Valuing the voluntary sector

We saw many instances of innovate and responsive work in the voluntary sector, often in areas where the statutory sector is less effective – engaging with hard to reach groups, helping refugees and asylum seekers, working with specific BME groups. One area had a particularly vibrant set of services, where voluntary organisations had been commissioned alongside statutory agencies and were invited to the partnership table as equals.

Here is what young people told us about using voluntary and statutory services:

The voluntary sector was seen as more responsive that the statutory services, in which young people had experienced long waiting times. They were prepared to wait a few weeks, but wanted to be seen immediately if they perceived their own need to be urgent. One stated, “When you wait you lose interest.” All the young people we spoke with wanted drop-in facilities.
Voluntary settings were described as “more normal” than statutory services. Young people liked the informality of voluntary settings, because they are “informal, like a living room”. This was contrasted with clinic and hospital settings, where “the smell puts you off”.

It was important to the young people we spoke to that they do not feel judged by staff. When they had experienced feelings of inability to cope alone, young people had felt “It’s not fair, why me?” When these feelings were more pronounced they felt it was beyond the scope of their friends to help and they wanted a more formal service. Those who had used statutory services had not found them as useful as voluntary settings, where they felt accepted and respected. Some had found they could not relax within the CAMHS setting and that GPs offered limited help, often in the form of medication.

Ways in which a positive ethos was communicated to young service users were through the appearance of workers and the internal environment of the service looking appropriate to the age group. Young people felt more comfortable in a setting in which it was made clear that the service was confidential and where staff conveyed through their interactions that they
were not being judgemental. Those who had used CAMHS had mixed experiences - one young person had been offered a taxi to get him to appointments before the start of school, but another had experienced
sessions cancelled at the last minute, with no explanation. The young person did not return.

Something most of the young people had found counter productive was the tendency to have to repeat their stories and histories over and again with each change of worker or agency. “Talking about your problems all the time makes it worse” was a typical refrain. Another issue was the use of therapeutic approaches that seem more suited to younger children. One young person had been required to pick animal shapes out of a box, which
seemed inappropriate to her age.

We met two young people over the age of 18 who had ADHD and felt they were not receiving an effective service. One young person had elected not to attend AMHS, despite having a referral, because the experience of her sibling had been very poor. A 23 year old, who said he felt “sometimes like an adult and sometimes like a kid” told us he came out of an (AMHS) in patient unit more disturbed than when he went in.

Some young people would value having access to others who have experienced similar problems or life experiences. Others want clarity around goals, permissions and agreements, negotiated with therapists/counsellors. Some would like to choose the sex of their therapist. All the young people we spoke to value a drop-in facility and the chance to talk and be listened to. Many would like to see low key help and support offered in schools, with a
particular emphasis on health promotion.