make more extensive use of the Saysomething website? Is it sufficiently young person-centred given that the agenda in the pilot phase may have concentrated on technical issues and meeting the needs of adult stakeholders. There are strong statements in the Project Report (Back, 2002) about the importance of the youth engagement agenda. The introduction to the report states that „[young people] are no longer tomorrows citizens; they have a right to be taken seriously today‟ is in marked contrast to the comment that „the practicalities of this meant that it was difficult to look beyond the Beverley Youth Council and widen participation geographically.‟(p.5 para 20.) There remains a question about whether Saysomething represents a small number of local authority officers and other adults as members of the Steering Group, championing the cause of young people‟s participation, when what is required is a manifest commitment on the part of the political leadership of the local authority. Evidence from the research cited in this report indicates that young people will invest in activities where they feel their views are being taken seriously. Adults have to establish credibility as a first step in engaging with young people, and this requires adults to move beyond the rhetoric of involvement and participation. 19 Recommendations for the further development of Saysomething. Develop a commitment to a corporate strategy. Involve other departments of the Council in the Steering Group. Identify other „champions‟ who will further the cause in their own departments. Establish a broader purpose for the steering group, which can engage with the inter-agency issues as well as the youth participation agenda. Move beyond technical questions and develop an interactive dialogue between adults and young people involved in the next phase. Try a different mechanism for involving young people in the management and development of the Project. See what the young people themselves can suggest. A parallel young peoples steering group, appropriately funded and supported? Develop a broad constituency of young people, who will act as brokers and advocates for the project. Establish monitoring panels of young users who agree to log their use of the website in order to gather accurate information on the spread of activity among different target populations. Develop a commitment by both adults and young people involved in the management of the project to actively promote the SaySomething Project. Use face-to-face contact to distribute the promotional merchandise, particularly the 'stickers.‟ Additional investment is required to reach beyond 'captive populations' in schools. Target places where young people meet less formally for hands on promotions. Avoid the assumption that there are marketing experts, which can be hired to promote the project. Make more active use of existing youth networks to promote the use of the website. Avoid overselling the outcomes of the project. Provide hard evidence of the capability of the project to reach geographically and socially isolated young people. 20 References. Arnstein S. (1969) A ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of planners. Vol. 35 no. 4. 216–224. Association of Directors of Social Services (2002) Tomorrow‟s Children. A discussion paper on UK child care services in the coming decade. September. Back P. (2002) Young People Talking…Public Services Listening. East Riding of Yorkshire Council. September. Combe V. (2002) Up for it: Getting young people involved in local government. Leicester. National Youth Agency. Department of Health (2000) Quality Protects Research Briefing. No. 3. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (2002) Youth Provision in the East Riding. Community Education Service. Volume 1. Issue 2. June. Hart R. (1992) Children‟s Participation, from Tokenism to Citizenship. Florence. UNICEF. Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2002) Involving young people in local authority decision-making. Findings. June. Simpson G. (2002) Involving Young People. A Discussion Paper for Connexions South Yorkshire, Connexions Partners and Young People. First Draft. 21st November. Wade H. Lawton A. & Stevenson M. (2001) „hear by right‟ setting standards for the active involvement of young people in local democracy. Local Government Association/National Youth Agency.