Project Evaluation Report: ARTWORK July 2010

Evaluation of Learning and Skills Council / Skills Funding Agency 2007–10 ESF Projects in London

ARTWORK PROJECT Final Evaluation Report September 2008 to March 2010

Imogen Slater, July 2010

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Manoj Ambasna, Preeti Dasgupta, Keith Gilles, Lance Williamson, Karen Whiteread, Wayne Swaby, Hassan Ali, Celia Greenwood, Mel Ancliff, Camille Curtis, Olajide Gbadebo, Jozell Vernal, Elizabeth McGowen, Michelle McIntosh, Lorraine Brown, Richard Parkes, Julie Parish and David Gimson. Thank you to all the young people from the ARTWORK project who gave feedback on their participation. The report was written and compiled by Imogen Slater on behalf of the ARTWORK partnership. All images Š2009-2010 Karen Whiteread/Collage Arts

Image: Participants’ work exhibited at St Michaels and All Angels School

Contents

Page Number

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2

2. PROJECT RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES 2.1 Evaluation 2.2 Project Description

4

3. PROJECT ACTIVITIES AND DELIVERY 3.1 The LSC requirements and their impact 3.2 Funding 3.3 Partnerships 3.4 NEET by definition 3.5 Project Approach 3.6 Engagement, Retention and Progression

6

4. OUTPUTS AND RESULTS 4.1 Partner Feedback 4.2 Participant Feedback 4.3 Target Groups, Eligibility and Priority

14

5. CROSS-CUTTING THEMES 5.1 Equal Opportunities 5.2 Sustainable Development 5.3 Health

21

6. CASE STUDIES

27

7. LESSONS LEARNED

29

8. FUTURE FOR THE PROJECT

31

APPENDIX A – Participant Questionnaire APPENDIX B - Ethnic Groups within ESF Definitions

ARTWORK EVALUATION REPORT

5

ARTWORK EVALUATION REPORT

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Project Summary This report presents the evaluation of the Artwork Project by Prevista Ltd. Artwork was funded by the London Learning & Skills Council1 (LSC) ESF2 Co-Financing Funding for London Youth with delivery commencing on the 1st September 2008 and concluding on the 31st March 20103. The project was delivered by a consortium of organisations (WAC Performing Arts and Media College, Kensington & Chelsea College, Head for Business and Prevista) led by Collage Arts. The project aim was to offer NEET (Not in Education, Employment or Training) young people or those at risk of becoming NEET (and who were keen to find jobs in the Creative Media industry), a package of support services which were delivered through activities which had a strong Creative, Cultural and Allied Industries theme. The project was delivered across the five London boroughs of Kensington & Chelsea, Greenwich, Hackney, Southwark, and Westminster. The target group was young people aged between 16-18 years old, living in London who were NEET or at risk of becoming so. It aimed to recruit 227 NEET young people in total with a focus on recruiting participants from target groups4 resident in the five boroughs. The project used a delivery model that has three distinct stages in its approach to working with young people: Job Fetch; Job Hold; Promote. The partners had expertise and well-developed models for working with NEET young people and tackling the multiple barriers to engagement they face. The Artwork programme was designed specifically to overcome these with tailored support including Information, Advice and Guidance (IAG) sessions for each participant. LSC Funding Requirements The contract between the Artwork partners and the LSC varied from the original bid in relation to its geography. Whilst it had been envisaged as a London-wide programme with an inevitable focus on catchment regions, the LSC instead chose to assign 5 target boroughs, some of which were relatively new to the partners. This meant that a significant amount of work needed to be done prior to delivery which involved initiating new partnerships with venues and host partners. This inevitably delayed the delivery of the programme. There were however some positive outcomes from this, for example, developing outreach delivery and making links with new partner organisations. The LSC had stringent funding requirements, some of which can be seen as being antithetical to working with NEET young people who are by definition difficult to engage. The partners worked hard to try to reconcile these requirements with their expertise in working with ‘hard to reach’ young people. They tried to minimise the impacts of the required paperwork on the young people and their advisors so that the contact could be positively maintained. 1

st

Whilst the LSC was the original contracting body as it was abolished on 31 March 2010 to be succeeded by both the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) and the Young Peoples Learning Agency (YPLA). The SFA then took over the contractual role. 2 ESF – European Social Fund 3 This was the original programme end date which has subsequently been extended until June 2010 to allow for tracking of sustainable jobs. 4 participants who had disabilities or health conditions (22%), lone parents (12%), BAME (56%), and female participants (51%).

6

ARTWORK EVALUATION REPORT

Outcomes Overall the Artwork Project succeeded in meeting its targets of working NEET young people and progressing them into EET outcomes. In fact, it surpassed its target number of 227 with a total of 244 young people participating, despite the acknowledged issues relating to geography and proof of status. All of the young people signed up were NEET or at risk of becoming NEET, aged 16-18 and resident in one of the target boroughs5. Whilst each partner adapted the delivery around the core elements, there were key approaches and components of these, that they identified as being crucial to their success in working with this group. These included: the relationship with staff, flexibility, the tailoring of holistic support, the attraction of the creative industries and kudos of the staff/partners, and a genuine offer. Supporting young people to identify and pursue their own pathways was vital as opposed to preset or prescribed routes. The project performed well against its aims with regard to target groups and achieved good numbers of young women, young people from BAME groups. The numbers of participants who were lone parents or had disabilities or health conditions or learning difficulties was lower than the ESF targets though still of significant proportions. It should be noted that there was an issue with the Individual Learners Record (ILR) form with regard to disclosure and layout that is likely to have affected recorded numbers of these groups. Key Findings, Lessons and the Future The Artwork project responded to all 3 of the cross cutting themes of Equal Opportunities, Sustainability and Health. It was particularly successful in promoting greater equality of opportunity through its targeting of particular groups, and contributed to both sustainability and health outcomes as a result of its effective work with them. The project can be seen to represent good value for money in that it surpassed its target numbers of participants, achieved positive EET outcomes for them and frequently offered young people support above the levels required. The positive feedback from participants evidences some of the impacts it had offering them transformational support and opportunities. The project has consolidated the partners experience in working with NEET young people and has clearly pointed to key elements of approach and delivery. This has already enabled one of the partners to successfully bid for further funding to the London Development Agency (LDA) ESF Co-financing Youth Programme ‘Transition to employment for 14-19 year olds NEET or at risk of becoming NEET’. The Artwork project was based on an effective combination of creative educational opportunities and youth work / mentoring support. Participants’ feedback on the programme was very positive and highlighted that the individual support, along with developing creative and personal skills, was what most young people cited as having positive benefits for them. The project provided a stepping stone for young people, who moved from disengagement to engagement in an Employment, Education or Training outcome. It did this through combining a number of key elements. For participants, the programme not only improved their confidence in themselves and their abilities, it helped them clarify their future directions and develop tangible pathways to work towards these. Key lessons are: The LSC selected target boroughs that differed from the original bid. This meant that there were increased difficulties in recruiting the target group.

5

There was an agreed 10% variance to this.

7

ARTWORK EVALUATION REPORT

Working in Boroughs outside of the partners usual catchment areas required a longer time than anticipated to identify new partners and establish the project. There were positive outcomes from working in the new target Boroughs; these included working with new partners and developing and adapting working practices. LSC funding requirements were particularly restrictive. This was especially problematic for smaller organisations in relation to achieving set outcomes and the related payments for these. The paperwork associated with the programme was regarded as more onerous than with many other programmes. Partners found ways to work with this and minimise its impact on project delivery. All partners cited the evidence needed of a young persons’ status as being problematic. It could not only put off the hardest to engage but was for some young people difficult or impossible to access. The timing of the project was not ideal. Firstly it was a 2 year project condensed into 18 months that required 6 months development time; secondly it needed to be better timed to coincide with key points at which young people become NEET, for example a few months on from the Autumn term start date when there has been ‘drop off’ of young people from, for example, FE colleges. The partners are all well established and recognised for their good track records in working with NEET young people. They have tried and tested models for this kind of work and are clear about what key elements are needed to ensure that it is efficacious. The Artwork project was based on an effective combination of creative educational opportunities and youth work / mentoring support. However it had requirements attached that restricted the partners to deliver this work utilising the approaches that they know to be effective, particularly with the target group. Participants’ feedback on the programme was very positive and highlighted that the individual support, along with developing creative and personal skills, was what most young people cited as having positive benefits for them. The Artwork programme provided a stepping stone for young people, who moved from disengagement to engagement in an Employment, Education or Training outcome. It did this through combining a number of key elements. For participants the programme not only improved their confidence in themselves and their abilities, it helped them clarify their future directions and develop tangible pathways to work towards these. Despite some of the project limitations the partners successfully delivered the project and surpassed their target participant numbers. Whilst there was good collaboration between partners, there were areas where this could have been usefully extended. However the pressures of schedules and targets meant that this was of a lower priority. The geographical divides with regards to target Boroughs meant that while there was some partnership work in jointly meeting target numbers, it also encouraged a singular focus on specific areas.

8

ARTWORK EVALUATION REPORT

95% of the participants successfully achieved both the learning outcome and progressing onto one of the EET destinations. Whilst the partners achieved good numbers of young people from the target groups (ethnicity, gender, disability, etc.) some of these were short of the target numbers. The partners focused on the priority targets (age, NEET status and borough) all of which they achieved. The programme offered ‘Value for Money’ in a number of ways: it drew on the partners expertise in and models of working with NEET young people; it frequently offered them support and guidance additional to that which they were funded to do; many participants continue to be in touch with and supported by their delivery organisation; partners utilised established networks and partners in order to recruit and delivery the programme.

9

ARTWORK EVALUATION REPORT

2. PROJECT RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES 2.1 Evaluation Evaluation is an important requisite of all ESF funded projects and has been planned for and built into the delivery of the programme from the outset. This evaluation is internal and was carried out by Prevista in their role as one of the project partners. It was however undertaken by staff not involved in project delivery, allowing for some degree of detachment. The evaluation of the Artwork project required the gathering of both quantitative and qualitative information to assess progress against achievements and objectives. It did this throughout the delivery programme, in order to be able to feedback to partners on both progress and issues. This report represents the final summative stage of evaluation of the project, which reflects on the programme as a whole, specifically its performance against its original objectives, and what have been the key learning points. In order to do this it has asked pertinent questions including: •

• • • • •

What was the performance / were targets and objectives met? With regard to the volume of outputs / outcomes: what difficulties were experienced, were obstacles overcome and are there good news stories / evidence of best practice in achieving these? What was the programme of delivery? Evidence of any delivery, delivery planning verses delivering actuality, barriers faced and how these were surmounted? What are the lessons that have been learned? Expanding on the implications/recommendations/lessons learned/innovation – evidence of, etc. How did the project deliver added value? Accounts of the activities and arrangements used to engage target groups. How were target groups recruited and engaged? How were resources employed to run the project and how did the project run (e.g. marketing, methods of teaching, activities offered, etc.).

Image: Summer Music Project at the Chocolate Factory

10

ARTWORK EVALUATION REPORT

Examination and analysis of data have included – • • • • • • • •

Baseline data - analysis of monitoring and tracking information of Artwork participants Individual Learning Plans (ILPs) Project feedback Case studies - individuals Participant questionnaires Meeting minutes Project documentation Partner interviews.

These different kinds of data (both qualitative and quantitative) evidence different aspects of the programme delivery; it is by combining the findings from these that the fullest picture can be presented. The report is designed in part to feedback to the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) the experiences and learning from this project. 2.2 Project Description Artwork was submitted to the London Learning & Skills Council (LSC) ESF6 Co-Financing Funding for London Youth round in November 2007. Delivery commenced on the 1st September 2008 and concluded on the 31st March 20107. The project aim was to offer NEET (Not in Education, Employment or Training) young people or those at risk of becoming NEET and who were keen to find jobs in the Creative Media industry, a package of support services delivered through activities which had a strong Creative, Cultural and Allied Industries theme. It was delivered by a consortium of partners led by Collage Arts. The project was delivered across the five London Boroughs of Kensington & Chelsea, Greenwich, Hackney, Southwark, and Westminster. The target group was young people aged between 16-18 years old, living in London who were not in education employment or training (NEET) or those at risk of becoming NEET. It aimed to recruit 227 NEET young people in total. Within this it had a particular focus on recruiting participants who have disabilities or health conditions (22%), lone parents (12%), BAME (56%), and female participants (51%). Whilst the majority of participants in the programme were to come from the five host Boroughs, it was eventually agreed that up to 10% (or 22 learners), could be resident in other London Boroughs. Collage Arts was the lead delivery partner8 and the other partners involved were: WAC Performing Arts and Media College, Kensington & Chelsea College, Head for Business9 and Prevista. All of the partners except Prevista had delivery roles, ie they directly recruited and worked with young people. Prevista were the Delivery Manager with responsibility for monitoring and evaluation. The overarching aim was to deliver a partnership approach to providing pre-employment support, job brokerage and an initial employment safety net for 227 NEET young people.

6

ESF – European Social Fund This was the original programme end date which has subsequently been extended until June 2010 to allow for tracking of sustainable jobs. 8 “The lead therefore has the contractual agreement and relationship with the LSC to deliver the Artwork project under the terms and conditions stated in the agreement between the LSC and the lead”. From - Artwork Service Delivery Agreement. 9 Head for Business withdrew from having a delivery role in the project in August 2009 but continued to have a role as a strategic partner and attended partner meetings. 7

11

ARTWORK EVALUATION REPORT

The project objectives were: To provide a three stage programme for young people that will enhance their ability to gain and sustain employment in the creative media industry. To develop closer and stronger links with employers and engage them directly in shaping the skills and abilities of the future workforce. To enhance the 14-19 offer in the designated areas and link programme to the London NEET advocate. The following section details the three distinct stages of the programme: Stage One – JOBFETCH Individual interventions/ engagements • Artwork Specialist Creative Media pre-programme assessments aimed at identifying barriers participants may face in obtaining employment in the creative media industries and other industries • Mock job interviews with professionals • Mentoring arrangements • Individual Learning Plan for all participants • Pre and post interview support for participants • Support in C.V preparation, communication skills, interview techniques, presentational skills • JobSearch • ICT, Lifeskills training • Bursary to develop portfolios where applicable Wider Activities • Job Fairs and exhibitions held at a number of sites across London involving small medium and large employers from across London • Inspirational talks and seminars aimed at potential participants • Learner Tours and visits to key employers • Employment solutions and brokerage for employers

Stage Two – JOBHOLD (six months aftercare support) Aimed at supporting participants to retain employment/ work pathway through learning activities, with a particular focus on developing self-esteem and confidence. Pastoral support will assist with retention rates and continued levels of engagement Individual interventions/ engagements • Budgeting and Financial Management Support including support in opening bank accounts etc • Support in resolving personal issues relating to health, accommodation or any issues likely to impact on employment – Advisers will work in partnership with Connexions PAs or other relevant professionals including YOT’s Leaving Care Teams etc. • 1 to 1 visits by Artwork advisers to offer support and advice as appropriate • Regular meetings with specially assigned mentor/coach • Access to Personal Development programmes and opportunities including ICT, life skills etc • Crisis resolution/support with employer where issues arise.

Stage Three – PROMOTE This stage supports participants to focus on their long term employment goals and aspirations. Particularly relevant to young people on apprenticeships and six month work placements it focuses on supporting young people to access long term employment opportunities. It also promotes Youth Enterprise offering participants the opportunity to start up their own businesses with business support. Individual activities • Job Search, CV preparation • 1:1 Coaching , mentoring • Interview Support • Youth Enterprise/ Business link support • Access to advanced programmes in ICT, Business Management etc Wider Activities • Job brokerage • Seminars/workshops

Wider Activities • Flexible learning programmes, workshops and seminars open to learners with agreement of their employers

12

ARTWORK EVALUATION REPORT

3. PROJECT ACTIVITIES AND DELIVERY This section details the main themes and points made by the partners. 3.1 The LSC requirements and their impact Geography The partners’ original bid to the London Learning & Skills Council (LSC) planned for pan London delivery across the 5 LSC defined London Regions10 and including the partners’ ‘home’ boroughs of Camden, Haringey and Lewisham. However as table 1 illustrates the LSC allotted particular boroughs (Greenwich, Southwark, Hackney, Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea) which did not necessarily correspond to their usual catchment areas. Table 1: Delivery Partners and Target Boroughs Delivery Partner Organisation

Location Borough

Usual Catchment Boroughs

Artwork Target Boroughs

Collage Arts

Haringey

Haringey, Enfield, Barnet, Waltham Forest, Hackney

Hackney, Southwark, Greenwich

WAC—Weekend Arts College

Camden

Camden, Islington, Brent, Hackney, Haringey, Westminster, Lambeth, Barnet, Westminster, Kensington & Greenwich Chelsea

KCC—Kensington & Chelsea College

Kensington & Chelsea

Kensington & Chelsea

Southwark, Kensington & Chelsea

H4B—Head for Business

Lewisham

Lewisham

Southwark, Greenwich

Fig 1: Map of London Boroughs, Target Boroughs and Partner Locations

This made the project somewhat difficult from the outset, particularly where the allocated boroughs were outside of partners usual catchment areas. It was seen as a “huge setback” given their lack of established networks and partners in the new boroughs. Some felt that the 10

South, City & East, North and North East, Central and West.

13

ARTWORK EVALUATION REPORT

bid was effectively a different one from their original vision of the project. It necessitated establishing new ways of working and new partnerships, which took more time to establish than originally anticipated and therefore impacted on the timescale for delivery readiness. There have however been some positive outcomes as a result of making contacts in new boroughs. The necessity of engaging young people from the target boroughs had a number of related issues. Firstly there was protracted negotiation about how much variance there could be to this (given ESF funding eligibility criteria), with different project officers giving different interpretations. It was finally agreed that there could be a 10% variance on numbers from target boroughs11. The LSC had intended that all referrals to the project should come via the Connexions service. Where there are established relationships with Connexions services in particular boroughs this might have been feasible, however the partners found that this was neither a practical or effective basis for all of their recruitment. One partner pointed out that local Connexions centres vary in their openness to working with external organisations and particularly to those that are new to them. Geographical location could also be an issue for young people. For example, for some there were problems with territories and gangs which meant that they felt unable to travel to particular areas to access support. Staff mentioned issues of travel and access for young people from different boroughs associated with “postcode wars”. In some instances this meant workers needed to be flexible about where they met with beneficiaries. Lastly, several partners noted differences in the characteristics of the target boroughs. For example the demographics of Greenwich and Haringey were notably dissimilar. Boroughs had diverse resident ethnic groups in specific areas which then might then require the adaptation of approaches for contact and engagement. Paperwork and the Target Group The partners generally found that the “heavy preponderance of paperwork and proof of status” was in direct conflict with the inherent nature of what it means to be NEET. That is the very fact the young people were NEET, and particularly those that were most disengaged, were often unable or wary of proving their status. For example, they needed passports or birth certificates as evidence of UK residency. These kinds of requirements were felt to be sending out conflicting messages to potential participants and they “become real barriers to helping this group” who “are starting with serious disadvantages”. These young people were all too frequently not linked into any other services, even Connexions. There were also difficulties with identifying and tracking some of the target groups, for example lone parents. The large amounts of paperwork early on in a young person’s involvement could be off putting for them12, although the partners tried to lessen the impact of the funders’ requirements on the beneficiaries. One partner stated that they had consciously worked hard to keep the difficult logistics and requirements of the project away from the young people and their advisors, so that they could concentrate on the vital engagement and delivery aspects. The interviewee said “my role was to keep the bureaucracy away from the people on the ground…..in order to limit the burden on the creative work”.

11 12

The change of Project Officer early in 2010 enabled this agreement to be reached. A number of participants stated in this in the feedback questionnaire.

14

ARTWORK EVALUATION REPORT

Illustration One interviewee said that there were lots of issues for young people that the programme didn’t recognise or take into account. For example issues relating to gangs and territorialism. She gave the example of a young man who she initially went to meet in Peckham McDonalds as he felt unable to travel to her organisation in another borough. She couldn’t take any ID from him there to copy so had to then arrange to meet him at Connexions which he was hesitant about. The interviewee commented that often young people don’t have the necessary documents, particularly as many are not living at home and can’t access these. Asking for this kind of evidence at initial points of contact can be detrimental to the relationship building between staff and beneficiaries. Their view is that Artwork “doesn’t allow you to establish a relationship” whilst with other comparable contracts “we have time to nurture relationships”.

Partners found the programme to be restrictive with regards to age, paperwork, documentation, geographical limitations, and the stipulations about the timing of support offered. At the beginning the numbers and timings of the IAGs (Information, Advice and Guidance) were very prescriptive (1 every month totalling 6 in all). This was relaxed later in the programme with IAGs being able to be offered every 3 weeks instead of 4. One of the partners said that the target group responds best to a “short sharp programme” of intensive support. Other partners felt that it was important to be able to tailor support to meet individual needs rather than have a fixed schedule for this. 3.2 Funding The fact that there were no upfront start-up costs was problematic, especially for smaller organisations. Delivery partners countered this by making sure they covered the soft skills improvements immediately and quickly. However there was feedback that they would have approached delivery somewhat differently if there had been upfront funding. For example it would have allowed them to do more work with new groups initially. Head for Business found that the associated cash flow issues and risk unworkable for them and they made the decision to withdraw from delivery13. For bigger organisations this was easier to manage as they were better able to accommodate the cash flow. One partner commented that the amount of funding that they actually received per young person did not equate with the amount of work involved. They said that it requires considerable resources to offer participants the kind of intensive and extensive support that is required to genuinely progress NEET young people. It should be noted that all of the partners have a learner centred approach, with their needs being regarded as the primary driver rather than funding requirements. There were many instances of partners offering support to individual participants beyond the expectations or budgeted resources of the project. 3.3 Partnerships There are two aspects to the consideration of partnerships involved with the Artwork project. There is the collaboration between the delivery partners and then their work with other organisations in order to carry out their delivery. The structure of governance of the delivery partnership involved Collage Arts as the Project Lead with Prevista facilitating the partnership in their role as Delivery Manager. There were regular steering group meetings attended by the delivery partners which reviewed progress against agreed outputs and timescales and offered the opportunity to raise issues and share practice.

13

They did however continue to have a strategic role in the partnership, for example through attending steering group meetings.

15

ARTWORK EVALUATION REPORT

Image: Music Performance Showcase at the Karamel Club

The following feedback was given by partners reflecting on the delivery partnership: Partners worked collaboratively at times whilst also focusing on delivering against their own targets. There has been some collaboration between partners in order to be able to meet the particular set targets. There were different partner relationships ranging from the new to the wellestablished. Links with some partners were stronger than others. There is recognition of the importance of partnerships and networks/connections. They are looking at how they can continue the work post March 2010. There was good contact between partners throughout delivery which enabled them to adapt and share and where appropriate review progress. There could have been more support and exchange between partners. There could also have been more information sharing particularly with regard to contractual negotiations. The Artwork partners were generally quite positive about how the partnership had worked. They found the exchanges at partner meetings very useful. It was clear that the various partners had different strengths and weaknesses, and therefore there were things that they could have learnt from each other about their methods, approaches, etc. This is something that they feel could have been further developed. For example one member of staff said that she would have welcomed the opportunity to visit some of the other organisations and see the work they were doing firsthand. If partner strengths and weaknesses had been laid out at the beginning they could perhaps have worked more collaboratively. For example, some partners find achieving educational outcomes particularly easy and other outcomes more difficult.

16

ARTWORK EVALUATION REPORT

The geographical distance and difference in relation to involvement in actual delivery has meant that these connections haven’t developed as much as they might have. With hindsight (and more time) they would have liked to utilise the link with KCC more. Developing this relationship could benefit the young people through them getting to know the college and what it offers as a potential next step for some. Interestingly, partners fed-back both positive and negative views related to their partnership work within the programme, and the above points show at times views that are at variance. This may be in part due to partners having different expectations, but also the fact that relationships between partners differed. The following points were made about the external partnerships the project necessitated: The link with Greenwich Connexions “worked quite well” despite difficulties in working with/through Connexions elsewhere. The LSC originally wanted all the referrals to come through Connexions across the Boroughs but this didn’t work, and therefore Collage looked for other partners / host locations and venues in order to be able to deliver and to identify young people were either not engaged or at risk. There were very different demographics, not simply in relation to the different Boroughs, but in terms of the host agencies. For example, the work in Greenwich attracted predominantly white young men as compared with that in Southwark where the majority were BAME. The Artwork programme necessitated partnership work both in relation to delivery partners and to local organisations and agencies. Where possible, partners utilised well-established links with local schools, YOTs, and Connexions Services for example. Many partners also acted as referral agencies. These partner relationships are ongoing, for example where a young person is referred they will continue to maintain contact and support, and share information. This enables a more ‘joined up’ approach to working with and supporting the individual young person. One interviewee said that they have had good feedback from partners about their approach to working with NEET young people. Host or venue partners included: Blue Hut (YMCA Resource Centre) St Michael and All Angels School Heartbeat Communiversity Southwark Somali Refugee Council Connexions The Midi Music Company Thomas Tallis School Collage Recording Studio Kickstart Hostels Youth Offending Teams Prevista’s role included developing a Marketing Plan which used an integrated marketing and communications strategy focusing on both direct beneficiary recruitment and the wider gatekeeper engagement. The marketing was “front loaded in order to ensure adequate time is left to deliver the lengthy support process”. Promotion and marketing of the Artwork project largely took place via the partners as well as using routes including community centres, other arts organisations, local newspapers, radio stations and by ‘word of mouth’. One partner was of the opinion that this kind of funding, targeted at engaging young people who are defined as NEET, needs a pan-London strategic approach. Funders need to be working with Local Authorities for example. They felt that this focus and understanding from 17

ARTWORK EVALUATION REPORT

the top down alongside bringing together the relevant agencies, would really facilitate the work for those on the ground. For example they felt that all of Connexions offices should know about the programme and therefore be primed to work with voluntary sector / nonformal learning sector delivery partners. 3.4 NEET by definition By definition NEET young people aren’t engaged and are difficult to engage. This means that they can’t necessarily be contacted through usual or mainstream routes, which can be an issue, for example, in working with statutory agencies. This is especially true of those that are the ‘hardest to reach’ and therefore most likely to be in need of programmes like Artwork. The partners all already had well-developed models for working with this group. The Artwork parameters were in some aspects difficult to align with these. Partners cited a number of key issues in working with NEET young people including: Where are they? Finding ways of locating and interacting with them. They don’t necessarily have the correct paperwork and may be wary of this. Negative labelling and negative experiences of education. Many have personal issues and barriers that need to be overcome in order to engage with learning. Schools do not track young people after they leave compulsory full-time education whilst Connexions didn’t inform the partners of their NEET register or facilitate them in gaining access to clients. This may be in part due to the fact that they allocate NEET young people to their own projects. An interviewee commented that developing trust between the young person and staff takes time; “It’s a process that builds, it can’t happen straight away”. Some of the requirements of the project were therefore deemed unrealistic and arguably, antithetical to some of the issues involved in working with NEET young people. Partners have identified the key approaches to working with this group as:

Building relationships with key staff Support that is holistic and intensive Tailored provision – responsive to individual needs ‘Roll-on-roll off’ programmes The attraction of arts / media / creative industries A genuine offer Non-linear pathways Working with small groups Offering the possibility of accreditation – the importance of this for NEET young people Ongoing support – into routes beyond the initial programme, plus helping to identify these Peer support Flexibility and using innovative approaches – ‘what works’ Establishing rules from the outset – clear parameters.

One partner stressed that their approach involved responding to NEET participants as individuals, and tailoring the support offered “as and when” it was needed. They regarded their approach as being about “trying to get them from a place that is negative to a place that is positive”. Their focus is therefore on personal development learning and skills that are foundational for the other ‘harder’ more easily measurable outcomes. 18

ARTWORK EVALUATION REPORT

3.5 Project Approach The “knowledge of local culture and organisations with good relationships with young people [is] key to the success of this work” Partner Interview

The partners used and adapted models of working with NEET young people; which they had developed and tested over time. It could perhaps be seen as one of the successes of the programme that it remained flexible enough to allow for each partner to do this, whilst delivering on the key elements (IAGs, Learning Plans, etc.) that were comparable across all of the delivery. What was variable were the ‘tools of engagement’; that is that each partner offered creative courses which focused on different areas. Some projects also developed their own selected focus and characteristics. For example, the project based at a Camberwell school concentrated on visual arts and included a trip to the Tate.

Image: Participants experience Tate Britain

Key Elements of the Artwork Programme delivered by KCC

1. Referral

Mentoring and Support

2. First Meeting

throughout programme

3. Assessment

including regular IAGs (x6)

4. Induction

↓

5. Designing and agreeing a Learning Plan 6. Soft skills preparation and development 7. Taster sessions 8. Entry into course / programme (e.g. E2E) 9. Next step – further education, training, employment 10. Support and tracking beyond finish The programme is individually tailored. While the above details clear steps, these may be adapted according to the individual. The time involved from the first stages to the end progression routes is variable and depends on the individual’s skill levels and motivation. It is important to note that starting points can also vary greatly both in relation to personal skills and educational levels.

19

ARTWORK EVALUATION REPORT

Where partners had to deliver in Boroughs that were outside of their usual catchment areas, new local placement providers and venues were identified. For Collage Arts, this meant that they had to adapt their approach which in the past had relied on delivering from their base at the Chocolate Factory in Wood Green. Instead, they needed to go into new venues and find ways to work with young people there. There were advantages to this, such as being able to access groups of target young people who were already ‘at home’ in these environments rather than required to travel to new ones. One interviewee said that initially the logistics involved seemed complex but that “actually it worked out quite well”. For example, they have as a result developed new partnerships (e.g. with St Michaels and All Angel School in Camberwell) which they hope to continue in the future. As well as working with new partners, the delivery organisations drew on their networks of existing relationships and knowledge of other programmes to provide or locate progression routes for participants. This was especially important given the acknowledged lack of careers advice, signposting or clear pathways within the creative sector. However the partners were clear that their Artwork delivery provided skills, both for those who would progress along creative pathways and those who would choose other sectors. For many participation was a stepping stone; the first in a process of engagement. The skills, confidence and support they gained might then enable them to pursue progression routes into other fields of education for example. 3.6 Engagement, Retention and Progression Overall the delivery partners collectively worked hard to engage with, retain and then progress their participants which is demonstrated by their achievement of their targets with 244 engaged and 233 achieving EET progressions. They employed a range of strategies in order to do this. Their successes are particularly significant in that they were working with young people who are by definition, difficult to engage. The following list summarises what they have found to be the key elements in the successful engagement with, retention of and then progression, of NEET young people. (Some of these obviously correspond with the key approaches listed above). Well established well networked organisations Word of mouth – kudos and reputation Attraction of the arts / creative sectors High levels of pastoral care and offering holistic individual support Relationship with advisors is key – having a mentor, ensuring continuity Ongoing contact and encouragement Being responsive to any issues arising Offering times that were suitable and accessible, for e.g. evenings and weekends Part-time course – therefore there were gradual and staggered levels of re-engagement and involvement was not overwhelming Participation was voluntary Building trust and respect – seeing this as a process Opportunities for young people to ‘give back’ such as mentoring others Learner focused Building foundational (‘soft’ or personal development) skills Clear stages of achievement – ‘small steps’ Things to aim for – including Accreditation options 20

ARTWORK EVALUATION REPORT

Seen by young people as ‘real work’ – access to professional practitioners and resources. These elements can be seen as a summary of the partners’ models for working with NEET young people, where the relationship with staff is fundamental to engagement and creative opportunities are the tool for delivering personal development skills. A learner centred approach provides educational experience that is both tailored and intensive unlike most mainstream provision.

21

ARTWORK EVALUATION REPORT

4. OUTPUTS AND RESULTS Project outcomes will be assessed against the agreed targets (outputs) with the following areas being considered in terms of the wider evaluation focus: • • • • •

IAG and Learning Effectiveness Beneficiary Satisfaction Access Partner Satisfaction Cost Effectiveness – Value for Money.

In assessing the project outcomes we have drawn upon all available data, both qualitative and quantitative. 4.1 Partner Feedback Partners were asked about what they thought were the most important outcomes from the programme, and if any of these were at all unexpected. The following points are a summary of what they deemed to be most significant: Working in new ways and with new partners thereby establishing new partnerships there are plans to further develop work with some of these new partnerships. Doing outreach and delivering ‘in situ’ in outside or host venues. Working in new Boroughs and areas. The importance of partnerships and networks / connections was stressed. One interviewee said that they are looking at how they can continue the work post March 10. The need to work responsively and innovatively. A youth work approach combined with Arts/Creative skills and IAG. Understanding better the value of their approach to working with NEET young people. In looking at these outcomes they can be broadly divided into two main areas: Strategic and structural elements – partnerships, networks, geographies, venues. Approach – successful model of working with target young people through combining youth work support and creative opportunities. WAC said that the Artwork programme has affected their delivery in that they now offer IAG more frequently (monthly) and this is more formally carried out and recorded. A positive result of this is whereas before young people came and sought support when they needed it (and still do), staff now ensure this happens regularly and that everyone is offered this service. The IAG sessions are called tutorials, which is interesting in that it is a term often used in mainstream education. Another partner said “we’ve had some really interesting experiences” as a result of the programme. For example, they found that a lot of the young people they were working with expressed angst and anger, and so explored different ways to work with this. For instance, the Heartbeat group used boxing as a good ‘let out’ while the Somali group used football.

22

ARTWORK EVALUATION REPORT

The key was trying different approaches to first attract and then keep the young people engaged. Value for Money The project offered good value for money in a number of ways: They utilised ‘tried and tested’ models for working with NEET young people They drew on existing networks The delivery partners offered levels of support to participants that were above either the expectations or the assigned resources of the project Some participants chose to ‘give back’ for example by becoming mentors to other young people Over the target number of participants were supported to achieve positive EET outcomes. The original bid stated that: “Ultimately the project will provide value for money by offering relevant, targeted and accessible learning to groups who are highly unlikely to participate in mainstream provision. The project’s target groups, many of whom suffer from multiple disadvantages, face significant barriers - institutional, social, cultural, personal and economic - to participation. People with this level of need require a learning and support offer which is flexible and tailored enough to help them to recognise and fulfil their potential through entering learning. The experience of the partners, reinforced by the consultation work built into the project design, will help to ensure that the project recognises and addresses barriers and needs effectively. Training activities will be taking place in local community venues to maximise accessibility.”

In targeting participants and offering them tailored support in order to achieve positive EET outcomes and through the use of both community-based venues and the partners’ expertise, the Artwork Programme can be seen to have offered good value for money. 4.2 Participant Feedback A feedback questionnaire (see Appendix A) was undertaken with a proportion14 of participants at the end of the programme. This asked 16 questions, most of which were ‘open’ and was designed to explore what motivated participation, what participants had hoped to get from the course and what they think they actually got, and overall levels of satisfaction in relation to different aspects. It is worth noting that the forms were anonymous and participants either self-completed the forms or did so with a member of staff. The data produced was largely qualitative and through analysis a number of clear themes emerged. The following is a summary of the main themes: The majority of participants were motivated by gaining skills. Arts / creative sector activities and learning were a key attraction. The majority stated they were doing ‘nothing’ before joining Artwork. Skills and or qualifications were cited as the primary aspiration from the course. 14

39 participants from Collage, WAC and KCC completed the feedback form which represents 17% of 227 participants.

23

ARTWORK EVALUATION REPORT

Personal development skills, and particularly confidence were referred to by many. Motivation was also cited and encouragement towards goals helped overcome this issue. Group and team work were cited by many as something they welcomed experience of and got from their involvement. The Artwork Programme emerges as a stepping-stone. Whilst for most career pathways were both personal and specific, it seems clear that the course assisted them in different ways with furthering these. Staff and the support they gave, were very important. Respondents included a whole range of support (both personal and career related) received including: advice, housing, financial, application forms, CVs, job search, networking, careers, etc. There was very little dissatisfaction expressed at all. Where respondents were asked if there were aspects they either didn’t find useful or didn’t enjoy the answers they gave often related to the Step Up course component and written work. Conversely, some said that the practical and active parts of the course were what they particularly liked. Throughout the questionnaires there is a strong message about the importance of new experiences relating to new situations, environments, learning, skills, people and challenges. The main reasons given for choosing to sign up for Artwork were: • • • • • •

To gain skills (both career related and personal development) To get support Access to resources (e.g. recording studios, dance studios, rehearsal space, etc.) To improve prospects (including ability to follow a chosen career path) Because of recommendation or referral To do something (rather than ‘nothing’).

The majority of respondents (59%) cited skills of some kind as being a prime motivation. When asked what they were doing prior to their involvement, 69% gave answers that can be summarised as ‘nothing’. Some gave reasons for this, such as that they were looking for work or were unsure what to do next. A number also said that they had either been at school or on other courses but that these had not worked for them. All of the respondents seemed clear about what they hoped to get from their engagement in Artwork. Again the majority cite skills and qualifications, whilst a large number also saw their involvement as a stepping stone towards for example further education or work within a chosen field. When asked what they actually got ‘skills’ is once again the overriding answer (59%). What is of particular interest is that a high proportion of answers say that they improved their personal development skills such as confidence, self esteem, team work and making friends, motivation, feeling positive and ‘de-stressing’. A number also mention the support they were given. Participants were asked both what they enjoyed most and least about the programme. Career skills and personal development skills were given by every respondent except 3 (2 of whom said ‘everything’ and 1 no answer). In response to the things they least enjoyed, 62% said ‘nothing’ or gave a positive comment, while 18% said ‘writing’ or ‘filling in forms’ was an issue for them. This may be related to disabilities such as dyslexia and / or kinaesthetic learning styles.

24

ARTWORK EVALUATION REPORT

Table 2: How useful have you found the following things:

1:2:1 Support

Advice

89.7%

92.6%

Mock Interviews 65.9%

Work Experience 77.7%

Course Tasters 85.5%

Note: These percentages are based on the participant feedback forms from 39 out of 227. However with some questions several respondents may not have given an answer. Respondents were asked to give a score of 1 to 5 (with 1 being poor and 5 excellent). Table 3: Please indicate how much you feel you developed in these key areas:

Confidence

Clarity

Motivation

77.5%

72.8%

84.3%

Creative Skills 80.3%

Contacts

Aspirations

68.9%

84.7%

Note: These figures are based upon respondents being asked how much they think they have developed in different areas from their starting point at the beginning of the course. They were asked to indicate on a scale of 1-10 how much they felt they had progressed.

This method of assessing the usefulness of course elements and individual development is indicative rather than definitive. As such it is useful in assessing where the biggest impacts have been and conversely the least effective elements. Table 2 shows that the support and advice elements of the course were found to be the most useful. Table 3 shows that aspirations and motivation were what respondents felt they had most developed, closely followed by creative skills. The answers to ‘what kind of support did you get from the staff / trainers?’ are more difficult to categorise. This is because they reveal that each person had very individualised, specific support needs. Some cite these such as “help with doing a demo”, while others relate more generic support related to encouragement and confidence building. One participant writes “they were at the end of the phone anytime I needed to speak to someone” which evidences that the support offered was beyond the allocated IAG sessions. With regards to aspirations and whether the course had changed these at all, many said that it had helped clarify these and identify their next steps / pathways. Respondents were then asked if they felt it had improved their potential to achieve what they wanted to do; 77% answered affirmatively, while 18% did not give an answer. IAG and Learning Effectiveness From the feedback forms it was clear that the support offered was valuable, appreciated and diverse. It was responsive to the participant and therefore tailored to their needs. It combined both career related advice and support (e.g. with application forms), with personal support. For example some participants related issues with housing or benefits and staff helped them resolve these. Given that these kinds of issues can be very real barriers to the ability to engage with learning, this kind of holistic support is clearly necessary to enable participation. Beneficiary Satisfaction The survey forms evidence high levels of beneficiary satisfaction with their involvement in the programme across most aspects of the delivery. The IAG support from dedicated staff was clearly a central factor in this, along with the creative aspects and access to resources and professionals. The young people seemed very aware and appreciative of what they were offered, for example one respondent (when asked would they like to say anything else) wrote “I still have a long way to go and the staff have continued to help me get involved in other projects. Thank you.”

25

ARTWORK EVALUATION REPORT

Image: Extract of participant’s work from ‘Comic life’ project

26

ARTWORK EVALUATION REPORT

Quotes from feedback forms Given that the survey was designed so that young people could answer questions with their own words, the following is presented as a selection of some of these. Whilst they may be some of the most expressive answers they are not atypical in their sentiments. Why did you get involved? “I jumped onto WAC because I liked the courses like music, video” “Because I like producing music – film, I have the passion for it and in other words that is how I express myself....” “I feel that this programme has a lot in store for me and could help me with certain aspects in my life that could do with improvement” What were you doing before? “Nothing coz I was moving hostels” What kind of support did you get? “a lot, EMA, benefits, housing, advice, guest speakers, theatre....” What are the most useful things you have learnt? “taking responsibility, learning about real work” “how to work effectively on a project with different types of people, how to be more positive” “that hard work pays off” Has it improved your potential? “It helped me see the importance of school and training” “yes I wanted to study further. The course gave me the confidence and drive to go for further opportunities” Is there anything else you would like to say? “Thanks a lot for the advice and help you gave me..... helped me achieve what I want and be able to move to another college and university and move forward to what I want to make my living out of.....”. “I really enjoyed this course, it was really fun and inspiring” “I would like to really thank my tutor..... for being so supportive and believing in me.” “More free courses please for young people, whether they are working or studying or doing nothing, and it should not matter where they live. (My friend did not get a funded place as he lived in Haringey not Hackney but he was willing to travel to the course venue and needed as much support as me)” “I will always remember the help I received during a very difficult time in my life.”

27

ARTWORK EVALUATION REPORT

4.3 Outputs The targets or outputs for the project were agreed with the delivery partners and the LSC and can be summarised as: 227 NEET young people engaged on the Artwork programme All participants Improvement in Work Related Skills / Soft Outcomes (227) All participants then offered a series of six IAG sessions / Aftercare (1362) Employment, Education or Training outcomes for all participants (227). Table 7: Target and Actual Outputs for Artwork Delivery Partners Programme total No of outputs

Achieved to date

Collage

KCC

WAC

Total

Collage

KCC

WAC

Total

Starts (S2)

130

31

66

227

148

31

65

244

Soft Skills (S05)

130

31

66

227

148

28

65

244

780

186

396

1362

870

131

381

1382

130

31

66

227

144

28

61

233

Aftercare (S22-S27) Outcome (P1 - P7)

Crucially all of the participants completed the learning outcome - “learner has completed the learning activities leading to the learning aim” and 95% of the participants achieved one of the learning outcomes (see fig 3). These included full time education or training, full or part-time employment and voluntary work. While there were key deliverables associated with the learning support, these final outcomes can perhaps be seen as the most important aspect of the project in that its focus was on progressing young people who were NEET into a range of EET destinations. It should be noted that following audit the project was signed off by the SFA as having achieved all of its targets in August 2010. Fig 2: Breakdown of Prior Attainment Levels

Prior Attainment Levels No Qualifications 21.7%

percentage of people with 2-3 GCSEs Level 1 2-3 GCEs 36.5%

Unknown 2.5%

percentage of people with 4+ GCSEs percentage of people with qualifications below level 1 percentage of people with other qualifications

Other Qualifications 0.4%

percentage of people that their qualifications are unknown

Below Level 1 1.6%

percentage of people with no qualifications Level 2 4+ GCEs 37.3%

Fig 2 gives the levels of educational achievement of participants at their start. It shows that nearly a quarter had no qualifications at all, while 73% (nearly ¾) had some GCSEs. From participant feedback it seems that many were recent school leavers who, though they had 28

ARTWORK EVALUATION REPORT

interests were unsure of what to do next, and more specifically how to develop skills and explore pathways related to the creative sector. Looking at Fig 3, we see that nearly half of the participants progressed into further education and training. Other destinations are also well represented, and overall it is apparent that the Artwork programme has been successful in supporting positive EET outcomes for its participants. The programme can perhaps be seen as an effective stepping stone for young people who need both personal and practical support to enable them to clarify their chosen directions and link these into actual and realisable pathways. Fig 3: Breakdown of Participants Destinations

Destinations percentage of people that have gained part-time employment percentage of people that entered further education percentage of people that found voluntary work percentage of people that are in full time education or training percentage of people with other (not EET) destinations PT employment 8% Other (not EET) 5%

Further Education 14%

Voluntary Work 18%

FT Education or Training 55%

29

ARTWORK EVALUATION REPORT

5. CROSS-CUTTING THEMES 5.1 Equal Opportunities The project directly responded to the cross-cutting theme of Equal Opportunities in that it was designed to target particular groups in order to ensure greater equality of opportunity. The target group were those facing multiple barriers to engagement and the programme was designed to tackle and overcome these. The following sections detail the groups (within the age and Borough residence brackets) specifically targeted in accordance with ESF guidance. It presents the programmes successes as well as issues in aiming to do this. Target Groups, Eligibility and Priority The target group was young people aged between 16-18 years old, living in the London Boroughs of Greenwich, Southwark, Hackney, Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea15 who were not in education employment or training (NEET) or at risk of becoming NEET. The partners also had to target specified groups (stipulated by ESF Funding) and aim as a minimum to meet the following percentages: Participants with disabilities or health conditions (22%) Participants who are lone parents (12%) Participants from ethnic minorities (56%) Female Participants (51%) Age The chart below (Fig 4) gives the total age groups of the participants and reveals that the majority (or four fifths) of participants were aged 16 and 17. Fig 4: Breakdown of Participants Age

Participants Age Number of 18 year olds 20.5 % or 50 Number of 16 year olds 39.3% or 96

Number of 16 year olds Number of 17 year olds 40.2% or 98

Number of 17 year olds

Number of 18 year olds

15

In accordance with ESF guidelines it was agreed that there could be up to 10% variance on this, therefore allowing for 23 participants to reside in other London Boroughs.

30

ARTWORK EVALUATION REPORT

Borough of Residence The following chart (Fig 5) details the resident Boroughs of the Artwork participants. These figures are from the full total of 247 rather than the target total of 227. Fig 5: Breakdown of Participants Residential Boroughs

Participants Borough of Residence Other 17.7%

Kensington & Chelsea 13.7%

Westminster 2.8%

Kensington & Chelsea Greenwich Hackney Southwark Southwark 28.2%

Greenwich 26.6%

Westminster Other

Hackney 10.9%

There is clearly some variance from the actual targets, with some Boroughs having slightly more and others slightly less. It should be noted that of the ‘other’ group 11 of these resided close to the border of one of the target Boroughs. If we take the additional 19 participants out of the ‘other’ group then the figures can be adjusted to produce the following: Table 4: Participants Borough of Residence – targets and totals Kensington & Borough Greenwich Hackney Southwark Chelsea Target 23 83 22 67 Number Total 34 67 27 73 Target 10.1% 36.6% 9.7% 29.5% Percentage Percentage 15% 29.5% 11.9% 32.2%

Westminster

Other

TOTALS

32

NA

227

7

19

227

14.1%

NA

3.1%

8.4%

100%

This shows that of the entire target Boroughs except Westminster, the numbers of participants were very close to the original targets set. The main divergences from this are: Westminster where the figures reveal that it was particularly hard to recruit young people from; the ‘other’ group which was not originally included in the target figures for but was added in later on into the project.

31

ARTWORK EVALUATION REPORT

Ethnicity Fig 6: Breakdown of Participants Ethnicity

Participants Ethnicity All Asian Groups All Other White Groups

All Black Groups Chinese

Not Known 10.2%

All Mixed Groups Any Other

White British Not Known

All Asian Groups 2.5%

Any Other 4.9% Chinese 0.4% All Other White Groups 5.7% All Black Groups 45.9%

White British 22.1%

All Mixed Groups 8.2%

Please see Appendix B for full details of each ethnic group corresponding with the ESF definitions.

The target for Black and Ethnic Minority participants was 56% of participants. If we add together the Asian, Black and Chinese groups then this totals 48% and if the Mixed groups are added the total is increased to 57%. It should however be noted that some groups included in ‘Other White’ such as Irish and European ethnic groups, could therefore be included within the Ethnic Minority grouping. Lone Parents Precise figures for lone parents are more problematic. The ESF ILR16 form which record all the demographic information required (age, address, ethnicity, etc.) does not ask whether respondents are parents. Partners said that they found identifying and locating lone parents in the 16-18 age group difficult. Therefore the evaluator asked the delivery partners to estimate this number based on their knowledge of the young people they worked with – the figure totalled 10% across all partners. It should be noted that there some of the participants may have been parents but not chosen to disclose this. Gender There were 155 male participants and 92 female participants which equates with 37% of the total. However if this was adjusted to the target total of 227 (135 males) then the total percentage of female participants is 40%. This is somewhat below the target of 51% for female participants. One of the reasons for this is that training involving more technical skills (e.g. music technology) are typically more male dominated routes. There are also more young men than young women of NEET status, particularly in the category 3 ‘No Barrier’ group17.

16

Individual Learner Record For more information see http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/STR/d000913/NEETQBQ42009final.pdf

17

32

ARTWORK EVALUATION REPORT

Disability, Health Problems and Learning Difficulties With regard to disabilities, health conditions and learning difficulties the data is more difficult to interpret, which is perhaps due in part to the ILR form layout. There is an initial question asking for a straight yes or no18 as to whether the respondent has any of these three. The table below shows that the majority did not answer this question. Not stating is clearly different from giving a definitive ‘no’. Of the total number of participants 21 disclosed as either having a disability or health problem (which therefore represents 9.3%19 of learners) whilst 9 disclosed a learning difficulty. However there can be an issue with disclosure and it can be assumed that there were likely to be more people that fit these categories than were prepared to publicly state this or perhaps had been diagnosed. It should also be noted that the majority of those citing a learning difficulty answered that they were either dyslexic or had dyscalculia. Table 5: Disability, Health Problems and Learning Difficulties Learning Difficulty / Disability L14

Disability or Health Problem L15

Learning Difficulty – Stated L16

Learning Difficulty – Not stated L16

Learning Difficulty, Disability or Health Problem – Not stated

21

10

9

2

153

Target Groups Table 6: Target groups

Target Group Participants with disabilities or health conditions or learning difficulties Participants who are lone parents Participants from ethnic minorities Female Participants

Target Percentage

Actual Percentage

22%

9.3%

12% 56% 51%

10% 57% 40%

Whilst the partners achieved good numbers of young people from the target groups (ethnicity, gender, disability, etc.) some of these were short of the target numbers. Some of these targets were obligatory whilst others were desirable. For example age and borough of residence were requirements whilst the number of lone parents was something to be aimed for. It seems that the partners had to focus their resources on creating new partnerships, working in new boroughs and engaging significant numbers of 16-18 year old NEET young people, and therefore additional goals were perhaps not of the same priority. 5.2 Sustainable Development Sustainability is a broad concept incorporating social, economic and environmental aspects. The project has elements within in that are either sustainable or contribute towards sustainability, mainly in relation to social and economic outcomes. Firstly the project contributed towards the development and delivery of the partners models of working with NEET young people. This therefore means that it will add to their portfolio of projects and their experience of this type of work. This in turn plays a role in their sustainability as individual organisations and as a partnership. In fact WAC has since secured a pan-London NEET contract funded by LDA /ESF20 which is evidential of this.

18

Or this could be left blank The 9.3% is based on the total target number of participants i.e. 227 20 The Stellar Project 19

33

ARTWORK EVALUATION REPORT

244 young people participated in the programme with 233 achieving EET outcomes. Participants were targeted and came from groups who face multiple barriers to engagement with learning and the labour market. This has two economic sustainability impacts in that they are therefore no longer in receipt of unemployment related benefits and will instead play an active part in the economy as a result of further education or employment. Project beneficiaries not only successfully moved on towards EET outcomes, but some also expressed intentions to ‘give back’ in recognition of the opportunities they had been given. At Collage Arts, for example, some of the Artwork beneficiaries have continued their involvement through becoming volunteers or mentors for other young people. In this way the project generated additional ongoing outcomes and wider benefits relating to community participation and sustainability. 5.3 Health Whilst the project did not have direct health related aims, or attempt to monitor these, there were health outcomes that were resultant. The Every Child Matters framework interprets health and well being as being interlinked and the strategy for children and young people’s health ‘Healthy lives, brighter futures’21 states: “This strategy recognises the importance of young people’s mental health and psychological wellbeing to their personal and social development. It is the foundation upon which so many other choices – about sex and relationships, alcohol, smoking and drugs, physical activity, eating habits etc. – depend.” In working with young people many of whom were from target groups and all of whom were NEET, positive personal development and outcomes would therefore undoubtedly have impacts on health and well being. The London Health Commission’s Health Impact Assessment for Economic Development in London notes that unemployment has a detrimental effect on health. The feedback from participants frequently mentions that they were doing ‘nothing’ before signing up and moved on to feelings of greater confidence, purpose and positivity. In fact the kinds of statements made (see section 4.2) closely combine feelings and personal situations with harder outcomes. Developing both social and sector / career related networks was for many participants one of the primary benefits of their involvement. For many this social aspect was particularly important as is illustrated by the case study of Aadi who at the point of joining the programme is isolated and unconfident. For others learning to be part of a team or group including overcoming issues and being able to compromise was a key learning area. These less tangible outcomes directly relate to ‘well being’ and can be seen to be foundational for the tangible EET achievements.

21

http://publications.education.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/285374a.pdf

34

ARTWORK EVALUATION REPORT

6. CASE STUDIES The following case studies have been selected to illustrate the different kinds of personal barriers young people faced preventing them from moving forward. They also include participants of different genders, ethnicities, needs and who were engaged with different delivery organisations. The case studies detail the kinds of support young people were given responsive to their individual needs. Case Study: Jermaine – Clarifying goals •

Jermaine is Black British / Caribbean and from Hackney

•

He signed onto the programme with WAC in January 2009 aged 17

•

He was economically inactive

•

He therefore ticked the target group box as a 16-18 year old NEET

•

He already had 11 GCSE’s and heard about the programme through his social worker

•

Ultimately he would like to become a lawyer, but in the meantime he is looking for part-time work

•

Relevant experience includes the fact that he has done some work with a charity which works with young people, and studied both music and media at school

•

He agreed to attend WAC for 3 days a week (Mon, Weds and Fri) totalling a minimum of 16 hours

•

In most areas his ‘Soft Skills Baseline Assessment’ found that he was ‘good’ but pointed to his having need for improvement in relation to ‘Time Management’ and ‘Problem Solving’

•

He revised his learning goal to applying to attend Stoke Newington Sixth Form

•

The support worker followed this up a few weeks later and wrote Jermaine “is now early!” and that he was working better with the groups dynamics

•

Jermaine has had 4 one to one IAG sessions. These record his interest in finding some parttime work whilst also applying to colleges. There was some concern about his attendance levels, and he appeared to have a dip when he received a letter saying he hadn’t got into City & lslington College. However the support continued and he was eventually accepted by Stoke Newington School to do a BTEC in PE and Music Technology from September 2009 – July 2011.

•

At WAC he achieved NOCN level 2’s in – Video Production Techniques, Music Production, Music Programming, Sound & Audio Production, Video/Film Production, Introduction to Final Cut Pro Editing.

35

ARTWORK EVALUATION REPORT

Image: Working in the music studio

Case Study: Aadi - Finding a path Aadi began the project with Collage Arts in January 09 as a shy and rather reluctant member of the group. He is from an ethnic minority background and had found himself in a school with mainly black African-Caribbean pupils. He felt out of place and that his work was very different from his peers. He was particularly inspired by Asian graphic artists. He was not comfortable with the school or living in South London and this resulted in him having problems with attendance, motivation, team-working, communication and confidence. Aadi needed to find a place for himself within the Artwork group, to share his work and gain feedback and confidence. Needs were identified which included him developing his knowledge of and experience in his chosen field. He also wanted to improve specific IT skills in order to be able to create digital work. Motivation and personal responsibility were also highlighted, with a focus on making sure he worked to deadlines, especially with written work. A programme of work was devised which centred on allowing Aadi to use his creative skills. This included team work with agreed roles and expectations. Planned activities included going out to see galleries, films and installations with guided learning alongside. Development of Aadi’s portfolio to include digital artwork was a priority. Aadi took part in trips, discussions and interpretation of gallery visits and talks. He worked hard on his digital art skills and utilised his knowledge and interest in Manga style graphic art as inspiration for his own work. He shared this with the group, gaining further insight and knowledge as a result. Aadi began to find a place in the group which was evidenced by his essential contribution to the Youth Ground exhibition. He noticeably improved in his ability to turn around assignments quickly and in using resources such as the British Film Institute (BFI). Staff noted that Aadi’s involvement in the Artwork project has had a dramatic impact. He became a much more confident individual and progressed onto doing the Silver Arts Award with Oblique Arts. Without having gone through the project, he would not have ‘come out of his shell’, gained an appreciation of his local environment, or improved his own skill levels. Future opportunities have opened up for him and he has recently successfully secured a place on the foundation course at the prestigious Camberwell College of Arts. He continues to maintain positive contact with both the mentoring staff and other participants

36

ARTWORK EVALUATION REPORT

Case Study: Shenice – Headway with soft skills •

Shenice is Black British / Caribbean and resident in the borough of Kensington & Chelsea

•

She signed onto the programme with KCC in September 2009 aged 16.

•

Her employment status was defined as 16-18 NEET at the time of her signing on to the Artwork programme and had been unemployed for approximately 6 months.

•

She therefore fitted within a number of the target priority groups (female and BAME).

•

She was resident in a hostel rather than at a family home, although she maintained family contacts.

•

Shenice had a range of ideas and interests (including singing, childcare and law) when she started but realised that she needed experience in order to explore these further.

•

While in a number of the ‘Soft Skills Baseline Assessment’ areas she was ‘good’ but needed to improve ‘team working’, ‘attitude & motivation’ and ‘problem solving’.

•

A month later these soft skills were revisited and showed improvement across all eight areas. For example the tutor commented that “Shenice is focusing more on what she wants to achieve” and that she works well in a team and discusses issues with the tutor.

•

With her tutor Shenice agreed that one of her learning goals was to improve both team skills and attitudes towards people, especially those she feels antipathy towards.

•

She attended a number of useful sessions at KCC on areas including motivation and how to prepare a CV which she then did.

•

Her mentor noted some issues 2 months into the programme (November). He talked with her about her “attitude and lack of listening skills, attendance and time keeping”. He also added that she has “great intellect, intelligence and massive scope”. This clearly shows that her abilities were being impeded by her focus and motivation, thereby hindering her progression and potential achievements.

•

A couple of months on (January) one of her tutors notes some genuine improvements with regard to attitude and attendance.

•

Her planned progression route was onto an E2E programme run by KCC she committed to. Staff were also actively supporting her in trying to identify further progression routes for example employment with Lionheart Foundation.

37

ARTWORK EVALUATION REPORT

Case Study: Charlene - Support to overcome barriers to engagement When Charlene joined the project she was lacking in confidence despite career aspirations that involved being in the music industry. She had just become a new mother and was living independently as a lone parent. She really needed intensive support as her own family life was problematic and she had little parental assistance. Her situation resulted in her having high levels of frustration and anger. Charlene found that the Artwork project gave her much needed reassurance, a chance to share ideas and to get feedback. All of this helped improve her confidence levels. It offered her a creative outlet for her frustrations as well as allowing her to realise her potential. Practically she needed help navigating the housing system and to get support with childcare. A programme of work encouraging Charlene to use her creative, business and research skills was devised. This also helped her improve her attitude and motivation, confidence, communication and team working. Charlene’s personal programme needed to be flexible with regards to her parental commitments. She was based in a studio environment as well as an office environment. The use of a computer and a phone helped her to organise pending priorities which otherwise would have been barriers to her engagement and retention. Collage advisors worked with her closely to help resolve some of her personal issues, thereby allowing her to think more positively about future opportunities available to her. Through Artwork Charlene identified her own progressional pathway; she decided to sign up for a music business course to increase her knowledge and understanding of the industry and develop her skills base. This also offered childcare support through the ‘Care to Learn’ scheme. The positive impacts of Artwork were evidenced by Charlene putting together a good presentation and conducting a successful interview which gained her a place on the Commercial Music Programme Level 3. While this success is clearly another stepping stone, it has increased her motivation and given her the belief and confidence to make her ambitions realisable.

38

ARTWORK EVALUATION REPORT

7. LESSONS LEARNED The following points represent the key findings and lessons from the Artwork project. Overall the project is evidenced as one that not only delivered well against its targets, but more importantly produced positive outcomes for the young people it engaged with. There are however issues concerning the funding requirements that were seen to inhibit rather than contribute to the ability of the project and its partners to work with NEET young people. Whilst partners understand the importance of targeting particular groups and the need to verify status, this needs to be done in ways that do not create additional barriers to engagement for young people. The LSC selected target boroughs that differed from the original bid. This meant that there were increased difficulties in recruiting the target group. Working in Boroughs outside of the partners usual catchment areas required a longer time than anticipated to identify new partners and establish the project. There were positive outcomes from working in the new target Boroughs; these included working with new partners and developing and adapting working practices. LSC funding requirements were particularly restrictive. This was especially problematic for smaller organisations in relation to achieving set outcomes and the related payments for these. The paperwork associated with the programme was regarded as more onerous than with many other programmes. Partners found ways to work with this and minimise its impact on project delivery. All partners cited the evidence needed of a young persons’ status as being problematic. It could not only put off the hardest to engage but was for some young people difficult or impossible to access. The timing of the project was not ideal. Firstly it was a 2 year project condensed into 18 months that required 6 months development time; secondly it needed to be better timed to coincide with key points at which young people become NEET, for example a few months on from the Autumn term start date when there has been ‘drop off’ of young people from for example FE colleges. The partners are all well established and recognised for their good track records in working with NEET young people. They have tried and tested models for this kind of work and are clear about what key elements are needed to ensure that it is efficacious. The Artwork project was based on an effective combination of creative educational opportunities and youth work / mentoring support. However it had requirements attached that restricted the partners to deliver this work utilising the approaches that they know to be effective, particularly with the target group. Participants’ feedback on the programme was very positive and highlighted that the individual support, along with developing creative and personal skills, was what most young people cited as having positive benefits for them. The Artwork programme provided a stepping stone for young people, who moved from disengagement to engagement in an Employment, Education or Training outcome. It did this through combining a number of key elements.

39

ARTWORK EVALUATION REPORT

For participants the programme not only improved their confidence in themselves and their abilities, it helped them clarify their future directions and develop tangible pathways to work towards these. Despite some of the project limitations the partners successfully delivered the project and surpassed their target participant numbers. Whilst there was good collaboration between partners there were areas where this could have been usefully extended. However pressures the pressures of schedules and targets meant that this was of a lower priority. The geographical divides with regards to target boroughs meant that while there was some partnership work in jointly meeting target numbers, it also encouraged a singular focus on specific areas. 95% of the participants successfully achieved both the learning outcome and progressing onto one of the EET destinations. Whilst the partners achieved good numbers of young people from the target groups (ethnicity, gender, disability, etc.) some of these were short of the target numbers. The partners focused on the priority targets (age, NEET status and borough) all of which they achieved. The programme offered ‘Value for Money’ in a number of ways: it drew on the partners expertise in and models of working with NEET young people; it frequently offered them support and guidance additional to that which they were funded to do; many participants continue to be in touch with and supported by their delivery organisation; partners utilised established networks and partners in order to recruit and delivery the programme.

40

ARTWORK EVALUATION REPORT

8. FUTURE FOR THE PROJECT Given the experiences of learning from the Artwork Programme, the consolidation of established partnerships and the creation of new partnerships, it is recommended that the partners continue to explore options for further funding utilising their successful model of working with NEET young people. Following the conclusion of the Artwork Project WAC has successfully gained a pan-London NEET contract funded by the LDA ESF Co-financing Youth Programme ‘Transition to employment for 14-19 year olds NEET or at risk of becoming NEET’. Given that both ESF funding and LSC22 funding is London wide then there seems to be a clearer rationale for working with NEET young people wherever they may be resident, with the focus being on need rather than postcode. The logic of using borough boundaries can be unfair when faced with real need as the words of one participant verify: “My friend did not get a funded place as he lived in Haringey not Hackney but he was willing to travel to the course venue and needed as much support as me”.

There has been learning from the project at different levels from formalising the delivery of IAGs to embarking on outreach in new areas. New partnerships and networks were a positive benefit of the project and it is hoped that the delivery partners find ways in which to continue their work with them. It would usefully inform future delivery for NEET young people and promote good practice if the findings from this project were amalgamated with or benchmarked against other similar programmes. The partners have evidenced and established their credibility in working with NEET young people and particularly those that are hardest to engage. It is therefore hoped that this is more widely recognised, enabling better understanding what this requires coupled with responsive and progressive funding regimes.

22

As of April 2010 the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) and Young Peoples Learning Agency (YPLA)

41

ARTWORK EVALUATION REPORT

APPENDIX A – FEEDBACK QUESTIONNAIRE

1.

Why did you get involved in this programme? (prompt: what particularly appealed to you?)

2. What were you doing before this?

3.

What did you hope to get out of it before you started? (prompt: ideas about career paths)

4.

What do you think you have got from it? (prompt: different kinds of benefits – social, skills, etc.)

5. What are the most useful things that you have learnt from the project?

6. Are there things about the programme that you didn’t find useful / should perhaps be changed if it was run again for other YP like yourself?

7. What did you enjoy most and least about the programme? Most –

Least -

42

ARTWORK EVALUATION REPORT

8. What kind of support did you get from the staff / trainers?

9. How useful have you found the following things Please rate from 1 to 5 (with 1 being poor and 5 excellent)

•

1:2:1 support

1

2

3

4

5

•

Advice

1

2

3

4

5

•

Mock interviews

1

2

3

4

5

•

Work Experience

1

2

3

4

5

•

Course tasters

1

2

3

4

5

10. Do you think doing this course has changed your aspirations / what you want to do when you’ve completed the course?

11. Has it improved your potential to achieve what you want to do? (job, work placement, further education or training, etc.)

12.

If yes how?

(For YP who have completed and moved on from the programme) What are you doing now and is this connected to / as a result of, you being on the programme at all? (prompt: how?)

13. Would you recommend it to a friend? For what reasons?

14. Do you think you will stay in touch with staff at WAC / Collage / KCC?

43

ARTWORK EVALUATION REPORT

15. Skills you will have developed include both personal skills and practical skills. If you think of yourself at the beginning of the course (point 1) could you please indicate how much you feel you developed in these key areas:

Confidence

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Clarity

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Motivation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Creative Skills 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Contacts

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Aspirations

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

16. Is there anything else you would like to say?

44

ARTWORK EVALUATION REPORT

APPENDIX B – ETHNIC GROUPS WITHIN ESF DEFINITIONS

All Asian Groups: •

Asian or Asian British – Bangladeshi

•

Asian or Asian British – Indian

•

Asian or Asian British – Pakistani

•

Asian or Asian British – Other Asian background

All Black Groups •

Black or Black British – African

•

Black or Black British – Caribbean

•

Black or Black British – Other Black background

Chinese All Mixed Groups •

Mixed – White and Asian

•

Mixed – White and Black African

•

Mixed – White and Black Caribbean

•

Mixed – Any other mixed background

White – British All Other White •

White – Irish

•

White – Other White background

Any Other Not known/Not provided

45

ARTWORK EVALUATION REPORT

Image: Suspended photographic installation of participants’ work

46