LGB Alliance starts Helpline for teens and young adults

[IwantToRetire]

This isn't a specifically for women, lesbians but aimed at young people who are feeling confused or bullied whilst trying to work out who they are. Thought some on FWR might have siblings, children, who might find this useful.

Q: Why did you select the age range 13 – 24?

Adolescence is often a time of turmoil and change and teenagers can struggle as they begin to think about who they are.

Whilst acting on any sense of same-sex attraction may be years away, the worries and fears associated with the idea that you are ‘different’ often start early.

Young adults, on the other hand, may be more settled in their sexual orientation but struggling with a new world of relationships.

Whilst the support would be framed differently and always in an age appropriate manner, the underlying message from our volunteers will be meaningful to all teens and young adults – it’s always fine to be you.

Q: How is it different to any other service?

Like other helplines, we’ll be there to support teens and young adults facing a whole host of issues – ranging from coming out and bullying to break-ups and family alienation.

What makes us unique is that the service won’t suggest to a teenage girl who feels different, because she prefers short hair and playing sport, that she might really be a boy. And it won’t tell a teenage boy who is being bullied for being effeminate that maybe he’s really a girl.

Many young adults report being shamed for their lesbian, gay or bisexual relationships by those who would say that same-sex attraction is in some way bigoted. We start from the premise that homosexuality is perfectly natural.

There is much more info about safeguarding and how volunteers were recruited on this web page https://lgballiance.org.uk/our-helpline-is-open/

How exactly can you properly vet people’s age on a service like this? On a practical level beyond asking for DOB how is it possible to be 100% completely sure??

A split is self reporting unless you are asking them to upload ID

Maybe your test of the system prompted them to update the website to explain. They appear to be open for constructive criticism, so I credit them with responding so quickly if so.

It could well be that their script asked the contact their age once the contact said what their issue was, and you never got that far with your test. Maybe that volunteer didn’t actually get to help many young people that day due to the numbers of people “testing”.

Then that is a problem with their process and needs to be addressed. If they are not doing what they say they are doing, that is an entirely different issue.
They could have separate microsites for adults and children and still just direct people through to the same volunteers who do no further checking. So would have no idea whether the child they talk to is 13 or 17, and could be chatting to a 13 year old one minute and a 23 year old the next.

Just to add I am only catching up on this thread now and am astonished at how many posters continue to make comments that make no reference to what LGB Alliance have actually said.

So in future unless someone quotes from their statement to show what their concern is based on I am just going to whizz over those replies.

For heavens sake. This is a group that has created an effective campaign group in a relatively short time in the face of huge hostitilty and in response to what has become apparent lack of support for young people have acted on it.

And as it is made up of people who were themselve once teens or young adults experiencing confused feelings are better place than any to set up a service.

Have all of you who are nit picking looked at local services, provided by "professionals" and raised doubts about what has been said.

Just out of interest, is there anyone on this thread who actually feels they are qualified to make criticisms from having done similar work.

It really is very strange that this announcement has made so many people wanting to shoot it down.

Why didn't you just read the statement before commenting.

Really the way in which posters are assuming things is actually making FWR look totally manic.

Have all of you who are nit picking looked at local services, provided by "professionals" and raised doubts about what has been said.

Of course.

Yes - sadly.

I think there are legitimate concerns if they are not doing what they say will do, i.e. ask for ages. BUT that would remain true even if you had a children's service. For example, someone uses the under 18 chat and identifies themselves as male. They say they have met a boy, they have really strong feelings for him but are scared it won't work because he is going to university in September. They want to talk it through. You would absolutely need to know whether the boy on the chat is 13 or 17. The issue is not having no defined under 18 service

Have all of you who are nit picking looked at local services, provided by "professionals" and raised doubts about what has been said.

Just out of interest, is there anyone on this thread who actually feels they are qualified to make criticisms from having done similar work.

Yes and yes.

Not asking questions or raising concerns because the cause of your concern is on your own side is very poor safeguarding practice. No sacred castes as Lang would say.

Raising safeguarding concerns can feel uncomfortable, as though someone is making an accusation.

Processes need to be tested, and questioned, and concerns or possible issues need to be able to be raised and discussed. At this point I'm not even talking about LGBA but how people respond to safeguarding around children in general.

I do take the point made upthread about the safeguarding lead who shut everything down because of an inability to sanction any risk at all. Obviously that's another instance of a failure.

But the instant assumption that anyone raising a concern is 'attacking' or 'against' is another example of black-and-white thinking and defensiveness, and is damaging to safeguarding as it risks silencing those 'friendly critics' that LGBA asked for.

It's an interesting field, isn't it? Partly because it is counter to what we're used to - it's about starting with all boundaries and testing to see which are needed, rather than assuming everything's fine and working back retrospectively.

Why did you select the age range 13 – 24?

Adolescence is often a time of turmoil and change and teenagers can struggle as they begin to think about who they are.

Whilst acting on any sense of same-sex attraction may be years away, the worries and fears associated with the idea that you are ‘different’ often start early.

Young adults, on the other hand, may be more settled in their sexual orientation but struggling with a new world of relationships.

Whilst the support would be framed differently and always in an age appropriate manner, the underlying message from our volunteers will be meaningful to all teens and young adults – it’s always fine to be you.

NB if you read what they have written they have never implied younger users will be treated the same as older.

Can you be sure that children are kept safe when using your service?
This is our top priority.

Everyone who gets in touch will be connected directly, via live-chat, to a one-to-one conversation with a trained volunteer. There are no chat rooms and there is no peer-to-peer contact. We are alert to the fact that any service for young people is liable to be targeted by those who would seek to exploit their vulnerability and we have taken steps to guard against that.

All contacts will be asked how old they are so that the volunteer can respond to them in an age-appropriate and responsible manner. It will also ensure that they can advise children against risky or illegal contact with others.

Each volunteer who is responding to a contact will be overseen by another volunteer to ensure the appropriateness of their response and to help all volunteers to learn and improve.

All text-chats are saved, securely stored in the cloud, and are not accessible to anyone beyond the official administrators of the helpline.
All calls will be logged to include details of the caller’s age, the reason for the call and a summary of the outcome.

Delivering support to teens and young adults is an enormous responsibility and we take it extremely seriously. We need ‘critical friends’. It would be foolish to pretend we know everything and we will listen to experts and service users who suggest how we can improve. We welcome comment and scrutiny and we will actively seek advice and always aim for best-practice.
.

If anyone has genuine concerns and has experience of how they could do it better, why aren't you contacting them and pointing this out?

Assuming nit pickers are genuinely concerned then surely it is a priority to let LGB Alliance know what they are doing wrong and help them make it better / safer.

This is a six-month pilot and we want to determine which age group is calling the most frequently, what are the most common problems and how we can better meet the needs of the young people who get in touch. There will inevitably be changes to the way the service is delivered and to the way it is presented and promoted over time. We aim to improve and hope to grow.

Ultimately, our sincerest wish is that we can help adolescents and young adults to feel good about themselves and to live happy and fulfilled lives. We hope our support will help to make that happen.

NB There will inevitably be changes to the way the service is delivered and to the way it is presented and promoted over time. We aim to improve and hope to grow.

So if you already know what they are doing wrong, let them know.

Calling people 'nit pickers' is unfair.

It is also exactly how safeguarding gets undermined.

I don’t know what I’ve done to deserve the snippy response there. I was not aware of the statement before it was posted.

I'm not sure how we have got to the assumption that they do not have separate processes/procedures for dealing with under 18s and over 18s?

If they don't, then that is an issue. But we don't know at this point (unless anyone has further info? )

I completely agree with the sentiment of 'no sacred castes' but it's interesting how quickly this has escalated into assumptions in the absence of any real detail about what is/ isn't happening.

I do take the point made upthread that boundaries can be subtly eroded by the choice of language/groupings and that it does perhaps give the wrong impression to young teens to include them in a grouping with young adults up to 24, even though they won't be mixing together. I hadn't appreciated that previously.

I'm really struggling to see how the separate webchat site for separate age groups would work in practise, because the age of the user would always be self declared. Like it would be with only one portal. So I just can't see how it would solve anything.

I assumed it was a phone line because to an old git like me, 'chat' means phone.

That’s fine, but then if there’s a safeguarding point to be raised, it needs to be clearly spelled out. Up thread there were vague concerns around mixing of adults and children which didn’t seem to make sense in the context of a 1:1 service. Cross discussion which confused whether we were talking age of consent vs legal definition of child. Sex vs sexuality.

DrSpectacular has a concern around blurring of boundaries by providing a service to the whole age range of particular cohort, but I thought that had been addressed upthread showing that there are better outcomes for younger patients when they are grouped with the older cohort. Admittedly in an in person medical setting, but conbined with the explanation from LGB Alliance on why they chose this age range, it seems to be rational. If the younger people that contact the service are treated in an age appropriate manner (as well as you can do on the internet or on a call when voice boxes can disguise your age) then I still fail to see why this is a safeguarding issue.

i don’t have children, i don’t work in an area that needs safeguarding. I am genuinely ignorant on many nuances in this area beyond knowing that safeguarding is a good thing that prioritises protecting the vulnerable, and my questions are a real attempt to understand better.

I agree with this

Thanks OP I really appreciate you continuing with trying to set the record straight. I have worked with people delivering youth services so not my own field but I picked up enough about it to be able to tell that the objections stated here aren’t coming from an informed place about service provision nor from a place that supports the needs of children and young people. These are children, teens and young adults who until now haven’t had a non-captured service to call on. Something like this is vital for giving them unbiased information and support.

Also it’s very important that LGB Alliance include up to mid 20s age range because this upper end of the age group will have had gender identity fed to them at school and on social media since their preteens or teen years. This will be the first safe non biased service they could talk to.

So LGB Alliance if you read this- thanks for everything you’re doing. Keep going.

I picked up enough about it to be able to tell that the objections stated here aren’t coming from an informed place about service provision nor from a place that supports the needs of children and young people

So you never did it yourself yet you know all about it.

And people that have are not coming from an informed place.

Make it make sense.

You can quite easily ‘make it make sense’ by reading my post in full AlisonDonut.

I think it's an excellent idea. Teens and young adults desperately need advice in this space that isn't coming from activists pointing them towards self harm. Thank you LGB Alliance.

Looks to me like a lot of bad faith actors on the thread. Mermaids are, I believe, still being investigated for criticisms of their safeguarding procedures, an alternative is badly needed. Any claims about a perceived safeguarding failure can be taken up with the charity commission - if there is any, you know, actual evidence to back it up. No evidence has been presented here, just accusations.

Fucksake. No, not bad faith. The exact opposite.