Engaging children and young people from disadvantaged ...
47
Engaging children and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds with the natural environment Technical appendices Authors: Fatima Husain, Berenice Scandone, Emma Forsyth, Hannah Piggott, and Muslihah AlBakri
Transcript of Engaging children and young people from disadvantaged ...
Engaging children and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds with
the natural environment
Technical appendices
Authors: Fatima Husain, Berenice Scandone, Emma Forsyth, Hannah Piggott, and Muslihah AlBakri
These technical appendices and the accompanying full report and research
summary are published by Defra (Defra Project Code BE0153) and are available
from the Department’s Science and Research Projects Database at
http://randd.defra.gov.uk/.
While the research was commissioned and funded by Defra, the views expressed
reflect the research findings and the authors’ interpretation and do not necessarily
reflect Defra policy.
Contents Appendix A – Document review ..................................................... 1
Appendix B – Recruitment material .............................................. 17
Appendix C – Survey tables ......................................................... 27
Appendix D – Area selection for in-depth research ...................... 34
Appendix E – Participating organisations ..................................... 35
Appendix F – Findings by area from in-depth area research…….36
Appendix A – Document review
Title Author (Year) Abstract / Summary Methods Barriers for YP Barriers for providers Motivators Other findings
Research to
understand
environmental
volunteering
amongst young
people.
Traverse / Defra
(2019)
In February 2018, Defra
commissioned Traverse to design
and deliver a qualitative and
quantitative research project to
understand the motivations and
drivers of young people aged 16 –
24 to participating in environment-
based volunteering projects. The
project also aimed to understand:
- The current forms of and pathways
into environmental volunteering and
the types of environmental
volunteering that are most popular
amongst young people.
- The barriers and challenges for
those that do not participate,
including people from different
backgrounds and with different
characteristics (e.g. location,
ethnicity).
- The opportunities there are to
make giving time to the environment
more attractive, relevant and
accessible to this target group.
Evidence review; 10
stakeholder
interviews (contacts
by Defra);
stakeholders survey
/ call for evidence
(contacts by Defra);
focus groups with
over 120 young
people (16-24, both
participating in
volunteering and
non); survey with
nationally
representative
sample of 1001
young people.
Barriers and challenges
for YP with no
experience of
environmental
volunteering:
- Feeling uncertain
about the relevance and
benefits associated with
taking part
- Not knowing what was
available to take part in
- Having limited time/
energy and competing
demands such as paid
employment or having to
prioritise study and
exam revision.
- Costs and travel
related barriers, which
was frequently identified
by those based in rural
areas.
- Lack of inclusivity =>
participants pointed out
that environmental
volunteering spaces are
sometimes dominated
by certain types of
people. This can make it
daunting or less
appealing for people
from different
backgrounds to take
part.
- Lack of confidence in
their capability or ability
to join a group of new
people.
- Negative perceptions
Motivators (irrespective
of background):
- Desire to develop
skills, confidence and
knowledge to support
academic and career
paths
- Desire to make a
tangible difference
- Desire to be outdoors
- Desire to have new
and exciting experiences
- Desire to make friends
and have fun
- Desire to feel a sense
of collective purpose
- YP often focused on
the outcomes and
benefits associated with
volunteering
- Prepared to ‘shop
around’ and try out
different things
- Activities that offer lack
of variety (in terms of
tasks) or lack of
rewards/progression
opportunities will find it
more challenging to
sustain participation.
Survey findings:
- Socio-economic
background is a key
predictor of taking part in
environmental
volunteering; with social
grades ABC1 being
more likely to say they
have taken part than
those in social grades
C2DE (29% compared
with 20%).
- Early exposure to
natural spaces and the
attitudes and values of
one’s family and friends
matter. For example,
young people who had
taken part in
environmental
volunteering were more
likely to say that growing
up their family had
enjoyed spending time
outdoors (also reflected
in FGs).
- When it comes to
gender, race and
ethnicity, and whether
based in urban, town
and fringe or rural areas,
no significant differences
emerged in terms of
rates of participation.
Secondary evidence
findings:
- There are different
stages to the volunteer
of environmental
volunteering. These
include it being seen as
‘uncool’, uninteresting,
or as something
primarily aimed at older
people.
Barriers for
disadvantaged YP:
- Less spare time if they
need to work paid jobs
- Less encouragement
- Lack of network that
can introduce them to
opportunities
- Costs for travel, food
and equipment
- Lack of diversity within
specific volunteering
groups or in the
marketing and
communications
materials may contribute
to a perception of
environmental
volunteering as an
exclusive activity
- Physical and language
barriers (e.g. lack of
information in braille,
lack of access to
buildings, physical
nature of activities)
affect disabled people
and people who do not
speak English fluently
(e.g. difficulty finding
information, being
unsuccessful in
applications, not feeling
accepted by groups).
Barriers to sustained
engagement:
journey;
- Volunteers tend to hold
multiple leading
motivations;
- Leading motivations
may change over time.
- The individual has
different motivations at
each stage, and
organisations must meet
them to maintain their
engagement.
- Poor social
experiences (not very
social, or do not fit in
with group)
- Poor roles and
activities (lack of variety,
enjoyable roles, or
learning)
- Feeling undervalued or
having no influence
- A lack of flexibility for
commitment required or
timings of activities
- Poor management and
communication from
organisers.
Sowing the seeds.
Reconnecting
London's Children
with Nature.
London
Sustainable
Development
Commission
(2011)
This report was commissioned by
the London Sustainable
Development Commission to explore
how children in London can be
reconnected with nature, and the
benefits that may be experienced as
a result. The report focuses on
children under the age of 12 and on
nature that has the potential to be
experienced as part of children’s
everyday lives (rather than in one-off
residential trips or adventure
activities).
Review of London
outdoor initiatives;
literature review.
- Lack of diversity and
inclusivity
- Lack of accessible
facilities.
- Funding and resources
- Planning, land use and
bio-diversity policy
- Natural qualities of
sites
- Site management rules
(e.g. health and safety).
Includes typology of
programmes in London:
school - on site; school -
off site; childcare/out of
school - on site;
childcare/out of school -
off site; uniformed &
youth groups;
community/environment
al projects; clubs &
hobby groups;
green/natural public
space interventions;
digital & mobile
interventions; and other.
‘Nothing to do’: the
impact of poverty
on pupils’ learning
identities within
out of school
activities.
Muschamp et al.
(2009)
This article reports the findings of a
project funded by the Joseph
Rowntree Foundation, which
explored the participation of children
in out-of-school recreational
activities. The experiences of
children living in poverty were
compared and contrasted with their
more affluent peers. The aim of the
project was to explore these out-of-
school activities as sites of learning
and to identify the impact of the
children’s experiences on the
development of individual ‘learning
identities’. Through in-depth
interviews with 55 children it was
concluded that there were
substantial differences in levels of
participation and in the learning
gained from these activities by two
different groups of children, and
stages in the development of their
different dispositions towards the
activities were shown. Attempts to
identify the roles occupied by the
children within a community of
practice led the authors to question
the extent to which the terms ‘core’
and ‘periphery’ can adequately
account for the activity within such a
community.
55 in-depth semi-
structured interviews
with YP (25 FSM; 30
non-FSM) involving
mapping of weekly
out-of-school
activities.
Factors affecting FSM
YP participation
(p.315):- Availability of
facilities- Costs of
attending / financial
difficulties of access-
Practical difficulties of
access- Family and
friends=> Complex and
re-formed families -
more time spent with
non-resident parents
and step-families=>
‘Chaotic’ family life
militating against
attendance=> Family
responsibilities (e.g.
house chores; caring)-
YP self-perceptions of
themselves as
attendees / sense of
belonging (linked to
perception of
participants' / 'ideal
participant' qualities).
Importance of focusing
on activities for younger
age groups, as access
to these influences
dispositions to activities
later in life (exclusion
producing self-
exclusion).
Enriching children,
institutionalising
childhood?
Geographies of
play,
extracurricular
activities and
parenting in
England.
Holloway, S. and
Pimlott-Wilson,
H. (2014)
Geographical research on children,
youth, and families has done much
to highlight the ways in which
children’s lives have changed over
the last twenty-five years. A key
strand of research concerns
children’s play and traces, in the
Global North, a decline in children’s
independent access to, and mobility
through, public space. This article
shifts the terrain of that debate from
an analysis of what has been lost to
an exploration of what has replaced
it. Specifically, it focuses on
children’s participation in enrichment
activities, including both individual
and collective extracurricular
sporting, cultural, and leisure
opportunities in England. The
research reveals that middle-class
children have much higher
participation rates in enrichment
activities than their working-class
counterparts. Parents value
enrichment activities in very similar
ways across the class spectrum—
seeing them as fun, healthy, and
social opportunities. The ability to
pay for enrichment, however, means
that it is incorporated into, and
transforms, middle-class family life in
ways not open to working-class
families. Nevertheless, support
across the class spectrum for these
instrumental forms of play that
institutionalize childhood in school,
community, and commercial spaces
leads to calls for subsidized
provision for low-income children
through schools. The article thus
traces the “enrichment” and
“institutionalization” of childhood and
draws out the implications of this for
how we think about play, education,
parenting, and class in geography.
Survey; follow-up in-
depth interviews
with parents.
Key barriers to WC YP
participation (p.621):-
Costs=> Direct costs
(joining fees;
equipment)=> Indirect
costs (travel).
- Large classed
differences in
participation in
‘enrichment activities’,
especially for activities
off school premises
(organised by voluntary
and commercial
organisations)- Similar
value attributed to these
activities by WC and MC
parents, but differential
capacity for resourcing.
Lifestyle sports
delivery and
sustainability:
clubs,communities
and user-
managers.
Katherine King &
Andrew Church
(2017)
Lifestyle and informal sports have
been recognised by policy makers
as offering opportunities to increase
participation in physical activity,
particularly amongst hard to reach
groups. Lifestyle sports are,
however, double edged in their
potential to achieve these goals.
Their playful and non-traditional
features may attract new participants
less interested in traditional sports
but the very liquidity of these
activities may mean that the
engagement of participants is
fragmented and not sustained
beyond a particular period in their
lives. This article presents the
perspective of mountain biking
users-managers; those involved in
the delivery; clubs and communities
of mountain bikers across the United
Kingdom. Findings suggest that
whilst lifestyle sport communities are
dependent on the work of formalised
clubs to gain access to the funding
and resources they need to sustain
their activities, core participants will
not always want to have to liaise or
become involved formally within a
club structure. In addition, clubs will
not succeed in delivering sustained
activities in line with sport policy to
increase and maintain participation
by relying on individual grants and
without the support of an active
informal user community. Accounts
highlight the importance of engaging
informal user communities with a
sense of ownership such as locals to
ensure new participants are
integrated and the community is able
to replenish.
Barriers to provision of
lifestyle / informal
sports:- NGB; sports
clubs and policy bodies
funding structures =>
reliance on one-off
grants and lack of
sustained funding-
Reliance on volunteers
and voluntarism.
Importance of engaging
local community to
ensure long-term
sustainability.
Monitor of
Engagement with
the Natural
Environment
Survey. Children
and Young People
report.
Natural England
(2019)
Headline findings of the MENE
survey in relation to children (aged
under 16) for the year from March
2018 to February 2019.
Summary of key statistics from
2018/2019
•During 2018/19 around two-thirds of
children (67%) spent leisure time
outdoors at least once a week.
•Frequency of visit taking declined
into teenage years while a larger
proportion of those aged 16 to 24
spent time outdoors once or twice a
month (29%).
•Most children (69%) had visited
urban greenspaces in the last month
while around a third had visited the
countryside (35%) and 16% visited
the coast.
•While most spent time in natural
places in their local area (70%) far
fewer (25%) had visited places
further afield.
•Just under three quarters of
children (71%) had visited the
natural environment with adults from
their household during the last
month, 32% took visits with other
adults and 17% had spent leisure
time outdoors unaccompanied by an
adult.
Since 2009, Natural
England has
commissioned
Kantar to undertake
the Monitor of
Engagement with
the Natural
Environment
(MENE) survey.
MENE survey
provides the most
comprehensive
dataset yet available
on people’s use and
enjoyment of the
natural environment.
It includes
information on visits
to the natural
environment
(including short,
close to home visits)
as well as other
ways of using and
enjoying the natural
environment.
Questions asked
about children’s
visits to the outdoors
(asked of their
parent/ guardian)
were introduced
from March 2013.
An additional
quarterly module of
questions asked of
children directly
about their
connection to nature
was included in year
nine of the survey.
•Level of family
engagement – In
household where adults
visit the outdoors at
least weekly: 80% of
children also visit at
least weekly. In
households where
adults visit the outdoors
less than once a month:
61% of children also visit
less than once a month.
•Level of deprivation -
There’s a substantial
difference in the
numbers of children
regularly spending time
outside between the
most affluent and most
deprived areas of the
country. Adults and
children living in the
most deprived areas
were less likely to spend
time outside frequently
than those living in more
affluent areas. Children
living in the most
deprived areas were
less likely to spend time
outside with adults and
more likely to spend
time outside than those
living in more affluent
areas.
n/a Motivations for spending
time in the natural
environment vary by age
and ethnicity.
• Reasons for
engagement
among younger
children are mainly
for play and
spending time with
family. As children
enter their teens
increasing
proportions take
visits to do
something
physically active or
choose to explore
independently, to
play, get fresh air
or relax.
• Children from Asian
backgrounds
spending time
outside to spend
time with family or
friends. Children
from black family
backgrounds were
more likely to take
visits for reasons
linked to play.
• There has been a
decline in the
number of children
and young people
spending time
outside without an
adult. The sharpest
declines were
recorded in relation
to urban green
spaces and
amongst those
children in lower
socio-economic
groups. In 2013/14,
71% of children in
DE households
visited urban
greenspaces in the
previous month,
dropping to 61% by
2018/19.
• Because the
amount of time
children spend
outdoors is closely
linked to the
frequency of visit
taking by their
parents (even in
teens), initiatives
which aim to
increase
opportunities for
children to visit
nature should
consider the needs,
motivations and
benefits for the
family, and
extended family, as
a whole.
Listening to young
people’s views of
the coast: Living
Coast Youth Voice.
Natural England
(2019)
Living Coast was a national
partnership pilot project developed
by Natural England. Natural England
wants to help people from all walks-
of-life enjoy the benefits of a new
long distance path around England:
the England Coast Path. By 2020,
the path will stretch for
approximately 2,700 miles around
our beautiful English coastline and
open up new stretches of the
coastline.
In this research, we worked with
young people aged 11 – 18 to create
new knowledge about what makes it
easy or hard for them to make the
most of the coast, and what they
suggest would help. This is
important because there is little
other evidence about this nationally.
This research took place in Barrow-
in-Furness in Cumbria – a place with
a high quality natural environment
and areas that fall in the bottom 10%
and 3% nationally on measures of
deprivation.
This research was
conducted with 59
young people aged
11-18, who live in
Walney and Barrow-
in-Furness (mix of
ages, genders,
ethnicities, and
distances from the
coast, prioritising
those who live in
areas that fall in the
lowest 3% or 10% in
the IMD.)
Creative and
participatory
methods were used.
• Participatory
Advisory Group
(PAG) of eight
young people
• Mapping and
discussion
groups with
young people
• 2 creative
events with
young people
• Feeling like they
don’t belong
• Feeling unsafe –
fearing verbal or
physical attack was
the biggest barrier
to young people
going to the coast,
excluded because
of previous
experiences of
violence.
• Attitudes of adults –
assumptions that
young people are
up to no good,
experiencing
negative reactions
from adults when at
the coast.
Reinforces low self-
esteem and feeling
like they don’t
belong
• Lack of
information/local
knowledge – not
knowing about
places on the
coast, how to get
there, lacking skills
needed to
participate in
activities at the
coast e.g.
swimming
• Not being able to
get there easily
• Family income and
time – parents long
working hours, not
having a family car
n/a • Familiarity with the
coast – young
people familiar with
the coast used
coastal areas more.
Familiarity came
from living close by,
being taken by
family, friends or
school
• Once familiar with
the coast, if they
had the necessary
support (e.g.
permission, ability
to get there,
information and
safety), young
people continued to
go.
• Family behaviour,
resources and
attitudes –
supportive families
enabled young
people to enjoy the
coast (by providing
help getting to the
coast,
encouragement to
explore, money)
• Competence in
navigating risks in
coastal
environments due
to experience and
familiarity
• Coastal places
offering peace,
adventure (sliding
down, swimming,
cycling) wildlife,
and places to walk
dogs and eat food
had a particular
Young peoples’
suggestions for what
would make them go to
the coast more often:
• Making it safer (so
less likely to
experience bullying
from peers or
judgement from
adults)
• Making it easier to
get there
• More information
using social media
• Providing activities
• Cleaner beaches
• Provide shelters
Research team
suggestions
• Bring key local
organisations, service
providers and young
people together to hear
and understand
concerns what affects
coastal use in their area
and can then work how
to work together to
share resources and
deliver high impact
solutions.
• Find ways to
tackle bullying and
violence
• Change adult
attitudes
• More
information - to include
where to go, when, how,
what to do there, what
you can see there, real
risks and how to play
adventurously but
safely, and what they
appeal. Which
place appealed to
which young
person, appeared
to depend on their
personal interests.
perceive as risks that
they don’t need to worry
about.
• Building
outdoor confidence
• Build
friendship groups
• Provide
information about
coastal employment
opportunities
• Improve
transport – better and
cheaper transport
‘We don't enjoy
nature like that’:
Youth identity and
lifestyle in the
countryside
King and Church
(2013)
It is claimed that contact with nature
and the countryside can benefit
young people’s health and
wellbeing. There are concerns,
however, that not only do young
people encounter significant barriers
to accessing these resources as part
of their leisure experiences, but also
they generally have less direct
experience of nature. Research into
youth leisure activities and their
associated cultural dimensions
suggests performance and
enactment are an integral feature of
related youth lifestyles. This paper
argues that young people’s
engagement with nature and the
countryside still remains only partly
understood
because past studies have not
examined these interactions as part
of a wider process of developing
lifestyles and identities linked to
youth leisure activities. Presenting
the findings of primary qualitative
research involving a group of young
people who live in urban and rural
areas and who make regular use of
countryside space for mountain
biking, this paper shows the ways in
which young people express their
relations to nature and the
countryside. By providing a specific
focus on young people’s countryside
leisure experience within the
framework of identity and lifestyle
the paper offers a more holistic
understanding
of how young people interact with
the countryside exploring both the
distinctive elements
of the spaces offered by the
countryside to develop symbolic
ownership over space and the way
in which, through embodied
Qualitative research
with 40 mountain
bikers aged between
13 and 25 years old
Case study was
located in a forest in
a rural setting in
South East England
Participants were
recruited through the
local mountain
biking community
and snowballing, at
cycle club events,
through local
advertisements and
via an online forum.
Conducted mobile
interviews (n=23) - a
recorded cycle ride
with the researcher
and between one
and three young
people on a route
that participants had
chosen within the
forest.
Mobile observation
sessions,
‘static’ semi
structured
interviews, as
individuals or in
groups.
n/a n/a Motivators - Reasons
for mountain biking in
the countryside
Lifestyle and identity
• Young people
taking part in
mountain biking
appreciated the
outdoors and
attached symbolic
meaning to the
countryside
• Part of their
identity-
differentiated
themselves from
other young people
who chose to
perform leisure
activities in other
spaces, either
urban or indoors or
in other ways.
Contributed to their
identities/lifestyles
as ‘outdoorsy’
The outdoors as a
setting for social
interaction
Preferences for non-
urban spaces
• Felt more able
to perform
their lifestyles
in non-urban
spaces, free
from control
and
interference of
others.
• These tended
to be
Young peoples’
relations with
nature/the
environment
• Terms such
as ‘nature’ or
‘the
environment’
did not
resonate with
respondents
• They had a
pragmatic
stance
towards
nature.
Relationships
with the
nature of
these spaces
was based
upon an
appreciation
of the
landscape
through
function – the
activities the
environment
supports
• Participants
articulated a
preference for
spaces which
they
considered
were more
‘natural’; yet
did not
associate this
with what they
considered to
be a
conventional
appreciation
experiences and knowledges, the
nature associated with these spaces
is given meaning by young people.
countryside
spaces that
others have
overlooked
e.g. urban
fringe
woodlands,
disused
quarries or
abandoned
farmland
of the
aesthetics of
the landscape
Children's outdoor
play: Exploring
parental concerns
about children's
safety and the
changing nature of
childhood
Valentine, G.
and McKendrck,
J. (1997)
This paper uses the evidence of
research conducted in North-West
England to explore the extent to
which parents consider that there
are adequate public facilities and
play opportunities in their
neighbourhoods for their children;
and it considers whether children’s
experiences of outdoor play is
changing, by comparing
contemporary children’s play with
both previous academic studies of
children’s independent use of space
and with parents’ accounts of their
own childhoods. The findings
presented suggest that the vast
majority of parents are dissatisfied
with the public provision of play
facilities in their neighbourhood.
Temporal and spatial changes also
appear to have occurred in patterns
of children’s outdoor play over the
last three decades. Fewer children
are playing outdoors and the
location of most outdoor play is now
closed centred on the home rather
than the street. There appears to be
no link between play patterns and
play provision; children are no more
likely to play outdoors, or play further
away from home if there are
adequate opportunities provided
within their neighbourhood. Rather,
the evidence of this paper is that the
most significant influence on
children’s access to independent
play is not the level of public
provision of play facilities but
parental anxieties about children’s
safety and the changing nature of
childhood.
Two-year study
funded by the ESRC
which used a range
of research methods
to explore parental
concerns about
children use of
public space. The
research canvassed
the opinions and
experiences of
parents with a child
aged between eight
and 11 years old.
Self-completion
questionnaire of
parents distributed
through primary
schools (n=400.) 75
questions which
explored the
parents’ attitudes to:
the local area, the
child’s play, the
child’s travel to
school, the child’s
play through time,
their concerns for
their child and asked
for biographical
information about all
the household
members.
70 follow up in-depth
interviews
Lack of
provision/inadequate
provision
•The vast majority of
parents surveyed were
dissatisfied with the
public provision of
facilities and
opportunities for
children’s play in their
neighbourhood. parents
who live in
predominately working-
class areas are more
likely than those in
mixed class areas, who
in turn, are more likely
than those in middle
class areas to perceive
a lack of public play
provision.
•Parents from urban
areas (87%) are more
likely to perceive a lack
of provision compared to
parents from rural areas
•Children of lone parents
experience more of the
local neighbourhood
(more are ‘outdoor’
children, more play
beyond the immediate
vicinity of the home),
while lone parents
themselves are more
dissatisfied with local
play provision because
they have less
resources to provide
alternative ‘private’
opportunities for their
children.
Parental restrictions
n/a n/a Findings on the nature
of children’s’ outdoor
play
•There have been
temporal changes in
patterns of outdoor play
(fewer children are
playing outdoors) and
the location of most
outdoor play (tending to
be based around the
home).
• A significant amount of
children’s outdoor play is
taking place in ‘private’
space, rather than
‘public’ space, so that
although children are
spending a considerable
proportion of their
leisure time ‘outdoors’
most have very limited
opportunities to play in
or explore the public
environment
independently of adult
supervision.
•While overall children’s
outdoor play is
becoming more home
centred (and therefore
supervised by adults),
children are being
compensated for the
decline in their
independent mobility
and therefore their
independent activity by
the substitution of adult
controlled institutional
activities. Two-thirds of
the parents surveyed
claimed that their
children participate in
•Ninety-five per cent
stated that they impose
restrictions on their
children’s outdoor play.
•Middle class’ mothers
argued that they
experience pressure
from each other to
impose strict restrictions
on their children’s play
and to chaperone their
children to and from
social activities. Mothers
in both ‘middle’ and
‘working class’
neighbourhoods whose
childcare practices are
out of line with the local
‘norm’ claimed that they
were stigmatized and
marginalized by other
parents.
some form of organized
play activities.
• Paper concludes
that the issue of
parental regulation
of children’s use of
space requires
further attention.
Engaging NEET young people in the natural environment Changing young lives Access to Nature: Early Findings Paper 1
Natural England
(2013) Access to Nature is a scheme run by
Natural England and funded
by the Big Lottery Fund. Natural
England works on behalf of a
consortium of eleven other major
environmental organisations
and distributes £28.75 million Lottery
funding under the scheme,
which has been developed to
encourage more people to enjoy
the outdoors, particularly those with
little or no previous contact
with the natural environment.
Here we draw on the experiences of
seven projects,
which have all engaged young
people between 13-24 years
who are not in employment,
education or training (NEET),
or at risk of becoming NEET
because they are not fully
engaged with mainstream education.
It is based on the
findings from projects about their
work with NEET young
people; it includes their experiences
of what has worked and
what has not worked for them, as
identified through the Access
to Nature self-evaluation process.
This is distilled into a number
of key learning points about
engaging NEET young people in
the natural environment.
These papers are being produced
across the lifetime of Access to
Nature and demonstrate what is
being learnt about encouraging
people who have little or no
experience of the natural
environment to go out into the
outdoors. This includes messages
to inform the continuing work of
Access to Nature projects and
Report is part of a
series of learning
papers produced
over the course of
the Access to
Nature programme,
drawing on
experiences and
self-evaluation of the
projects
Available here:
http://publications.
naturalengland.or
g.uk/publication/1
0382390
n/a How providers can
overcome barriers
(drawing on the
experiences of the
seven Access to Nature
projects)
• Partnerships and
having a joined-up
approach e.g. using
‘ambassadors’ to
promote
programmes,
support services
accompanying
young people, use
of specialist
partners to provide
unique activities
• Building and
maintaining
relationships with
young people e.g.
offering activities
that capture
interest and do not
necessarily involve
the environment,
making use of
social media and
texting to keep in
contact with young
people
• Varied, practical
and purposeful
activities
• Accreditation –
offering young
people
opportunities to
improve their
employability by
accrediting their
learning
• Giving young
people genuine
n/a Benefits to young people
of taking part in Access
to Nature projects:
• Raised self-
confidence,
independence
, self- esteem
and sense of
achievement.
• Improved
social and
communicatio
n skills
• A more
positive
attitude to
education
• Taking pride
in their
abilities
• Improved
physical
health
• Reduced
involvement in
anti-social
behaviour
• Widening of
horizons,
developing
aspirations
and improving
employment
prospects
the work of other organisations
interested in or committed to this
kind of work. More Findings Papers
will be produced as Access to
Nature progresses and as we build
on our learning to date.
opportunities to
influence/deliver
project activities
Appendix B – Recruitment material
Information for national stakeholders
About the research The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) have funded the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) to carry out a study into programmes which encourage children and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to engage with the natural environment. As part of the Government’s 25 Year Environment Plan, Defra wants to encourage children and young people to be close to nature, both in and out of school. This study will explore the network of existing natural environment programmes available outside of school settings and the involvement of children and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. By examining existing provision and the challenges and facilitators to engagement, the research will inform future Government decisions on how to optimise provision to reach the most disadvantaged groups of children and young people. Using an area-based case study approach this research comprises:
▪ Interviews with stakeholders in national organisations supporting the engagement of children and young people with the natural environment
▪ A survey of local providers ▪ In-depth research in local areas involving:
o Interviews with local providers o Focus groups with children and young people
What does taking part involve?
Defra have identified you as a key national stakeholder who would be able to provide valuable information for this study. We would like you to take part in an interview that will last no longer than 50 minutes. The discussion will take place over the telephone and can be arranged for a time and date that is convenient for you. Participation is completely voluntary and confidential. Key topics we will discuss in the interview include:
Children and young people’s engagement
with the natural environment
Information for national stakeholders
▪ The range of interventions nationally that are aimed at supporting children and young people to engage with the natural environment
▪ Whether these programmes effectively engage disadvantaged children and young people
▪ The barriers and facilitators to engaging disadvantaged children and young people
▪ Knowledge of local provision in selected areas and data sources. What you tell us will help to build a list of natural environment programmes in the localities where we will be conducting research.
How will the information be used?
NatCen will use the information gathered to inform the next stages of the research project, and to write a report that will be published by Defra.
GDPR and data security
Defra are the data controller and NatCen the data processor for this study. NatCen will store and handle all data securely and confidentially in compliance with the GDPR. Only the research team will have access to the data. Reports and other publications arising from this research will not identify any organisations or individuals. A privacy notice will be shared with you before the interview, giving more information about the lawful basis for processing your data under GDPR, and how we will handle your data.
Who do I contact if I have questions?
If you are interested in taking part in the research or have any questions, then please get in touch with our research team using the following email address: [email protected]
The NatCen research team:
Dr Fatima Husain – Research Director
Dr Berenice Scandone – Senior Researcher
Hannah Piggott – Researcher
Emma Forsyth – Researcher
Adam Gilbert – Research Assistant
Information for local providers
Research on children and young people’s engagement with the natural environment
Information sheet for local providers
About the research The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) have funded the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) to carry out a study into programmes which encourage children and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to engage with the natural environment.
We are now moving into the final phase of the study which will involve in-depth research into
children and young people’s engagement with the natural environment in [name of area]. In your
areas we will be conducting:
▪ Interviews with local providers like yourself; and
▪ Focus groups with children and young people who struggle to engage with the natural environment
Why are we contacting you?
We would like to invite your organisation to take part in the final stage of the research. We are contacting you because you helpfully completed the short online survey we sent you over the summer, and said it would be ok for us to get back in touch. Taking part in this phase of the research is voluntary, but we hope you are still interested in supporting us.
What will taking part involve? Taking part will involve an interview with a NatCen researcher that will last no longer than one hour. We are flexible with where the interview takes place. If we have spoken to you about the possibility of organising a focus group with the children you work with, we may be visiting your local area and can conduct the interview face-to-face during a site visit. Otherwise, the interview can take place over the telephone and can be arranged for a time and date that is convenient for you. Key topics we will discuss in the interview include:
▪ The activities you provide for children and young people;
▪ Your organisations’ strategies for engaging children and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds;
▪ Examples of good practice and recommendations to encourage engagement;
▪ Local infrastructure, and the challenges you face as a provider; and
▪ Your views on the provision in your local area. We may also ask for your help in organising focus groups with the children and young people from a disadvantaged background. Separate information will be provided about what this involves.
How will the information be used?
What you tell us will allow us to build up a detailed picture of what provision is like in your area and explore the key components of a natural environment programme that would successfully engage disadvantaged children and young people. NatCen will use the information gathered to write a report that will be published by Defra. We will ask your permission to audio record the interview so that we have an accurate record of the discussion.
GDPR and data security
Defra are the data controller and NatCen the data processor for this study. NatCen will store and handle all data securely and confidentially in compliance with the GDPR. Only the research team will have access to the data. Reports and other publications arising from this research will not identify any organisations or individuals. A privacy notice will be shared with you before the interview, giving more information about the lawful basis for processing your data under GDPR, and how we will handle your data.
Who do I contact if I have questions?
If you are interested in taking part in the research or have any questions, then please get in touch with our research team using the following email address: [email protected]
The NatCen research team:
Dr Fatima Husain – Research Director
Dr Berenice Scandone – Senior Researcher
Hannah Piggott – Researcher
Emma Forsyth – Researcher
Adam Gilbert – Research Assistant
Focus group briefing for local providers
Research on children and young people’s engagement with the natural environment
Organising the discussion groups
Research overview
NatCen Social Research (NatCen) are conducting research into children and young people who
struggle to engage with the natural environment for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (Defra)
We are interested in carrying out in-depth research in [name of area]. We will visit your area to
conduct some interviews and carry out group discussions with children and young people.
Your role in organising the discussion groups
We would like your help with two things:
1. Helping to recruit children and young people for the group discussion.
2. Arranging a private room that seats up to eight people for the discussion.
The discussion groups will be conducted in November 2019.
How to recruit children and young people
There are two things to consider when choosing which children and young people to take part in
group discussions
1. We want to speak to children and young people who face disadvantage which may affect
their ability to access the natural environment. We are happy to take your lead on what facing
disadvantage looks like for the children and young people you work with, but would expect it to
include:
▪ Those from lower income households
▪ Children and young people from BME backgrounds
▪ Those with a physical or mental disability
2. We would like to speak to children and young people who:
▪ take part in natural environment activities and
▪ do not engage in natural environment activities
If your organisation runs activities that are not in the natural environment we would like your help in
organising a separate group discussion.
When speaking to children and young people about taking part:
• Give them the research information leaflet
• Explain verbally what the research will involve
• (For children under 13) Approach their parents for consent using the provided letter and
consent form
How will the discussion work?
• The discussion will last approximately 90 minutes, and ideally would take place in the location where you carry out activities with children and young people
Each discussion group will include 4-6 children and young people. It is important they arrive on time to take part in the full discussion.
Children and young people aged 8-18 can take part. We advise that the children in each discussion are of a similar age.
Taking part in the discussion group is completely voluntary. Children and young people can opt-
out of the research at any point during the process, including during the discussion.
The discussion groups are held confidentially and reported on anonymously.
The children and young people will receive a £15 shopping voucher to thank them for their time.
Who do I contact if I have questions?
If you have any questions about this process, then please get in touch with our research team using the following email address: [email protected] The NatCen research team:
Dr Fatima Husain – Research Director
Dr Berenice Scandone – Senior Researcher
Hannah Piggott – Researcher
Emma Forsyth – Researcher
Adam Gilbert – Research Assistant
Information sheet for children
Information sheet for young people
25
Letter for parents
Dear Parent, RE: Discussion group with children and young people about spending time in nature I am writing about a research project that we (The National Centre for Social Research) are carrying out about activities which encourage children and young people to spend time in nature. The study is funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). This research will help Government decide how to encourage all children and young people to spend time in nature. For this research we are visiting your local area to carry out:
• Interviews with people who organise outdoor activities for children and young people
• Discussions with children and young people about what outdoor activities they do Your child has been invited to take part in a group discussion and we would like to ask your permission to include them in the research.
What happens if my child takes part in a group discussion?
Your child will take part in a discuss with 4-5 other children who are similar in age. The discussion will last up to 90 minutes. This will take place at [name of local provider] and will be organised by members of staff. We will audio record the discussion to help us remember what was discussed. Everyone who takes part in a group discussion will receive a £15 shopping voucher to thank them for their time. Your child has been given information about the research. If your child decides to take part, they do not have to talk about anything that they don’t want to and can decide to leave the discussion at any time.
What will we you be discussing? We will discuss: ▪ Their interest in nature
▪ Their experience of taking part in activities outdoors: e.g. gardening, bug hunting;
cycling; camping, farm visits
▪ Reasons for taking part (or not taking part) in activities
▪ What they think would help children and young people to spend time in nature.
What will happen to the information? The information we gather will not be shared with anyone outside of the research team. At the end of the project, we will use the information to write a report that will be published by Defra. We will not use your child’s name or any other personal details that could identify them.
What happens next? Your child’s views are very important, but it’s up to you whether or not you would like them to take part. Your decision will not make a difference to your child’s involvement with <name of local provider> or anything else.
26
Please complete the slip attached to let us know whether or not you consent to your child participating in the discussion group. If your child has decided to take part but later decides that they do not want to be involved, you can use to contact details below to let us know that they won’t be attending. If you consent to your child taking part, <name of local provider> will let you know the date and time of the group discussion.
Where to find out more about the project If you would like more information, you can have a look at our study website:
http://natcen.ac.uk/taking-part/studies-in-field/natural-environment-programmes/about/ You can also contact the project team at NatCen if you have any questions about us or this project. Please contact the team by calling X or emailing [email protected]
Your privacy: To find out about how NatCen will use your information and personal data you can visit:
http://natcen.ac.uk/taking-part/studies-in-field/natural-environment-programmes/privacy-notice/ Please note all our researchers have enhanced DBS checks.
Consent form for parents and guardians
Opportunity for your child to take part in a discussion group about spending time in nature
☐ Yes, I consent for my child to take part in the discussion group
☐ No, I do not consent for my child to take part in the discussion group
Your child’s name…………………………………………………………………………………. Your full name…………………………………………………………………………………….. Your signature……………………………………………. Date……………………………….... Please return this slip to [name or organisation] before the discussion group. Your child will not be able to take part if this slip is not returned.
27
Appendix C – Survey tables
Table 1: Providers who responded to the survey, by area
Area Number of providers
Blackburn with Darwen 7
Blackpool 7
Bradford 11
Hackney 18
Hastings 5
Plymouth 12
Sandwell 12
Sunderland 10
Note. n=821
Table 2: Main focus of the organisation
Main focus % of providers N of providers
Youth engagement/youth work 23 19
Community engagement/work 16 13
Tackling inequality 1 1
Sports or exercise 5 4
Outdoor and adventure skills 5 4
Wildlife/nature 17 14
Environmental awareness/action 5 4
Other social action or volunteering 1 1
History and heritage 4 3
Other 23 19
Note. n=82
Table 3: How long the organisation has provided natural environment activities for children
and young people
Length of provision % of providers N of providers
1 year or less 5 4
Between 1 and 3 years 3 2
Between 3 and 5 years 4 3
5 years or more 88 72
Don’t know 1 1
Note. n=82
1 ‘n’ is the number of respondents who have selected any of the available answer options, including DK and N/A. For questions with DK and/or N/A (e.g. 'activity not provided') categories, % and n of respondents who have selected these options are included in the table for transparency. Variations in ‘n’ are due to variations in the number of overall respondents for each question.
28
Table 4: Goals of natural environment programmes and activities
Goal % of
providers
N of
providers
To improve physical wellbeing/increase physical activity 47 35
To increase confidence/resilience/encourage character
education
58 43
To improve mental wellbeing/health 54 40
To empower young people 37 27
To encourage engagement with nature 49 36
To foster connections with the local environment/place 38 28
To create stronger links with their local community 30 22
To build social relationships 39 29
To improve activity-specific/transferrable skills/employability 43 32
To increase time spent outdoors 38 28
To increase environmental awareness/knowledge 42 31
Other 8 6
Note. Participants were asked to select up to three options. n=74
Table 5: Natural environments accessed through programmes and activities
Natural environment % of providers N of providers
Woodland/forest 55 46
Farmland 27 22
Mountain/hill/moorland 27 22
River/lake/canal 40 33
Village 17 14
Path/cycleway/bridleway 42 35
Country park 34 28
Other countryside space 30 25
City park 45 37
Allotment/community garden 27 22
Playground 34 28
Playing field 35 29
Other park/town space 31 26
Beach 28 23
Other coastline 23 19
Other 16 13
Note. n=83
29
Table 6: Whether children and young people take part in activities
Activity CYP take part CYP do not take
part
Activity not
provided
% prov. N prov. % prov. N prov. % prov. N prov.
Sports/exercise a 52 41 3 2 46 36
Outdoor activities requiring skill a 51 40 4 3 46 36
Exploring/discovering wildlife b 78 62 3 2 20 16
Creative and natural play b 76 61 4 3 20 16
Farm based activities c 39 30 1 1 60 46
Gardening/planting trees c 58 45 8 6 34 26
Conservation and learning a 71 56 6 5 23 18
Note. a, n=79; b, n=80; c, n=77
Table 7: Whether children and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds take part in
activities
Activity Low SES Mental
health
issues
Physical
health
issues
Minority
ethnic
Activity not
provided
% N % N % N % N % N
Sports/exercise 46 35 34 26 38 29 40 31 46 35
Outdoor skills 43 33 33 25 38 29 39 30 46 35
Explore wildlife 69 53 56 43 63 49 61 47 20 15
Creative/natural play 70 54 56 43 62 48 60 46 22 17
Farm based activities 36 28 27 21 33 25 33 25 52 40
Gardening 52 40 43 33 47 36 47 36 35 27
Conservation/learning 52 40 43 33 47 36 47 36 35 27
Note. n=77
Table 8: Whether children and young people from different disadvantaged backgrounds are
targeted by the organisation
Activity Low SES Mental
health
issues
Physical
health
issues
Minority
ethnic
Activity not
provided
% N % N % N % N % N
Sports/exercise 29 22 13 10 20 15 16 12 42 32
Outdoor skills 31 24 17 13 21 16 18 14 43 33
Explore wildlife 45 34 25 19 28 21 24 18 16 12
Creative/natural play 47 36 24 18 26 20 24 18 17 13
Farm based activities 21 16 8 6 9 7 7 5 46 35
Gardening 37 28 18 14 18 14 20 15 32 24
Conservation/learning 47 36 26 20 26 20 25 19 22 17
Note. n=76
30
Table 9: Format of programmes and activities offered
Format % of providers N of providers
Group/club based 85 69
CYP with their families 64 52
Independent/individual 49 40
Other 10 8
Note. n=81
Table 10: Level of supervision of programmes and activities
Level of supervision % of providers N of providers
Fully supervised by staff/volunteers 67 54
Mixture of staff/vols and youth led 27 22
Other 6 5
Note. n=81
Table 11: View on the range of natural environment activities in the local area
View on range of activities % of providers N of providers
Excellent 8 5
Good 19 13
Adequate 22 15
Inadequate 31 21
Don’t know 19 13
Note. n=67
Table 12: View on the number of programmes in the local area that engage children and
young people with the natural environment
View on number of programmes for CYP % of providers N of providers
More than enough 3 2
Enough/just the right amount 16 11
Too little 67 45
Don’t know 13 9
Note. n=67
31
Table 13: Approaches to targeting disadvantaged children and young people
Targeting approach % of providers N of providers
Community outreach 62 48
School outreach 69 53
Local charity partnerships 40 31
Referrals from other organisations 38 29
Targeted marketing 26 20
Other 20 15
Do not target 9 7
Note. n=77
Table 14: Whether the organisation collects any data on the number of disadvantaged
children and young people taking part
Whether collecting data % of providers N of providers
Yes 48 34
No 44 31
Don’t know 9 4
Note. n=71
Barrier Very
important
Fairly
important
Not very
important
Not at all
important
Don't
know
% N % N % N % N % N
Lack of awareness about available
provision
54 37 32 22 6 4 1 1 7 5
Lack of understanding of possible
benefits
45 31 39 27 10 7 0 0 6 4
Low level/lack of parental
engagement
59 41 30 21 7 5 0 0 3 2
Costs of travel 61 42 16 11 12 8 7 5 4 3
Costs of fees 61 42 9 6 13 9 15 10 3 2
Costs of equipment 45 31 16 11 15 10 20 14 4 3
Competing responsibilities 35 24 35 24 12 8 10 7 9 6
Not a priority given complex issues 39 27 29 20 15 10 4 3 13 9
Lack of confidence 45 31 35 24 12 8 4 3 6 4
Lack of interest in the outdoors 44 30 23 16 22 15 6 4 6 4
Fear of the unknown/lack of
familiarity
51 35 35 24 4 3 4 3 6 4
Feeling out of place in NE 39 27 32 22 15 10 7 5 7 5
Perception that activities for 'other'
CYP
46 32 29 20 11 8 7 5 6 4
Physical access issues 23 16 17 12 32 22 13 9 15 10
32
Table 15: Importance of factors as barriers to children and young people taking part in
natural environment programmes and activities
Note. n=69Table 16: Importance of factors as barriers to organisations delivering natural
environment programmes and activities
Barrier Very or fairly important Not very or not at all
important
% of
providers
N of
providers
% of
providers
N of
providers
Local service infrastructure 75 50 25 17
Limited knowledge of local
communities
57 38 43 29
Funding constraints 96 64 5 3
Local environment constraints 58 39 42 28
Workforce issues 81 54 19 13
Workforce expertise 70 47 30 20
Note. n=67
Table 17: Actions taken by the organisation to increase the engagement of disadvantaged
children and young people
Action % of providers N of providers
Reduced costs of taking part/ providing subsidised places 74
Targeted outreach activities 46
Involving young people in developing activities 63
Providing opportunities for different levels of involvement 60
Partnerships with other orgs/referral agencies/local charities/LA 75
Emphasising the benefits of participation for the young person 46
Other (please specify) 12
No steps currently taken 4
Note. n=68
Table 18: Whether the organisation receives government funding only, LA funding only,
both, or neither
Sources of funding % of providers N of providers
Gov depts or non-dep bodies funding only 5 4
LA funding only 34 29
Both sources of funding 8 7
No sources of funding 42 36
Don’t know 11 9
Note. n=85
33
Table 19: Whether activities are provided through partnership/network
Whether part of partnership/network % of providers N of providers
Yes 43 35
No 52 43
Don’t know 5 5
Note. n=82
34
Appendix D – Area selection for in-depth research
• Urban/coastal/rural: we have included a selection of urban/inner city (Hackney), urban
(Sandwell) and two coastal towns (Blackpool and Plymouth).
• Type of natural environments: one of the areas (Plymouth) is in close proximity to an
AONB and national park and providers are likely to be working in these places - we will
explore whether disadvantaged children and young people are engaging with these.
Hackney will provide an exploration of provision where there are significant
physical/environmental barriers to accessing some types of natural environment as well as
other barriers such as air pollution and lack of green space. Here providers may be working
in different types of ‘natural environment’ such as urban parks/gardens, likely to be
examples of ‘good practice’.
• Ethnic diversity: we have included two locations with high ethnic diversity, and two with
low ethnic diversity (mainly White British).
• Levels of deprivation: we have included Blackpool which had the highest level of
deprivation out of the original 8 locations.
• Survey data: we have taken into account the number of organisations willing to be re-
contacted from survey to ensure we maximise the contacts we have from the survey. As
well as being the most deprived area, Blackpool has fewer providers willing to be
contacted. This will allow us to explore gaps in provision. The other 3 areas have a good
amount of contacts to enable us to organise fieldwork in these locations efficiently. Data
from the stakeholder interviews highlighted good practice/challenges data relating to
Sandwell and Hackney.
Area
(region)
Urban/rural/coastal Provision/survey follow-up
contacts
Other
Hackney
(SE)
Urban (inner city) 14 contacts. Provision likely
to be well established.
Combination of high
deprivation and high amount
of activity at community level
to tackle this.
• High ethnic diversity.
• Densely populated and inner city. Issues such as access to green space and pollution likely to be present and influencing engagement.
Blackpool
(NW)
Town, coastal 4 contacts, suggests
provision is limited/hard to
access.
• High proportion of white British population.
• Very high levels of deprivation and there does not seem to be much in place to tackle this.
Sandwell
(WM)
Town, inland 10 contacts. Variety of
providers amongst these
including LA and charities.
• Ethnically diverse, large Indian population.
• Stakeholder interviews highlighted good practice in Sandwell, lots of work being done by LA.
Plymouth
(SW)
Town, coastal, near
national park (Dartmoor)
and AONB (Tamar
valley)
8 contacts, some with
specific focuses e.g. sport,
and target groups e.g. CYP
with disabilities.
• Diverse landscape, variety of natural environments in close proximity e.g. coast, moorland (national park).
• Clustered pockets of deprivation in the SW and NW of the city.
35
Appendix E – Participating organisations
The following organisations took part in the research and consented to be acknowledged in the
report. Other organisations that took part in the research wished to remain anonymous, and so
have not been named here.
National stakeholders
These organisations took part in the interviews with national stakeholders at the beginning of the
project:
• Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
• RSPB
• The Scout Association
• Our Bright Future
• Sensory Trust
• TCV
• Canal and River Trust
• Groundwork
• National Federation of Young Farmers’ Clubs (NFYFC)
• Action for Conservation
• Woodcraft Folk
• Fields in Trust
An additional 13 organisations took part in the in-depth interviews. These organisations wished to
remain anonymous.
Local providers
These organisations took part in the in-depth area research at the end of the project. They took
part in qualitative interviews and/or helped to facilitate focus groups with children and young people
• Sandwell
o Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council
o Young People’s Services / Malthouse Outdoor Activity Centre
o Go Play Sandwell – Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council Play Service
• Hackney
o Outdoor People
o Kentish Town City Farm
• Plymouth
o Routeways
There were 5 other organisations that took part in the in-depth area research that wished to remain anonymous.
36
Appendix F – Findings by area from in-depth area
research
Introduction
This section is a summary of the findings in each of the four areas where we carried out in-depth research (interviews with providers and focus groups with children and young people). As stated in the main report, the research identified a range of individual, organisational and spatial barriers that hindered the engagement of children and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds with the natural environment. The aim of the interviews with local providers was to explore in detail these barriers and facilitators to engagement in the context of their area.
This section draws out these factors, and the associated examples of good practice in the four different locations based on local provider interviews and focus groups. It does not draw on the results of the survey of local providers. This is because the achieved sample size in each area was small, so we are unable to draw conclusions on an individual area basis.
It is important to note that these findings are based on the perspectives of those we interviewed and are not a comprehensive review of provision and the barriers and facilitators in each area. In some cases, providers offered their view on the sector as a whole in their area, but this was not always the case.
Overview of areas
The table below provides an overview of the four case study areas and their characteristics (level of deprivation, type of environment and ethnic diversity).
Local Authority District
Region
% of areas in the most deprived decile nationally (2015)2
Local environment % of White British3
% of Ethnic Minorities
Plymouth South West 16.77% Small town/city, coastal, near national park
93.00% 7.00%
Sandwell West Midlands 22.58% Small town/city, inland 66.00% 34.00%
Blackpool North West 38.30% Small town/city, coastal
94.00% 6.00%
Hackney London 17.36% Urban, Inland (inner-city)
36.00% 64.00%
2 For the purpose of this research, we used the most recent data available at the time of sampling (IMD, 2015) to define
level of deprivation in our case study areas. (available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-indices-of-deprivation-2015). You can find updated IMD data published in September 2019 here: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-indices-of-deprivation-2019. 3 Data on ethnicity was obtained from official Census statistics (2011), available here:
https://www.ethnicity.ac.uk/research/data-sources/.
37
Summary of findings: Hackney
Hackney is an urban, inner city area in East London. 17.36% of areas in Hackney fall in the most deprived 10% nationally. Hackney is a culturally and ethnically diverse area, with 64% of the population from ethnic minority communities (ONS Census 2011).
Types of activities, natural environments and engagement approaches
In Hackney there are a range of local providers (charities and social enterprises) working to provide community focused programmes and activities such as kayaking, gardening and nature walks, farming skills and play schemes. The providers we interviewed were working in a range of urban environments, including canals, marshes, allotments and city farms. They also offered residential trips both in the UK and abroad.
Providers either worked exclusively with children and young people (through youth clubs, for example); worked with the whole family; or catered to a wider audience, offering sessions for both adults and children. All of the providers we spoke to engaged with children and young people from very deprived locations in Hackney, due to being physically based in these communities. They were also established and well known in the community, which they felt helped them engage children and young people.
There were a range of approaches to collecting data about the children and young people engaging with activities. For those providers receiving external funding this included robust collection of quantitative data on demographics and qualitative case study data about individual children that was fed back to funders (such as the local council). For those that were self-funded, information about CYP was collected informally, through staff getting to know children and families and their situations/circumstances, rather than through data collection forms.
Barriers to engagement and promising practice
Providers who we interviewed in this area highlighted a range of interlinking personal, organisational and spatial barriers to engagement.
Cost and accessibility
A key barrier to engaging disadvantaged children and young people in Hackney was the costs associated with activity fees and transport. One provider working in one of Hackney’s most deprived wards explained that local families could not prioritise paying for extracurricular activities for their children. The cost of activities was felt to highlight social divisions, with families on higher incomes able to access a wider range of activities.
For parents looking for things for the kids to get outside there’s a big divide between those that can afford to pay lots of money and those that can’t. (Local provider_8, Urban, Inland (inner-city)
Providers also said that due to the high cost of transport in London getting to activities was a significant barrier for many. Providers wanted to ensure their provision was affordable and felt it was important to minimise the costs associated with taking part in activities. They did this in various ways, such as providing children with equipment (such as weather proof clothing) and reducing the cost of activities.
Lack of familiarity
Providers also observed that many children in the local area lacked exposure to the natural environment. Cross-generational lack of familiarity and low parental engagement among
38
disadvantaged families in Hackney had implications for children feeling that outdoor activities are not relevant to them. To tackle this, providers ran activities for children alongside their family, such as family camping trips, designed to familiarise parents as well as children with the environment outside of their local area. As stated in the main report often the strategies used by providers reflected the multi layered nature of the barriers to engagement. In this case for example, both family finances and lack of familiarity were tackled together with camping trips for families subsidised by the provider.
Fear and apprehension
As stated in the main report, a key barrier was fear and apprehension of the environment, which took on different dimensions in different contexts (such as rural or urban). In this inner-city area, providers and young people agreed that concerns about safety (because of drugs, gangs and youth violence) stopped young people engaging with their local environment (such as the park) and activities based at youth clubs. One provider running youth clubs in an area of Hackney where these issues are particularly prominent shared their approach to tackling this, which involved community outreach activities and linking up with already established infrastructure, such as the council, social services and police.
Cultural differences
Hackney is a diverse area – according to the last Census (2011) approximately 20% of the borough’s residents were Black/Black British, 7% were Jewish and 4.5% Turkish. Some providers noted that these communities were underrepresented in their activities, which providers felt was due to cultural or religious restrictions around children taking part in activities. However, as noted in the main report, there may also have be organisational or structural barriers contributing to this underrepresentation. One provider said that they had tackled this by providing activities specifically for young Muslim girls, for example. Another provider with low uptake from Jewish and Turkish communities said that a priority for them going forward was finding out what the barriers to underrepresentation were among these communities and putting strategies in place to tackle these.
Funding cuts
There were also challenges and enablers to engagement on an organisational level, which were mainly related to a reduction in funding. Cuts in council funding in recent years have meant that services and programmes for young people have been reduced and providers have had to limit the number of young people they can engage with, due to staff ratios. Providers in this area wanted to see this reversed with funding for organisations to use on employing specialist youth workers. They also wanted to see more grants for new projects, which were currently seen to be in short supply and too competitive.
39
Summary of findings: Plymouth
Plymouth is a coastal town in South West England. 16.77% of areas in Plymouth fall in the top 10% of most deprived areas nationally. 93% of Plymouth’s residents are White British (ONS Census 2011).
Types of activities, natural environments and engagement approaches
This area was characterised by its diversity of natural environments. Plymouth is a marine environment and close to a national park (Dartmoor) and an area of outstanding natural beauty (Tamar Valley). The providers we spoke to offered activities taking place in these landscapes. The types of activities they offered reflected the environments they worked in, with a large focus on water sports and sailing, as well as others such as hiking, map reading and bush craft.
The providers we spoke with catered to a variety of different groups. Some aimed to be inclusive for those who might not normally have access and thus offered activities specifically adapted for children with complex additional needs, mental and physical health conditions. Staff working at these organisations saw their offer as filling a gap by making the outdoors accessible to these groups, in contrast with other services for children with additional needs which were mainly indoor and classroom based.
The idea is to give these youngsters a chance to do activities they would not normally get to do, so if they're in school, they wouldn't get taken out to go rock climbing, they wouldn't get taken out to go canoeing. (Local provider_12, Small town/city, coastal)
In this area, organisations used a diverse range of engagement approaches. One was universal engagement, without any targeted outreach. The rationale for this approach was that it has the value of bringing children with different demographics together without singling any groups out. A highly targeted approach was also used by some organisations who took referrals from social services and worked with children with additional needs.
Barriers to engagement and promising practice
Key barriers to engagement in Plymouth related to transport infrastructure and children and young peoples’ willingness and motivation to engage. Despite being a port city in close reach of a national park, many children and young people from deprived areas of the city were unfamiliar with the surrounding natural environment and the range of activities offered.
Fear, apprehension and relevance
The providers we interviewed said that a key barrier was fear of the unknown and negative perceptions about natural environment activities. In their work they saw children express fears associated with experiencing unfamiliar environments such as moorland or taking part in new activities such as sailing. One way to tackle this was felt to be offering a gradual introduction to the activity through taster sessions as well as a tailored approach taking individual needs (for example, conditions such as autism) into account.
[S]ome people think that it’s going to be scary as well when they go out because it is so different to what they’re used to doing in terms of sitting at home being on their computer (Local provider_10, Small town/city, coastal)
Cultural perceptions of activities as irrelevant to their lives also makes it difficult to engage children and young people. A sailing organisation reported that children saw sailing as an activity for the rich, and ‘not for them’. To tackle the organisation worked with children at a younger age through schools and minimised the costs of taking part (asking for a small donation of £1-3, as opposed to
40
high fees charged by other providers). Another provider running activities in the rural landscapes surrounding Plymouth said that perceptions of relevance was a significant barrier to children and young people’s engagement. The activities they offered, such as hiking and wildlife trails, were often perceived to be irrelevant and abstract for children living in urban areas. Here, both physical and emotional distance from the natural environment were mutually enforcing barriers. A way of tackling this would be for greater collaboration between providers that are trying to expand their reach and engage urban audiences, and youth workers already working with these groups.
Accessibility
A combination of weak public transport infrastructure and costs associated with travel mean the natural environment in this area is not equally accessible to all. It was noted that a lot of families in Plymouth do not have access to a car and so rely on public transport, making it difficult for them to reach places
…for people in Plymouth they kind of know that the sand is there and the rivers are here but they just have no means or transportation or cost of actually getting there themselves (Local provider_12, Small town/city, coastal)
Providers said there were gaps in transport links and activities often required children and young people to travel significant distances. This was a barrier particularly for younger children reliant on their parents for a lift. They sought to address this by encouraging things like car sharing.
Lack of funding and local organisational infrastructure
Providers spoke of organisational barriers that made it difficult for them to target and engage disadvantaged groups. One was a lack of diversity among staff, perhaps reflecting the predominantly White British population in Plymouth. As stated in the main report, this is a significant, sector wide issue that should be addressed nationally. The role of resource and funding in enabling organisations to target disadvantaged communities was also highlighted. Providers stated that these activities were costly and dependent on staff capacity.
Another issue was the local organisational infrastructure. Compared with other case study areas, partnership working in Plymouth appeared to be less developed. Because of this, it was quite difficult for providers to reflect on the whole picture of provision due to not knowing what is available. Greater communication between different providers could potentially fill any outstanding gaps.
Within Plymouth I think there’s been a history of everyone doing their own little bit and not necessarily looking to work in partnership, but I think that’s just starting to change at the moment. (Local provider_10, Small town/city, coastal)
41
Summary of findings: Sandwell
Sandwell is a borough comprising six towns in the West Midlands. 22.58% of areas in Sandwell fall within the top 10% most deprived nationally. Sandwell is ethnically diverse; 34% of residents are from minority ethnic communities.
Types of activities, natural environments and engagement approaches
In Sandwell there are a wide range of activities on offer to children and young people across the borough. Examples from our research include informal play sessions in local parks and formal outdoor activities based at activity centres. Sandwell itself benefits from having a large country park, and areas of outstanding natural beauty (such as the Shropshire Hills, and Cannock Chase) in the surrounding countryside. The providers we spoke to mainly provided activities based in the local environment, from canal waterways, to the green spaces found on residential estates. They also offered day and residential trips to further afield.
There were two key approaches to engagement in operation in this area:
• A ‘walk in’ model (where children can turn up and join in): providers used this to help overcome barriers to entry, such as filling out forms to gain a place which is often dependent on parental engagement.
• Going to where children and young people are: this more targeted approach was used to ensure uptake of activities among disadvantaged groups. Providers set up activities in communities of high deprivation (based on data such as IMD) and used partnerships with groups representing vulnerable children and young people (such as refugees or those with SEND, in some cases receiving referrals).
Barriers to engagement and promising practice
Providers in Sandwell shared a range of promising practice, which sought to overcome barriers related to cost and accessibility and to empower communities. Interviews with providers indicated that support from the local authority and a strong infrastructure around services for children and young people (particularly play) were vitally important and valued.
Cost and accessibility
Providers in Sandwell said that families have low levels of disposable income to spend on additional cultural activities and the transport required to reach these (given the size of the area which encompasses 6 towns). In the focus groups young people also spoke about cost of transport as a barrier in terms of families’ engaging with the environment. They noted that many families do not have a car and therefore cannot easily reach places, such as parks, which might otherwise be free to access.
Providers therefore noted that provision which requires children and young people to travel would not be a feasible option for many. Providers used two approaches to deal with this challenge:
1. ‘Hyperlocal’ provision designed to provide easy access to ‘doorstep’ activities. 2. Providing a free means of travel (using minibuses to collect young people and bring them to
the activity).
Shared local priorities
A particular example of promising practice in this area was shared local strategic priorities. This was evident in partnership working between providers and the local authority, and providers and other local services (such as schools and public services e.g. the police). Providers felt supported
42
by the local authority and appreciated having a set direction. Due to the success of this approach providers suggested that this model should be expanded to improve engagement on a national scale:
It helps if organisational outdoor-related strategies and activities enjoy government/local authority backing. It always helps if something's got government and local authority backing. It needs to be seen as a priority and linked into, whether it's fun activities or positive activities for young people or whether it's health and has a fitness agenda or a health and well-being agenda, or it fits into the national curriculum. (Local provider_4, Small town/city, inland)
Organisational good practice
At the organisational level another strategy used by providers in Sandwell was to actively involve children and families in the design of activities. Linked to this was the idea that activities should be flexible and have a relatively ‘rule free’ environment. For example, allowing children and young people to choose the activity they want to do on a given day. This was perceived to empower children and thus facilitate sustained engagement and encourage others to participate.
43
Summary of findings: Blackpool Blackpool is a coastal town in the North West of England. It is the most deprived area in our research, with 38.30% of areas in the top 10% most deprived nationally. Blackpool is also the least ethnically diverse area out of our four case study locations, with only 6% of the population coming from ethnic minority backgrounds.
Types of activities, natural environments and engagement approaches
Our desk research at the sampling stage had limited success (the number of providers we found and contacted was the smallest out of all four areas) which suggested that provision for children and young people in this area was either limited, or otherwise not well advertised. To investigate this further and explore the reasons for this, Blackpool was selected as a case study. Our data collection encounters included one interview and one focus group at a single organisation. Although our achieved sample supports the finding that provision is patchy, this does not necessarily accurately reflect the full picture, and it is important to note that the number of interviews conducted may also be due to recruitment challenges (such as the time of year when fieldwork was conducted, and staff being stretched).
The provider we spoke to in Blackpool was a community hub based in a deprived neighbourhood. They provided activities and services across a range of areas, including environment based, such as outdoor cooking, gardening, trips to the beach, nature walks and outdoor games. They also had an outdoor space for children and young people to spend time in alone to reflect.
Barriers to engagement and promising practice
The barriers to engagement discussed in Blackpool were mainly related to poor infrastructure and lack of funding for organisations.
Funding
The provider we interviewed said that youth services, such as youth workers, children centres and play schemes had been reduced due to funding cuts. This meant that there was less provision available, especially for older children not included in the ‘A Better Start’ scheme. To address this gap, they wanted to see more funding for youth services that stretch across ages.
Lack of familiarity
Limited provision in Blackpool meant that children and young people lacked familiarity with the natural environment. Providers interviewed expressed concern about the implications of this for children’s mental and physical health. They were concerned both that children were spending a lot of time indoors playing on computer games and that they were being exposed to harmful situations because of the lack of provision for them, such as crime and drug use.
Lack of familiarity with local environments, such as the beach, was also driven by poor transport links:
Although green spaces and nature is on their doorstep, the kids have never been to towns, cities and green spaces nearby. They've never been to the lakes. Yes, they've never been 30 miles up the road. So that is a barrier. Transport's a barrier, definitely. (Local provider_1, Small town/city, coastal)
The organisation tried to overcome this lack of exposure to the natural environment by directly facilitating access to it, for example, through day trips. Part of their approach involved teaching
44
children how to play and engage with their environment (such as how to rockpool) to compensate for low parental engagement.
Ownership and involving young people
To improve engagement, it was felt to be important for young people to value and have ownership over their environment. This was not currently the case in Blackpool due to parks and other natural environment spaces being of poor quality and/or not reflecting the needs and wants of young people themselves.
This provider sought to improve ownership alongside environmental quality by running community activities to inspire children and young people to take care of their local environment, such as litter picking and redeveloping green spaces. They also highlighted the importance of taking into account children and young people’s views when developing a new space such as a playground.
