DCA Family Justice Division Forum (Children and Young People)
URL
LESSONS LEARNT
Strengths
- The consultation team recognised the value of input from children and young people and the aim of the forum was to provide them with a dedicated space to get involved;
- The forum copy used plain language and avoided jargon or colloquialisms;
- Participation could be on an anonymous basis;
- The consultation report made specific references to the online deliberations.
Potential for Improvement
- With greater lead-in time, users could have been involved in the design of this forum;
- The forum’s subject matter was emotive – greater participation could have been encouraged by closing the deliberation to spectators;
- Registrations and participation could have been increased by working with representative organisations to promote the availability of the forum and support its users (with access to ICT, for example);
- Staff and resource allocation were insufficient to support the forum;
- Consultation team could have recruited experts and opinion leaders to participate and facilitate discussion;
- Regular feedback to participants via summaries should have been more regular and consistent;
- There should have been more background information for participants and clearer guidance about policy process.
OVERVIEW
See DCA’s Family Courts Forum (General Public) case study.
POLICY PURPOSE
See DCA’s Family Courts Forum (General Public) case study.
The forum for children and young people was set up during the consultation period to capture their experiences and views on proposals to improve the openness of family courts.
MODEL
Online deliberative forum.
The forum was readable by anyone, but registration was required to contribute. Registration was encouraged from young people under the age of 18 years old in England and Wales.
Discussion was structured around specific topics that related to the consultation. Pre-moderation was carried out by the consultation team.
Forum discussions in the young people’s forum were structured along the following discussion themes:
- Providing information to adults when they had been involved with family courts as children;
- The media attending family courts;
- Other people attending family courts;
- Separate representation of children;
- Protecting people’s privacy.
DURATION
The forum ran from September 1 to October 30, 2006
PUBLICITY
The forum was advertised on the DCA website and the Family Courts website.
Press releases were also sent out by the DCA and Family Courts division to trade and mainstream press that had a youth audience.
The Family Justice Division, in conjunction with the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, held a ‘mock trial’ event for young people at which the forum was promoted. The forum was also promoted at other appropriate events.
A number of organisations, such as the NSPCC and Children’s Rights Alliance for England, put a link on their website to the forum.
The Family Justice Division also wrote an article for the HeadsUp.org.uk newsletter.
OTHER METHODS
Respondents were invited to make submissions by attending meetings, or making written submissions (via letter or email).
Adults were encouraged to register with the forum for the general public (see previous case study).
USER PROFILES
35 registrants: 17 were male; 17 were female, 1 participant did not specify gender.
Various age groups were represented within our sample, including adults over 18 years (please note that participation was anonymous, no personal information was shared between participants, the forum was pre-moderated by staff who had undergone checks with the Criminal Records Bureau):
The majority of registrants (26) had not taken part in online consultations or political deliberations previously. Only 4 had given evidence to Parliament previously and only 10 had taken part in government consultations, although about 26 had been in contact with their MPs previously.
All were frequent users of the internet (32 of them accessing it from home).
USAGE TRENDS
36 posts – 26 by users, 10 by moderators.
Despite the low registration and participation rate, there was a large amount of visiting traffic – even after the consultation had closed:
USER FEEDBACK
Feedback from participants was very limited (n=3).
Online consultations were viewed positively in general, but respondents to our evaluation survey were ambivalent about this particular forum. They claimed that they sought more input from members of the policy team. The respondents said that they did not learn about the policy area from participating but appreciated the posts from other contributors.
Referring to the low post-count on the forum, respondents said that they often read other posts but did not contribute. When they did, however, they appreciated the fact that they could express their opinions freely and anonymously, at their own convenience.
User feedback survey responses are illustrated below:
DETAILED FEEDBACK
The aim of this forum was to create a dedicated space for young people to talk about their experiences and views in relation to government’s proposals to improve the openness of the family courts. Registration and participation were low, however. The young people being targeted by the forum may have lacked confidence in their ability to use such a site, or articulate their views effectively. They may have lacked access to ICT.
Many of the core users of this forum are vulnerable: creating a safe community is a priority in such contexts. Moderation is key to building a sense of community, ensuring that discussions keep a momentum and are as inclusive as possible. This posed a problem for the moderators in this case because of their lack of experience and resources.
Young people would seem to be an obvious group to engage online. While it is the case that young people are confident and regular users of the internet, it must be remembered that they have sophisticated tastes and are marketed at constantly by other community and commercial sites. To compound the challenge of holding their attention, is the fact that young people are rarely involved in policy exercises like this and are often distrustful of genuine opportunities and lack the skills to contribute as a result.
Although all engagement exercises would benefit from the involvement of users at the design stages, this is particularly true for those seeking to appeal to young people. Just such a process – had the opportunity been available – may have helped this case study increase its visibility and usage. It may have also brought unique factors to the attention of the consultation team, such as the need to restrict viewing to only those who have registered, in order to promote the sense of the forum being a dedicated and secure platform for experiences and views.
FOLLOW UP
The Family Justice Division published a response paper on March 22, 2007. The document summarises responses to the consultation; it also includes discussions of views expressed at stakeholder events and in the online discussion forum for adults, children and young people.
