Ten talking points for organising for change: an academic and practitioner exchange

This thesis explores Voluntary Sector (VS) engagement with Social Impact Bond (SIB) policy agenda in the UK. SIB’s typically involve three parties: an (social) investor, a public agency and voluntary sector deliverers; and often a fourth party specialist intermediary. SIBs aim to encourage a collaborative approach to public service delivery with these different stakeholders coming together to co-design services that achieve both social change and cashable savings to the state. England has been a pioneer of SIBs which were introduced by the 2010 UK Government during a time when VS organisations faced unprecedented and widespread cuts to their funding. At the beginning of this study, the SIB literature was still relatively limited and emerging, but has grown over recent years. Despite developments in the SIB academic literature, there is a clear gap around the involvement of the VS as SIB delivery partners- a gap which this thesis aims to address. Through the investigation of SIBs as a VS funding mechanism, this study sought to understand issues of identity, distinctiveness and independence for VS organisations in relation to the state and other actors. The thesis takes a novel approach to research methods, contributing to the knowledge of methodological strategies for the study of the VS. The research was conducted using a mixed-method research design combining frame analysis, Q method, focus groups and interviews. Through a new institutionalist approach, data were analysed at micro, meso and macro levels to explore the institutional logics at play in the framing of SIBs at multiple levels so as to understand VS responses, agency and decision-making in relation to SIBs. This thesis provides empirical contributions to knowledge around the VS’s relationship with the state, the evolution of the VS’s role in delivering state social outcomes and VS leaders’ attitudes to increasingly market-based state funding models. The thesis contributes to VS theory by finding that Salamon’s Voluntary Failure Theory (1987) is limited in its application on 21st century VS organisations which are delivering social outcomes on behalf of the state. It concludes that the market-based commissioning processes which give access to state funding in fact continue to embed traditional inequitable power relations between the state and VS organisations.

Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools D. Lawton and P. Gordon, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987, pp.x+180, £14.95 (hardback). What's Wrong With Walking? A Consumer Review of the Pedestrian Environment, National Consumer Council, HMSO, March 1987, pp.151, £4.95. Pedestrians. An Action Guide to Your Neighbourhood Problems, National Consumer Council, March 1987, pp.88, £3.00. Property and Industrial Development, S. Fothergill, S. Monk and M. Perry, Hutchinson, 1987, pp.187, £12.95 (paperback). Whatever Happened to Planning?, Peter Ambrose, Methuen, 1986, pp.288, £8.95 (paperback). Decentralization and Democracy, Paul Hoggett and Robin Hambleton (eds), Occasional Paper no.28, University of Bristol, School for Advanced Urban Studies, 1987, pp.269, £6.95. Achieving Economy, Efficiency and Effectiveness in the Public Sector, Cyril R. Tomkins, Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, 1987, pp.115, £5.00 (paperback). Managing to Survive: Running Local Authority Services under Competition, Norman Flynn and Kieron Walsh, Association of Direct Labour Organizations, 1986, pp.53, £5.00 (paperback). Basic Planning Law and Practice, College of Law, 1987, pp.131, £7.50. Current Problems in Planning, College of Law, 1987, pp.83, £6.50. After Abolition: A report on the impact of abolition of the Metropolitan County Councils and the Greater London Council on the voluntary sector ‐ and the outlook for the future, National Council for Voluntary Organizations, pp.137, January 1987, £2 for voluntary organizations, £5 others.

Clinical Update: Collaborative Mental Health Care for Children and Adolescents in Pediatric Primary Care

Informal carers (i.e. people who provide unpaid care to family and/or friends) are crucial in supporting people with long‐term conditions. Caring negatively impacts on carers’ health and experiences of health services. Internationally and nationally, policies, legislation, professional guidance and research advocate for health and care services to do more to support carers. This study explored the views of health and social care providers, commissioners and policy makers about the role and scope for strengthening health service support for carers. Twenty‐four semi‐structured interviews, with 25 participants were conducted, audio‐recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed by thematic analysis. Three main themes emerged: (a) identifying carers, (b) carer support, and (c) assessing and addressing carer needs. Primary care, and other services, were seen as not doing enough for carers but having an important role in identifying and supporting carers. Two issues with carer identification were described, first people not self‐identifying as carers and second most services not being proactive in identifying carers. Participants thought that carer needs should be supported by primary care in collaboration with other health services, social care and the voluntary sector. Concerns were raised about primary care, which is under enormous strain, being asked to take on yet another task. There was a clear message that it was only useful to involve primary care in identifying carers and their needs, if benefit could be achieved through direct benefits such as better provision of support to the carer or indirect benefit such as better recognition of the carer role. This study highlights that more could be done to address carers’ needs through primary care in close collaboration with other health and care services. The findings indicate the need for pilots and experiments to develop the evidence base. Given the crucial importance of carers, such studies should be a high priority.

The aim of this paper is to reflect upon personal experiences with a Foucauldian-inspired academic leadership approach to implementing digital education at the University of Bristol. Higher Education Institutions across the UK often invest in digital infrastructure and central support teams (technical and educational) and expect these investments alone to be the main vehicles to achieve digital education. While clearly, having technologies and support play a key role in digital education, according to my experience the implementation of digital education is complex and requires focused and scholarly leadership to drive it. This is because I argue that digital education can be considered a ‘discourse’, in the Foucauldian sense, of our era whose implementation involves considerable social change. Through my work as the academic person first responsible for digital education in the School of Modern Languages and then across the Faculty of Arts at the University of Bristol, I will unpack how having someone with the appropriate practical and theoretical expertise leading the digital education agenda brought positive impacts before and during the pandemic. Drawing on reflections from years of academic leadership, I will consider questions such as: What practices can lead the digital education discourse to advance in HE settings? And, which agents in HE can develop these practices? This theoretical-oriented discussion grounded on personal experience can be useful for institutions making decisions about how to take digital education forward. Indeed, as we emerge from the pandemic, universities are in the process of choosing whether to go back to a pre-COVID time characterised by a power struggle between different educational discourses, which often meant that the digital education discourse remained marginal, or whether to embrace and invest more in digital education and associated academic leadership.

Emerald Studies in Sport and Gender promotes research on two important and related areas within sport studies: women and gender. The concept of gender is included in the series title in order to problematise traditional binary thinking that classifies individuals as male or female, rather than looking at the full gender spectrum. In sport contexts, this is a particularly relevant and controversial issue, for example, in the case of transgendered athletes and female athletes with hyperandrogenism. The concept of sport is interpreted broadly to include activities ranging from physical recreation to high-performance sport. The interdisciplinary nature of the series will encompass social and cultural history and philosophy as well as sociological analyses of contemporary issues. Since any analysis of sport and gender has political implications and advocacy applications, learning from history is essential. Contributors to the series are encouraged to develop an intersectional analysis where appropriate, by examining how multiple identities, including gender, sexuality, ethnicity, social class and ability, intersect to shape the sport experiences of women and men who are Indigenous, racialised, members of ethnic minorities, LGBTQ, working class or disabled. We welcome submissions from both early career and more established researchers.

Bristol (UK) is European Green Capital 2015. University students form over ten per cent of the population, the two Universities. The University of Bristol and the University of the West of England and their Student Unions are running a major project, supported by catalyst funding from the Higher Education Funding Council for England, to engage students in the sustainability transformation of the city region of Bristol. This paper reports on the first phase of the project, its aims, the learning emerging, the support needs for large scale transformative coalitions and the impacts upon all those involved, at the end of the first academic year of the project (2014/15). This project aims to overcome resource questions and develop transferable models of student engagement for sustainability with the cities in which they live. It suggests ways in which a re-visioning of student volunteering may mobilise more students and community partners. The project is testing different ways for securing student engagement in transforming sustainability activity in the city region—in partnership with the business, public and voluntary sectors. It is committed to delivering a transformational change in student engagement and aims to deliver 100,000 extra hours of student activity for sustainability in the community in 2015, to skill students as change agents, to help community change and to link student activism with more formal aspects of their education. It aims to develop a ‘challenge shop’ approach to help sustain the work of partnership building beyond the 2015 project so as to ensure students and the community continue to be able to find productive ways to work together for sustainability. It is predicated on coproduction models of project design and engages students, staff and other citizens as partners each bringing insight to the activities, and is adopting an action research approach. Much has been written about student engagement but less has been written about the different approaches to linking formal and informal student activity. The study makes a unique contribution in that different approaches are being tested simultaneously.

BackgroundCollaborative care for severe mental illness (SMI) is a community‐based intervention that promotes interdisciplinary working across primary and secondary care. Collaborative care interventions aim to improve the physical and/or mental health care of individuals with SMI. This is an update of a 2013 Cochrane review, based on new searches of the literature, which includes an additional seven studies.ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness of collaborative care approaches in comparison with standard care (or other non‐collaborative care interventions) for people with diagnoses of SMI who are living in the community.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Study‐Based Register of Trials (10 February 2021). We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders (CCMD) controlled trials register (all available years to 6 June 2016). Subsequent searches on Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO together with the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (with an overlap) were run on 17 December 2021.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) where interventions described as 'collaborative care' were compared with 'standard care' for adults (18+ years) living in the community with a diagnosis of SMI. SMI was defined as schizophrenia, other types of schizophrenia‐like psychosis or bipolar affective disorder. The primary outcomes of interest were: quality of life, mental state and psychiatric admissions at 12 months follow‐up.Data collection and analysisPairs of authors independently extracted data. We assessed the quality and certainty of the evidence using RoB 2 (for the primary outcomes) and GRADE. We compared treatment effects between collaborative care and standard care. We divided outcomes into short‐term (up to six months), medium‐term (seven to 12 months) and long‐term (over 12 months).For dichotomous data we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and for continuous data we calculated the standardised mean difference (SMD), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used random‐effects meta‐analyses due to substantial levels of heterogeneity across trials. We created a summary of findings table using GRADEpro.Main resultsEight RCTs (1165 participants) are included in this review. Two met the criteria for type A collaborative care (intervention comprised of the four core components). The remaining six met the criteria for type B (described as collaborative care by the trialists, but not comprised of the four core components). The composition and purpose of the interventions varied across studies. For most outcomes there was low‐ or very low‐certainty evidence.We found three studies that assessed the quality of life of participants at 12 months. Quality of life was measured using the SF‐12 and the WHOQOL‐BREF and the mean endpoint mental health component scores were reported at 12 months. Very low‐certainty evidence did not show a difference in quality of life (mental health domain) between collaborative care and standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) (SMD 0.03, 95% CI ‐0.26 to 0.32; 3 RCTs, 227 participants). Very low‐certainty evidence did not show a difference in quality of life (physical health domain) between collaborative care and standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) (SMD 0.08, 95% CI ‐0.18 to 0.33; 3 RCTs, 237 participants).Furthermore, in the medium term (at 12 months) low‐certainty evidence did not show a difference between collaborative care and standard care in mental state (binary) (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.28; 1 RCT, 253 participants) or in the risk of being admitted to a psychiatric hospital at 12 months (RR 5.15, 95% CI 0.67 to 39.57; 1 RCT, 253 participants).One study indicated an improvement in disability (proxy for social functioning) at 12 months in the collaborative care arm compared to usual care (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.95; 1 RCT, 253 participants); we deemed this low‐certainty evidence.Personal recovery and satisfaction/experience of care outcomes were not reported in any of the included studies. The data from one study indicated that the collaborative care treatment was more expensive than standard care (mean difference (MD) international dollars (Int$) 493.00, 95% CI 345.41 to 640.59) in the short term. Another study found the collaborative care intervention to be slightly less expensive at three years.Authors' conclusionsThis review does not provide evidence to indicate that collaborative care is more effective than standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) in relation to our primary outcomes (quality of life, mental state and psychiatric admissions). The evidence would be improved by better reporting, higher‐quality RCTs and the assessment of underlying mechanisms of collaborative care. We advise caution in utilising the information in this review to assess the effectiveness of collaborative care.

Medication therapy management (MTM) is a relatively new method of monitoring patient medication use and adherence. Medicare Part D has not only recognized its effectiveness and ability to enhance patient care, but has made MTM a required process for patient members with specific diseases (Doucette, McDonough, Klepser, & McCarthy, 2005). MTM provides a flamework for pharmacists and physicians to collaborate on medication administration and monitoring of medication use (Kuo, Bucldey, Fitzsimmons, & Steinbauer, 2004). Collaborative health-care models such as MTM offer promising possibilities for improved administration of services and enhanced quality of care for patients. These frameworks use the unique skills and knowledge of each specific health-care profession involved, and they offer opportunities for the field of social work. This article examines MTM within a framework of collaborative care. First, an overview of the collaborative model of health care is provided. Second, the use of MTM in monitoring medication adherence is examined. Third, the role of pharmacists in collaborative health care is evaluated. Finally, implications for the use of MTM in conjunction with services provided by the social work profession are addressed. COLLABORATIVE HEALTH CARE In the past several decades, health care has migrated from the historical use of the medical model toward a more integrative, collaborative approach. The medical model has been described as an individualistic, specific, and rational concept of health care (Engel, 1977; Weick, 1983). This approach treats the biological issues of the patient but does not address psychosocial needs (Bird & Rieker, 1999; Calnan & Johnson, 1985).This lack of attention to the person in environment does not allow health-care providers to address the impact of economic barriers to care (Hiatt et al., 2001), disruption of family homeostasis (Andrist, 1997), social and spiritual support systems (Doherty & McCubbin, 1985), and use of family and friends in the decision-making process (Webb & Koch, 1997). Collaborative care is emerging as an effective model of treatment (Gilbody, Bower, Fletcher, Richards, & Sutton, 2006), providing a framework in which to address the psychosocial needs of patients, improve health outcomes, reduce costs, and increase available resources and services to patients (Wagner, 2000). Collaborative care has been defined as a multidisciplinary team approach to delivering evidence-based care (Hedrick et al., 2003), one that provides an environment in which health-care professionals can teach one another and share resources (Sorrells-Jones & Weaver, 1999). The fields of medicine, pharmacy, social work, nursing, and pastoral care are key components to the success of collaborative teams (Cott, 1997). Research has supported the use of collaborative care in the treatment of mental disorders (Chang-Quan et al., 2009; Davies, McBride, & Sajatovic, 2008; Dewa, Hoch, Carmen, Guscott, & Anderson, 2009; Katon et al., 1999), heart disease (Brush et al., 2009; Coviello & Tadel, 2009), and diabetes (McElmurry et al., 2009; Phelps et al., 2009) and in the area of critical care (Carr, 2009). Collaborative care involving a working relationship between physicians and pharmacists has been shown to improve patient care and reduce medication errors (Kuo et al., 2004). A meta-analysis of 37 randomized studies of 12,355 patients diagnosed with depression reported that collaborative methods to improve medication adherence were more effective than standard care, improving both short- and long-term outcomes (Gilbody et al., 2006). The application of collaborative care in MTM is addressed in the next section. MEDICATION ADHERENCE AND MTM Medication Adherence To understand the impact of MTM, it is important to examine the issue of medication adherence. Medication behavior, the manner in which a patient adheres to prescribed medication use, strongly influences health outcomes, health-care use, improvements in medication knowledge, self-efficacy, and health-care costs (Chewning & Sleath, 1996; Delgado, 2000; Edworthy & Devins, 1999). …

Purpose – This research considers how self-help groups (SHGs) and self-help organizations (SHOs) contribute to consumerist trends in two different societies: United States and United Kingdom. How do the health care systems and the voluntary sectors affect the kinds of social changes that SHGs/SHOs make?Methodology/approach – A review of research on the role of SHGs/SHOs in contributing to national health social movements in the UK and US was made. Case studies of the UK and the US compare the characteristics of their health care systems and their voluntary sector. Research reviews of two community level self-help groups in each country describe the kinds of social changes they made.Findings – The research review verified that SHGs/SHOs contribute to national level health social movements for patient consumerism. The case studies showed that community level SHGs/SHOs successfully made the same social changes but on a smaller scale as the national movements, and the health care system affects the kinds of community changes made.Research limitations – A limited number of SHGs/SHOs within only two societies were studied. Additional SHGs/SHOs within a variety of societies need to be studied.Originality/value of chapter – Community SHGs/SHOs are often trivialized by social scientists as just inward-oriented support groups, but this chapter shows that local groups contribute to patient consumerism and social changes but in ways that depend on the kind of health care system and societal context.

This paper draws both on the authors’ experiences of making a participatory film exploring collective leadership in diverse communities, and on a world café style workshop at the 2018 Voluntary Sector and Volunteering Research Conference organised by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the Voluntary Sector Studies Network. The intention is to provoke dialogue about the opportunities and challenges of participatory filmmaking as a research method, and whether it is an appropriate methodological approach for voluntary sector research, with the potential to advance thinking on about and the use of mixed-media methods.

Collaborative care for severe mental illness (SMI) is a community-based intervention, which typically consists of a number of components. The intervention aims to improve the physical and/or mental health care of individuals with SMI. To assess the effectiveness of collaborative care approaches in comparison with standard care for people with SMI who are living in the community. The primary outcome of interest was psychiatric admissions. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Specialised register in April 2011. The register is compiled from systematic searches of major databases, handsearches of relevant journals and conference proceedings. We also contacted 51 experts in the field of SMI and collaborative care. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) described as collaborative care by the trialists comparing any form of collaborative care with 'standard care' for adults (18+ years) living in the community with a diagnosis of SMI, defined as schizophrenia or other types of schizophrenia-like psychosis (e.g. schizophreniform and schizoaffective disorders), bipolar affective disorder or other types of psychosis. Two review authors worked independently to extract and quality assess data. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and we calculated mean differences (MD) with 95% CIs for continuous data. Risk of bias was assessed. We included one RCT (306 participants; US veterans with bipolar disorder I or II) in this review. We did not find any trials meeting our inclusion criteria that included people with schizophrenia. The trial provided data for one comparison: collaborative care versus standard care. All results are 'low or very low quality evidence'.Data indicated that collaborative care reduced psychiatric admissions at year two in comparison to standard care (n = 306, 1 RCT, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.99).The sensitivity analysis showed that the proportion of participants psychiatrically hospitalised was lower in the intervention group than the standard care group in year three: 28% compared to 38% (n = 330, 1 RCT, RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.99).In comparison to the standard care group, collaborative care significantly improved the Mental Health Component (MHC) of quality of life at the three-year follow-up, (n = 306, 1 RCT, MD 3.50, 95% CI 1.80 to 5.20). The Physical Health Component (PHC) of the quality of life measure at the three-year follow-up did not differ significantly between groups (n = 306, 1 RCT, MD 0.50, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.91).Direct intervention (all-treatment) costs of collaborative care at the three-year follow-up did not differ significantly from standard care (n = 306, 1 RCT, MD -$2981.00, 95% CI $16934.93 to $10972.93). The proportion of participants leaving the study early did not differ significantly between groups (n = 306, 1 RCT, RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.77 to 3.79). There is no trial-based information regarding the effect of collaborative care for people with schizophrenia.No statistically significant differences were found between groups for number of deaths by suicide at three years (n = 330, 1 RCT, RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.32), or the number of participants that died from all other causes at three years (n = 330, 1 RCT, RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.65 to 3.66). The review did not identify any studies relevant to care of people with schizophrenia and hence there is no evidence available to determine if collaborative care is effective for people suffering from schizophrenia or schizophreniform disorders. There was however one trial at high risk of bias that suggests that collaborative care for US veterans with bipolar disorder may reduce psychiatric admissions at two years and improves quality of life (mental health component) at three years, however, on its own it is not sufficient for us to make any recommendations regarding its effectiveness. More large, well designed, conducted and reported trials are required before any clinical or policy making decisions can be made.

Introduction : The Mental Health Professionals Network (MHPN) was established in 2008 to improve consumer outcomes in the primary care sector by fostering a collaborative clinical approach to the provision of mental health care in Australia. MHPN is a not-for-profit organization funded by the Australian Government Department of Health. This presentation will describe the development of MHPN and present results of evaluations of MHPN’s two key programs. Short description of practice change implemented : The MHPN national platform has two key programs by which it promotes collaborative mental health care: network meetings and webinars. MHPN interdisciplinary networks comprise groups of practitioners who meet face-to-face on a regular and voluntary basis. While networks are self-directed in determining membership and content covered, MHPN provides strategic and planning advice, and manages meeting logistics, communications, and administration tasks. At 30 June 2016 there were 380 networks across Australia with a total of over 10,000 participants. During 2015-16 there were 1,171 network meetings and 14,835 network meeting attendances. MHPN professional development webinars feature case-based discussions by leading experts, modelling interdisciplinary practice and collaborative care. From December 2010 to 30 June 2016, MHPN produced 52 webinars. Overall, there have been more than 160,000 individual views of the live webinars or downloadable podcasts. Aim and theory of change : Collaborative practice is recognised as a necessary element for an integrated health delivery system. MHPN’s activities are based on the premise that if practitioners from different disciplines connect and communicate on a regular basis, clinical pathways will be more effective, referrals better informed and service-delivery improved. Targeted population and stakeholders: MHPN targets psychiatrists, general practitioners, psychologists, mental health nurses, social workers, pediatricians, occupational therapists and other mental health practitioners. Timeline : MHPN was established in 2008 and continues to grow and evolve. Highlights : During 2015-16, evaluations of MHPN’s two key programs were undertaken: Study 1 surveyed network meeting attendees and assessed change across seven areas relating to increased awareness of and interaction with professionals from other disciplines. More than 75% respondents had made each practice change, with those who attended more meetings significantly more likely to have made changes. Study 2 surveyed webinar attendees. Three months post-webinar, 80% respondents had made practice changes, including increased confidence in providing mental health care, increased discussions about other disciplines and improved targeting of referrals. Comments on sustainability : MHPN continues to monitor its structure, policy and practice in order to maintain sustainability of the initiative. Comments on transferability : The MHPN initiative is potentially transferable to other settings and countries. Discussion and Conclusions : The two studies demonstrate that MHPN interdisciplinary network meetings and professional development webinars have impacted positively on health professionals’ attitudes and practices towards a more collaborative approach to mental health care, highlighting the success of the MHPN initiative. Evaluation findings will be published in the Journal of Integrated Care in 2018. Lessons learned : The high attendance at both network meetings and live webinars underscores the strong interest and desire amongst Australia’s mental health workforce for interdisciplinary networking and professional development opportunities.

ObjectiveTo explore how four small towns in rural New South Wales known as the 4Ts are addressing challenges accessing quality care and sustainable health services through a collaborative approach to workforce planning using the collaborative care framework.DesignDescriptive case study approach.SettingThe collaborative care project was developed as a result of ongoing partnerships between 2 rural Local Health Districts, 2 Primary Health Networks and a non‐governmental health workforce organisation. The collaboration works with 5 subregions each comprising 2 or more rural communities. This paper focuses on the 4Ts subregion.ParticipantsStakeholders of the collaborative design including organisations and the community.InterventionA place‐based approach to co‐designing health services with community in one sub‐region of Western New South Wales.Main outcome measuresA synthesis of field observations and experiences of community and jurisdictional partners in implementation of the 4Ts subregional model. Mapping of implementation processes against the collaborative care framework.ResultsThe collaborative care framework is a useful planning and community engagement tool to build health workforce literacy and to impact on system change at the local level. We identify key elements of effectiveness in establishing the 4Ts model, including the need for coordinated health system planning, better integrating existing resources to deliver services, community engagement, building health workforce literacy and town‐based planning.ConclusionThis study adds to the body of knowledge about how to successfully develop a collaborative primary health care workforce model in practice. The findings demonstrate that the implementation of a collaborative primary health care workforce model using the collaborative care framework can improve service access and quality, which in turn might facilitate workforce sustainability.

Despite policies to encourage children's sense of citizenship and to increase young people's participation in the voluntary sector, there has been very little research on volunteering by the under-16s, and scant attention has been paid to existing evidence. This paper uses the United Kingdom Time Use Survey, 2000 to explore the formal and informal volunteering of children aged 8 to 15: their participation rates; the time they spend volunteering; the volunteering activities they do; and the characteristics of child volunteers. It is shown that children are a core group of active volunteers who should no longer be sidelined in voluntary or fourth sector research and policy, and nor should research on children ignore volunteering as an aspect of their lives. The conceptualisation of volunteering can be enriched by a better understanding of children's experience, and the ways in which current conceptions of volunteering may themselves obscure children's contribution.