Who is the project for?

The programme is for those young people who truant or who are expelled for a fixed period of time.  The programme aims to target those young people who’s pastoral needs in terms of attendance, achievement, emotional, behavioural needs and life skills are currently not being met within mainstream education-or to compliment the provision which young people currently receive.

How are people referred?

All mainstream schools in the local authority (n=10) are offered a maximum of 20 places on the programme; they are usually referred through an assistant deputy head or senior head of year onto the programme.  Referral forms are sent directly to the team premises and entered onto the data base for tracking and performance management. In April 07 individual referrals will be taken from partner and early intervention services as a method of reengagement.  Detached and outreach services can also request support in engaging young people from localised communities – referral forms are required to trigger input from team.

What kind of activities are available?  

Each young person who attends the project receives a tier two assessment, which includes a substance misuse screening and has a subsequent care plan.  However, the main programme includes a breakfast club, education session (accredited), sport and dance sessions.  Other activities include more focused sessions including, emotional and behavioural groups, constructive activities, including the Duke of Edinburgh Award (DoE) and single gender development groups which focus on sexual health and keeping safe and cooking and drama classes.  

How often do people attend?

Young people can attend for a minimum of 13 x 1 hour sessions assertive in reach, or can attend a half day programme.  However, we usually insist that to achieve desired outcomes that the young people attend for 1 day a week. Programmes are built around (where possible) the needs of the referrer and the young person involved.

How do you design your interventions (with reference to the evidence base?)   

In terms of evidence base we are a proactive service whose aims are congruent with National Guidelines in developing “what works” in substance misuse.  We have designed this programme using localised intelligence which backs up a plethora of existing reports and macro perspectives which link the issue of truancy (albeit reductionist) with increased problematic behaviour and despondency to substance misuse. Our localised intelligence Hidden Populations (2005), Crack Assessment (2004) and Barriers within Women Services (2005) all identified that: of our current cohort group around 80% of our problematic substance misusers were expelled or did not attend school on a regular basis, moreover we found that a disrupted education had significant impact on the achievements and longitudinal experiences of users in terms of vocational opportunities.   We have also build our programme around the idea that single factor interventions such as 1 hour substance misuse education reduce the potential of success and long lasting developments in young people.  Consequently Criminal Justice interventions have also shown us that intensive programmes which focus on cognitive/behavioural interventions can have a significant impact on delaying the re onset of problematic behaviour in at risk groups. We also currently endeavour to allocate around 5% of our annual budget to evaluation and outcome monitoring systems.  For the last 4 years there have been processes developed which have allowed us to develop a rolling programme of accredited life skills and behaviour programmes: these have been conducted with our data analysis, DEPIS and more recently De Montfort University.   In terms of programme development we have been guided by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) and therefore have an excellent understanding and programme which focuses on the skills knowledge and attitudes towards the health and personal safety of young people in risk situations and other.  We are currently planning to create a two tiered approach of engagement which will allow us to develop our work at Earlier Stages in assertive in reach, we also know from our work with partners that our beneficiaries will benefit from programmes which take one to one referrals and involve the young persons school and were possible significant individuals such as parents will maximise success.  We also seek to use low threshold and non invasive forms of evaluation for the majority of the sessions and activities we use-in this we seek to promote young peoples involvement (ECM) and participation in reviewing and developing programmes-we have also found that this is of use long term for buy in by those groups we engage. 

What challenges have you faced? 

There are significant issues which we have faced in developing the service as NRF and for the majority all government and local authority funding comes directly and for the most made available in April of the respective financial year, this gives managers only three months before school break up to ensure staff are recruited and the programme has been promoted.  Identifying relevant gatekeepers is also a major issues as some schools change heads of year on a yearly basis or biannually and this can be problematic in terms of longitudinal development and communication.  Finance inducements and programme availability, even the most commonsensical of interventions around inclusion are for the most deal with as secondary issues as the majority of schools are driven and measured more strenuously by qualifications and academic achievements.  Substance misuse and prevention services and the amelioration of issues follows the well trodden route of adults, young people treatment services and the education and prevention, substance education and prevention whilst being a wrap around issues in term of anti social behaviour and offending are difficult to quantify and measure in a robust and transparent way-put simply success in terms of young people is measured by a series of modalities and socially and practical outcomes which are not always identifiable in education and prevention services.   

How have you overcome these challenges?   

Before securing funding we tend to engage our more proactive schools and make them aware of the availability of the programme, our practice and service developments without secure funding make it a series of “what if we could” which reflects badly on the local authority and our service.  In terms of school engagement and relevant gatekeeper we have invoked a grading for schools and conduct a school audit, then present a plan to the beneficiaries, in all cases we have an ideal situation for involvement, however, we have aimed to ask schools to identify how they would like us to work with them in programme development.  To overcome changes to staff we now only work with deputy heads and senior staffs as there is usually less of a turn over in terms of occupational change.  Finally in terms of getting recognition and securing funding we have now reengaged with Young Persons’ Substance Misuse Group (YPSMG) and the Young Persons’ Substance Misuse Plan (YPSMP), more recently our Young Persons’ Commissioner and commissioning group have firmly taken up the mantle of education and prevention services.