Participative Evaluation of Bath & North East Somerset Children’s Fund
First Interim Report July 2004
Undertaken by Dialog
1
Contents
1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. The Demographic Context 4. How have B&NES CF resources been allocated? 5. Achievements and challenges to date 6. Challenges for the future Appendix 1: Dialog‟s Evaluation Protocols Appendix 2: Ladder of Children‟s Participation Appendix 3: National Objectives for the Children‟s Fund
3 4 5 11 15 19 21 22 23
2
1. Introduction
Dialog has been commissioned to carry out the local evaluation of the Bath & North East Somerset Children‟s Fund and started work towards the end of 2003. We are a small consultancy based in Bristol, and work with community based organisations on organisational development, participation work and community development. The evaluation team consultants are Kate Smith, Alan Turkie & Jean Anastacio. This early interim evaluation report covers the first year of the Fund from April 2003 to May 2004. The report is not intended as a comprehensive evaluation of all aspects of the Fund‟s work to date but rather highlights: Achievements and challenges to date Barriers to achieving stated objectives Challenges for 2004/5 The B&NES Children‟s Fund is a partnership of voluntary and statutory agencies and community organisations and is managed by a Management Board with a small staff team based in Midsomer Norton. It has been allocated funding to develop preventive services for children aged 5-13 years over the period April 2003 to March 2006. The partnership‟s successful application followed an extensive mapping exercise identifying the needs of children in this age group, an audit of existing services and identification of gaps in provision. An extensive consultation with local agencies, community groups and children resulted in the following themes being identified as priorities: Anti-bullying Safe play and „hanging out‟ Emotional health and well-being
South West Bath, Keynsham and the surrounding communities of Radstock were identified as geographic foci. The Children‟s Fund is a bold national initiative designed to develop preventive strategies and new preventive services for children at risk of social exclusion. The primary aim is to provide support and services to children, their families and communities at an early stage and before difficulties reach crisis point. The services should be accessible, flexible and planned and delivered in partnership with children, young people, their families and local communities. The Children‟s Fund gives scope and provides resources for service providers to experiment with innovative and creative ways of providing services for children in this age group. As such the evaluation of the services and the partnership arrangements assume critical importance if we are to learn from this initiative. The aim of the local evaluation is to enable the partnership and service providers to assess how successful the different interventions have been and to give direct feedback to influence the direction of the programme and future development of children‟s services. A national evaluation is also being carried out which will look at the overall impact of the Children‟s Fund.
3
2. Methodology
Dialog is using a participative approach to the evaluation of B&NES Children‟s Fund. Our main focus during this initial period has been to support the 7 service providing projects in developing ways of involving children directly in the process of evaluation. This has been undertaken through training workshops which will continue throughout the life of the evaluation. In practice followup workshops are the means by which projects share findings. We see the evaluation as a developmental process intended to have an immediate impact on the direction of the Children‟s Fund and its services. We are using a combination of quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis. The quantitative data relates to the implementation of the programme (e.g. how resources have been allocated, analysis of monitoring returns). Qualitative data collection includes semi-structured interviewing; visits to selected projects in Years 2 and 3; and direct work with children. Dialog started work on the evaluation towards the end of 2003 and has carried out the following activities to date: Agreed an Evaluation Framework Agreed working arrangements for the evaluation and protocols (Appendix 1) Carried out an analysis of programme wide data and monitoring returns Undertaken two evaluation workshops with Children‟s Fund service providers Conducted semi-structured interviews with the programme manager, and senior managers of the accountable body/lead agency. (Barnardo‟s) Observed partnership Management Board meetings Undertaken a participative evaluation exercise with the Management Board Carried out an analysis of policy documents
In the next phase of the evaluation, Dialog will continue with and follow-up these activities, and also: Undertake in-depth evaluation of aspects of selected CF services (May 2004 to Feb 2005) looking at what is working well, less well and why, with a view to identifying what changes need to be made to make the Fund more effective.
4
3. The demographic context
Bath and North East Somerset is a mixed urban and rural district with a population of around 166,000. The population is split with around 50% living in Bath city, 25% in the market towns of Keynsham, Midsomer Norton and Radstock and the remaining 25% in the parishes, which make up the rural area. Overall the district is relatively prosperous, particularly in the city of Bath and in parts of the rural area such as Chew Valley. However this masks areas of deprivation in parts of Bath City, the former mining districts around Norton Radstock and small parts of Keynsham.1
3.1 Deprivation in Bath and North East Somerset by Ward
2
Twerton ward has the highest levels of income deprivation, with Abbey and Kingsmead wards also scoring highly on levels of unemployment. Twerton ranks within the most deprived 15% of wards nationally in terms of multiple deprivation (income, child poverty, health and housing), whilst Southdown and Abbey are among the most deprived 30% of wards nationally. Peasedown is the most educationally deprived ward in Bath and North East Somerset. However, because statistical data is aggregated at ward or parish level deprived individuals or families often live invisibly within affluent communities. No Bath and North East Somerset wards are within the most deprived 10% of wards nationally.
3.2 Population of children and young people
3
There are 18,143 children and young people between the ages of 5 to 13. Number of children in age groups are as follows: 5 year olds 1839 6 year olds 1883 7 year olds 2050 8 year olds 1991 9 year olds 2061 10 year olds 2062 11 year olds 2065 12 year olds 2177 13 year olds 2015
3.3 Wards with the highest numbers of children in Bath and North East Somerset
4
24% of the populations of Peasedown, Radstock and Southdown wards are under 16 year olds. (In Abbey ward only 7% are under 16, with 9% in Bathwick.)
3.4 Black and minority ethnic children
Bath and North East Somerset have a small but diverse black and ethnic minority community comprising Chinese, African Caribbean, South Asian and other communities. 2.4% of the under
1 2
B&NES Children‟s Fund Proposal 2003 Department for Environment, Transport & the Regions (DETR)deprivation figures, 2000 3 B&NES Children‟s Fund Proposal 2003 4 IBID
5
18 population of Bath and North East Somerset are from black and other minority ethnic communities.5 Because they are small, these communities have few local specialist social, cultural or economic facilities so can experience isolation. At 31 March 2000, 3.65% of children and young people in need were from black and other minority ethnic communities.
3.5 Children and young people in need or at risk of social exclusion in Bath and North East Somerset
The Department of Health (Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need 1999) suggests one third of the total child population may be at risk of social exclusion. In Bath and North East Somerset this would be approximately 11,400 children and young people. Department of Health estimates of children and young people in need would suggest that up to 1,700 children and young people in Bath and North East Somerset might fall into this category. It is likely that children and young people actually move between levels of need, so this is not a static group. Not all of these children and young people would need a service.
3.6 Children who are poor
The numbers of children and young people in Bath and North East Somerset living in poverty is difficult to assess. One of the best indicators of poverty for children is the number receiving free school meals, 2,289 at 1 January 2001. This is 9% of all pupils in LEA schools. The following list represents all the schools that have over 20% (Primary) and 10% (Secondary) children accessing free school meals: Primary Schools: 31/8/01 Southdown Jnr 34.9 St Michael‟s Jnr 32.5 Clandown 32.1 Twerton 28.4 St Martins 27.7 St Swithins Inf 25.8 Southdown Inf 23.6 Parkside Inf 22.1 Secondary Schools: 31/8/01 St Marks 19.9 Culverhay 18 Writhington 11.8
3.7 Children who are parents
6
Ward Southdown Twerton Radstock Twerton Odd Down Southdown Kingsmead Ward Walcot Southdown Radstock
Nationally the conception rate per 1000 girls aged 13-15 is 8.8 and in the South West 7.0. Bath and North East Somerset has both the smallest number (82 in 1998) and lowest rate (29.3 per 1000 females aged 15-17) of under 18 conceptions of any social services authority in the South West.
5
6
Census, 2001 B&NES Children‟s Fund Proposal 2003
6
An analysis by electoral ward demonstrates a strong correlation with socio-economic deprivation and highlights that a quarter of the wards, clustered around central and south Bath, plus Radstock, account for 50% of under 18 conceptions, with Twerton standing out as having double the numbers of the next highest area.
3.8 Children with emotional, behaviour or mental health problems
Twerton and Abbey have the highest level of impaired quality of life due to poor health or disability. The availability of information about disabled children and young people illustrates how difficult it is to aggregate information from different agencies, as Social Services, Education and Health agencies have developed different criteria for disability and special needs often in line with government guidance for their service. National data showing the prevalence of disabled children and young people in the general population suggests that Bath and North East Somerset has 1030 children and young people at all levels of severity aged 0-15, including 583 most likely to require services. The national data for the prevalence of children and young people with a „long term limiting illness‟ suggests there are 479 such children and young people aged 0-15 in Bath and North East Somerset. Information about the needs of disabled children and young people at 31 March 2000 includes: 246 disabled children and young people receiving social services (excluding children and young people looked after and those on the Child Protection Register). over 1000 school pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties (EBD) identified at any level of the Special Educational Needs (SEN) code of practice. 793 pupils with statements of special educational needs (SEN). Of these, 60% were in mainstream schools and the remainder in special schools or units.
7
3.9 Special Educational Need by School
The average percentage of children on SEN levels 1-4 in Primary Schools is 18.1%. The average number on level 5 (requiring the support of a Statement of Special Need) is 1.9%. Schools with over 25% of their pupils on SEN levels 1-4 are: Ward St Michael‟s Jnr 52.9 Twerton Camerton Prim 41.7 Bathavon West Keynsham Prim 33.9 Keynsham North Freshford Prim 33.3 Bathavon South St Saviours Jnr 32.5 Lambridge Moorlands Jnr 31.5 Old Down Southdown Jnr 29 Southdown Paulton Jnr 28.5 Paulton St Mary‟s Prim 27 Radstock
7
B&NES Education Department 2003
7
St Swithins Inf Batheaston Prim
25.8 25.5
Bathavon North
The average percentage of children on SEN levels 1-4 in Secondary schools is 14.3%. The average number on level 5 is 2.4%. Schools with over 20% of their pupils on SEN levels 1-4 are: Ward Walcot Keynsham North Bathavon South
8
St Marks Broadlands Ralph Allen
31.8 27.1 20
3.10
Children excluded from school
In 1999/2000 school year there were 26 permanent exclusions from school of which 4 (15%) were ethnic minority pupils and in 2000/01 to December 2000 there have been 19 permanent exclusions of which 1 (5%) was an ethnic minority pupil.
3.11
Pupil absence
Primary schools
Total no. of pupils Average number of ½ days missed per absent pupil
England
3,741,370 9
B&NES
11,414 7
Secondary schools
Total no. of pupils Average number of ½ days missed per absent pupil 3.12
England
2,956,915 17
B&NES
10,745 12
Education Deprivation Index for wards in Bath and North East Somerset
9
This index is based on the achievement of qualifications. It shows that Peasedown, Southdown and Bloomfield are the wards in which people have the fewest qualifications. In contrast, Chew Valley South and West and Coombe Down are the wards with the highest level of educational attainment. The Education score includes both KS2 primary school performance data, absenteeism and children with English as an additional language, as well as working age adults with no qualifications and children aged 16 and over who are not in full-time education. This might explain why Peasedown is ranked first when it doesn‟t feature in other indices of deprivation.
8
9
Bath & North East Somerset Education Department Source: Bath & North East Somerset Education Department & DfES Website.
8
Educational performance at 11 years – Key Stage 2 test results 2001: England average = 27.3, B&NES average = 27.7 Schools in Bath and North East Somerset that scored less than 26 points
High Littleton Prim Moorlands Jnr St Phillips Prim Southdown Jnr
25.9 25.7 24.9 24.6
(only 25 eligible pupils and 1/5 pupils SEN) (65 eligible pupils) (46 eligible pupils and 45.7% SEN) (38 eligible pupils and 31.6% SEN)
Ward H. Littleton Odd Down Odd Down Southdown.
Educational performance at GCSE/GNVQ 2001 England average = 39.3, B&NES average = 41.8 Schools in Bath and North East Somerset that scored below LEA average Broadlands 39.6 (176 pupils and 13.6% SEN) Ralph Allen 37.6 (169 pupils) Culverhay 34.6 (102 pupils) Writhington 33.9 (118 pupils and 16.9% SEN) St Marks 32 (70 pupils and 57.1% SEN) K‟sham N Bathavon S Southdown Radstock Walcot
In terms of ward profiles, secondary school data is less significant as it is expected that the catchment area will be larger than the ward the school is situated in. It is more likely that primary schools will be more indicative of their community.
3.13 Children in trouble with the police
The result of correlations10, which link number of offenders to ward deprivation scores in B&NES, show that: There is a strong positive correlation at ward level between high numbers offenders and a high score in the Multiple Deprivation Index. This suggests that the areas where many offenders live are more deprived. There is a strong positive correlation at ward level between high numbers of offenders and the following Deprivation Indexes: Child Poverty Deprivation, Income Deprivation, Employment Deprivation, Housing Deprivation and Health Deprivation. There is little or no positive correlation between Education Deprivation and Access Deprivation. These findings indicate that the areas where offenders live have more child poverty, lower income, higher unemployment, more unsatisfactory housing and a lower quality of life due to health. Neither attainment of qualifications or geographical access to services is linked to the number of offenders. Correlation does not prove cause and hence it is not possible to infer from these findings that deprivation causes people to offend.
10
B&NES CF Proposal 2003
9
Cumulative Age of Young Offenders Police arrest data indicates that 576 people aged between 10 and 17 were known to the Youth Offending Team in the year March 00-April 01. Of these 83% were male and 17% female. 106 children and young people usually resident in Bath and North East Somerset also offended during the previous calendar year, of which 7 were looked-after children and young people. For the 9 month period 1 April to 31 December 2000: 101 (70 M /31 F) police reprimands 69 (54 M /15F) Final warnings without intervention 66 Statutory Orders including 3 custodial sentences 4 parenting Orders The Youth Offending Team has provided more recent statistics on the 10-13 year old age group. There were 55 10-13 year olds notified to the YOT in 2001. Age
10 11 11 12 12 13 13 13
White male
4
Black male
White female
1
Black female
Offence
Theft Theft, criminal damage, burglary, indecent assault Arson Theft, criminal damage, assault Theft Theft, burglary, indecent assault, motor theft Offensive weapon, robbery Theft, criminal damage, robbery, battery, handling stolen goods
1 12 1 23 2 11
The significant finding of data on offending rates is that whilst levels of offending do not appear to be high for the majority of children within the 5-13 year age group, the ages of 13/14 is the launching pad for many young people into highly active offending behaviour. The Children‟s Fund commitment to preventative work with younger children aims to avoid the risk of these young people becoming offenders and suffering social exclusion.
3.14 Young carers
141 young carers identified by Bath and North East Somerset Young Carers‟ Service at Off The Record since the service began in 1996, 24 of them during the year ending 31 March 2000. 94 young carers in touch with the Young Carer‟s Service during 1999/2000.11
3.15 Problematic drug and alcohol use
The Bath and North East Somerset Drugs Action Team have commissioned a survey of young people‟s substance misuse. It was undertaken in schools and targeted the 11-18 age group so did
11
Interim C&YPSP 2001
10
not include young people not engaged with education. 24% of respondents had tried an illegal drug at some time in their lives. 21% had used cannabis, 3% solvents, poppers and mushrooms, 3% cocaine or ecstasy (mainly 15-18 age group) and under 1% amphetamine, LSD or tranquillisers. Only 2% respondents out of 1225-reported heroin or methadone use. In brief, the survey found similar levels of substance misuse in Bath and North East Somerset compared to national findings, except that patterns of drinking were higher. 29% of individuals in the 11-15 age group had drunk alcohol in the last week compared to 21% in the most recent national survey. The qualitative information contained in the survey has given valuable insight into young people‟s views on substance misuse. The Youth Offending Team snapshot survey of young people on their caseload in June 2000 identified recent use as follows: 68% tobacco 68% alcohol 47% cannabis 3% heroin 2% crack cocaine It should be stressed that these samples are only snapshots for particular sections of the population.
4 How have B&NES CF resources been allocated?
4.1 Allocation of resources by sector For 2003/4 (actual spend) and 2004/5 (proposed spend)
2003 - 2004 Statutory sector Voluntary organisations Schools Private sector Total
£101,243 £56,374 0 0 £157,617
2004 - 2005
£191,608 £113,625 0 0 £305,233
Total
£292,851 £169,999 0 0 £462,850
Although a proportion of the work undertaken by the 7 funded projects takes place in school settings none of the funds are allocated directly to schools. By comparison to other Children‟s funds across the country this is unusual. In 2003 for instance, Children‟s Funds allocated between 4% and 34% of their total fund to schools, with an average of 12%.12
4.2 Allocation of resources by theme For 2003/4 (actual spend) and 2004/5 (proposed spend)
Theme Anti-bullying Play Crime Prevention
12
2003 - 2004
£58,173 £61,351 £50,264
2005 - 2005
£116,915 £89,743 £98,173
Total
£175,088 £151,094 £148,437
Children & Young People‟s Unit, national monitoring, October 2003.
11
Health
Total
£54,173 £223,961
£77,390 £382,221
£131,563 £606,182
4.3 Total numbers of children regularly supported in 2003 – 2004 by gender
Boys Girls
1009 910
4.4 Ethnicity of children regularly supported through B&NES Children‟s Fund services, as compared to 13 regional CF figures and census 2001 figures Oct to Dec 2003 January to March 2003
14
Ethnicity
B&NES CF numbers 1,708 2 0 0 47 2 2 1 16 3 4 3 1 102 1,891
B&NES CF %
SW region CF %
SW region Census 2001 98%
England CF %
England Census 2001
White British White Irish Traveller Other white background Dual heritage Indian Pakistani Bangladeshi African Caribbean Other black background Chinese Other Refused/preferred not to say Total
90% 0.15% 0% 0% 2.5% 0.1% 0.1% 0.05% 0.85% 0.16% 0.21% 0.16% 0.05% 5.4% 100%
90%
69%
91%
2% 3%
1% 1%
4% 16%
1% 5%
4%
0%
8%
2%
0% 1%
0% 0%
1% 3%
0% 0%
The small number of minority ethnic children in B&NES (2.4%) puts them at greater risk of social isolation and racial discrimination. It is therefore encouraging to note that Children‟s Fund services in the Authority are already reaching almost double the average numbers of ethnic minority children. According to these figures no traveller children are being worked with, suggesting that this is only possible, or at least visible, when specialist and targeted work is undertaken.
13
Regional level ethnicity data is for information only. Information reflecting effective targeting of minority ethnic children should be drawn from local ward data. 14 Children & Young People‟s Unit, national monitoring, October 2003.
12
4.5 Children with Special Educational Needs or registered disability regularly supported in 2003 –2004
Number supported by CF On SEN register Have Statement of SEN Registered disability
149 67 33
Number in B&NES
793 583
As % of nos. in B&NES
8.5% 5.7%
Again these figures indicate the success that B&NES Children‟s Fund services are having in targeting children with disabilities and children with special educational needs.
4.6 Analysis of activities being undertaken by all B&NES CF funded services, and compared to CF‟s across England
B&NES Children‟s Fund, 2003 -2004
Type of Activity Environmental Arts and crafts Club provision or playschemes Sports Mediation/advocacy Media production Trips/awaydays Mentoring/role modelling Music/drama/dance Health education Information/advice Participation/engagement Home school partnership Child therapy
No. of services undertaking activity 1 3 3 2 1 2 3 2 2 5 4 2 1 4
% of total
Children‟s Funds throughout England, between January & March 200315 % of total
14% 42 42 28 14 28 42 28 28 71 57 28 14 57
7% 32 40 26 15 13 27 19 24 22 25 32 18 13
These figures indicate very high levels of health education, child therapy and information/advice giving support to children through the Children‟s Fund projects in B&NES. By contrast, and perhaps surprisingly, only 2 of the 7 projects consider participation as a key activity.
15
Children & Young People‟s Unit, national monitoring, October 2003.
13
4.7 Analysis of targeted activity being undertaken by all B&NES funded services, and compared to Children‟s Fund targeted activity of CF‟s throughout England
B&NES Children‟s Fund, 2003 - 2004
Targeted activity Children with low self esteem Children exhibiting anti-social or emerging criminal behaviour Children with behaviour difficulties in or out of school Children with high rates of unauthorised absence from school Children with high rates of school nonattendance Children suffering bullying in or out of school Children with learning difficulties/special needs Children in families under stress Children suffering domestic violence Children with substance abuse problems Children from ethnic minority communities Young carers Children from traveller communities Refugee/asylum seeker families Children with disabilities
No. of services targeting their activity 3 1 3 2 2 2 1 3 1 1 0 2 0 1 1
% of total
Children‟s Funds throughout England, between January & March 2003 % of total
42% 14 42 28 28 28 14 42 14 14 0 28 0 6 14
46% 17 50 25 33 13 38 30 17 10 34 11 8 18 20
Relative to national averages B&NES CF has a strong focus on work with children from families under stress and on work with young carers. However, this method of gathering data appears to conflict with other data. For instance, although services are successful in reaching ethnic minority children, children with disabilities and children with special needs this does this does not appear in such a positive light when compared against national statistics. In fact, the Aspergers Youth Club, Compass, Barnardo‟s Domestic Violence Programme and Off the Record work exclusively with at-risk children. Other projects are unable to give exact figures on the proportion of children they work with who are at risk. For projects who work with whole communities, such as the Play Rangers and the Friends programme we asked how they know how they are reaching traditionally marginalised or at-risk children. 14
Play Rangers and the Participation Project: - use accessible venues - provide transport - make detailed arrangements with parents or carers - take account of disability issues The Friends Programme argues that by working with whole (school) class groups, helping children to strengthen their emotional resilience, it is enabling marginalised children to feel part of the wider community rather than apart from it.
5. Achievements and challenges to date
5.1 The Management Board
The public sector in B&NES - a small unitary authority - is one in which “everybody knows each other” and observation of CF Board meetings, study of minutes and feedback from members indicate, that, by any partnership standards, the B&NES Children‟s Fund Management Board is highly effective. All the key statutory agencies, except the police, are represented by senior officers. Board members are all highly committed to the Children‟s Fund objectives and desist from arguing in favour of their sector at the expense of others. Attendance at meetings is very high, and now also includes membership from representatives of almost all of the funded projects. Board members own perception of their achievements16 are that: Share a common purpose and high level of trust; Are solution focussed; Have promoted learning across the authority on children‟s participation; Have embraced the health sector successfully; Have strong financial management; Board members feel they are challenged by: How to involve children and young people in the fabric of decision making; How they can genuinely involve the wider adult community in decision making processes; How the lessons they learn can be integrated strategically
On the down side, it seems that “the process of Board membership was relatively evolutionary and arbitrary, but because it was problem free it wasn‟t challenged”.17 This “usual suspects” approach appears to include the national children‟s charities that are active locally (Barnardo‟s and the Children‟s Society) but excludes smaller voluntary agencies.
16 17
Through Visualisation in Participatory Processes (VIPP) with Dialog Interview with Jon Doble, assistant director, Barnardo‟s South West
15
The Board has very effectively pursued a preventative, rather than a reactive, agenda and this is reflected now in the projects that are receiving funds. In spite of the need to be yet more accountable and representative the B&NES CF Management Board appears ahead of the game if judged, for instance, against the lessons learned from the first year of pathfinder Children‟s Trusts. Its members: able to deny professional identity in order to affirm and support the needs of children at risk; recognise the need for better outcomes, not integration per se; speak the same „language‟; set good examples of co-operation.
5.2 The Political Context
Children‟s Funds across the country have suffered considerably as a result of central government policy changes and a number of financial uncertainties which have emanated from these changes. In March 2002 the Home Secretary announced the Street Crime Initiative, which in turn placed a new requirements on Children‟s Funds locally to allocate 25% of its resources to work specifically targeted at prevention of youth crime and anti-social behaviour. Regrettably this directive came after much work on philosophy and budget had already been undertaken. Changes to the programme needed to be made within very short timescales, both at a practical level and in thinking about different notions of „risk‟ in relation to children and young people. At the same time the Children & Young People‟s Unit within the DfES set a target of September 2003 for all Children‟s Fund partnerships to have Identification, Referral and Tracking systems in place for every child and young person at risk of social exclusion as a key part of a prevention strategy. A month later the DfES warned that Children‟s Fund budget figures, previously agreed, may not be met in full by government. B&NES, along with other Funds were informed that their 2004/5 budget would be cut by 15% and the 2005/6 budget by 33.3%. After 5 months of uncertainty, the budget cut was in fact less draconian, and the IRT requirement placed on Children‟s Funds was withdrawn. The B&NES Partnership Board, very ably supported by the programme manager and Barnardo‟s assistant director and the CF business manager, were able to manage these uncertainties with great skill. But these changes in direction resulted in: participation by children and young people being undermined. Raising and then dashing expectations cannot have inspired confidence in adult decision makers; a considerably increased workload for the Partnership Board and Barnardo‟s staff; the future of some services being threatened.
16
The government has also signally failed in its aim to operate with a minimum of bureaucracy and complexity, putting unrealistic monitoring demands on both the small CF core team and funded services. Again evidence18 shows that the B&NES Children‟s Fund and the 7 funded services have managed these demands remarkably well.
5.3 Participation of children aged 5 to 13
The Children‟s Fund in B&NES has been fortunate in having the highly regarded Children‟s Society project (and the Children‟s Society Wessex Participation Project) based in Midsomer Norton, not least because it‟s manager and staff members have consistently integrated a theoretical underpinning to the Board‟s thinking on children‟s participation. They are very ably supported by Barnardo‟s and many other informed and progressive Board members. Again, in this respect, the Board is unusually strong. Whilst Board members recognise than in practice integrating children‟s involvement has been more difficult, there have however been notable successes. Examples include:
Children‟s Scrutiny Panels
The Children‟s Society was commissioned by the Management Board to work with children in each of the targeted geographic areas to assess which project bids should receive Children‟s Fund money. About 120 children were involved.
Children‟s involvement in interview panels
A number of the Children‟s Fund projects have involved children in interviewing shortlisted candidates for employment. Notably the Youth Offending Team‟s Compass Project found children‟s involvement enhanced the process.
Presentation by children to the Children‟s Fund Stakeholders‟ Conference, March 2004
Children led presentations from each of the Play Ranger locations presented to 65 adults. They showed videos which they scripted, acted in and filmed and explained their rope and aboriginal walking stick evaluations.
Children‟s involvement in evaluation
Both Dialog‟s training workshops “Children‟s participation in evaluation” were attended by all the funded projects. Many returned on Day 2 having practised various approaches with children. Notably the Play Rangers adapted the rope lifeline and have used the aboriginal walking stick, polaroids and digital cameras to good effect. Barnardo‟s Domestic Violence Programme adapted salt jars by using different coloured chalk dust to express different emotions.
5.4 Can relatively young children be actively involved in the Children‟s Fund Strategic Development?
The Children‟s Society Participation Project is vested with developing, and advising on, children‟s participation and has grappled with this question. It is a considerable achievement that groups of children have been involved in commissioning services and in appointing staff, and many were
18
Children‟s Fund 3 monthly quarterly returns
17
consulted on their priorities. However, it has been difficult to give equal weight to children‟s voices in the Children‟s Fund strategic development and for the Participation Project to maintain children‟s groups for this purpose. They originally intended to form a children‟s group in each of the 3 geographic locations but only the group in Norton Radstock has managed to maintain a viable group. In the other two areas it has been difficult to fully engage school in promoting the groups and they have fallen away. Because the Participation Project has sought to genuinely involve more marginalised or at-risk children its task has been all the more challenging and time consuming. They also question the whether it is fair to involve young children in decisions which are removed from their day to day experience. The Participation Project feel that requests from the Children‟s Fund to involve children in its development should be: focussed transparent tangible limited
It is also difficult for children to carry the burden of representing the views of other children. In consequence they propose that the emphasis on participation should continue to relate directly to specific tasks or activity, and that participation work is pursued through funded services.
5.5 Working with whole communities or undertaking targeted work? Inclusive work or separate provision?
It is of interest that the funded services vary greatly in character. For instance, some offer highly targeted services whilst others provide a universal service. For some the focus is providing for all children, for others the provision is exclusive. The following continuums give a sense of this range:
Participation Project Off the Record Domestic Violence Programme Compass Friends Programme Out of School Club Play Rangers _________________________________________________________________ Separate ProvisionInclusive Provision
Participation Project Domestic Violence Programme Off the Record Compass Play Rangers Out of School Club Friends _________________________________________________________________ TargetedUniversal 18
At one end of these continuums is the Out of School Club for children with Asperger Syndrome. This is highly targeted, working exclusively with a very marginalised group of children. Similarly, the Domestic Violence Programme only reach children at risk, and put value on the fact that they work with very small numbers of children. The NAS (National Autism Society) who manage the Out of School Club further argue that to "include" children with Autistic Spectrum Disorder will in many situations further disadvantage children who find large group settings painful, and that integration should only happen when the children themselves are ready for it. The Out of School Club therefore provides a sanctuary of separate provision, but supports the ultimate aim of inclusion. Compass also only works with children at risk, with a specific focus on prevention related to youth offending. Although they work intensively on a one-to-one basis, significant funding enables Compass to aim to reach 80 children per year. By contrast, the Friends Programme provides a universal service, without selection, to whole (school) class groups, but by definition can only work with the children who are attending school. To mitigate against this the Programme works in the primary school sector where unauthorised absence is much less common than in the secondary sector. They argue that this universal approach - which integrates traditionally marginalised or at-risk children into their programmes - strengthens, rather than diminishes, the emotional well being of such children. The Play Rangers also offer their services to whole communities, but can also only reach the children who attend. Because they work as detached workers in public open spaces children do not need to come into buildings to participate. The project believes this approach mitigates in favour of socially excluded children. Keeping a record of the profile of children who attend is however more challenging for a project which works informally with children. Off the Record combine targeted Kidscape sessions with a lunchtime drop-in which is open to all. The Participation Project aims to work with children at risk but has been dependent on referrals from headteachers. These are not opposing philosophies and our aim is not to polarise. Both approaches have value. The challenge for the Children‟s Fund Partnership Board is to consider the balance and mix between targeted and universal preventative programmes. In time the Fund will want to showcase approaches which best meet its objectives. In the meantime it should continue to provide a range of different approaches, rather than one fixed model, and should consider which best meets these objectives.
6. Challenges for the future
6.1 The Partnership Board is exceptionally well placed to fulfil Government requirement to involve the Local Authority and the Primary Care Trust in planning preventative services for
19
children at risk as it moves towards the establishment of the Children‟s Trust in 2008. Key representatives from both authorities (including the Youth Offending Team manager) are already strongly involved and identified with the Children‟s Fund. Greater involvement from representative groups within the voluntary and community sector is also important. 6.2 Board members feel they need to move from an operational focus to a strategic one. This should include: „mainstreaming‟ preventative approaches where they have been seen to be effective; identifying which services should be sustained beyond the life of the Fund, mainstreamed, or supported in other ways; sharing the lessons learned from its highly effective partnership working; Contribute to the development of the emerging Children‟s Trust. The knowledge and expertise contained within the membership of the Board should be used to full effect in promoting the strategic thinking contained in the Every Child Matters Report. 6.3 At an operational level: becoming more representative of both smaller and more local voluntary organisations; whilst not necessarily involving parents and carers in detailed Management Board business, finding appropriate ways of bringing parents experience and ideas to Children‟s Fund (and in the future Children‟s Trust) development. This may be undertaken most effectively through existing groups. Developing evidence-based material, in part through the evaluation process, which indicates effective ways of engaging and supporting at-risk children, drawing on models developed by funded projects. For instance, identifying when and with who targeted work is effective, and by contrast when work with whole communities is effective in supporting children at risk. 6.4 Promoting models of children‟s participation across the Authority by: Funded projects sharing their children‟s participation successes; Strengthening children‟s involvement in decision making within all the funded projects; taking a lead in promoting the ideas and experiences which are emerging on children‟s participation, for instance in how excluded or marginalised children can become involved in aspects of civic life, or in distinguishing between appropriate and inappropriate models of participation.
20
Appendix 1
Protocols undertaken by Dialog conducting evaluation of B&NES Children’s Fund
1. Parental/carer consent forms requested in advance on occasions when Dialog is working with children/young people outside of school hours and off B&NES service provider premises. Children and young people always have choice not to participate in activities undertaken by Dialog. 2. Confidentiality. Dialog will not identify any child or young person under any circumstances, except in a child protection context (see below). Dialog will not characterise or describe any child or young person in ways which make recognition by others possible. 3. Child protection. In cases when Dialog consultants become concerned that individual children are describing situations or behaving in ways which indicate a child protection implication, we may contact the relevant statutory authority to ensure the safety of the child/ren. We will endeavour where possible to reach agreement with the child on an appropriate course of action. 4. Dialog consultants will work in ways which reinforce positive images of children. Dialog will avoid practices which may increase the stigma of individual children. 5. Dialog consultants will be clear and explicit about the nature of our roles in various contexts, and will describe the methods/approach taken in advance of any contact.
Dialog
December 2003
21
Appendix 2
Ladder of Children’s Participation
Adapted by Dialog from Children‟s Participation, by Roger Hart, published by Earthscan, 1997
TYPE & LEVEL of PARTICIPATION (1 to 8) CHARACTERISTICS EXAMPLES
8. Child initiated, shared decisions with adults
Children‟s initiatives noticed and recognised, adults offer assistance and enhancements without controlling.
Young teenagers building a hot tub on a campsite – adults provided tools and advice.
7. Child-initiated and directed
Children‟s initiatives noticed and recognised, allowed to happen, but not controlled.
Often found in the world of children‟s play: building „dens‟ and animal sanctuaries; putting on shows and social events.
6. Adult-initiated, shared decisions with children
Constraints made clear early on. Assume nothing about what children want. Children take part to some degree in the whole process.
Planning and designing environments such as playgrounds and work rooms
5. Consulted and informed
Children understand the process, are consulted and have their opinions treated seriously.
A well facilitated „circle time‟ to plan activities; child volunteers conducting and analysing a survey.
4. Assigned but informed
The social mobilisation of children to disseminate information coming from adults
Informed and educated children spread a message to others e.g. on water conservation
3. Tokenism
The appearance of giving children a voice – but children not having a choice about subject, context or character of the communication
The charming, articulate or particularly different child on a panel or at a conference.
2. Decoration
Using children to bolster the cause, when they have little understanding
Kids in slogan T shirts; the 3- year old with a placard
1. Manipulation and Deception
Using children‟s voices to carry adult messages
Some surveys & polls directed by adults; activities falsely promoted as “they did it all themselves”
22
Appendix 3
National objectives for the Children’s Fund
The national objectives of the Children‟s Fund are: 1. To promote attendance in the schools attended by the majority of 5 to 13 year olds living in the area. 2. To achieve overall improved educational performance among 5 to 13 year olds. 3. To ensure that fewer young people aged 10 to 13 commit crime and fewer 5 to 13 year olds are victims of crime. 4. To reduce child health inequalities in the area. 5. To ensure that children, young people and families and local people feel that preventative services being developed are accessible. 6. To develop services which are experienced as effective by children commonly excluded from gaining the benefits of public services. 7. To involve families in building community‟s capacity to sustain the programme and thereby create pathways out of poverty.
23