1. Title? Supporting Action Research with Hardest to Reach Y’ People or Getting Ready to Get Ready for Work! or Building Positive Destinations or So where can EPs / PSPS add Value? or Keep out of Jail !

2. Aims of PSPS SOs to:  support innovation by range of partners post school with hardest to reach  offer structure for evaluation of project as ‘action research’  pilot soft measures of distance travelled re confidence and engagement  maintain direct connection with young people and fieldwork issues…

3. Action Research Elements  Partners  Population  Aims  Bespoke programme  Evaluation methodology  Formative outcomes  Initial reflection / implications

4. Partners  Careers Scotland  Key workers  Scottish Enterprise  Training Providers  PSPS SOs

5. Population  34 young people were identified via CS  26 young people were included on the programme ( age range 15.00 – 18.00 mean 16.00 years, X male y females)  All young people were being key-worked  All young people had multiple barriers  6/26 were care leavers  2 had not attended school for more than 9 months

6. Aims of intervention to:  develop and deliver a programme designed to engage yp who remain ‘NEET’ / exhibit multiple barriers  measure levels of engagement, self esteem and locus of control pre and post intervention  support / promote continuity and progression post programme re positive destination/outcome (GRfW and beyond).

7. Programme  Four structured programmes of 3 days per week over 4 weeks - run sequentially from August to December 2007 covering the following areas:  Team Building Skills  Problem Solving  Confidence Building  Collaborative Learning Skills  Social Skills  Delivered by several providers (eg Rathbone, Banbury, Mediaworks, Worknet……..

8. Evaluation  The evaluation process involved quantitative and qualitative data, and took the form of: –1. Standardised Self-esteem questionnaires (Harter ) to all the participants –2. Semi-structured self perception questionnaires to all the participants –3. Focus group discussion post programme

9. The Challenge of Numbers!  26 started programme (from 34 potential candidates) identified by key workers:  24 (92%) completed:  16(67%) partially evaluated….  11 (46%) fully evaluated (Harters +…  All 34 continue to be key worked…..

10. Results - Global Self Esteem  Pre programme –All eleven participants below standardised samples in one or more domains –Nine had lower global self esteem  Post programme –Three participants below standardised samples in one or more domains –One had lower global self esteem –All participants showed statistically significant gains in all domains ( Wilcoxon matched pairs p< 0.005 )

11. Formative outcomes Global self esteem

12. Self Perception Questionnaire  Six main scales pre and post programme –Life at present –Friends –Family –Money –Employment / training –Global Aspiration  Self perception and comments gathered  Several focus groups post programme

13. Results of Self Perception Questionnaire

14. Participants quotes  Best thing re course: –going out –being a person / talked to nicely –talking to each other –would recommend to my mates / others –moving onto another course ( GRfW)….

15. Participants quotes  Changes to you: –more confident –more independent –feel good – more comfortable and relaxed –have a routine –better at home –can work with others –achieved something…..

16. Outcomes  of potential 34  18/24 (75%)progressed to GRfW life skills  18 (100%) of those starting GRfW still in prog

17. Psychology adding value!  underpinning proposed interventions with credible status, relevant experience and evidenced strategies - knowledge of alternative assessment options and of differing agency practices  having the capacity to build knowledge of specific contexts relevant to partnership working  facilitating coordinated working across different agencies  providing a framework to help connect assessment practice within an organisation as well as in the wider context of inter agency working  applying skills to evaluate outcomes of intervention strategy – helping to test out as a critical friend.  Shining light on neglected aspects of MCMC