Handling the impact on the organization

Gavin Stewart reflects on the experience of dealing with problems and tensions and the impact on his agency. 

contents: introduction | early days | crisis | making a new start | planning for the future

It is probably fair to say that every organization underestimates the impact upon itself of projects - this is especially true of a Youth Or Adult? project. The Scottish Conservation Projects Trust (SCP) certainly did and, furthermore, it is still in the middle of the process of adapting to it. That is not to say that SCP has been unnecessarily slow in adapting, but more to point out that the handling of the impact upon the organization is an evolutionary process, one that started - for SCP at least - at the introductory Rank conference and is still continuing some years down the road.

SCP, until recently, was fairly unique amongst the organizations involved in the Youth Or Adult? projects in that it is one which is not primarily centred on youth work. Rather, its essential aim is one of involving people (of all ages) in improving the quality of Scotland's environment through practical conservation work. It can be seen from this that people and their successful motivation must be - and always have been - an essential element of SCP's actions; at the same time conservation has been accorded the prior status. This is changing.

In 1989 SCP was looking to ways in which it might expand its activities and launch a major new project in the Edinburgh area, and in time this led to discussions with The Rank Foundation. During that same period the Edinburgh Green Belt Initiative was also developing, its objective being to maintain or improve the environment in a ring of countryside right round Edinburgh, and in particular to try to solve some of the many problems arising at the interface between, on the one hand, the landowning interests of farming, forestry and so on, and on the other, the range of deprived communities in the housing schemes on the south and east fringes of the city. From this there developed a project whereby SCP would employ an Urban Fringe Field Officer whose job it would be to identify projects on the ground and involve local communities, and their young people in particular, in the practical work. While initially this might have taken place in the general countryside of the Green Belt, it was intended that it should lead to local people identifying and carrying out projects in their own areas. At that time, it was probably fair to say that SCP, while fully appreciating the need successfully to motivate the young people, was looking in the final analysis to measure the success of the project in terms of the work on the ground and the numbers involved. It was less concerned with the quality of the development of the young people as individuals and their attitudes to the environment. Therein lay an error, for we were looking to adapt the project to our current world view, rather than adopting the Youth Or Adult? ethos and critically considering how this might influence the development not only of the project but also the organization as a whole.

Early days

It was at the time of the first Rank Conference for the 1990 cohort of line managers that the writer became involved in the project, having newly taken on this role. Considerable knowledge was imparted at that event - the demands on a line manager's time, the relationships and boundaries between organizations and individuals, financial matters, and others - and probably all of us departed feeling both somewhat uncertain and excited.

Back home, the recruitment process was started, and we were very much looking for a person who had good experience of practical work and who was interested in moving into the realm of youth work, gaining the qualification in the process. The emphasis was on the practical conservation background, rather than on the capacity to make relationships and work with people, particularly the young. It was felt that, with College work plus the effort to get the project off the ground, it would be a disadvantage for the worker also to have to learn the practical conservation skills. The Urban Fringe Field Officer duly started in Edinburgh, and contacts were made with the local authority community education and youth service which, in due course, opened up the opportunity to work with two youth clubs in the south-east of the city.

Perhaps the first event on the evolutionary path of SCP's adaptation to the Youth Or Adult? project was the change of name of the post, at the suggestion of the worker, from Urban Fringe Field Officer to Youth Development Officer. I view this as a significant step in our way of thinking for, not only was it a more accurate description, it was also a shift away from the customary localized geographical titles given to most field staff, to one that recognized the special function of the post to SCP as a whole.

This period was one of uncertainty for all staff, for SCP was going through a financial crisis which for a term of three months led to a short working week, although it did not directly affect the worker. As a person, he was fully accepted by the other staff in Edinburgh, and during National Tree Week in 1990 they all worked on a large collaborative project. Nevertheless, I believe there was a degree of uncertainty as to the post's full function and its role within SCP as a whole. While this could be, and was, explained, it is only when things start to happen that they begin properly to be understood. With respect to the rest of the staff within SCP, and its Council too, they were very much looking to see how the post fitted into the organization's traditional activities.

Crisis

It was some six months before questions started to be asked about results within the project. When this happens restlessness can begin to develop unless there are clear unambiguous answers. However, when an organization starts to look for results it must, in fairness, have a clear idea of what it is looking for. It is important, therefore, for all concerned in the organization to be agreed from the outset on the aims and objectives of a project or piece of work, and what might be expected at the end, for without that agreement ultimately there can only be dissention. Unfortunately, the lack of a clear understanding of, and agreement on, these aims and objectives may not be apparent for some time, and this is likely to result in tension when the questioning begins. Furthermore, in voluntary organizations where there is a tendency for large numbers of people to be involved, the risk is consequently greater. In SCP's case, as will already be apparent, there were quite a lot of people involved - the local committee, Council - but in a distant way, and not sufficiently close to have a clear idea of the aims and expectations. So what results was SCP looking for, and how did it manage the situation?

Traditionally, results had been judged on two easily measured criteria - the number of projects on the ground, and the numbers of people involved - and, thirdly, on the quality of the work itself. With respect to the Youth Or Adult? project we were on new territory. We had realized by then that our established measures clearly could not be appropriate. What we were therefore seeking was evidence of the development of relationships and the growth of activities involving young people. Our problem was twofold; firstly, in deciding what we should fairly and reasonably expect, given that it was a new and innovative project with an inexperienced trainee worker; and, secondly, in not having anyone within the organization who had the relevant experience and was truly competent to judge this. Regrettably at that time we were insufficiently aware of this, and as the months went by, some impatience with the apparent lack of results slowly manifested itself.

Another aspect of the situation where a project is moving into crisis on account of the lack of results, is the question of the respective responsibilities of line manager and worker for this. The pros and cons of this lie in another chapter, but suffice it to say that that is another source of tension within the organization, and one which can only be resolved by a dispassionate analysis of the evidence.

The crisis finally broke at the end of the first year. For those close to the work, there was a clear realization that things were not right, yet within the organization there was not the experience to know if remedial action was possible, nor the confidence to be sure of the correct and fair action if resorting to more radical measures. There was also the question of timing. In the end, it was the Rank Foundation which proposed action - and this involved replacing the worker. In one sense, they did not wish to be too involved. Equally, they had to look to the protection of their investment. It is also true to say that they were probably best able to analyse the situation, being close to and knowledgeable about the project, yet sufficiently separate from the organization itself to give an impartial view. It was later suggested by them that they might have got too involved, but given their position as funders and the very wide experience they have, I would suggest that, in the end, that involvement was unavoidable.

The effects of the decision to look for a new worker were substantial, and generated waves both within and outside the organization. It precipitated criticism from people who were but distantly involved and who had little or no business to comment. It also caused many staff to feel decidedly insecure and, metaphorically speaking, they distanced themselves from the Trust's management for a period. While it would be inappropriate to dwell upon the details of particular circumstances, it is nevertheless important to bring attention to the issues involved and which could happen to any agency running a Youth Or Adult? project. It is vitally important that those involved are entirely honest with themselves and the other parties. If a project is not going as it should, then one must not shy away from the truth, hoping the problem will go away - the Rank Foundation won't let that happen anyway, but it will give all the support that it feels able, and so indeed does the College too. Decisions do need to be made, and one must be ready to meet and patiently argue the justice of one's case when the inevitable criticism is voiced. Equally, while it is valid to argue the case for the defence, one must also be both resolutely critical in self-analysis and aware of the home-truths expressed by others. When things do go wrong, it is rare that it is due to one component only: rather, there are nearly always underlying considerations to be taken into account also. Finally, if a project has gone off the rails, but given that it is to continue, it is most important that past differences are buried, helpful criticisms openly debated and the energy of all put constructively to work towards a new start.

Making a new start

The decision to change the worker was undoubtedly the most crucial and fundamental requirement to get the project back on the right track. Nevertheless, having got it wrong once, it was vital to get it right the second time round. This was so that not only would The Rank Foundation's essential belief in the value of conservation to youth work be confirmed, but also SCP could show itself capable of taking on this very important aspect to its overall work. The situation had undoubtedly exposed some underlying weakness but, if these were properly remedied, then the right worker would be able to go forward with much greater strength and confidence.

During the middle of the first year a Steering Group had been set up to bring in outside advice to the general direction of the project. This group consisted of representation from the local authority youth service and the Edinburgh Green Belt Initiative (now the Edinburgh Green Belt Trust), as well as the Rank Foundation. However, the role of the group, which met on a quarterly basis, was very much a strategic one and it was not able to provide the regular advice and specialized support that was by then perceived as being needed. Nor were its individual members in a position to furnish that role. Equally, neither was SCP itself able to do so. As already mentioned, SCP's craft is practical conservation work, and while its staff certainly have reasonable people skills, and those more closely involved were picking up the principles of youth work, there was nobody who had the professional expertise or the time to support the worker by being able to discuss the day-to-day issues in those terms, and to be able to help relate these to the College training.

A further problem was that of finding a good pool of young people, people who would be around all the time and in sufficient numbers to enable constant contact to be available, even if individuals came and went. It was self evident that there were plenty of young people in the target areas around the periphery of Edinburgh. Many of course were not attached to any form of youth club or other centre. It seemed from our experience up to that time that the youth clubs tended to be of the more traditional kind, closed more often than open, providing the opportunity for some activities to relieve boredom but not really offering the kinds of service that are now recognized as being needed truly to meet the requirements of young people. Moreover, the clientele of such places tended to be in an age band below that upon which the Youth Or Adult? projects concentrate. Finally, there was a need to take a critical view of the skills and personal qualities to look for in the new worker, for it had to be acknowledged that the original criteria were not correct.

Clearly then, there were several very important issues to grapple with before the project could restart and, quite reasonably, both The Rank Foundation and some members of the Steering Group required solid answers before the new worker was appointed. So what sort of debate was there within SCP? How wide ranging was it? Did it bring forth conflicts of points of view? Were there difficulties in reaching clear decisions? It has to be said that there was very little debate. That is not to say there was no interest; far from it, because SCP's Council was most keen to see the project get re-established. Rather, it was the case that the members at that time were able to contribute very little to the debate, for in general they had little experience of the issues and neither was there an individual who could have done so. Furthermore, the situation with respect to the volunteers in the local support group was essentially the same. Thus, it was that the matter was left very much to the Director and the author, as line manager.

Our most pressing problems were to identify a good pool of young people and to set up the support structures for the future worker, and in approaching these it was very apparent that we needed to get to know considerably more about the wider youth work scene than was then the case. Moreover, it was very much within the voluntary sector that we needed to move. We had a number of contacts amongst the national organizations, and these led to various discussions. Ideally we wished to find a circumstance where the supervision was provided by someone working with the same group as SCP's worker would be, but it was not essential. One possibility for supervision seemed favourable but had to be turned down because the organization could not take it on. Then we were told about the Wester Hailes Youth Programme, a very active organization in one of the largest housing areas on the edge of Edinburgh, and one that had developed an excellent track record over about ten years. Two weeks later, after a meeting with the Programme's Director, SCP had an agreement whereby its youth worker could work alongside those of the Programme, one of whom would also provide professional supervision on a weekly basis. This was undoubtedly a major break-through, for it provided SCP with exactly what it needed, and it in turn was able to offer the Programme a completely new activity.

Meanwhile, the recruitment process had been active, and this time the emphasis was very much on the applicants' interpersonal abilities. The interviews were conducted in two stages. The first brought all those on the short-list together for an informal evening, at which they were given brief talks on SCP and the Green Belt Initiative, and which was followed by a discussion. This event involved not only some members of the Steering Group but also someone from the volunteer side of SCP; thus, as well as providing an opportunity for the candidates to be observed in a group setting, it also afforded the chance to bring together, at the re-birth of the project so to speak, those who would be involved in its future. A month later in January 1992, when the new support structures had been approved by all, the project worker started.

The project has gone from strength to strength, and there is no doubt that the troubles which SCP went through, while possibly avoidable, have proved worthwhile. There is now a thriving unemployed group which goes out doing practical conservation work every week - woodland management, drystane dyking (walling to the non-Scots!), clearing and stabilizing the ruins of a locally historic building, and constructing a cycleway, to give a few examples. In the summer of 1993, a party of eleven young people from Wester Hailes went on an exchange visit to the Share Centre in Northern Ireland, another Youth Or Adult? project; and two months later they put on an impressive demonstration of their new skills at the Celebration of Youth Conference at Lakeside.

However, before moving on to the future, it is perhaps worth considering the implications of our experience for those who might face the same. Like SCP, any non-youth-work organization will inevitably have much greater difficulty in setting up a Youth Or Adult? project. For the reasons already apparent from the above, they are unlikely to have the necessary resources in-house. There is a commensurate necessity to recognize this and ensure that these resources are brought in from outside and enable the necessary expertise to be available to the project. Secondly, if a major problem occurs, there will be tensions within an organization. If that organization is small, then perhaps there is a great danger that it could cause a potentially mortal rift within it, or fatally alienate it with outside bodies. In SCP's case, because it is a national organization, it was in a sense a local issue. In saying that, there is no intention to discount the gravity of the situation that it faced or to diminish the value of the project, but by being a national and therefore larger organization it was better able to cope with the crisis. At the same time, as will already be apparent from SCP's experience, those in the organization most close to the problem perhaps are more likely to find themselves having to solve the problem on their own. Whatever the case, if the project is essentially worthwhile, and there is determination to make it succeed, there will be support from somewhere and one will come through the crisis.

Planning for the future

SCP has now had four years funding from The Rank Foundation, and its worker has two years more before he will have completed his studies. The most urgent problem, therefore, is to be sure of the funding for what in effect will be a sixth year, and this issue is being addressed now. Equally important, though, is the development of SCP's long-term strategy. The last thing the Rank Foundation, or anyone else, wants is for the project to be wound up with a nice report and the whole matter turned into history. Not only would this be a negation of the aims of the Youth Or Adult? initiative, but surely of the conservation movement also. More and more people are becoming aware of the crucial importance of the environment, and appreciating that it is not merely a middle class luxury, but integral to the survival of us all and requiring some profound changes of attitude and lifestyle. The importance, therefore, of this project and of SCP's activities as a whole towards achieving these should not be underestimated.

It has already been stated that people and their successful motivation are an essential part of SCP's actions: this project has highlighted the requirement for SCP to give increasing attention to the needs of people and not just the needs of conservation on the ground. So too, there is a necessity to take a wider view of just what is meant by conservation, to understand that it is not just wildlife and landscape, but the use and sustenance of all natural resources, and to be aware that this view is as valid in the depths of our cities and housing schemes as in the wildest countryside. Thus, SCP has already been involved in recycling operations - paper, aluminium and plastics - and is there any reason why the scope should not be much wider? Developments in the current Youth Or Adult? project are already indicating that it might venture into realms new to SCP, so if the organization is to remain true to the young people, as well as look to its own future, then surely it must at least give a thorough trial to whatever might emerge .

However, SCP does not just consider what it itself might do, but how it might help others. This is integral of course to the Youth Or Adult? initiative through the empowerment of young people. Youth work is already showing itself to be a powerful tool for the development of involvement in conservation; and conversely conservation work is a valuable, and relatively new, vehicle for youth work. Through its development of the project in Wester Hailes, and also through its work with communities in Glasgow, SCP is learning much about the processes in both. I believe it is now in a much stronger position to look at its future strategy as a result. Last autumn SCP's Council held its first true debate about its future approaches to helping local communities with environmental projects, and the priority it should give to this. It was generally agreed that there should be growth and development in this side of SCP's work, and there are several aspects worth mentioning.

There surely has to be a continuing role for a Youth Development Officer, for much will remain to be done in the areas where he has been working. Equally, assuming this initial project will be a success, one would like to think that there will be other youth workers interested in developing their own similar projects, and that there will therefore be an important advisory and supportive role evolving within the post. SCP, anyway, cannot do everything itself: an essential long-term function must be in helping others to help themselves. Ever since it acquired its independence from the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers nearly ten years ago, it carried on the affiliated local group scheme in Scotland, but in the future it will need to be able to provide support much more effectively, and indeed earlier this year it appointed a Local Groups Officer as the first step towards this. Third, in partnership with the Central Scotland Countryside Trust, SCP is planning a post that will give practical support to projects generated by communities as part of their contribution to the development of the Central Scotland Forest. Thus, as the support network grows, so will SCP be able to bring increased specialization to bear on particular issues, and its youth work will be fully integrated into a comprehensive strategy for giving practical help to communities all over Scotland.

The handling of the impact of the Youth Or Adult? project upon the organization has been an evolutionary process, and is still continuing. I believe this initiative has been fundamental in widening SCP's horizons and, long after the Rank Foundation's funding has ceased, it will be possible to trace back many of the branches of SCP's activities to that fertile seed planted in 1990.

Gavin Stewart is an area manager for the Scottish Conservation Projects Trust.

First published in Mark K. Smith (ed.) (1993) Setting up and managing projects, London: YMCA George Williams College/Rank Foundation.