There have been doubts over the survival of the Connexions brand in recent months. As it transpires, authorities are not only being urged to maintain the brand for their local advice and guidance offerings. Indeed, the consultation states: "Local authorities will need to consider the potential for widening the scope of the (Connexions) brand to cover other youth support services."
Make no mistake - presentation and branding matter. But if the Government's motive for wanting to extend the Connexions brand to a number of youth support services is driven by the belief that this will bolster their credibility and appeal to young people, it is sadly misguided. In the shopping malls, young people have at least something of a choice, be it Nike or Adidas, Samsung or Nokia. Prescribing a uniform brand for a multitude of services for young people provided by the state risks alienating those most vulnerable, who might view it as tied to the 'system'. It undermines the distinctive skills of youth work in reaching vulnerable young people on their terms and on their territory, as demonstrated in the area of detached work.
These Connexions brand guidelines also contradict the participation agenda to ensure young people's involvement in shaping services. The Youth Opportunity Fund, for instance, has been a major hit with young people not only because they have determined the nature of local projects - they have also been given the licence to brand the fund to be something meaningful to them.
Now if the Connexions brand happens to work in a particular area, the local authority should embrace it. But it should not be compelled to do so. The guidelines might amount to the DfES's attempt to save face after the investment it has ploughed into the Connexions brand but they should be firmly resisted.
ravi.chandiramani@haymarket.com.
.gif)
