“I’m treated as an individual, not a problem:” The “No Wrong Door” policy

The “No Wrong Door” (NWD) programme means exactly that – there is no wrong door to turn to for young people seeking support.

NWD works on several core principles, which include working with young people’s birth family or guardians, allowing care leavers to “stay close” to continue accessing support, and working closely with young people to identify ways to help their self-esteem and give them opportunities. NWD has been introduced in several areas of the UK.

England

The term “No Wrong Door” was coined in North Yorkshire, where two hubs were created in Scarborough and Harrogate. The North Yorkshire County Council website provides details on the work their teams do.  

Each hub has a dedicated team which includes a life coach, a speech therapist, two community foster families and community supported lodging places for 16- and 17-year-olds with trained staff. On top of this, every young person in the NWD programme has their own key worker who is supported by another team. Many young people struggle when they are moved around as they grow up; new teams or workers don’t know their history or personality well. Having one consistent key worker for each young person makes it easier to build trust and create a more positive relationship.

Wales

A report from the Children’s Commissioner for Wales has described the steps taken by the Welsh Government to implement a ‘no wrong door’ approach to supporting children and young people. Funding has been earmarked specifically for children with complex needs, and all regions of Wales now have specific multi-agency groups for young people.

Regions like Cardiff and Vale have been implementing some of the common core principles of NWD, such as continuity of staff, key workers and streamlined appointments, in addition to a “proactive not reactive early intervention response.”

Scotland and Northern Ireland

NWD was introduced in Scotland by the Children and Young People’s Mental Health and Wellbeing Board (CYPMHW). In addition to building the original programme, it gave young people the opportunity to identify wellbeing priorities. These included having a job, a safe and warm place to live, food and clothes, good relationships, safety, feeling happy and confident, good health and opportunities to learn.  

There seems to be less evidence of NWD being implemented in Northern Ireland, although it has been proposed as a way to support children of parents with mental illness.

Impact

There has been a great amount of evidence that NWD is effective in helping young people. The Department for Education (DfE) published a report in 2017 which looked at the initial success of the “No Wrong Door Innovation Programme.” They found that for young people who were supported under NWD, there had been a decrease in arrests and incidents of them going missing, which indicates that giving young people more stable support systems leads to an overall higher level of happiness.

The report also found that under NWD, 25% of those who were not previously in education, employment or training went on to become engaged in education, training or work. 87% of young people who were using substances when they entered the NWD programme had also stopped when they were interviewed as a follow-up.

What can be improved?

There are a number of aspects under NWD that can be improved. A lack of long-term funding has meant that staff were not given the security of knowing if their contract was being extended. This meant many workers found permanent jobs elsewhere to ensure their own job security, and those who stayed were anxious about their future which impacted them negatively. It also had a negative effect on the young people under NWD if staff leaving was not handled appropriately.

On top of this, some young people had mixed feelings around their transition out of the support network. While many felt they were being supported efficiently, others described the transition as “abrupt” and “too fast.” This is definitely something that can be improved on with more training for staff and more structure in place for those who need more time when moving forward into the next stage of life.

Final thoughts

While NWD is by no means perfect, it has significantly given young people support during the most transitional period of their life, from adolescence to adulthood. Having key workers develop consistent relationships has allowed them to more strongly advocate for young people as they see them as more than just a case number. As stated by one young person in one of the studies, with NWD, “I’m treated as an individual, not a problem.”

As the programme evolves and more structure is put into place, there is hope that many more young people can be encouraged and given the platform to achieve their full potential.

Photo by Priscilla Du Preez on Unsplash.

Further reading: more from The Knowledge Exchange Blog on children and young people

Cycle-friendly societies: lessons from the Dutch and the Danes

The Netherlands and Denmark have become synonymous with high numbers of cyclists and extensive cycling infrastructures. In Denmark, 9 out of 10 people own a bike, while the Netherlands has an estimated 16.5 million bikes in a country of 17.3 million people. Both countries have developed impressive cycle networks and have integrated cycling infrastructure into wider transport planning.

But the prevalence of cycling in these countries didn’t happen overnight – or by accident. Campaigning, urban planning, political support and investment all had roles to play in making the Netherlands and Denmark such great role models for bike-friendly societies.

A historical perspective

In the first decades of the twentieth century, as in other parts of Europe, cyclists in Denmark and the Netherlands were in competition for road space with horses, trams and growing numbers of cars. In Denmark during the 1920s and ‘30s there was a long-running debate on how to accommodate cyclists on Danish roads. Initially, a painted line to separate cyclists from other traffic was suggested. But a high number of accidents pushed Danish planners towards a separate cycling infrastructure, which has grown into the widespread network Denmark has today.

In the Netherlands, taxation funded a national network of cycle tracks across the country.  But after the Second World War, the rise of motor vehicles confined cyclists to the margins, with some cycle paths removed to widen roads for cars. The city of Rotterdam, destroyed during the war, was rebuilt with a plan that put the automobile at its centre, with people commuting by car from the new suburbs.

This decline in cycling also happened in other European countries. In the UK, the 15% of all trips taken by bike in 1950 had plummeted to just 1.3% of trips in 1975. But in the 1970s, popular protests took place in Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands against motorway expansion, triggered by steep oil price rises and a growing environmental movement. This backlash persuaded urban planners that more consideration needed to be given to cyclists, pedestrians and public transport. Since then, national and local governments have prioritised policies to make cycling safer, more convenient and more attractive. As one study has noted:

“Instead of catering to ever more motor vehicles by expanding roadways and parking facilities, Dutch, German, and Danish cities have focused on serving people, making their cities people-friendly rather than car-friendly, and thus more liveable and more sustainable than American, British, and Australian cities.”

Cycling today in Denmark and the Netherlands

In the Netherlands today there are 35,000km of cycle paths, while Denmark has 12,000km. In both countries, traffic calming measures have restricted or banned cars on residential streets and have imposed speed limits. There are extensive bike parking facilities – the Dutch city of Utrecht, for example, is building a further 30,000 bike parking spots as part of a ten-year infrastructure plan.

Integration with public transport networks complements the efforts to encourage more people to get on their bikes – in the Netherlands, 50% of all public transport trips begin with a bicycle ride. From an early age, Dutch, German and Danish citizens are taught how to be safe cyclists and to make motorists aware of other road users.

Prioritising cycling ensures that cyclists can get around quickly and safely. In Copenhagen, electronic systems coordinate traffic lights to recognise bikes instead of cars, which means cyclists travelling at a speed of 20km/h find that they hit green lights all the way into the city in the morning, and back again at the evening rush hour.

Could it happen here?

With decades of cycle-centric planning and investment, Denmark and the Netherlands are miles ahead of the UK. But one of the few positives emerging from the coronavirus pandemic in this country has been a resurgence of interest in cycling. During the 2020 lockdowns, some UK cities created pop-up bike lanes, and bike sales soared by 63%. A wave of new cyclists took to the streets, with many feeling safer in the saddle than on crowded public transport.

But with traffic now returning to pre-lockdown levels, cycling campaign groups are worried that the momentum may be lost. As Keir Gallagher of Cycling UK told the BBC:

“If measures aren’t taken now, then unfortunately a lot of those people who have discovered cycling are going to be lost and people are going to return to their cars if they don’t feel safe.”

As Denmark and the Netherlands have demonstrated, infrastructure is a vital factor in persuading more people to take up cycling. One UK city that’s been working hard to improve its cycling infrastructure is Cardiff. In 2017, Cardiff Council launched a 10-year cycling strategy, which aims to make walking or cycling the first choice for short trips within the city. Working with transport planners and civil engineers, the council has identified five primary route corridors for cycleways, connecting major destinations, existing communities and strategic development sites across the city. In the coming years, over 30km of segregated cycle routes will radically improve Cardiff’s cycling infrastructure. Clearly, Cardiff’s efforts are paying off: last year, the city came top in a poll to be named Britain’s best cycling city.

The road ahead

The rewards of cycling for individuals and for wider society are numerous. Cycling causes almost no noise or air pollution and consumes far fewer resources than automobiles. It’s also good for physical and mental health and is much more affordable than other modes of transport.

The economic impacts of cycling are also considerable. A 2015 study by the University of Birmingham highlighted a number of benefits: cyclists visit local shops more regularly than drivers; property values of homes in cycle-friendly areas are higher; cycling to work leads to lower staff turnover and fewer sick days; and facilities allowing children to cycle to school save on the public cost of school travel.

With governments now aiming to build back better, fairer and greener, perhaps there’s never been a better time to learn lessons from our neighbours on how to be a cycle-friendly society.


Further reading: more on sustainable transport from The Knowledge Exchange

Grey men dreaming of vibrant cities?

Image by Neil Howard under Creative Commons

Image of MediaCity, Manchester by Neil Howard under Creative Commons

By Morwen Johnson

They control combined budgets of over £10bn, deliver 24.4% of the combined economic output of England, Scotland and Wales, and are home to over 21 million people. What are they? The Core Cities of the UK – and as pre-election lobbying ramps up a gear they are at the forefront of the devolution debate.

Last week I attended the Core Cities Devolution Summit. This event, hosted in Glasgow, marked the launch of a modern charter for local freedom. It also gave those interested in the current cities agenda a chance to hear from the city leaders on the potential benefits of reform.

I won’t summarise the charter, or the main recommendations of a new report from ResPublica which argues for the fullest possible devolution of public spending and tax raising powers to the UK’s largest cities and city regions. Instead, here are a few reflections on the day.

Bespoke devolution

The hype over Manchester’s recent devolution agreement with the Treasury shouldn’t distract from the fact that devolution is not a one-size-fits-all model. The idea isn’t to try and mimic Manchester’s journey – what’s on the cards is an approach that takes account of local circumstances.

I’m not sure that the end result of this – potentially radically different priorities in revenue generation, service delivery and spending between neighbouring metropolitan areas – is being communicated in a transparent way. Ben Page from IpsosMori shared some interesting survey results which suggest that public opinion also lags behind the political agenda:

ipsos survey 1

ipsos survey 2Leadership not bureaucracy

Mention devolution and one of the immediate responses of naysayers is to complain it’s just yet another layer of governance – more costs, more staff, more vested interests. This was raised during Q&A and the panel responded by saying that what they are proposing doesn’t require massive reorganisation – it’s about effective leadership. The same pots of money are used but funds can be accessed in different ways for different purposes.

This was only half-convincing. Repeated reference to place-based decision-making (breaking down functional /organisational silos to ensure services are focused on outcomes and those residents with complex needs) didn’t really explain how you build the trust and political capacity that’s needed to roll out transformation across multiple agencies/workforces at the same speed and scale.

Equalities

Presenting a different perspective on the day was Professor Lesley Sawers, who highlighted the risks of unintended consequences from devolution in terms of social justice and inequalities. She argued that so far localism has led to an approach to investment that has not been particularly effective in tackling equalities issues.

Cities should be great agents of social reform but the rhetoric around growth has a tendency to focus on infrastructure and macroeconomics – ignoring social challenges such as skills, poverty and under-achievement. And it may seem an easy point to score, but running an event with only 3 female speakers out of 25, didn’t really send a great message to observers. Don’t even mention the lack of ethnic diversity on the platform.

What now?

The devolution agenda may be the ‘only show in town’ but whether the core cities can take advantage of this to benefit and engage their own populations remains to be seen.


The Idox Information Service has a wealth of research reports, articles and case studies on governance and city regions. Members receive regular briefings as well as access to our Ask a Researcher enquiry service.

Key themes from the 2014 Wales Planning Conference

idox-info-service-stand-rtpi-walesby Rebecca Riley

Last week we attended the 2014 Wales Planning Conference, which was also the Wales’ Centenary Conference, at City Hall, Cardiff. We were primarily there to highlight our products and services to planners but fortunately we also got to attend some of the sessions.

The key themes and ideas to emerge from this highly engaging event were: Continue reading