‘Freedom for Young People’ – Evaluation and Session Plans
Simon Kerss, Programme Manager (19/06/2007).
‘Freedom for Young People’ – Evaluation and Session Plans
Introduction
‘Freedom for Young People,’ derived from Pat Craven’s ‘Freedom Programme,’ was delivered in Cambridge City from January 31st to March 28th 2007 (from 1830 – 2030hrs) by a multi-agency team consisting of professionals from Connexions, Cambridgeshire Youth Service and Manor Community College, Cambridge, working under the umbrella organisation of Cambridgeshire’s Office of Children and Young Peoples Services (OCYPS).
The 8 week programme was aimed at girls aged 14-24, and was designed to provide therapeutic learning for those affected by domestic abuse issues, or those seeking to avoid such issues in future relationships.
This evaluation will outline the issues raised in the delivery of ‘Freedom for Young People,’ give context to the programme content and show learning outcomes from the attendees. Relevant issues will be explored under the following headings:
· Funding and Costs
· Organisation and Planning
· Staffing
· Venue
· Referrals
· Transport
· Risk Assessment
· Food
· Materials
· Awards
· Attendees’ Evaluations
· Conclusion
The reader will also find detailed programme notes for each session attached as appendices (Appendix A).
Funding and Costs
South Cambridgeshire District Council’s Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership and Cambridge City’s Community Safety Partnership very kindly provided joint funding for ‘Freedom for Young People.’ The award was originally designed to provide both a victim and perpetrator programme for young people. However, issues with the Home Office definition of domestic abuse (stating that perpetrators are adults aged 18 years and above) meant that neither local courts nor Cambridgeshire Youth Offending Service could order young perpetrators to attend. For this reason, it was decided to concentrate on young female victims and to allocate the underspend to other preventative programmes. Funding was controlled through the Sawston and Linton OCYPS Locality team budget, with invoices being administrated by OCYPS delivery support staff.
As referrals were expected from across Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire, high transport costs were expected. To try and alleviate this expense, a venue on the northern fringe of Cambridge was chosen to host the programme. The venue had previously been used for other youth activities and had childcare provision, a cafeteria and other useful amenities attached. However, despite having attendees ‘double up’ and travel into the venue in taxis together, the final bill for transport ran to over ￡2000. Due to the rural nature of the catchment area and the age of the programme’s attendees, it is difficult to conceive of ways of reducing this cost (a minibus picking up attendees would prove too time consuming, and public transport, especially across South Cambridgeshire, too infrequent). Attendees’ making their own way to the programme was deemed unrealistic and risky.
Staff costs for three facilitators working out-of-hours were also considerable. However, unless future programmes are to be hosted during school/normal working hours or facilitated by volunteers/staff seconded from their day jobs, it is unlikely that savings can be made on facilitator remuneration. During this programme, the two primary facilitators were paid overtime of 8 hours per week (4 hours delivery and 4 hours planning/administration). Our school support worker was paid for 4 hours per week to cover her time at programme sessions.
Other costs included venue hire (￡15 per week, including use of TV and video recorder), course materials (art resources, photocopying, etc.) and food. Art resources totalled around ￡40, whilst food for each two-hour session cost around ￡100 each week (13 attendees plus 3 facilitators). Money could conceivably have been saved on the food bill, but this would have been at the expense of time and convenience, and would have added expenditure onto facilitator costs.
Organisation and Planning
A considerable re-write of Pat Craven’s ‘Freedom Programme’ was needed to make the sessions appropriate for young people. More youth work-type activities were required to maintain interest and the difficult theories within the programme needed expanding upon. The core of the programme did, however, remain the same, with the figure of the ‘Dominator’ (and his counterpart ‘Mr Right’) remaining central to our work. Each session was, therefore, re-written with Pat’s original aims and objectives in place – only the methods of delivery and content of each session were changed to suit. Additionally, the duration of each session was lengthened to two hours, whilst the overall programme length was shortened from 12 to 8 weeks. The overall session titles were as follows:
· Session One – The Dominator
· Session Two – The Dominator (Part 2)
· Session Three – The Liar, the Bully and King of the Castle
· Session Four – The Liar (Part 2), the Headworker and the Persuader
· Session Five – The Jailer and the Sexual Controller
· Session Six – The Badfather
· Session Seven – The Effects on Children (Parts 1 and 2)
· Session Eight – Warning Signs and Plenary
(See Appendix A).
Planning for taxis, food, risk assessments, referrals processes, etc., was all undertaken prior to the commencement of the programme on 31/01/07, and took approximately 25 hours.
It was also determined at the planning stage that attendees should be accredited for their work on the programme and be able to achieve a qualification as a result. The ASDAN ‘Citizenship in Action’ award was subsequently chosen as the appropriate qualification to run alongside the programme.
Staffing
The programme’s lead facilitator (Paula Mayes, Youth Service Locality Coordinator) was chosen to provide much needed experience of group work in a youth work setting and to ensure that the lead facilitator was female (as per Pat Craven’s wishes). Marie Fella (Student Support Worker seconded from Social Care, Manor Community College, Cambridge) was asked to co-facilitate and to support the cohort of school-age girls from Manor. Simon Kerss (Outreach Adviser, Connexions, Cambridgeshire Office of Children and Young Peoples Services) retained the role of programme coordinator and also facilitated where appropriate. Both Paula and Simon were trained ‘Freedom Programme’ facilitators. The range of professional experience was deemed vital in the overall success of the programme.
Venue
The venue chosen for this programme was the Meadows Youth and Community Centre, Kings Hedges, Cambridge. Situated on the northern fringe of Cambridge City, the venue had the necessary conveniences and facilities. The venue was also staffed at all times and entry was via a secure reception area. Childcare provision was on-site (though not used) and the centre was accessible to all. Hire costs were low and food could be provided when necessary.
In retrospect, the room used was somewhat Spartan and not of the kind usually associated with youth-work provision, though this issue was not mentioned in any of the attendees’ evaluations. The actual room layout used for the programme was to have the chairs arranged in a circle to start, then to re-arrange the set-up when appropriate to the session plan.
There were issues with attendees impacting on other centre users as they entered and left the premises (and took comfort breaks), though these were quickly overcome after meetings with the centre management and staff.
Referrals
Referrals to the programme were opened out to all relevant professionals (though Social Care and the Youth Offending Service were particularly targeted) or through self-referral. In planning, it was decided that the age of group attendees should be co-terminus with that of Cambridgeshire Connexions and the Youth Service (13-19, or up to 25 if there are additional needs), and that the maximum group size should be 15 (to allow a facilitator to attendee ration of 3:1).
No referral paperwork was involved initially, though all prospective attendees were to be risk-assessed prior to their commencing with ‘Freedom for Young People.’ Invitations to refer were made by letter, email, telephone calls and meetings with relevant service providers. An example of the information sent out to prospective referring professionals is attached in the appendices (see Appendix B).
On commencement, two girls self-referred from the local community, five came from Cambridge’s Youth Foyer (supported accommodation) and a further six self-referred from Manor Community College, Cambridge. Three attendees came directly from South Cambridgeshire, two from East Cambridgeshire (they had been re-located from Cambridge on foster placements) and the remainder from Cambridge City.
Transport
Taxi provision was originally on account through a company that the Connexions partnership had historically used. However, following allegations from two ‘Freedom’ attendees that certain drivers had made inappropriate conversation with them, provision was changed to a firm that was used by Cambridgeshire Education to bring school-age pupils into various providers. This firm were able to offer specially trained drivers who had been given prior notification of the issues surrounding the programme. Subsequently, drivers were asked not to engage in anything other than general conversation with attendees. Had this been the case from the outset, many hours of work around the allegations (which were passed onto senior management in Cambridgeshire County Council) could have been avoided.
Risk Assessments
As previously stated, all attendees were individually risk assessed (orally) prior to commencement to ascertain their suitability and risk status. None were currently in abusive relationships, and those that had suffered historical abuse were now in safe positions. As per ‘Freedom Programme’ requirements, each session began with a review of risk and a reminder of confidentiality protocols.
The programme as a whole was risk assessed using a Cambridgeshire Youth Service document, which has been attached as an appendix (see Appendix C).
Food
Food was provided to replace the evening meal that would be missed through attendance. Initially it was provided by the Meadows Centre, though attendees were given other choices (such as pizza, Subway sandwiches, etc.) as the programme progressed. Healthy and vegetarian options were always made available.
Materials
‘Freedom Programme’ booklets (‘Living with the Dominator’) were ordered directly from Pat Craven at ￡4 per issue. Other resources, used for art projects (pens, paints, paper, glue, glitter), were bought directly from a local provider. ICT hardware, such as laptops, projectors and DVDs were sourced from within OCYPS. ASDAN workbooks were bought from the ASDAN website, www.asdan.org.uk.
Awards
As stated, the ASDAN ‘Citizenship in Action’ award was chosen as the appropriate accreditation for ‘Freedom for Young People.’ The requirements of this award meant that attendees had to produce a portfolio of work (taking not less than 30 hours) around the issue of domestic abuse, and to use their portfolios to help other young people. In this instance, attendees chose to exhibit their work at Manor Community College and Cambridge Youth Foyer.
The quality of work varied according to ability, but most attendees could show that they had indeed completed 30 hours of study (which included watching relevant TV programmes, searching the Internet, visiting other service providers, producing art work, etc.) through recording their efforts on a pro-forma, designed for this purpose. Meetings outside of the programme were necessary to administrate this award, with approximately three additional hours being spent in group-work with attendees.
At programme’s end, 11 of the 13 who eventually completed ‘Freedom for Young People’ gained their ASDAN awards. Two others were awarded Youth Service certificates of achievement in recognition of their work. All had letters of commendation attached to their ASDAN certificates and further letters of commendation were sent to Manor’s Head Teacher and Foyer’s management. A celebratory meal was also arranged to celebrate achievement. Examples of attendees’ portfolios can be found in the appendices (see Appendix D).
Attendees’ Evaluations
The following statements regarding the programme have been drawn from written evaluations completed by attendees during the final session. Other feedback on individual sessions can be found at the end of each session plan (see appendices):
Question 1. How do you feel the programme went?
1. I feel that this programme went really well because we learned how to tell good boys from bad boys. We also got to do many different activities as well.
2. I thought it went better than I thought it would.
3. I think that the programme went well because everyone participated and we worked together as one group instead of a lot of little groups.
4. I think the programme went well. I enjoyed it the people in the group made me feel welcome.
5. I enjoyed meeting people and learning the signs.
6. The programme for me went smoothly. There was a session where I felt uneasy due to the fact that some group members were not getting on with each other. Overall, I felt this course was a good place for me to start with my career.
7. I think it went really well as it was put together really good. Also we had a lot of information that I didn’t know. What made it better was who was running it, Paula. Maria and Simon made it really funny and we must give credit to Simon for putting up with all us young women for 7-8 weeks.
8. I feel that the programme went well and felt that I was good to learn and fun.
9. It went well I have really enjoyed this course.
10.I feel the programme went very well and it was really good.
11.I feel that this went really well because it helped me realise how to spot things like the early signs of domestic violence and help me in case I come across someone. I will then know that not to get involved with that sort of person.
12.It went really well and I thought it was good.
Question 2. What did you learn?
1. How to notice the D.V, what is D.V and also know some of the warning signs.
2. I learnt out of this freedom program, how to spot early signs are how domestic violence affects different people in different ways even children.
3. I have learnt a lot about how men treat men and the other way round and how you know what to look out for in men.
4. I have learnt how to control myself if I get into a relationship. I will know how to get help and I can help others that are in a violent relationship.
5. In the programme I learnt a lot about D/V and I have learnt all about the bully, bad father etc. now I think I know how to read a man.
6. I have learnt how to choose a man more carefully. Also how to socialise with other young women in the area.
7. I have learnt a lot about violence against women and children. The insight into the dominators tactics and his behaviour will help me through out my life. I feel that I can now tell and find out if I ever meet a violent man before anything happens.
8. That not all men are like the dominator and how to spot the signs. Now I can date different kinds of guys that aren’t dominators.