NCS Review: From a pragmatic pivot to a new normal offer

The review is likely to have taken into account the comments of stake-holders including young people, the outcomes of evaluated NCS innovations during Covid, and any reactions to the 2019/20 NCS Trust Annual Report which was submitted to Parliament in April 2021. 

• Poll: Would you support a National Citizen Service offer that works with young people throughout the year?

• Analysis: NCS boss sets out plans to expand scheme

One of the proposed changes, as trailed by CEO Mark Gifford in interviews with CYP Now this year, is a shift from the emphasis on the residential to a year-round project, offering a portfolio of experiences but at a lower cost to NCS and the Treasury.

In his May interview Mark made it clear that he had been brought in to introduce a “transformative agenda” but within a “significantly reduced” budget from 2022. Aware of the history of criticism of unrecoverable payments, contract disputes, and top-heavy overheads, he has started by acknowledging the challenges, taking action to cut costs (e.g. head office) and commissioning innovations during Covid to give NCS and DCMS options going forward. 

Then “.. the next thing is to look at the [NCS] offer and by shifting that traditional focus on the residential to a more year-round project - we’re coming from a moment [a few weeks] to a movement - a different portfolio of experiences” [year-round].

Support for these proposed changes will depend on many things, including how an all-year offer fits into the youth sector landscape in terms of working alongside others already in that space. 

Support from young people will depend on whether they see something new and relevant in a refreshed and possibly more positively rebranded NCS offer, that turns out to be just as good and memorable an experience as before. If not, word of mouth will influence subsequent recruits to vote with their feet. At a youth sector level support will also depend on whether reforms will be perceived to compromise the efficacy of the NCS itself, whether they continue to effectively meet all of the expectations of the NCS Act 2017.

The National Citizen Service Act 2017 expects NCS to a) “provide or arrange for the provision of programmes for young people in England with the purpose of (i) enabling participants from different backgrounds to work together in local communities to participate in projects to benefit society, and (ii) enhancing communication, leadership and team-working skills of participants. 

The Act also made provision for the age range to include those aged from 15 to 24. This gives some scope to depart from the original model such as there is no specific reference to residentials. 

If there is no minimum time attendance requirement or definition of what a meaningful experience is, and the age pool is increased, then an all year accessible digital dip offer could grow NCS’s reach exponentially, with vastly reduced overheads, very quickly. But would it still be the NCS experience that has produced those positive evaluation reports that have been regularly quoted in its defence?

I remember the original design debate in 2009/10 which unsurprisingly concluded that a mix of teamwork, community action and residentials, combined with social mixing and youth participation, would best nurture and inspire active citizenship and community cohesion. [I got a few laughs when I suggested that the future of NCS lay in opening up the age range

and offering it all year around as part of new National Youth Service initiative!) However, there was consensus that the residential experience was a key accelerator to team building, significantly contributing to positive impact and memorable outcomes.

I've kept in touch with the development of NCS ever since those early days, particularly around how it listens to young people nationally and locally. I’ve joined Dragons Den panels and visiting social action projects, listened to national young advisors - to the point of lobbying during committee stages of the NCS Act 2017 for the youth representation as full board members. I still come across evidence of youth participation (such as in the CEO recruitment) and I expect their views will have been sought in this review - so I would welcome any moves toward enhancing their meaningful influence on programme development, including feedback to young people that they have been heard and acted upon in a “You Said - We did” section.

On balance I can see the appeal of a year-round mixed portfolio model which offers more choice and support by moving the programme from ‘peak times’ to more accessible ‘continuous streaming’ but I cannot see how digital will ever replace the team buzz and overnight residential experience so data collection on what constitutes the completion of a NCS experience might need to include a minimum blend. 

NCS still has reputational and credibility challenges to address, so the appeal of a new programme model could determine its long-term future either way. From an optimistic point of view a supported year-round model could be a stepping-stone to something more ambitious, an opportunity to re-imagine the route to active citizenship in the light of the growing list of other policy challenges for young people - education catchup, unemployment and poor mental health. 

It could boldly link up with other reforms for a longer-school day to reach every young person and in partnership with existing youth services. The test of that will be whether any of the NCS savings to the DCMS budget are reinvested in an overall youth strategy.

Times have changed and NCS will change in time but young people will have the final say on whether a year-round model is a success through their levels of participation.

James Cathcart is director of Young Voices Heard and a campaigner for youth work