Abstract

This article reports some of the finding of 'The Real Deal' consultation project. The Real Deal was a six month long consultation project involving ten groups of young people from across the United Kingdom. The aim of the project was to report to policy makers the views of the so-called socially excluded and to engage the young people themselves in the political process. This article focuses on young people who live in an urban environment and their attitudes towards leisure.

Background to the Study

"So tell us what you want, what you really, really want!" so went the mantra of The Real Deal youth consultation project. Acknowledging media and political talk of "socially excluded youth", think-tank Demos, Save the Children, The Camelot Foundation and Pilotlight banded together early in 1998 to set up a UK wide consultation project with those young people commonly labelled as being socially excluded. Ambitiously, the project hoped not only to document the views of these young people in order to inform those attempting to tackle social exclusion, but also to engage the young people in a more overtly political process. This culminated in their holding fringe meetings at both the Labour and Conservative Party conferences and holding a meeting with relevant MPs at No. 11 Downing Street. The thinking underlying the project is that for policy makers to adequately tackle problems facing young people, they need to be made aware of young people’s views, their understandings of how things went wrong and their ideas for how their lives could be improved.

Much of the impetus for the study came from Demos who put together a proposal for a consultation project with disadvantaged young people. This was supported by Save the Children Fund (SCF), Centrepoint and Pilotlight, who all played a major role in the conduct and monitoring of the research. The groups were recruited through Centrepoint and SCF. There were two Centrepoint projects in London. The groups recruited through SCF were in Aberdeenshire, Edinburgh, Durham, Hull, Oxford, Cardiff, Belfast and Derry. In addition to the group consultation, 50 depth interviews were also conducted with young homeless people in London and Devon.

The researchers and youth workers attached to the groups met regularly to monitor the progress of the research and to share ideas. There was also a steering committee involving Demos, Centrepoint, SCF and Pilotlight whose role was to oversee the research and to advise on publicity and additional activities, such as the fringe events at the political party conferences. Demos had overall responsibility for the management of the research.

The project partners agreed five core themes at the start of the project. These were leisure and social activities; community and sense of belonging; education; employment and training; and transitions to adulthood. A sixth topic was to be chosen once the consultation was underway. In keeping with the political literacy aspect of the project it was decided to use the final consultation for a discussion of government and the decision-making process. Demos produced a briefing paper for each topic which covered basic background material including relevant research and, if appropriate, current government policy. The briefing papers all contained broad questions that the consultation hoped to look at. However the emphasis was very much on what issues the young people felt were important to them, with the briefing papers being used as starting points.

All Play and No Work?

"So tell us what you want, what you really, really want!" so went the mantra of The Real Deal youth consultation project. Acknowledging media and political talk of "socially excluded youth", think-tank Demos, Save the Children, The Camelot Foundation and Pilotlight banded together early in 1998 to set up a UK wide consultation project with those young people commonly labelled as being socially excluded. Ambitiously, the project hoped not only to document the views of these young people in order to inform those attempting to tackle social exclusion, but also to engage the young people in a more overtly political process. This culminated in their holding fringe meetings at both the Labour and Conservative Party conferences and holding a meeting with relevant MPs at No. 11 Downing Street. The thinking underlying the project is that for policy makers to adequately tackle problems facing young people, they need to be made aware of young people’s views, their understandings of how things went wrong and their ideas for how their lives could be improved.

The research method involved qualitative consultation with ten groups of young people across the United Kingdom. Social exclusion is a particularly amorphous and inexact term. This project was not concerned to look at definitions of exclusion but to engage with those popularly understood as being excluded and to feed their ideas into the policy making process. Hence the focus was on young people living through experiences such as unemployment, homelessness, single parenthood and those living in care. It was acknowledged from the outset that the project could not hope to be truly representative of "socially excluded youth" - if indeed such a clearly identifiable group existed. Secondly it was recognised that the project would be working with those young people hopefully now someway down a road to independence and not suffering the worst excesses of exclusion. However, we felt the sheer lack of co-ordinated consultation, particularly in a political climate in which stakeholder and grassroots opinion is all important, necessitated an attempt to speak to young people about their experiences. Researchers and youth workers from Save the Children and Centrepoint identified groups of young people aged 14 to 25 to reflect a mixture of both urban and rural locations, gender and ethnic make-ups. Young people were recruited through established youth centres, drop-ins, hostels and projects via posters, letters and open meetings in which the purposes of the project were explained.

A youth worker and a researcher was assigned to each group, and once recruited, the onus was placed on the young people to devise, with the help of the youth worker and researcher, an appropriate programme of research. Accordingly the groups varied not only in size and make-up, but also in the format the consultation sessions took. However, the emphasis in this piece of work was not so much to compare and classify the experiences of socially excluded youth but to engage young people in a political process and channel their opinions towards decision-makers. The groups were given themes and accompanying guidance notes to help open the discussion. Ultimately, however, the aim was for each group to develop their own ideas on each issue and to present their findings in a way they felt most appropriate. One issue tackled was leisure and it is the responses of those young people living in an urban environment that is pertinent to this new Journal of Urban Living and Leisure.

My involvement was as a researcher for the two London groups. The consultation with these groups took the format of fortnightly two-hour long discussions over a period of six months. Two sessions were devoted to each issue. The first session on leisure concentrated on identifying leisure activities important to young people, why they enjoyed them and the existence of any barriers to enjoying such activities. In the second session the groups were asked to design their ideal leisure centre; these ideas being springboards for a general discussion on existing leisure facilities and young people’s visions of improved services.

So is leisure in the urban arena the worrying diet of sex, drugs and rock and roll that the media expect of young people? Yes, but it is far more besides. Among the first mentioned pursuits sex features and, stereotypically, men tend to be particularly vocal about this. Perhaps not unlike the act itself, however, discussion of sex as leisure is over soon. Drugs, most commonly alcohol and marijuana, warrant a big mention. They are clearly social activities which the, majority to a greater or lesser extent enjoy. Marijuana, despite its illegality, is well and truly a substance to be reckoned with on the social scene. There are some calls for its legalisation although others point out that prohibition may have advantages, not least in the tax duties payable. Clearly smoking is widespread and the cost of the habit begrudged. Rock and roll is another love. Well, not quite rock and roll but swing or R & B or inde or hip hop or rave or garage or soul or ragga or some other music specialism to be more precise. Whatever, music is important and clubbing to those chosen tunes is a popular pursuit. Hanging out with mates, being with friends, watching films and going to parties can also be included. What these activities have in common is the why. People do them because, quite simply, they are fun and crucially they are sociable. So no surprises there. Young people enjoy being with their friends and drinking, smoking, having sex, dancing and listening to music at different times and in a variety of doses.

"Hanging out, being with friends. We like it because you can catch up on the latest gossip, help with problems and stress, help with studies, learn from your friends, helps you meet new people, stops you from being lonely, you can catch up, you can go raving with them." (Stacey, 20, London)

The barriers and pitfalls of these pursuits are predominantly financial. Going out is expensive. There are, however, ways of getting round this. Starving, saving, getting your mate to pay for you are some but a favourite among the girls is "scamming." This involves persuading your mother you need a new book to help with your studies when really you are going to use the money to go out. For some this is not considered akin to thieving. Justifying her actions to one disapprover, a girl explained:

"Scamming and thieving are two different things. Scamming is using your brain; thieving is unlawfully taking something which does not belong to you. Scamming is just using a bit of intelligence isn’t it? If they are stupid enough to give it you…" (Jane, 19, London)

Leisure does not end there though: sport, acting, painting, writing, singing, humour, helping the community and study are also important. Self-help books may have got something right: self-improvement and creativity are important enjoyable activities. The importance of these activities was also reflected in the ideal leisure centres. Leisure centres, the groups thought, should have the traditional sports facilities such as squash courts, swimming pools and sports halls, but they should also have facilities for study and specialist rooms for creative activities such as painting. Some suggested that leisure centres should be more like resource centres, providing space and equipment for people to study and express themselves. The groups seemed to be saying that young people would appreciate and benefit from the resources schools and libraries offer. As such, it suggests libraries could do well to advertise their services to young people. It also suggests that there is an opportunity for more leisure centres and community centres to offer creative classes and facilities. Maybe this drive for constructive leisure activities is a facet of wanting to get on in life. One girl wanted to build a recording studio to get her singing career off the ground. Others saw their ideal leisure centre as a money-spinning scheme that would make their fortune. The link here between leisure and labour is explicit. Leisure itself is understood to be an opportunity to better one’s qualifications or an opportunity to pursue an interest that may itself become one’s future occupation.

Demonstrating a concern for public spending the Treasury would be proud of, some made the point that new facilities should not be built for the sake of it. Where an area already has adequate leisure facilities, new ones should not be built. It was in the areas where facilities were non-existent, too expensive or difficult to get to that needed attention. As befits a generation brought up on advertising, many felt that existing facilities were not advertised adequately and that they did not know what was available.

The view that leisure should involve "putting something back into the community" is also important to note. Leisure for these young people is not just self-indulgence. Perhaps such a concern was inspired by a recognition that society had, at least at one point in their lives, failed them or equally that it had at one point helped them. Particularly among those who had experienced homelessness, having someone to talk to confidentially, such as a hostel councillor, was considered vital. Leisure time, they pointed out, was often taken up with worrying about getting food, a shower, a place to sleep and generally about what’s going to happen next, so it had helped to have some support in dealing with these problems. Now, for sure, a good proportion of the groups is engaged in some kind of voluntary work. Happily, it would seem, not all of Thatcher’s Children are of her view that there is no such thing as society. Interestingly no barriers to community work were noted.

The Future

These findings, despite their limitations and obvious superficiality, do point to a more comprehensive understanding of what leisure in the urban environment means to young people. Leisure is tied up both with being social and with labour opportunities. Here are young people who want a good time but who also know that they can use leisure time profitably and are concerned to do so. Given that these are young people who have experienced exclusion of some sort, this finding could be considered predictable. Leisure time is, after all, being seized as an opportunity to in some way get on or participate in society. The findings do, however, demonstrate the role leisure facilities have in overcoming social exclusion and its potential link to labour opportunities. This is important of itself and neatly reminds policy makers and researchers that in any analysis of and strategy for overcoming social exclusion, the "social" should not be taken for granted.

The Real Deal has generated a wealth of information on the attitudes and experiences of young homeless people in contemporary Britain. Importantly the discussions look not just at people’s situations but how they feel things could be and/or could have been made better for them. This has made it possible to focus on policy as derived from the views of those who would be most directly affected. A report is due to be published Summer 1999 by Demos. This report will include sections on: young people, the political process and political identities; experiences of government services; communities, identity and exclusion; the family; leaving home and/or care; support networks including friends and family; leisure and recreation including substance use; education including attitudes to lifelong learning; work including the informal economy; and training. In the next issue of the Journal of Urban Labour and Leisure, we will discuss further the issues and implications raised by this study.