Memoria descriptiva de instalaciones sanitarias

Part 2 of the research study spans 2007 to 2012, in which the participatory action research (PAR) process of action and reflection is summarised in the tables below for ease of understanding. Firstly it covers a rather piecemeal engagement of 6 young people in the development of a National Domestic Abuse Delivery Plan for Children and Young People (Scottish Government, 2008), then largely through their insistence, persistence and directives, ongoing participation of the Voice Against Violence group in the implementation of the plan (see Appendix 4 for the Research Protocol).

For Parts 2 and 3 of the study I adopted a PAR approach to work with the young people as

‘change agents’, reflecting a dual process of understanding and analysis of their experience of policy-making (Malone and Harting, 2010). Part 1 had established that ‘reflexivity is not only common to the discourse and practice of researchers but also a stance adopted by the

119

children who participate in research.’ (Christensen and James, 2000:5) and that active participation could ‘enhance critical thinking, ability to analyse their situation, incorporate other evidence, reach a decision’ (Crowley and Skeels, 2010:189, citing Kirby et al., 2004). It also demonstrated that young people had the agency and capabilities to engage effectively in politics. This new, planned, regular engagement with a group of young people, who had a position integral to the public policy-making structure, gave me the exciting opportunity for a shift to a PAR approach with these young active participants. Kindon et al. (2010:14) summarise the key characteristics of PAR that I adopt and explore throughout the key periods and aspects of the study about to be described. Young participants were encouraged to ‘use and share their competent and reflexive capabilities in all aspects of the research process’ (ibid.). One constant aspect of review in this study, detailed shortly, was how young participants felt about the PAR process itself, as well as progress in terms of issues for CYPEDA and perspectives on their involvement in policy-making. Young participants were encouraged by the researcher to actively discuss aims, topics, questions throughout, resulting in the addition of research question 3 to the study. Young people advertised and recruited participants for the VAV period of study; they discussed and devised methods (e.g. use of anime and IT to explore pseudonyms and purpose), decided roles for each of them in the process (e.g. project leads including review, creative director, chair, etc.) and discussed the researcher role – whether they wanted the researcher and/or young lead to facilitate/ co-facilitate or write up, for example. PAR ‘involves participants and researchers in collaborative processes for generating knowledge’ (ibid.) and the young people’s involvement in data collection and analysis provides the evidence for this (see data analysis section). The fact that it was a new, unique project helped foster PAR’s focus on the participants and researcher actually generating ‘new’ knowledge, valuable to others who were invested in learning about the approach – the Government, civil servants, agencies, CYPEDA involved in the plan. I endeavoured through the design and process,

120

the action involved, to empower young people as ‘change agents’: there were regular stages of reflection and action and all were collaborative, none undertaken as researcher/practitioner only. Young people began to see themselves as a role models for a different way of participating in the future (‘let’s revolutionise participation’ (John, VAV Film Review)) and were keen to share their ‘construct[ion of] new meanings through reflections on action’ (ibid.), particularly with other young people (see data analysis and Chapter 6).

Participants

Five boys and four girls took part in the project; they were aged 15-20 at the beginning of their involvement, one of the boys was involved for one year only and then opted out (see table below). The young people were living in different areas of Scotland: Islands, North Ayrshire, South Ayrshire, Fife, Tayside, Central, Glasgow, Fife. All of the young people had had to move home more than once because of domestic abuse but the route to safety and services for each family was different. For their initial move: two of the young people had to move to rural towns from a Scottish city, two moved country - one from England and one from the Middle East to refuges in Scotland, one briefly into refuge for an overnight stay and then into foster care, one to relatives, two to temporary homeless accommodation. Six had contact with Women’s Aid services at some point in their lives but the nature of this, and the support received, varied considerably. The young people had a wide spectrum of experience, including separation from mothers and/or siblings and grandparents, care, social work involvement, mental health support and legal proceedings, all had been homeless as children, three also as young adults. The young people all came into contact with a range of agencies over a number of years and had experience of a wide variety of professionals, in particular education, health, the police, social work, Barnardo’s and housing services and the CEDAR (Children Experiencing Domestic Abuse Recovery)

121

groupwork pilots. All the young people had experienced domestic abuse and its effects for a number of years.

These young people had all taken part in previous participation, research and pilot projects in Scotland: two in the CEDAR pilot and publicising it, one the new outreach service for children in the community including publicising it through creating animation and publicity materials. Five young people who had been previously involved in research made reference to the fact that their recommendations were agreed by many other children over the years: 57 children were involved in the refuge research (Fitzpatrick et al., 2003), 33 children in the moving house research (Stafford et al., 2007), 45 children in phase one of this study and well over 100 children and young people in the total three years of the Scottish Women’s Aid’s Listen Louder campaign. Consequently, they felt that they were reflecting the views of many young people in stating their priorities, whilst acting as ‘representatives’ to an extent (VAV Directives 2008). Three had been involved in public speaking, with one young trainer involved in multi-agency and Children’s Panel training. Three of the young people were invited to speak at the National Delivery Group (June 2007) developing the plan which inspired and motivated the group to make participation a reality.

Table 10: Part 2: Sample Young person- alias Gender/ ethnicity Age when start engagement

Previous involvement in Participation Projects in Scotland

Raya F British Asian 15 (2008- 2012)

Research Advisory Group member for SWA’s ‘The Support Needs of Children and Young People Who Have to Move Home Because of Domestic Abuse’ (Stafford et al 2007) , spoke at the Delivery Group about the research.

Marc M White Scottish 17 (2008 - 2012)

Research Advisory Group member for SWA’s ‘The Support Needs of Children and Young People Who Have to Move Home Because of Domestic Abuse’ (Stafford et al 2007) , co-prepared presentation for the Delivery Group.

S M

White Scottish

16

(2008 only)

Involved in refuge research (Fitzpatrick et al 2003) and plans for the new local refuge. Involved in Listen Louder Campaign 2002-4 returning in the final year of the campaign to check up on progress of research recommendations.

122 Chloe F White Scottish 19 (2008 - 2012)

Created and produced DVD on follow on and outreach support at a time when only 6 Follow On and 3 Outreach workers existed in Scotland. Involved in refuge research (Fitzpatrick et al 2003), Listen Louder 2002, petitioner at Public Petitions Committee of Parliament (2002), celebrated as young person’s advocate at Edinburgh Castle 2006. Declan M White Scottish 20 (2008 - 2012)

Involved in local campaigning from 2001 and then the Scottish Women’s Aid Listen Louder Campaign and Ministerial events 2002- 4. Involved in refuge research (Fitzpatrick et al 2003) and Listen Louder research (Houghton, forthcoming). Celebrated as a young Person advocate at Edinburgh castle event 2006, speaker to the Delivery Group. Karen F Scottish Asian 16 (2008 - 2012)

First young person to train Children’s Panel members and multi- agency groups in conjunction with Scottish Children’s Reporters Association/Aberdeen University. Spoke at the Delivery Group of experience and concerns.

Jack M White Scottish 16 (2009 - 2012)

One of first young people to receive new outreach service in the community, 1:1 and groupwork support. Developed animation and literature about the service to publicise service locally.

Lola F White Scottish 16 (2009- 2012)

One of first young people to attend the CEDAR concurrent

groupwork programme alongside mother and take part in evaluation reflection cycle and publicising the approach.

John M White

Scottish 16 (2009- 2012)

One of first young people to attend the CEDAR concurrent

groupwork programme alongside mother and take part in evaluation reflection cycle and publicising the approach.

Part 2 Methodology

The PAR research focussed on policy-making and was undertaken over four key periods outlined in the tables below:

1. Young People’s (YP) involvement in the development of the plan from 2007-8 -

originally conceived of as a one off consultation in 2007, with token involvement in the plan launch 2008;

2. The formation of the young expert group Voice Against Violence (VAV) in 2009

123

3. VAV’s involvement in the final implementation of the plan and beyond to VAV’s

end in 2011, a most prolific year marked by a shift in adult to child relations

4. VAV’s involvement in the final review and looking to the future in 2012.

Part 2 undertook a PAR process of reflection - on issues, process, standards, PAR itself and action - meeting Ministers and CoSLA (Scottish local authority spokespeople), key moments in Delivery Plan progress; meeting the Programme (adult) Board (PB) and events. The terms are explained below for ease of reference.

Table 11: Part 2 Explanation of terms for PAR action and reflection cycles Reflection : issues

review young people’s priorities by which I mean what needs to improve in children’s lives & what progress if any there has been (review plan, status reports, fact finding), done to inform meetings with Ministers/CoSLA and at the end/key points of projects i.e. support workers, schools, housing, CEDAR, justice Reflection:

process review review of their involvement in policy-making including equal relationships, two way dialogue respect, impact (Ministers/PB/ co-clients projects) Reflection:

standards review ethical and participation rights (how far met within group, with adults), development, further discussed in section 3 Reflection: review

of PAR methods Review, design, development of research tools, methods and review of overall methodology, pace etc. Action: meeting

Ministers and CoSLA

Young people’s direct meetings with Ministers and CoSLA to discuss their issues, priorities, progress also includes key shared public platforms – launches etc..

Action: Delivery

Plan progress Key moments in delivery plan progress, launch, report, end! Co-client project launch – joint Scottish Government/VAV projects Action:

Programme Board Meetings with the Programme Board (PB)and the Chair Action: Events VAV annual events & launches

Young people’s involvement in the development of the plan 2007-8

The Scottish Government funded the researcher to work with six young people to ascertain their priorities for action and relate them direct to Ministers (Making a Difference Report, 2008); this was originally conceived as a one-off consultation, albeit multi-staged with direct access to politicians. It was established by the Delivery Group of Adults who were developing the plan and funded by the Scottish Government. The young people involved insisted on acting as a check on adults, and Ministers agreed to continued involvement. At the launch of the plan over 6 months later, the young people refused to be

124

token participants ‘smiling for photos’ (MAD Review), instead critiquing the plan including its lack of continued engagement with CYPEDA so far (see Chapter 7). Ministers responded positively and asked the young people to devise recommendations to Government for a young advisory group (VAV Directives 2009), taking on board their evaluation of the engagement so far. The process and methods used are described in the table below.

Table 12: Part 2 Young People’s Involvement in the Development of the Plan 2007 – 2008

Phase Activities Methods

Setting up Scottish Government employs researcher to undertake participation project with yp to inform plan - direct access to Ministers unfettered by adults views & work that had already taken place

Establish group

PAR ask yp preferred method of communication and preparation – groupwork and residential

Individual/friendship group interview to establish means of communication & own priorities

Reflection Issue review: Yp negotiate and review their group priorities – issues –for government action

Standards review: ground-rules for one- off consultation (we think)

Residential workshops

Group discussion and previous research tools used by yp of pros & cons. Action Yp present priorities of action to

Ministers Prepare, rehearse, yp chair, yp speak first, yp lead on a priority celebrate

•prepare yp priorities for action

•rehearse

YP Meet Ministers September 2007

•meet privately with Ministers

•review plan and funding attached against cyp priorities

Launch Delivery Plan with Ministers and

CoSLA June 2008 •review process of being involved in policy making

•recommendations for the futureyp

VAV Directives to Government September 2008

125

*researcher presents yp’s priorities to the delivery group- adult board of the time Reflection Policy Review :debrief after meeting;

Parliamentary Debate £10m; lack of engagement yp; continued engagement Invite to launch

PAR review: researcher not to speak for them; Yp want to critically assess plan before meeting Ministers or speaking at plan launch

Issues review – Yp review progress in plan/££

Standards review – speak for themselves/public nature of launch/media/ photos/consent

Digi record group interview reporter style (each other)

Email and phone contact, debate on internet, views sent in

Residential group workshops yp compares plan and action to what children have said

Focus group discussion re process: lack of engagement, researcher speaking for them

Group discussion- like friendship group now and gradually more equal

relationship with researcher Action Yp private meeting with Ministers

welcome and critique plan

Yp launch positively but with reservations Yp named co-educators and invited to continue involvement

Plan, rehearse, yp chair, yp positive and critical

YP collaborate on speech, refuse to be positive only, promote continued involvement

Reflection Yp review experience of being involved – process and outcomes

Policy review : recommendation direct access to power, equal relationship, dialogue, equal and defined status to adult board

Standards review: conditions of ongoing involvement, sensitive approach

PAR: self-evaluation and indicators for future; yp want extra residential to consider and amend draft of their report

Evaluation techniques re process and outcomes, sun- what worked, cloud- didn’t, rainbow –what yp would change Creative workshops devised by researcher and facilitator to enable yp devise own recommendations for the future: dragons den – why it’s needed, what it is, blind date- relationships, success-evaluation techniques, indicators

Researcher drafts report using cyp words Extra residential to accommodate yp wish to have control over final report and sign it off. YP request to meet Government (without researcher) about next steps to ensure they’re informed

Action Yp meet representatives of Government without researcher about next steps once they receive VAV report; final VAV Directives to Scottish Government for a new Advisory Group including

Waters break as I send it off to the Government!

Yp do not receive any/adequate communication from Government during maternity leave, very annoyed and concerned

Reflections on PAR methodology

Young people were frustrated at the piecemeal involvement in the plan’s development, separated by 9 months rather than continuous engagement, which they felt indicated a lack of respect and a tick box tokenistic attitude on the part of the Government and adult group

126

(Borland et al., 2001; Hill et al., 2004), they wanted a more genuine, sustained dialogue which is missing in young people’s participation (Lansdown, 2006; Tisdall et al., 2011). However, a more positive relationship was emerging with the researcher: through meeting again to review the plan, then to review their involvement in policy-making and make recommendations: a dynamic PAR reflection and action process emerged with the researcher through the relationship of dialogue, creativity and respect developing in research session. Initial mistakes of the researcher speaking for them to the adult group were mutually agreed as such, in research sessions their words and views were paramount and valued, their expertise valued. Their wish was for control over the report and the analysis: for VAV Directives to be their recommendations not the researchers. Thus the PAR methodology emerged from and was grounded in young people’s experience of and perspective on, more tokenistic participation.

VAV’s formation and involvement in implementation up to the Scottish elections 2011 In Autumn 2009, Voice Against Violence, a young expert advisory group on the Delivery Plan was formed. It consisted of 8 members, 5 of whom had been involved in the plan’s development stages. Significantly, this was over a year after the plan’s implementation had started and a year after the young people’s directives had been put to Government, which would have a great impact on adult to young people relations (see Chapter 7). The first priority for the young people related to evidence-building (fact-finding) to give informed views to Ministers about budget decisions that could affect children’s support worker funding; followed by work towards a shared view with the adult expert group to advise Ministers about the plans legacy. The young people begin to also develop participation projects with key adults (see Chapter 7).

127

Table 13: Part 2 VAV’s formation and plan implementation up to Scottish Election period 2009-2011

Phase Activities Methods

Reflection Policy: Chair of adult board feeds back on directives for new group and negotiate group

PAR: Yp reflect on membership and direct/take part in

recruitment and induction Standards: all 8 yp reflect in their own standards for involvement PAR:8 yp agree aims and purpose Issues: 8 YP agree priority issues for Ministers

Chair comes to yp place for meetings, straight talking on directives and update on plan

Group discussion/exercises on diversity, purpose, advertising, yp design and create recruitment materials. Yp creatively induct wary of equality and group dynamics/power relations, ask researcher to take over until confidence grows

Individual interviews, their own rays of sun first, ethical and Listen Louder prompts Researcher facilitates equal discussion, negotiation agreement, all 8 have voice Fun teambuilding activities

Action VAV meet Ministers in private

meeting followed by launch in Parliament with mums, adult board

Preparation (limited but cooperative for new members) rehearsal, each speak, young chair All 8 yp present aims

Reflection Policy: debrief, plan, target, inform

Standards: agree present to adults Issues: negotiate those that are priorities in the limited time available before budget setting Policy: negotiate relationship with

Insider knowledge workshops with friendly Government and CoSLA

Teambuilding away weekend, mainly fun plus hot debates re standards

Peer education and discussion, researcher facilitated pyramid exercise

VAV place, fun creative workshops more yp than adults in small groups, upbeat

•feedback on directives

•Young experts official part of structure -equal to adult board

•8 members recruited, meet researcher

Voice Against Violence launch and meet Ministers