Interim Youth Work Board meeting: 9 June 2021

Members:

• Keith Towler (KT): Interim Youth Work Board Chair
• Sharon Lovell (SL): Executive Director for the National Youth Advocacy Service and Vice Chair, Council for Wales of Voluntary Youth Services (CWVYS)
• Simon Stewart (SS): Dean of Faculty of Social and Life Sciences at Wrexham Glyndwr University
• Jo Sims (JS): Youth Service Manager for Blaenau Gwent
• Eleri Thomas (ET): Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner, Gwent
• Efa Gruffudd Jones (EGJ): Chief Executive of the National Centre for Learning Welsh
• Dusty Kennedy (DK): Trauma Recovery Model Academy

Welsh Government (WG):

• Hayley Jones (HJ): Senior Youth Work Manager
• Gemma Roche-Clarke (GRC): Head of Youth Engagement Team
• Dareth Edwards (DE): Youth Work Policy Manager

Simon Stewart, Dean of Faculty of Social and Life Sciences, Wrexham Glyndwr University.

The Board had a private discussion about their report recommendation to review the funding model for youth work. Welsh Government policy officials joined the meeting following that discussion.

Action: HJ to review minutes from 26 May meeting and circulate final version.

DE explained the approach taken to decide the award categories for this year’s Youth Work Excellence Awards. The approach to change the categories was in response to comments from judges and all categories were agreed by the marketing sub-group. DE asked whether Board members were content with the award categories and invited further comments.

Suggestions from Board members included a generic youth work award; recognition of good partnership working between local authorities and the voluntary sector; an award for the best local authority team and best voluntary sector team. DE suggested that the emphasis on partnership working could be made more explicit.  It was noted that that an award for best local authority team and best voluntary sector team could be considered for future awards.

DE thanked the Board for the comments shared at the meeting and via email. DE will feed back to marketing group.

The Board were given an opportunity to discuss the actions set out in the action plans.

There was a discussion around the language and terminology used in the REAP and the need for the report to be consistent with that. 

GRC clarified language set out in action plan, in terms of the action for the Board’s report to encourage anti-racist practice and identification of the specific needs of black, Asian and minority ethnic children and young people.

There was a discussion about the need to widen the scope with specific reference to a particular issue raised at the last all-SPG event around the race issues experienced by the gyspy and traveller community.

GRC thanked the Board for their contributions and expressed the REAP team’s gratitude for the sector’s contribution.

KT handed over to RJ to discuss the draft recommendation on equality and diversity.

RJ asked Board members to clarify whether they wanted an additional recommendation on race and equality and KT confirmed that the Board wanted an additional recommendation.

RJ questioned the language needed to reflect discrimination of different kinds.

The Board discussed weaving equality into every recommendation, or having a separate recommendation. It was agreed that it should be separate but cross–over with other recommendations was acknowledged.   

ET raised concerns from a policing perspective about the discrimination faced by disabled people and questioned what Welsh Government was doing to address disability discrimination.

GRC stated that the REAP was a reflection of Welsh Government’s current focus on racial discrimination as a priority area, in the way that other equality and discrimination issues had been previously. However, GRC suggested that if the Board felt that disability discrimination was a particular concern it should address this in their report.   

Board members were in agreement that a broad definition of discrimination was needed and that the recommendation needed to make reference to equality that should be inclusive and diverse for all young people. It was suggested that a ‘safe space’ will be different for individuals.

SL suggested that the recommendation should aim to ensure the planning of youth work provision is inclusive and diverse e.g. by assessing the needs of the population, using impact assessments and involving young people and underrepresented groups in the planning process.

ET requested that attention is given to the impact of COVID on people with disabilities in terms of isolation and the inability to access to services. 

KT outlined potential overlap and confusion with the drafting of recommendations 12 and 13. JS clarified that they are 2 distinct recommendations.

HJ explained that recommendation 12  felt as though it addresses two separate matters, with part of it having a comms/awareness raising focus (i.e. promoting the profession), and another having a focus on qualifications/workforce development. 

There was agreement that there needed to be clarity.

Action: RJ agreed to look at wording of recommendation 12.

Feedback from digital group (DK)

DK explained that the digital group preferred the phrase ‘information exchange’ rather than ‘youth information service’ in relation to recommendation 9 and, as this should be something that young people contribute to and have a stake in. The group was in agreement that the phrase should have more of a collaborative emphasis but felt that ‘exchange’ was not the right term. 

DK opened up a discussion about the ‘entitlement card’ recommendation and explained that the digital group thought a ‘card’ felt outdated. There was a discussion about shifting the focus of the recommendation to a membership, where a young person could have a direct offer when they turned 11 years old with entitlements and access to an ‘information exchange’. It was suggested that such membership could be facilitated via means other than a physical card. Reference was made to Scotland’s approach.

Board members discussed what other entitlements the ‘card’ or ‘membership’ could provide, such as travel, leisure and educational activities. Link with Meic were also questioned.

Process for setting up a national body (HJ)

HJ shared with the Board that she had contacted the Welsh Government’s Public Bodies Unit and Centre of Excellence for advice on the process of setting up a national body. There is a checklist for setting up a national body which was developed by UK Government.

Action: HJ to share checklist with Board members.

Youth Work Conference

DE asked Board members to save 14 and 15 Oct 2021 for this year’s Youth Work Conference.

Meeting with Minister

KT asked GRC for an update on an initial meeting with the Minister and GRC confirmed that the Minister’s private office had not yet suggested dates, but they would be in touch soon.

Service design in youth work event

KT agreed to attend the service design in youth work event on behalf of the Board on 13 July.