Docstoc

EXODUS SOFT OUTCOMES EVALUATION REPORT OUTLINE

Document Sample
EXODUS SOFT OUTCOMES EVALUATION REPORT OUTLINE Powered By Docstoc
					AN ASSESSMENT OF THE SOFT OUTCOMES
            ACHIEVED BY THE
          EXODUS PROGRAMME




 Jessica Jacobson and Sylvia Chenery, MegaNexus
                                  January 2008




                      1
CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1     INTRODUCTION

The Exodus programme
The soft outcomes study
Methodology
Structure of the report

2     OVERVIEW OF EXODUS PARTNERSHIPS AND BENEFICIARIES

The development partnerships
The beneficiaries

3     EXERCISE 3 RESULTS

Perceived improvements in job readiness
Levels of success in obtaining work
Perceptions of help received from Exodus

4     QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS OF THE SOFT OUTCOMES REVIEW

Details of beneficiary sample
Offending histories of sampled beneficiaries
Exodus involvement and outcomes

5     QUALITATIVE FINDINGS OF THE SOFT OUTCOMES REVIEW

Sustained, multi-dimensional interventions
The ‘virtuous circle’ of outcomes
Factors inhibiting the achievement of soft outcomes

6     CONCLUSIONS

Key findings
Recording and monitoring issues
Pointers to good practice

APPENDIX A: EXERCISE 3 QUESTIONNAIRE
APPENDIX B: SOFT OUTCOMES REVIEW DATA COLLECTION FORM
APPENDIX C: ADDITIONAL BENEFICIARY DATA




                                        2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



The MegaNexus research team are very grateful for the help with this study that they
received from the Exodus caseworkers working for Action Acton, Blue Sky Development
and Regeneration, Portobello Business Centre, HMP Springhill, St Giles Trust, St
Mungos, Southampton City Council and CLIC Project Winchester. Despite the many
other demands on their time, the caseworkers committed considerable time and effort to
collating information for the researchers, and responded to the researchers’ many
queries with care and good humour.


Thanks are also due to Simon Bysshe of HOST for advising on the study’s methodology
and commenting in detail on the first draft of the report.


Our colleague Victoria Howes at MegaNexus provided a great deal of help and support
at every stage of the study.


Finally, MegaNexus would like to thank EISS for providing access to their database on
Exodus beneficiaries.




                                                                           MegaNexus
                                                                         January 2008




                                              3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the findings of research by MegaNexus into the soft outcomes
achieved by the Exodus Programme.


The Exodus Programme


Exodus was a large-scale programme operating in London and the south-east of
England which aimed to enhance the employability of ex-offenders and thereby facilitate
rehabilitation and reduce recidivism. Action 2, the delivery phased of the project, began
in July 2005 and ran until 31 December 2007; it was funded by the European Social
Fund Equal initiative and led by the South-East England Development Agency (SEEDA).
It supported the development and implementation of interventions targeting short-term
prisoners and prolific or other priority offenders (PPOs). Over the course of the
programme, a total of 928 beneficiaries registered on it.


The Exodus interventions were undertaken by a range of voluntary and community
sector agencies and statutory services (primarily the prison and probation services),
working in local partnerships. There were 13 such ‘development partnerships’ (DPs)
across London and the south-east region. The partnerships varied widely in terms of
their structures and specific activities, but most were focussed on providing guidance
and advice on training and employment, contributing to prisoner assessment and
release planning, and providing post-release support on accessing local services. They
were variously based in prisons, community settings or both.


The soft outcomes study


While the overarching aim of Exodus was to increase the employability of its
beneficiaries, an assessment of the ‘hard outcomes’ achieved by the programme –
primarily, the numbers of jobs, work placements, and training and education places
acquired by beneficiaries - is only one method of measuring its success. Hard outcomes
do not exist, and cannot be achieved, in a vacuum. Equally important, both as ends in
themselves and as means by which hard outcomes such as employment can be



                                             4
achieved, are the less tangible or obvious manifestations of beneficiaries’ social
inclusion. These ‘soft outcomes’ can take a wide variety of forms – ranging from specific
and practical accomplishments such as opening a bank account or making a long-
delayed visited to a dentist; to more fundamental social and domestic processes, such
as resuming contact with estranged family members or acquiring stable accommodation;
to general improvements in the individual’s emotional or psychological state as evident,
for example, in a growth in self-confidence or emergence of a sense of ‘job-readiness’.


By definition, soft outcomes are more difficult to identify and measure than hard
outcomes. Hence there may be a tendency for soft outcomes to be overlooked both in
routine, internal project monitoring and in external project evaluations. In recognition of
the importance, and associated difficulties, of assessing the soft outcomes achieved by
Exodus, MegaNexus was commissioned to undertake the specific soft outcomes study.


There were three elements to the soft outcomes study: first, a review of Exodus
monitoring data collated by EISS; secondly, analysis of the results of a job-readiness
questionnaire for beneficiaries known as ‘Exercise 3’; and, thirdly, analysis of data
submitted by caseworkers on 15% of all beneficiaries (an exercise referred to as the
‘MegaNexus soft outcomes review’).


Key findings of the soft outcomes study


Review of EISS monitoring data
The EISS monitoring data show that 870 beneficiaries had registered on the programme
between August 2005 and August 2007, of whom 90% were male. Three-quarters of the
beneficiaries were aged between 20 and 40 – although the full age range was from 18 to
71. The majority – 58% - of beneficiaries were white, and a little over one quarter black.
Just 14% of the beneficiaries were PPOs.


All the beneficiaries had been unemployed on joining Exodus, and just over 40 per cent
had been unemployed for over three years. Among the beneficiaries sampled for the
MegaNexus soft outcomes review, 70% had more than five criminal convictions, and
only 11% had a single conviction – with drugs offences, theft, assault and burglary being



                                              5
the most common types of offences committed (taking account of each beneficiary’s
most serious offence only). Sixty-five per cent of beneficiaries were said to be drug
users, including those with alcohol problems; a little more than a third were said to use
heroin and/or crack/cocaine.


Exercise 3
The Exercise 3 form listed 19 different aspects of ‘job readiness’, in relation to each of
which beneficiaries were asked to specify if they had ‘much improved’, ‘improved’ or
remained the ‘same’, since being involved in Exodus. For as many as 14 out of the 19
factors, over half of the beneficiaries noted an improvement. Indeed, five of the factors
showed an improvement rate of over 70%; these were: ‘I know what to do to achieve my
goals’; ‘I know where to turn for advice’; ‘I work as part of a team’; ‘I can talk to and listen
to others’ and ‘I understand my strengths and weaknesses’.


Analysis of the distribution of ‘improved’ and ‘much improved’ job readiness factors
among the beneficiary respondents reveals that the 51 individuals varied widely in the
scope or range of their perceived improvements. While seven beneficiaries believed that
they had experienced three or fewer areas of improvement, 12 perceived an
improvement with respect to 16 or more of the 19 job readiness factors.


Exercise 3 included open-ended questions about the help that had been received from
Exodus. The responses tended to refer to three broad kinds of help:


       Help in the form of practical assistance provided with job-related and other
        matters including accommodation and benefits;
       Help that produced attitudinal change – particularly in terms of enhancing
        focus, motivation and self-confidence;
       The general sense of receiving support and care from individual case workers,
        and consequently having people to turn to at times of need


Of the 43 beneficiaries who answered the open-ended questions, 39 reported entirely
positively on Exodus, and four gave somewhat ambivalent responses.




                                               6
MegaNexus soft outcomes review
For the soft outcomes review, data were collected on 121 beneficiaries from 12 of the 13
Exodus DPs. The data collection form included a section for recording specific soft
outcomes achieved by each beneficiary and noting whether they were attributable to the
Exodus programme directly, jointly, or to a limited extent. This established that the soft
outcomes achieved by beneficiaries were many and varied.


Some of the outcomes related to the general orientation (e.g. self-confidence) or
circumstances (e.g. accommodation, family situation) of the beneficiary; others directly
reflected practical efforts to enter employment (e.g. training, job enquiries); and yet
others reflected the achievement of highly practical tasks such as a visit to the dentist or
opening a bank account. The outcomes most commonly recorded were
‘sourced/undertook training’ (11% of all outcomes), ‘improved self-confidence’ (10.5%)
and ‘more job-ready’ (10.3%). Other relatively common outcomes related to sustained
engagement with other services, accommodation, telephone job enquiries, internet job
searches, disclosure, and CV production. Just under half of all the sampled beneficiaries
achieved between 5 and 14 soft outcomes (counting those that were directly or jointly
attributable to Exodus only), while 35% achieved between one and four, and 16%
achieved none.


From qualitative data collected for the soft outcomes review (descriptions of work
conducted under Exodus and the resultant outcomes), three main themes emerged:


1. The need for sustained, multi-dimensional interventions
Many of the cases included in the review demonstrate that the achievement of soft
outcomes depended on sustained engagement between the individual and the agencies
supporting him, and on the provision of help with the range of problems faced by the
individual. Among the sampled beneficiaries, the large majority of those who achieved
several soft outcomes had evidently received multi-dimensional interventions over
substantial periods of time. In many cases, interventions related to housing, health
(including drug or alcohol dependency), and finances were particularly significant
components of the help received. Another important aspect of the Exodus programme’s



                                              7
multi-dimensional approach was that it permitted a focus on relatively minor, highly
practical issues alongside the ‘big’ issues such as housing, health and finances.


2. Different kinds of outcomes can mutually reinforce each other
When the relationships between different kinds of outcomes (both hard and soft) are
examined, it becomes clear that a ‘virtuous circle’ exists whereby an individual’s
achievements of one kind both feed into and feed off progress of other kinds. Nowhere is
this more apparent than with respect to the soft outcome of ‘improved self-confidence’. It
appears that improved self-confidence helped individuals to address their personal
problems and to obtain employment; and, at the same time, successes in addressing
personal problems and finding employment could help to build confidence. Similarly, the
re-establishment of family ties sometimes played a pivotal role in relation to outcomes of
other kinds.


3. There are factors that can inhibit the achievement of soft outcomes
It is argued above that the achievement of both soft and hard outcomes often depended
on tackling the range of problems that beneficiaries faced. It follows from the fact that
most beneficiaries had multiple needs that there were multiple potential points of
disruption to the services provided by Exodus. Progress could be hindered by
unresolved problems such as drug or alcohol dependency, family and other relationship
breakdown, mental illness and homelessness – particularly where the individual lacked
motivation to address these problems. The converse of the ‘virtuous circle’ where
achievements in different spheres of life are mutually supportive is a vicious circle in
which different kinds of problems intermesh and reinforce each other.


Conclusions


Previous research has demonstrated that ex-offenders seeking to enter the labour
market tend to face multiple barriers to employment. It is clear that the Exodus
beneficiaries did not, on the whole, provide an exception to this general rule. Many of
them faced a range of difficulties and disadvantages, which impacted not only on their
prospects of gaining employment, but also on their broader life chances and quality of
life. Thus the achievement of soft outcomes – both as ends in themselves and as means



                                             8
to the end of enhancing employability – was a necessary and critically important goal of
the work of Exodus, even if this goal was not always made explicit.


Because of the fluidity and open-endedness of the concept of ‘soft outcomes’, it is
difficult to quantify precisely and objectively the extent to which such outcomes were in
fact achieved by Exodus. Nevertheless, the results of Exercise 3 and the MegaNexus
soft outcomes review provide evidence of significant and wide-ranging successes in this
regard.


More broadly, the study’s findings have produced a number of pointers to good practice.
These are of relevance to other projects that, like Exodus, are focused on the
employability of ex-offenders:


   Projects should adopt a holistic, multi-dimensional approach wherever possible: that
    is, for each beneficiary they should seek to address simultaneously, and on a
    sustained basis, the range of problems and disadvantages that are likely to be
    barriers to gaining and maintaining employment.


   The adoption of a multi-dimensional approach should help to ensure that
    beneficiaries receive help with highly practical matters – whether employment-related
    or not – alongside help with broader issues.


   It should be recognised that relatively minor social or practical accomplishments can
    have particular significance for individuals who have long been excluded from the
    mainstream of society.


   Different beneficiaries are likely to have different needs; thus interventions must be
    flexible and tailored to the individual. For example, not all beneficiaries will require
    sustained, multi-dimensional interventions: a minority are likely to need short-term
    help that is focussed on one or two specific areas of difficulty.


   Where a supportive relationship is built up over time between a beneficiary and an
    individual project worker, the existence of this relationship – and the accompanying



                                               9
    sense of having a person to turn to at times of need - may be as important to the
    beneficiary as the specific help or advice that is provided.


   The promotion of self-confidence and self-esteem should be seen as a key objective
    of project work. Increased self-confidence can be both a precursor to and a
    consequence of the achievement of other goals.


   It is always likely that some beneficiaries will lack the necessary motivation to
    achieve significant outcomes: hence a certain attrition rate must be accepted.
    Projects should recognise that motivation is often lost immediately after an individual
    leaves custody – and should therefore make a strong effort at maintaining contact
    and commitment over this period.


   The achievement of soft outcomes should be explicitly recognised as a necessary
    and critical dimension of project work; and flexible systems for monitoring soft
    outcomes should be built into project design.




                                             10
1      INTRODUCTION



Exodus was a large-scale programme operating in London and the south-east of
England which aimed to enhance the employability of ex-offenders and thereby facilitate
rehabilitation and reduce recidivism. The external evaluation of Exodus (Action 2) is
being undertaken by HOST Policy Research1; and MegaNexus has been commissioned
to undertake a specific review of the 'soft outcomes' achieved by Exodus. The results
of MegaNexus' study are presented in this report and have also been made available to
HOST for review as part of the summative evaluation process.


About MegaNexus
MegaNexus is an organisation founded through University College London (UCL) that
provides online networking solutions for local authorities and publicly-funded
programmes and initiatives that help connect people, organisations and information
together.


The Exodus programme


Exodus, which was launched in July 2005 and ran until 31 December 2007, was funded
by the European Social Fund Equal initiative, and led by the South-East of England
Development Agency (SEEDA). It supported the development and implementation of
interventions targeting short-term prisoners and prolific or other priority offenders (PPOs)
– henceforth referred to as the programme’s ‘beneficiaries’. The interventions aimed to
reduce re-offending by improving the beneficiaries’ employment prospects and, more
broadly, their chances of social inclusion. Over the course of the programme, a total of
928 beneficiaries registered on it.


The Exodus interventions were undertaken by a range of voluntary and community
sector agencies and statutory services (primarily the prison and probation services),


1
 The summary report of the HOST evaluation will be presented to the Exodus Research and
Evaluation Working Group on 8 February 2008.


                                            11
working in local partnerships. There were 13 such ‘development partnerships’ (DPs)
across London and the south-east region.2 The partnerships varied widely in terms of
their structures and specific activities, but most were focussed on providing guidance
and advice on training and employment, contributing to prisoner assessment and
release planning, and providing post-release support on accessing local services. (More
details on the individual partnerships are provided in Chapter Two of this report.) A multi-
agency Strategy Group had responsibility for overseeing and co-ordinating the activities
of the 13 partnerships, and various forums were established for communication between
the different projects.


The intrinsic challenges associated with the goal of enhancing the employability of ex-
offenders, the number and diversity of agencies involved in delivering the interventions,
the wide geographical reach of the totality of local partnerships, and the complexity of
the management structure, together made Exodus a highly ambitious programme of
work. HOST’s second interim evaluation report3 points to various difficulties that had
been encountered over the life-time of the project to date, many of which had ‘stemmed
from unrealistic assumptions about managing this wide partnership, central capacity to
support this, and processes for reflection and communications within (and outside) the
partnership’. Nevertheless, the interim report notes that across the 13 DPs, ‘there has
been substantial achievement across project inputs, and notably for start-up, local
partnership, capacity building and beneficiary recruitment’.


The soft outcomes study


While the overarching aim of Exodus was to increase the employability of its
beneficiaries, an assessment of the ‘hard outcomes’ achieved by the programme –
primarily, the numbers of jobs, work placements, and training and education places
acquired by beneficiaries - is only one method of measuring its success. Hard outcomes
do not exist, and cannot be achieved, in a vacuum. Equally important, both as ends in
themselves and as means by which hard outcomes such as employment can be


2
  Originally, 15 partnerships were selected for Exodus funding, but two of these did not
commence.
3
  Parsons, D.J. and Bysshe, S. (2007) Evaluation of Exodus (Action 2) – Second Interim Report,
Horsham: HOST Policy Research


                                              12
achieved, are the less tangible or obvious manifestations of beneficiaries’ social
inclusion. These ‘soft outcomes’ can take a wide variety of forms – ranging from specific
and practical accomplishments such as opening a bank account or making a long-
delayed visited to a dentist; to more fundamental social and domestic processes, such
as resuming contact with estranged family members or acquiring stable accommodation;
to general improvements in the individual’s emotional or psychological state as evident,
for example, in a growth in self-confidence or emergence of a sense of ‘job-readiness’.


By definition, soft outcomes are more difficult to identify and measure than hard
outcomes. Hence there may be a tendency for soft outcomes to be overlooked both in
routine, internal project monitoring and in external project evaluations. This is noted in
the HOST second interim report, which observes that

        Evaluation of the project operates at two levels: satisfaction with process and
        outcomes by beneficiaries, and a judgment (made by Project Network staff) on
        how far beneficiaries have progressed in their attitude to work/training, how they
        organise themselves and their life, and what further support they now need.
        Identifying ‘soft’ outcomes, however, has proved to be more difficult to evidence,
        and the consortium development team are constantly exploring ways that this
        can be achieved. A number of interviewees stressed the importance of recording
        ‘soft outcomes’, which was a major point of agreement (and proposal for action at
        last November’s stakeholder workshop4). Some mentioned the use of devices
        such as logs/diaries (on paper or on digital media) for beneficiaries to record their
        progress, and for practitioners to draw up case studies, which a number of
        projects (including St Giles Trust) have done, although unfortunately not to any
        agreed style or template.

In recognition of the importance, and associated difficulties, of assessing the soft
outcomes achieved by Exodus, MegaNexus was commissioned to undertake the
specific soft outcomes study. Prior to the start of the study, on 8 October 2007, HOST
met with MegaNexus to discuss the relationship of the soft outcomes review to the wider
evaluation.


Methodology


The soft outcomes study entailed three strands of research, as follows:

4
  The workshop was held in November 2006. It was for all DPs and was facilitated on behalf of
the Exodus Research and Evaluation Working Group by HOST.


                                              13
1. Review of EISS data
EISS, the European Institute of Social Services at the University of Kent, had
responsibility for collating monitoring data which are submitted on a quarterly basis by all
the Exodus DPs. For the purposes of the soft outcomes study, MegaNexus was
provided with a snap-shot of the full EISS database as of 6 November 2007. By this
date, a total of 870 beneficiaries had registered with Exodus.


From the EISS data-set, Meganexus extracted socio-demographic data on all 870
beneficiaries, along with details on their engagement with Exodus and (for those no
longer registered on the programme) hard outcomes achieved and reasons for leaving.
These data are presented in Chapter 2 of this report as part of a broadly descriptive
account of the scale and scope of the Exodus programme.


While providing invaluable contextual information, the EISS data have not directly
contributed to the analysis of the soft outcomes achieved by Exodus. It was initially
hoped that details collected by EISS on individual beneficiaries could be cross-
referenced with the details collected by MegaNexus on a sample of beneficiaries (see
below). However, this proved problematic because of the difficulty of assigning dates to
some of the information recorded by EISS, and because of apparent inconsistencies
between the two data-sets.


2. Collation and analysis of ‘Exercise 3’ data
The St Giles Trust, one of the key partners in the Exodus programme, developed a
specific tool for collecting information on soft outcomes. This was in the form of a
workbook that was largely intended for self-completion by beneficiaries. At a DP
workshop held in September 2007,5 the DPs present agreed to contribute to the soft
outcomes study by completing one element of the St Giles workbook – Exercise 3 – with
as many beneficiaries as possible, and submitting the completed forms to MegaNexus.
Exercise 3 was a two-page questionnaire aimed at assessing the respondent’s job-




55
   The DP workshop, which was held on 14 September 2007, was facilitated by HOST on behalf
of the Exodus Research and Evaluation Working Group.


                                            14
readiness and perceptions of the help received from Exodus. A blank Exercise 3 form is
provided in Appendix A.


A total of 51 completed Exercise 3 forms were submitted to MegaNexus by at least five
of the Exodus lead partners.6 Some of the forms were completed by the beneficiaries
themselves, and others by case-workers through face-to-face or telephone interviews
with the respondents. The results of MegaNexus’ analysis of the Exercise 3 data are
presented in Chapter 3, below.


The data derived from Exercise 3 should be treated with caution, because of the limited
scope of the questions, the fact that it entailed an entirely retrospective assessment of
progress towards job-readiness, and the relatively small number of forms submitted. An
additional difficulty associated with the Exercise 3 data is that, for obvious practical
reasons, Exodus partners were restricted to undertaking the questionnaire with
beneficiaries who remained contactable – which was likely to bias the sample towards
respondents who were positive about Exodus.


Many of the agencies which submitted Exercise 3 forms included additional material on
soft outcomes. However, marked inconsistencies in the type and scope of additional
material collected made it difficult to incorporate this in the analysis. Moreover, in
addition to the 51 completed forms received from various Exodus partners, a further 12
were received from one partner which were titled Exercise 3 but comprised an entirely
different set of questions - hence these 12 were excluded from the analysis.


3. MegaNexus soft outcomes review
MegaNexus undertook its own data collection exercise in collaboration with 12 of the 13
DPs.7 Reflecting the multi-dimensional and somewhat amorphous nature of the concept



6
  Some of the completed Exercise 3 forms were received without details of the agencies which
had submitted them.
7
  The only DP not to be included in the soft outcomes review was the partnership led by Kent
Probation, because the project had secured ongoing funding by the time of the review and
therefore no longer came under the Exodus umbrella. (However, all DPs, including Kent, were
included in the external evaluation undertaken by HOST.) Two further Exodus projects, which
came into existence after the 13 core DPs were set up, were also not included in the exercise
because their beneficiaries were already engaged by the core DPs. These were MegaNexus’


                                              15
of ‘soft outcomes’, this exercise combined a qualitative and quantitative approach, and
entailed the collection of in-depth information on a sample of beneficiaries. Like Exercise
3, however, the process involved an entirely retrospective assessment of outcomes
achieved.


The sample of beneficiaries included in the review was constructed by the DPs
themselves. The lead agency of each DP was asked to identify eight cases, or 15% of
their full caseload (whichever was the larger) for review by the MegaNexus researchers.
It was specified that half of the selected cases should be beneficiaries who were
engaged with the project for under four months, and the other half beneficiaries who
were engaged for more than four months – hereafter referred to as ‘disengaged’ and
‘engaged’ beneficiaries respectively.8 It was decided to match the numbers of engaged
and disengaged beneficiaries to ensure that the sample included beneficiaries with a
range of experiences of the Exodus programme.


For each beneficiary thus identified, DP caseworkers were asked to complete a data
collection form, prior to a pre-arranged visit by a MegaNexus researcher. The forms
requested details on beneficiaries’ backgrounds, levels and types of contact with the
project, soft outcomes achieved, and contributions of other agencies. (The form is
provided in Appendix B.) The MegaNexus researcher who visited the project then
discussed the details recorded on the completed forms with the case workers, and
reviewed the respective case files to fill in any gaps and double-check some of the
information. The discussions with case workers case file reviews also provided
opportunities to assess the adequacy of the projects’ existing methods of recording and
monitoring outcomes. Across the 12 projects, a total of 24 caseworkers met with the
MegaNexus researcher.




delivery project and the UNLOCK project (which ran financial capability training with existing
beneficiaries, as well as ‘train the trainer’ sessions with prison staff).
8
  It is likely that there is an overlap between the ‘engaged’ beneficiaries included in the soft
outcomes review sample and the Exercise 3 sample; but because National Insurance numbers
were not recorded for all the Exercise 3 respondents (as they were for the soft outcomes review
sample), the size of this overlap cannot be ascertained.


                                               16
By these means, detailed information was gathered on a total of 121 beneficiaries –
which, at 14 per cent, was very close to the target of a 15 per cent sample. The results
of the analysis of this information are presented in Chapters 4, 5 and 6 of the report.


There are, clearly, limitations to the methodology used in the soft outcomes review; in
particular, the generalisability of the findings is limited by the small size of the sample. In
addition, the fact that the sample was selected and the forms largely completed by the
DPs themselves rather than the evaluators possibly introduces some bias into the
findings. However, given the severe time constraints of the project (data collection was
undertaken over a period of four weeks), and the inherent complexity of any review of
‘soft’ rather than hard outcomes, the MegaNexus researchers were confident that this
methodology was an appropriate means of acquiring sufficient data for analysis.


Structure of the report


This report comprises six chapters, including this introduction. Chapter 2 sets the context
of the soft outcomes study, by providing a broad description of the projects that comprise
the Exodus programme and the beneficiaries with which it works. This is followed, in
Chapter 3, by a presentation of the results of Exercise 3.


Chapters 4 and 5 present the findings of the MegaNexus soft outcomes review. First,
Chapter 4 pulls together the key quantitative findings of the review. Chapter 5 then takes
a more qualitative approach in identifying the processes by which soft outcomes have
been achieved among the sampled beneficiaries, and factors that inhibited the
achievement of soft outcomes. Finally, Chapter 6 concludes the report by highlighting
some of the key findings of the study, briefly discussing recording and monitoring issues,
and presenting pointers to good practice.


The research findings presented in this report are supplemented by direct quotations
from Exodus beneficiaries, which derive from two interviews conducted by MegaNexus
researchers, and from written and emailed thank you letters sent to Exodus staff and
forwarded to MegaNexus. The beneficiary quotations are included, for illustrative
purposes, in text boxes scattered through the report.



                                              17
2      OVERVIEW OF EXODUS PARTNERSHIPS AND BENEFICIARIES



Thirteen local ‘development partnerships’ (DPs) had responsibility for delivering the
Exodus interventions across the two regions of London and the south-east of England.
Over the course of the programme, the 13 DPs engaged 928 beneficiaries in total.


The development partnerships


The DPs were, for the most part, made up of statutory and voluntary and community
sector partners, and some also had limited private sector involvement. While all the
partnerships were focused on enhancing their beneficiaries’ education, training and
employment (including, in some cases, self-employment) opportunities, they adopted a
wide range of approaches to this broad task.


For example, the DP projects were variously based in (secure and open) prisons, the
community or both; and some had a relatively narrow and others a much broader
geographical reach. Many of the projects aimed to provide a sustained service to
beneficiaries as they passed through the prison gate: whether via out-reach services by
which prison-based partners helped beneficiaries to link up with appropriate services in
the community, or via in-reach services into prisons by community-based partners. In
contrast, others focused on providing employment-related information, guidance and
support outside prison establishments; and another of the lead agencies was itself an
employer and also provided training.9 Some of the projects began to work with their
Exodus beneficiaries only with the commencement of the Exodus programme, while
others utilised the Exodus funding to extend existing services for this client group, or to
re-launch previous initiatives.


Box 2.2 provides a summary of the main components of all the DPs. The information is
drawn from the HOST second interim report and the MegaNexus soft outcomes review.


9
  For a discussion of the range of models of Exodus projects, see David Reaich (2007)
‘Resettlement Policy and Practice: Exodus Projects in London and the South East of England’,
CARAVEL Working Group 3.


                                              18
                             Box 2.2: Summary of DP components

1. Action Acton
Lead agency: Action Acton – a voluntary agency which promotes economic and community
regeneration in Acton and the Borough of Ealing.
Other partners: AA’s contacts in job brokerage (including MegaNexus), regeneration and the
voluntary sector.
Location: Based in Acton, west London; focused on ex-offenders released into the London
Boroughs of Hammersmith and Fulham and Ealing from HMP Wormwood Scrubs.
Aims: To increase the employability of offenders by developing community networks and offering
holistic support for overcoming barriers to employment.

2. London PPOs
Lead agency: Action Acton (as above).
Other partners: St Giles Trust and London Probation.
Location: Based in Acton, west London; covered the London Boroughs of Hammersmith and
Fulham, Ealing and Housnlow.
Aims: To provide effective interventions with PPOs in west London by providing employment
support across all 7 resettlement pathways.

3. Blue Sky
Lead agency: Blue Sky Development & Regeneration: a not-for-profit company established by
regeneration charity Groundwork Thames Valley.
Other partners: Groundwork, HMP Bullingdon, Thames Valley Probation, Thames Valley
Partnership.
Location: Based in Uxbridge; focusing on beneficiaries from the London and the south-east.
Aims: Blue Sky is a social enterprise set up to provide training and paid work for ex-offenders and
enable them to move into long-term employment.

4. Kent Probation
Lead agency: Kent Probation Service.
Other partners: Range of local partners including prisons and Legal Services Commission.
Location: Dartford and Gravesham in Thames Gateway.
Aims: To provide an end-to-end service from point of arrest to post-release support to secure
employment outcomes.

5. Portobello Business Centre
Lead agency: Portobello Business Centre – a business development centre which offers support
to both start-up and existing businesses.
Other partners: Associated with various other projects.
Location: Based in Ladbroke Grove, west London; worked with those living in the boroughs of
Kensington & Chelsea, Lambeth, Southwark, Westminster, Camden, Islington and Wandsworth.
Aims: To deliver advice, training and consultancy support on business start-up for ex-prisoners.



                                                19
6. Ford
Lead agency: St Giles Trust – a voluntary agency which helps disadvantaged people access
housing, education, training and employment.
Other partners: South-east prison region.
Location: Based in HMP Ford (an open prison in West Sussex); worked with prisoners returning
to Portsmouth, Southampton and south London Boroughs.
Aims: To help beneficiaries find appropriate accommodation on release, promote training and
employment opportunities, and build links with potential employers.

7. Highdown
Lead agency: St Giles Trust (as above).
Other partners: HMP Highdown.
Location: Based in HMP Highdown in Surrey.
Aims: To provide post-release accommodation and employment support by developing links with
local service providers and employers, and to support potential employers of ex-offenders.

8. HMP Holloway Partnership
Lead agency: St Giles Trust (as above).
Other partners: HMP Holloway, PACT, Shelter
Location: Based in HMP Holloway; worked with female prisoners released across London.
Aims: To provide intensive casework and support services from the start of the sentence to after
release with the aim of enhancing employability.

9. Lambeth and Southwark Returns
Lead agency: St Giles Trust (as above).
Other partners: included Shelter, HMP Brixton, Jobcentre Plus and Tomorrow’s People.
Location: Based in HMP Brixton; worked with prisoners returning to Lambeth and Southwark.
Aims: To provide accommodation and employment support before and after release.

10. St Mungo’s
Lead agency: St Mungo’s – London’s largest charity for homeless people.
Other partners: Many, including HMP Pentonville and HMP Wormwood Scrubs.
Location: Based in central London; worked with prisoners returning to the west and north London
boroughs of Ealing, Brent, Camden, Islington and Haringey.
Aims: To provide education, training and employment and accommodation support.

11. Southampton City Council
Lead agency: Southampton City Council.
Other partners: Variety of statutory and voluntary and community sector agencies, including City
Limits Employment.
Location: Based in Southampton; worked with prisoners from HMP Winchester returning to
Southampton.
Aims: To provide a multi-agency, end-to-end approach to resettlement, with strong user
involvement.



                                               20
12. Project Springhill
Lead agency: HMP Springhill.
Other partners: 18 joint stakeholders, including employers and training providers.
Location: Based in HMP Springhill, an open prison co-located with HMP Grendon in
Buckinghamshire.
Aims: To provide an in-house job club and to assist ex-prisoners find employment with employers
finding it difficult to fill vacancies.

13. CLIC Project Winchester
Lead Agency: Wesgate Support and Care – an agency providing housing-related support and
care services to enable people to live independently; it is part of housing group A2 Winchester.
Location: Based in Winchester; focused on Hampshire, Wiltshire and surrounding areas.
Aims: To provide an integrated approach to resettlement with specific application to a rural
community in which accommodation is a key issue for ex-offenders.




The Exodus beneficiaries



                                     Beneficiary quotation 1:

                          I am a different person since I met the Exodus
                          team, especially my case worker who was with
                             me all the time, and also the manager…..

               (40-year-old male beneficiary; had served prison sentence for
               blackmail offences.)




The monitoring data collated by EISS, according to the November 2007 snapshot, show
that a total of 870 beneficiaries registered with Exodus between early August 2005 and
late August 2007.10 Table 2.1 displays the numbers of beneficiaries that were currently
(at the time of the snapshot) or previously registered with each DP lead agency.11 The
three lead agencies with the largest numbers of beneficiaries were St Mungos (25% of


10
   As noted above, the total number of Exodus beneficiaries, as supplied by EISS on completion
of the programme, was 928 – indicating that the database was not fully updated at the time of the
November snapshot.
11
   Because the EISS data are broken down by lead agency rather than DP, the data from all four
partnerships led by St Giles, and from the two led by Action Acton, are amalgamated.


                                                21
beneficiaries), St Giles (20%) and Southampton City Council (18%). Each of the
remaining six agencies had between 2% and 10% of beneficiaries.


      Table 2.1: Distribution of Exodus beneficiaries among DP lead agencies


                       Agency                 No. beneficiaries      % beneficiaries
        Action Acton                                  39                   4%
        Blue Sky                                      47                   5%
        Kent Probation                                48                   6%
        Portobello Business Centre                    82                   9%
        St Giles Trust                               173                   20%
        St Mungo’s                                   217                   25%
        Southampton City Council                     159                   18%
        HMP Springhill                                86                   10%
        Westgate Support & Care                       19                   2%
        Total                                        870                   99%
.


The large majority of Exodus beneficiaries – 90% - were male; only four of the lead
agencies (Blue Sky, Kent Probation, Portobello Business Centre and St Giles) worked
with women under the Exodus programme. (See Table C1 in Appendix C for the full
gender breakdown of beneficiaries.) The ages of beneficiaries ranged from 18 to 71, with
an average (mean) age of 32. Around three-quarters of beneficiaries were aged between
20 and 40, but all lead agencies worked with beneficiaries from a variety of age groups.
Springhill had a far greater proportion of beneficiaries aged over 51 (just over one
quarter) than all the other agencies. (See Table C2 in Appendix C.)

The ethnicity of beneficiaries was relatively mixed, although a clear majority – 58% -
were white. 12 The second largest ethnic group was black, to which 27% of beneficiaries
belonged. As would be expected, the agencies based largely or exclusively in London –
that is, St Mungo’s, St Giles, the Portobello Business Centre and Action Acton - had
much more ethnically diverse client groups than the agencies based outside London. For



12
  For this analysis, the more specific ethnic classifications used by EISS have been grouped into
the broad categories of ‘white’, ‘black’, ‘mixed’ and ‘other’.


                                               22
example, only 24 of the 79 (30%) Portobello beneficiaries were white, as were 85 of the
214 (40%) St Mungo’s beneficiaries. (See Table C3 in Appendix C.)


All Exodus beneficiaries were unemployed on joining Exodus; their lengths of
unemployment are shown in Figure 2.1. Here it can be seen that as many as 41% of
beneficiaries had been unemployed for over 3 years when they registered with the
programme; in contrast, just under one quarter had been unemployed for under six
months. All the lead agencies registered beneficiaries with lengths of unemployment
ranging from under six to over 36 months (see Table C4 for the full breakdown of lengths
of unemployment by lead agency).




      Figure 2.1: Beneficiaries’ lengths of unemployment on joining Exodus
                     (n = 833; missing values are excluded)


                                                    Under 6 Months
                                                         188
                                                         (23%)

                       36+ months
                         341
                         (40%)
                                                         6-11 months
                                                            107
                                                          (13%)


                                                    12-23 months
                              24-35 months              116
                                 81                     (14%)
                                 (10%)




Table 2.2 shows that 118, or 14%, of beneficiaries were classified as PPOs. The only
lead agencies with significant proportions of PPO beneficiaries were Kent Probation
(with 94% of beneficiaries PPOs), Blue Sky (43% PPOs) and Action Acton (33% PPOs).
Kent Probation, as a statutory service, was primarily focused on PPOs, and one of the
two partnerships led by Action Acton was a specific PPO initiative.




                                             23
                Table 2.2: PPO status of beneficiaries, by DP lead agency

                                 Beneficiaries’ PPO status
         Lead agency                                                         Total
                               Number PPOs      No. non-PPOs
     Action Acton                    13                   26                  39
     Blue Sky                        20                   27                  47
     Kent Probation                  45                   3                   48
     Portobello Business
                                      5                   77                  82
     Centre
     St Giles Trust                  12                  161                  173

     St Mungo’s                      10                  207                  217
     Southampton City
                                      3                  156                  159
     Council
     HMP Springhill                   7                   79                  86
     Westgate Support &
                                      3                   16                  19
     Care
     Total                           118                 752                  870
     (% ben.)                       (14%)               (86%)               (100%)



According to the EISS data, 346 beneficiaries (40% of the total) had formally left the
Exodus programme by 6 November 2007, after periods of engagement ranging from
under one to 20 months. The proportions who were shown to have de-registered varied
widely from agency to agency – from just 2% (one beneficiary) of the Kent Probation
beneficiaries to 85% of the Springhill beneficiaries (see Table C5 for full details on
registration status of beneficiaries, by DP lead agency). These discrepancies largely
reflect delays in the completion of exit forms by some DPs.


The EISS monitoring data also provide some insight into the status of beneficiaries –
referred to as beneficiary ‘outcomes’ – at the point of de-registration. However, for just
under half (169) of the 346 de-registered beneficiaries, the outcome is recorded as ‘not
known’ or no outcome is recorded; it appears that in the vast majority of these cases, de-
registration followed a loss of contact with the beneficiary.13 The outcomes recorded for

13
  The EISS database includes ‘reason for early leaving’ field for the de-registered beneficiaries.
For the de-registered beneficiaries with no outcome known or recorded, the reasons for leaving
are cited as: ‘lost contact’ (117 cases), ‘not known’ (19), ‘unplanned’ (4), ‘arrested’ (1), ‘unable to
cope’ (1). In the remaining 23 cases, no reason is given.




                                                  24
the remaining 177 de-registered beneficiaries are shown in Table 2.3, below. This
reveals that a little over half of them were unemployed on de-registration, a quarter were
in prison/sentenced, and 16 per cent were full-time or part-time employed or self-
employed.


  Table 2.3: Beneficiary ‘outcomes’ at point of de-registration, by DP lead agency
              (de-registered beneficiaries with known outcomes only)

                                          Outcomes on de-registration
 Lead agency       No.                 No. in                       No. in                           Total
                                                     No.
                   employed*         education/                    prison/             No. other**
                                                 unemployed
                                      training                   sentenced
Action Acton              1               -           6               2                     -          9
Blue Sky                  7               2                9                1               -         19
Kent Probation            1                -               -                -               -          1
Port. Business
                          -                -               -                -              1           1
Centre
St Giles Trust            2               1                6                9              2          20

St Mungo’s                3                -              13               14              2          32
Southampton               6               1                3               10              2          22
HMP Springhill            7                -              56                7               -         70
Westgate
                             1              -               1               1               -          3
Support & Care
Total*                      28              4              94               44              7          177
(% ben.)                  (16%)           (2%)           (53%)            (25%)           (4%)       (100%)
 *Includes full-time, part-time and self-employment.
 **Includes RIP (2), early leaver/planned (2), drug/alcohol rehab (2), deported (1).




                                                 25
3      EXERCISE 3 RESULTS



As noted in Chapter 1, above, 51 completed ‘Exercise 3’ forms were submitted by at
least five Exodus partners for the soft outcomes study. This chapter presents the
findings of the exercise.


Perceived improvements in job readiness


On the first page of Exercise 3,19 aspects of ‘job readiness’ were listed. Beneficiaries
were asked whether they had ‘much improved’, ‘improved’ or remained the ‘same’ in
relation to each, since being involved in Exodus. (A blank Exercise 3 form is reproduced
in Appendix A.)


Table 3.1 shows the levels of improvement noted with respect to all the job readiness
factors. The factors are listed in descending order from those with the highest to those
with the lowest number of ‘much improved’ responses. The factors seen as having
‘much improved’ by the greatest numbers of beneficiaries - at least 20 of the 51
beneficiaries in each case - were: ‘I know what I need to do to achieve my goals’; ‘I can
talk to and listen to others’; ‘I work as part of a team’; and ‘I know what sort of work to
apply for’.


Table 3.2 gives proportions of beneficiaries who cited each factor as having ‘improved’
or ‘much improved’ as opposed to having stayed the same. (The numbers of blank and
‘not applicable’ responses are excluded.) This reveals that for as many as 14 out of the
19 factors, over half of the beneficiaries noted an improvement. Five of the factors
showed an improvement rate of over 70%: these were ‘I know what to do to achieve my
goals’; ‘I know where to turn for advice’; ‘I work as part of a team’; ‘I can talk to and listen
to others’ and ‘I understand my strengths and weaknesses’. At the other end of the
scale, the factors relating to childcare and to numeracy and literacy difficulties showed
the lowest improvement rates; but these factors also had the lowest numbers of valid
responses.



                                              26
           Table 3.1: Levels of improvement with respect to job readiness factors

                                                     No. ‘much       No.       No. ‘same’      N/A or
Job readiness factor
                                                     improved’    ‘improved’                   blank
I know what I need to do to achieve my goals             24           19             8           0
I can talk to and listen to others                       23           12            13           3
I work as part of a team                                 20           15            12           4
I know what sort of work to apply for                    20           13            16           2
I know where to turn to for advice (other than
                                                          18         20             11            2
Exodus staff)
I have a CV                                                16         10             19            6
I understand my strengths & weaknesses                     15         21             15            0
I can deal with frustrations in the workplace              14         16             16            5
I have suitable skills for work                            12         21             15            3
I understand my rights at work                             12         16             20            3
I keep appointments & turn up on time                      11         22             16            2
I know how best to fill in application forms               11         15             22            3
If I get work, I can sort out my benefits                  10         15             16           10
I know how to disclose my crim convictions                 10         13             25            3
I have suitable training and qualifications                 9         19             20            3
I know what to say at interviews                            7         16             25            3
I can use a computer                                        5         15             24            7
I have difficulty with reading, writing or numbers          5          5             17           24
I can arrange childcare                                     2          3              8           38
Total                                                     244        286            318          121


    Table 3.2: Percentage ‘improved’ or ‘much improved’ for each job readiness factor
                     (excluding blank and ‘not applicable’ responses)

                                                                  % ‘improved’ or    Total no. valid
   Job readiness factor
                                                                    ‘much imp’        responses
   I know what I need to do to achieve my goals                        84%                 51
   I know where to turn to for advice (other than Exodus staff)        78%                 49
   I work as part of a team                                            74%                 47
   I can talk to and listen to others                                  73%                 48
   I understand my strengths & weaknesses                              71%                 51
   I have suitable skills for work                                     69%                 48
   I know what sort of work to apply for                               67%                 49
   I keep appointments & turn up on time                               67%                 49
   I can deal with frustrations in the workplace                       65%                 46
   If I get work, I can sort out my benefits                           61%                 41
   I understand my rights at work                                      58%                 48
   I have suitable training and qualifications                         58%                 48
   I have a CV                                                         58%                 45
   I know how best to fill in application forms                        54%                 48
   I know how to disclose my crim convictions                          48%                 48
   I know what to say at interviews                                    48%                 48
   I can use a computer                                                45%                 44
   I can arrange childcare                                             38%                 13
   I have difficulty with reading, writing or numbers                  37%                 27


                                                     27
Table 3.3 shows the distribution of ‘improved’ and ‘much improved’ job readiness factors
among the beneficiary respondents. This reveals that the 51 individuals varied widely in
the scope or range of their perceived improvements. For example, one beneficiary did
not perceive an improvement with respect to any of the 19 job readiness factors, and a
further six – or 12% - of the beneficiaries believed that they had experienced just one,
two or three areas of improvement. In contrast, around a quarter of the beneficiaries, or
12 in number, perceived an improvement with respect to 16 to 18 of the job readiness
factors.


 Table 3.3: Distribution of ‘improved’ and ‘much improved’ job readiness factors
                                among beneficiaries

         No. ‘improved’ +      No. beneficiaries     % beneficiaries       Cumulative %
         ‘much improved’                                                   beneficiaries
              factors
     0                                 1                   2%                   2%
     1-3                               6                  12%                  14%
     4-6                               7                  14%                  28%
     7-9                               9                  18%                  46%
     10 - 12                           7                  14%                  60%
     13 - 15                           9                  18%                  78%
     16 - 18                          12                  24%                 102%*
     Total                            51                 102%*
         *Sum is not 100% because of rounding.




                                    Beneficiary quotation 2:

                The experience I have had on this course was very good. I was
                 encouraged and it has made me more motivated. This course
                  will help me in the future for whatever I decide to do and has
                                     made me more confident.

                (22-year-old PPO with convictions for robbery; currently
                undertaking voluntary work.)




                                             28
Levels of success in obtaining work


Page two of the Exercise 3 form comprised four further questions about the impact of
Exodus. The second of these questions was: ‘Have you got a job since being involved in
Exodus?’ Of the 42 beneficiaries who answered this question (nine of the 51
respondents did not complete the second page of the form), 25 stated that they had
obtained work, and 17 that they had not.14 However, some caveats were added to six of
the 25 positive responses: two respondents stated that the job was voluntary; two that
the work was casual or temporary; one stated that he was self-employed; and the sixth
that he had acquired a job but was currently not in employment.


The follow-up question was whether, for those respondents who had been successful in
obtaining work, the support received from Exodus had significantly helped with this.
Twenty-one of the 25 respondents with jobs answered this question positively. Of the
remaining four respondents with jobs, two expressed mild dissatisfaction with the role
played by Exodus, and the response from the other two was unclear. Hence, in
summary, it can be said that 25 out of 51 – or around 50% - of the Exercise 3
respondents found work of some kind while on the programme, and the great majority of
these 25 credited Exodus with a large role in this.


Given the focus of this study on soft outcomes, it is interesting to look at whether the
beneficiary respondents who were not successful in gaining work while under the
Exodus programme nevertheless perceived themselves to have achieved other
outcomes – or whether, conversely, lack of success in employment was associated with
lack of success in other areas. Table 3.4 compares ‘all respondent’ perceptions of
improvement in job readiness with perceptions among the sub-set of jobless
respondents.




14
  This is a much higher level of employment than is revealed by the EISS data in the previous
chapter’s Table 2.3, according to which only 16% of de-registered beneficiaries (with known
outcomes) had gained employment. The higher Exercise 3 employment rate is to be expected,
given that many or most of the beneficiaries in this sample had evidently had sustained and
ongoing engagement with Exodus, whereas Table 2.3 contains details of de-registered
beneficiaries only.


                                              29
The table makes it clear that the jobless respondents were, on the whole, less inclined
than the others to perceive improvements with respect to the various job readiness
factors. The only factors for which there were (marginally) higher improvement rates
among the jobless respondents were: ‘I have suitable skills for work’; ‘I can use a
computer’; and ‘I have difficulty with reading, writing or numbers’. For all other factors,
the ‘jobless respondent’ improvement rate was lower than the ‘all respondent’ rate – with
the greatest difference being 25 percentage points (for ‘If I get work, I can sort out my
benefits’; and ‘I understand my rights at work’).


However, it is also clear from Table 3.4 that, notwithstanding the relatively lower ‘jobless
respondent’ improvement rate, many of these beneficiaries perceived positive job
readiness outcomes. For ten of the 19 job readiness factors, some or much
improvement was noted by at least half of the jobless respondents; and only five factors
had an improvement rate of under 40 per cent. Around 70% of the jobless respondents
cited improvement for both ‘I know what I need to do to achieve my goals’ and ‘I have
suitable skills for work’.




                                   Beneficiary quotation 3:

                I think that the Exodus project was a great help in finding a job.
                       The Exodus worker was especially helpful and very
                  supportive throughout. I also gained a forklift licence through
                                            Exodus….

                (25-year-old with convictions for violent and drugs offences; now
                in full-time employment as a warehouse assistant.)




                                             30
   Table 3.4: Percentage ‘improved’ or ‘much improved’ for each job readiness
     factor: jobless respondents and all respondents (valid responses only)

                                                   % ‘improved’ or ‘much   % ‘improved’ or
   Job readiness factor                                imp’ – jobless      ‘much imp’ – all
                                                        respondents          respondents
   I know what I need to do to achieve my
                                                           71%                  84%
   goals
   I have suitable skills for work                         71%                  69%
   I know where to turn to for advice (other
                                                           63%                  78%
   than Exodus staff)
   I know what sort of work to apply for                   60%                  67%
   I work as part of a team                                57%                  74%
   I can deal with frustrations in the
                                                           54%                  65%
   workplace
   I can talk to and listen to others                      53%                  73%
   I have suitable training and qualifications             50%                  58%
   I have a CV                                             50%                  58%
   I can use a computer                                    50%                  45%
   I understand my strengths & weaknesses                  47%                  71%
   I know how best to fill in application forms            47%                  54%
   I keep appointments & turn up on time                   44%                  67%
   I know how to disclose my criminal
                                                           41%                  48%
   convictions
   I have difficulty with reading, writing or
                                                           38%                  37%
   numbers
   If I get work, I can sort out my benefits               36%                  61%
   I understand my rights at work                          33%                  58%
   I know what to say at interviews                        24%                  48%
   I can arrange childcare                                 20%                  38%




Perceptions of help received from Exodus


Two of the questions on page 2 of the Exercise 3 form were open-ended: namely, ‘What
do you feel are the most significant changes that you have made due to the support of
Exodus?’ and ‘If you are not in work, overall, do you feel that the support you have had
from Exodus staff has made you more ready for employment?’


The responses to these open-ended questions tended to refer to three broad kinds of
help that the beneficiaries had received from Exodus:




                                                  31
      Help in the form of practical assistance provided with job-related and other
       matters;
      Help that produced attitudinal change – particularly in terms of enhancing
       focus, motivation and self-confidence;
      The general sense of receiving support and care from individual case workers.


Practical assistance
A little over half (22) of the 42 beneficiaries who completed page 2 of the form referred to
the practical assistance they had received. In most cases, this assistance was directly
related to employment matters – for example, help with CV preparation, job searches,
finding voluntary work, and identifying and accessing training courses was mentioned.
Several beneficiaries referred to other practical issues such as accommodation, benefits
and health were also mentioned. One beneficiary said that she had been helped when
she locked herself out of her flat.


Attitudinal change
Twenty-one beneficiaries – a similar number to those who referred to practical
assistance – described receiving help from Exodus that had enabled them to develop
more constructive and optimistic attitudes towards employment and towards life in
general. Perhaps most significantly, some also referred to acquiring more positive
perceptions of themselves and their own abilities, as a result of their involvement in
Exodus. The following are some examples of the comments made about attitudinal
change:


      ‘Helped me focus on what I want to achieve and given me help to head in the
       right direction to reach my goals.’
      ‘Believe in myself more … Give me the confidence to search for a job.’
      ‘Having much more confidence in myself, to reach my goals and to remain drug-
       free and to most definitely love myself!’
      ‘I feel that I will be ready for work so that is a big achievement for me to do
       because I didn’t feel to god about myself after being in prison.’
      ‘Willingness to go out and apply for work and actually get a job.’




                                             32
      ‘Now I feel my life is going in the correct direction… It has encouraged me to
       achieve my goals I have set myself.’
      ‘Gained tremendous self-confidence and determination to achieve my future
       goals.’
      ‘It [i.e. getting a job] depends on the person – ie where you want to be and to
       realize that although things have gone wrong in a period of your life you can get
       back to where you were.’


Support and care
Fourteen of the beneficiaries expressed their general appreciation of the care and
support they had received from Exodus project workers. In many cases, evidently, a
crucial factor in the beneficiary’s self-perceived progress was the experience of building
and sustaining a relationship with an individual case-worker, and the consequent sense
of having someone to turn to at times of need. In other words, having access to support
could be, in itself, as important as the specifics of the advice or help that was offered.
For example:


      ‘C- [case worker] has given me a purpose to go forward in my life.’
      ‘I feel Exodus cares and I have very much appreciated D-‘s support and look
       forward now to the future.’
      ‘I know the support is there if I want it.’
      ‘Very supported when on the outside they were there for me.’
      ‘[Exodus workers] go out of their way to help in every capacity … I will never
       forget if I need help then ask.’
      ‘[I have been helped by] meeting staff who understand my needs.’
       ‘This organization is very effective for someone that can show commitment, just
       like the staff here who have been exceptionally helpful.’
      ‘Realising that there is help out there. When sometimes you feel things are
       against you.’


Less positive perceptions of Exodus?
Of the 43 beneficiaries who responded to the open-ended questions, 39 reported
positively on their involvement in Exodus. Four beneficiaries, in contrast, provided


                                               33
somewhat ambivalent responses – although there appeared to be a different cause of
the ambivalence in each case.


One of the four acknowledged that he had not been able to take advantage of the
opportunities provided by Exodus because of various personal problems he had
encountered during his period of involvement in the programme. Another commented
that while Exodus had provided help with training and his job search, there was a need
for ‘more consistency’ in the programme. The third’s account of the support he had
received from Exodus was that it had been ‘not much’ and had helped him ‘a bit’. And
the fourth noted that while he had managed to grow up, stay out of trouble, and remain
clean from drugs, he had ‘done this all on my own’. However, he added that ‘Exodus
were the only people who phoned me.’




                                          34
4      QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS OF THE SOFT OUTCOMES REVIEW


This chapter presents the key quantitative findings of the soft outcomes review; the
major qualitative findings are discussed in the chapter that follows.


Details of beneficiary sample


Data on 121 beneficiaries were gathered for the soft outcomes review. This is equivalent
to 14% of all 870 Exodus beneficiaries appearing on the EISS database as of 6
November 2007, or 15% of the full caseload excluding the 48 Kent Probation
beneficiaries (the Kent Probation DP did not participate in the review). As shown in
Table 4.1, the numbers of sampled beneficiaries per DP range from four to 20; or from
6% to 47% of the respective agencies’ full Exodus caseloads.15 Four DPs – Ford, St
Mungo’s, Southampton and Project Sprint – did not meet the sampling target of 15% of
the caseload or at least eight cases (whichever was the larger), due to their other
commitments at the time of the soft outcomes study.


It was intended that half of the sampled beneficiaries should be classified as ‘engaged’
(that is, having been involved in the programme for over four months) and the other half
classified as ‘disengaged’ (less than four months’ involvement). In practice, five of the
DPs did not provide equal numbers of engaged and disengaged beneficiaries, because
of misunderstandings over the criteria for inclusion in the sample. The net result of this is
that the sample comprises 66 engaged and 55 disengaged beneficiaries.


The quantitative data presented in the remainder of this chapter are not broken down by
individual DP, both because the numbers of cases per DP are small, and because the
review has not sought to link specific outcomes to specific types of intervention – but
rather has aimed to identify common themes and processes across partnerships.




15
  Because of the structure of the EISS database, caseload information is broken down by lead
agency rather than DP.


                                             35
                               Table 4.1: Beneficiary sample

                                         No. in sample                              % Exodus
DP                                                                      Total
                                 Engaged           Disengaged                       caseload

Action Acton                         4                   4                8
London PPOs                                                                            41%
                                     6                   2                8
(Action Acton)
Blue Sky                             4                   4                8            17%
Portobello Business Centre           6                   6                12           15%
Ford (St Giles)                      2                   2                4
Highdown (St Giles)                  4                   4                8
                                                                                       21%
Holloway (St Giles)                  6                   6                12
Lambeth & Southwark Rtns
                                     7                   5                12
(St Giles)
St Mungo’s                           7                   5                12               6%
Southampton City C’l                 9                   11               20           13%
Project Spring                       4                   4                8                9%
Westgate Support & Care              7                   2                9            47%
Total                               66                   55              121           15%*
*15% of full Exodus caseload of 822, which excludes the 48 Kent Probation beneficiaries.


Fifteen per cent of the beneficiary sample were women - a somewhat larger proportion
than the 10% of the full Exodus caseload who were women. As was true also of all
Exodus beneficiaries, around three-quarters of the sample were aged between 20 and
40. The mean age of the sampled beneficiaries was 33 (very close to the full caseload’s
mean age of 32). In terms of ethnicity, also, the make-up of the sample reflected the full
caseload: notably, 58% of the sample were white and 28% black, while the equivalent
figures for all beneficiaries were 58% and 27% respectively. (The full gender, age and
ethnicity breakdowns of the beneficiary sample are presented in Tables C6, C7 and C8
in Appendix C.)


Among the background information collected on the sampled beneficiaries were details
on their housing situation (as recorded on the latest case-file entry, rather than at their
point of entry to Exodus) and their educational qualifications. With regard to housing,
around one quarter were in social housing and a similar proportion were staying with



                                              36
friends and family. 13% of beneficiaries were staying in hostels, 12% in private rented
accommodation, and 12% were of no fixed abode. (See Table C9 in Appendix C for full
details).


Sixty-two per cent of the sampled beneficiaries were educated up to GCSE and/or NVQ
level, while just under a quarter had no educational qualifications (see Table C10). It
should be noted that the figures on education exclude any qualifications that appear to
have been gained under the Exodus programme, as the number of these was negligible.




                                   Beneficiary quotation 4:

               I’d lost the ability to know how to access any help…but support
                  came when I was in prison, and I’ve been given a lot of self
              confidence….I would very much like to become a member of this
                   agency [Exodus partner] and I’ve undertaken a number of
                 courses recommended to me, and I’m currently working as a
                volunteer with young offenders….they’re helping me focus on
                    achieving my desired goals, signposting me to the right
                 courses…this has brought me into a different environment to
                                         what I’d known…

              (45-year-old with criminal convictions relating to a previous crack
              cocaine habit and alcohol dependency.)




Offending histories of beneficiary sample


As part of the soft outcomes review, information was gathered about the sampled
beneficiaries’ offending histories and related issues. More specifically, the data collection
form included questions about type and level of offending, length of last prison sentence,
and drug use. In addition, it was noted if beneficiaries were PPOs; this established that a
total of 24 of the beneficiaries (comprising 13 engaged and 11 disengaged), or 20% of
the full sample, were PPOs. This is a higher proportion than the 14% of the full Exodus
caseload who were PPOs.




                                             37
While PPO status was recorded for all the sampled beneficiaries, in a substantial
number of cases – and particularly where the DP lead agency was not prison-based -
comprehensive information on offending was not available to the case workers who
completed the data collection forms. What information was available is summarised in
the figures below.


Figure 4.1 gives a broad overview of levels of offending, in terms of numbers of previous
convictions. This shows that of the 73 beneficiaries on whom there are data, seventy per
cent had more than five previous convictions, and only 11% had a single conviction.



             Figure 4.1: Level of offending of sampled beneficiaries
                       (n = 73; missing values are excluded)
  No. beneficiaries

      60                                                    51 (70%)

      50
      40                                                       24
                                                                              Disengaged
      30
                                      14 (20%)                                Engaged
      20
                  8 (11%)
                                         5                     27
      10
                      4                  9
       0              4
                      1                 2-5                 Over 5
                                  No. convictions




Figure 4.2 shows the types of offences committed by the sampled beneficiaries; this
includes each beneficiary’s most serious offence only. These data should be treated with
caution: even where beneficiary offence information was available, it was difficult to
ascertain the ‘most serious’ offence because accounts of offence types tended to be
highly generic. Nevertheless, the table provides some insight into the range of offences
committed and indicates that, for example, drugs-related offences, theft, assault and
burglary were relatively common – making up two-thirds of most serious offending
between them.




                                              38
                  Figure 4.2: Most serious offences committed by sampled beneficiaries
                                   (n = 115; missing values are excluded)

                          Public Order 1 0

                      Sexual Offences 1       2

                              Robbery         3           3

           Firearms/ Offensive Weapons            5                3

                        Driving-related               7                 3

     Offence type Fraud/ Deception                        8                 3

                              Burglary                7                           10

                              Assault                             12                        6

                        Theft/Handling                    8                            11

                        Drugs Related                              13                            7

                                          0                   5             10              15       20   25

                                                                         No. of beneficiaries


                                                                        Engaged         Disengaged




The length of the most recent prison sentence ranged from 1.5 to 120 months.16 As can
be seen from Figure 4.3, 28% of beneficiaries had received sentences of between 1.5
and 3.5 months, and a further third of between 4 and 6.5 months. Nine per cent of
beneficiaries had sentences of more than one year.




16
  It is assumed that the figures provided on ‘length of last prison sentence’ represent the months
sentenced rather than months served, but in some cases the figure may refer to time served.


                                                              39
            Figure 4.3: Length of last prison sentence received by sampled
                         beneficiaries (n = 100; missing values are excluded)
  No. beneficiaries

       40
       30
                               17
       20        14
                                                                    7                              1
       10        14            16                   6                               0
                                                    7              10               4              4
        0
              1.5 - 3.5   4 - 6.5 mnths      7 - 9 mnths      10 - 12 mnths 13 - 24 mnths       25 mnths +
               mnths
                                                 Length of sentence


                                             Engaged         Disengaged




Of the 115 sampled beneficiaries on which information was available, 75, or 65%, were
said to be drug users (this figure includes those who were said to have a problem with
alcohol). Figure 4.4 shows the beneficiaries’ favoured drugs, and reveals that a little over
a third of the beneficiaries (36%) were users of heroin and/or crack/cocaine.



      Figure 4.4: Drug use of sampled beneficiaries (n = 115; missing values excluded)
  No. beneficiaries
         45
                                                                                                             40(35%)
         40
         35
         30
               18(16%)
                                                                                                               19
         25               15(13%)         15(13%)
         20
                                                         11(10%)        11(10%)
         15
                    9         7              6                                      3(3%)       2(2%)
         10                                                  5            5                                    21
          5         9         8              9               6            6             1         0
          0                                                                             2         2
                                 Heroin & crack                     Alcohol                 Alc & cannabis
             Cannabis
                    Crack/cocaine               Heroin                            Amphetamines               no current
                                                                                                             drug issues

                                                        Favoured drug(s)


                                                        Engaged         Disengaged




                                                    40
                                   Beneficiary quotation 5:

                  I have received an enormous amount of support from my
               advisor at [Exodus Partner]… I have now stopped drinking and
                                  feel far more in control…..

              (37-year-old with one conviction for domestic violence.)



Exodus involvement and outcomes


Lengths of engagement
While the sampled beneficiaries are broadly grouped into those with under four months’
engagement with Exodus (‘disengaged’) and those with over four months’ (‘engaged’),
lengths of engagement within both groupings vary. Summary information on lengths of
engagement is presented in Table 4.5; the numbers in brackets signify the number of
ongoing registrations at the date of data collection. The figures for lengths of
engagement derive from dates of formal registration and de-registration, although in
some cases formal de-registration occurred weeks or months after the beneficiary
effectively disengaged from Exodus. A consequence of this is that a small number of the
‘disengaged’ beneficiaries are shown in the figure as having had periods of engagement
of over four months.


There were, in total, 76 beneficiaries who were formally de-registered at the time of data
collection (compared to 41 whose registration was ongoing). For the de-registered
beneficiaries, information was collated on the reasons for disengagement. This is
presented in Figure 4.6, which shows that by far the most common reason for
disengagement was loss of contact.




                                             41
          Figure 4.5: Sampled beneficiaries’ lengths of engagement with Exodus
                          (n = 118; missing values are excluded)
No. beneficiaries*
                        32 (1)
    35
    30
    25
                                                              15 (8)
    20                             14 (4)                                                 13 (12)
            14 (0)                              13 (6)                                              10 (6)
    15                    31                                       0
                                       5           2                        7 (4)             0
    10                                                                                                 0
               14                                                  15         0              13
     5                                 9           11                                                 10
                                                                              7
     0       0             1
            1-2          3-4         5-6         7-8           9 - 10      11 - 12        13 - 18   19 - 24
           months       months      months      months         months      months         months    months
                                               Length of engagement

                                              Engaged         Disengaged

*Numbers in brackets signify ongoing engagement




             Figure 4.6: Reasons for disengagement from Exodus – de-
                       registered beneficiaries only (n = 70*)
            *6 cases where reasons for de-registration ‘unknown’ excluded; total number of de-
                                       registered beneficiaries = 76.
                       17%                    7%

                                                         7%                       No contact/did not wish to
                                                                                  engage
                                                                                  Disengaged on release from
         11%                                                  6%                  custody
                                                                                  Gained employment/ self
                                                               3%                 employment
                                                                                  Sentenced to Custody
                                                              7%
                                                                                  Drug/ Alcohol problems

                                                                                  Moved out of the Area

                                                                                  Entered residential rehab
                            42%

                                                                                  Other




                                                   42
Employment status
Although this present study is not concerned with hard outcomes such as employment,
the employment status of beneficiaries can be viewed as an important part of the context
in which soft outcomes may be achieved. Hence Table 4.2 displays the sampled
beneficiaries’ current employment status (in other words, reflecting the latest record of
status on file). Taking into account the fact that all beneficiaries were unemployed on
entering the Exodus programme, it is notable these figures show as many as 28% of the
sample to have been currently in full-time employment, and a further 13% working on a
part-time, temporary or self-employed basis.17 40 per cent, meanwhile, remained
unemployed. While around a third of the engaged beneficiaries (20 of 61) were in full-
time employment, the corresponding figure for the disengaged was about one quarter
(11 of 47).


Achievement of soft outcomes
The data collection form included a tick-box section for the recording of soft outcomes
achieved. A variety of soft outcomes were listed, with space for case workers to list
additional ones. For each soft outcome achieved, the case worker was also required to
indicate the level of attribution to the Exodus programme: that is, whether it was a direct
outcome of Exodus, could be jointly attributed to Exodus and other interventions, or
Exodus had contributed to outcome in a limited way.


The recording of soft outcomes in this manner was not an objective or scientific exercise.
First, the processes of identification and attribution of soft outcomes by case workers
was to a large extent a matter of judgement, and hence was unlikely to be undertaken
consistently between or even within DPs. Additionally, it should be noted that some
kinds of outcome were more relevant to certain DPs than to others: for example,
outcomes relating to self-employment had most application to the work undertaken by


17
  As applies also to the Exercise 3 employment rate, the employment rate found by the soft
outcomes review is significantly higher than that revealed by the EISS data in Table 2.3 (Chapter
2), according to which only 16% of de-registered beneficiaries with known outcomes had gained
employment. The higher employment rate found by the soft outcomes review is to be expected,
given that many of the beneficiaries in the review sample had sustained and ongoing
engagement with Exodus, whereas Table 2.3 contains details of de-registered beneficiaries only.



                                               43
the Portobello Business Centre. Nevertheless, the soft outcomes quantitative data,
which are presented below in Figures 4.7-4.9 and Tables 4.3-4.4, provide an interesting
overview of the range of achievements of the DPs.


                 Table 4.2: Employment status of sampled beneficiaries
                          (n=112; missing values are excluded)

                                              No. beneficiaries                          Total
Employment status
                                         Engaged           Disengaged                 (% all ben.)
                                                                                           31
Full-time employment                        20                     11
                                                                                        (28%)
                                                                                            7
Part-time employment                         3                     4
                                                                                         (6%)
                                                                                            1
Temporary work                               1                      -
                                                                                         (1%)
                                                                                            7
Self-employed                                4                     3
                                                                                         (6%)
                                                                                            5
Full-time education                          -                     1
                                                                                         (4%)
                                                                                            5
Part-time education                          4                     1
                                                                                         (4%)
                                                                                            3
Training                                     3                      -
                                                                                         (3%)
                                                                                            1
Carer                                        -                     1
                                                                                         (1%)
                                                                                            7
Unable to work – disabled/sick               5                     2
                                                                                         (6%)
                                                                                           45
Unemployed                                  21                     24
                                                                                        (40%)
                                                                                          112
Total                                       61                     47
                                                                                        (99%)




Figure 4.7 shows the different soft outcomes identified, and the frequency with which
each was noted, with the figures presented as percentages in Table 4.3. (See also Table
C11 in Appendix C for the absolute numbers.) The first point to note in relation to these
figures is that relatively few outcomes – a total of 3% - were recorded as resulting from
‘limited’ input from Exodus; this is likely to have been because case workers did not
consider themselves in a position to comment on outcomes which were largely
attributable to other organisations. It is also immediately apparent that the kinds of soft
outcomes achieved varied widely. While some were very broad and related to the
general orientation (e.g. self-confidence) or circumstances (e.g. accommodation, family
situation) of the beneficiary; others directly reflected practical efforts to enter



                                                 44
employment (e.g. training, job enquiries); and yet others reflected the achievement of
highly practical tasks such as a visit to the dentist or opening a bank account. The
significance of these kinds of practical achievements should not be overlooked in the
context of lives that had often been highly chaotic and spent on the very margins of
society.


The outcomes most commonly recorded were ‘sourced/undertook training’ (11% of all
outcomes), ‘improved self-confidence’ (10.5%) and ‘more job-ready’ (10.3%). Other
relatively common outcomes related to sustained engagement with other services,
accommodation, telephone job enquiries, internet job searches, disclosure, and CV
production. The large ‘other’ category encompasses 18 different specific outcomes, each
of which was recorded no more than twice, including ‘accessed support for alcohol
issues’, ‘removed from PPO list’ and ‘joined library’.




                                             45
               Figure 4.7: Types and numbers of soft outcomes recorded
                            (excluding ‘other’ category)


                               Change in attitude

                                  More job-ready

                        Improved self-confidence

                                  Other business

                        Raised business finance

                        Developed business plan

   Undertook work experience (inc voluntary work

                                   Produced CV
Type of
soft outcome         Dealt with disclosure issues

                 Conducted internet job searches

                 Made job enquiries by telephone

                      Sourced/undertook training

                         Acquired email account

                          Acquired bank account

           Acquired passport/other identification

                                   Visited dentist

                 Engagement in leisure activities

          Resumed contact with family members

          Gained suitable/stable accommodation

       Sustained engagement with other services

                                                     0   10     20      30     40        50   60
                                                              No. soft outcomes

                                      Level of attribution:   Direct   Joint   Limited




                                                46
              Table 4.3: Types and percentages of soft outcomes recorded


                                                         % of all outcomes recorded (with
Outcome
                 Soft outcome                             level of attribution to Exodus)     Total
category
                                                           Direct        Joint      Limited
                 Sustained engagement with
                                                           4.7%         2.9%        0.3%      7.9%
                 other services
                 Gained suitable/stable
                                                           4.6%         2.2%        0.8%      7.6%
Engagement       accommodation
and social       Resumed contact with family
                                                           1.7%         0.8%        0.3%      2.9%
inclusion        members
                 Engagement in leisure activities          1.9%         0.5%          -       2.4%
                 Visited dentist                           0.3%         0.7%          -       1.0%
                 Acquired passport/other
                                                           4.6%           -           -       4.6%
                 identification
Administrative   Acquired bank account                     2.2%         0.3%          -       2.5%

                 Acquired email account                    1.7%         0.3%        0.3%      2.4%
                 Improved self-confidence                  7.4%         2.9%        0.2%      10.5%
Attitude         More job-ready                            8.6%         1.7%          -       10.3%
                 Change in attitude                        0.7%         0.2%          -       0.8%
                 Sourced/undertook training                8.8%         1.7%        0.5%      11.0%
                 Made job enquiries by
                                                           6.9%         1.0%          -       7.9%
                 telephone
                 Conducted internet job
Directly                                                   7.3%         0.3%          -       7.6%
                 searches
employment-
related          Dealt with disclosure issues              5.9%         1.2%        0.2%      7.3%

                 Produced CV                               6.2%         0.3%          -       6.6%
                 Undertook work experience (inc
                                                           0.7%         0.2%          -       0.8%
                 voluntary work
                 Developed business plan                   1.2%           -           -       1.2%
Self-
                 Raised business finance                   0.5%           -           -       0.5%
employment
                 Other business                            0.5%           -           -       0.5%
Other            Other*                                    3.4%         0.2%        0.3%      3.9%

Total                                                      79.6%       17.4%        3.0%      100.0%
  *Encompasses 18 different outcomes.




                                                    47
Table 4.4 presents summary data from the two preceding tables: that is, the numbers of
recorded outcomes within the broad outcome categories. Here it can be seen that
employment-related outcomes were the most common (accounting for 41% of all
outcomes recorded), followed by those relating to engagement and social inclusion, and
those relating to attitude (both 22%).

    Table 4.4: Numbers and percentages of outcomes recorded within outcome
                                  categories


                                           No.s recorded, with level of
                                                                                   Total
                                              attribution to Exodus
 Outcome category                                                             (% all recorded
                                          (% of all recorded outcomes)
                                                                                outcomes)
                                          Direct          Joint    Limited
                                            78             42          9            129
 Engagement and social inclusion         (13.2%)         (7.1%)     (1.5%)        (21.8%)
                                             50            4           2               56
 Administrative                           (8.4%)        (0.7%)      (0.3%)          (9.4%)
                                             99           28           1              128
 Attitude                                (16.7%)        (4.7%)      (0.2%)         (21.6%)
                                            212           28           4              244
 Directly employment-related             (35.8%)        (4.7%)      (0.7%)         (41.1%)
                                             13                                        13
 Self-employment                                           -           -
                                          (2.2%)                                    (2.2%)
                                             20            1           2               23
 Other
                                          (3.4%)        (0.2%)      (0.3%)          (3.9%)
                                            472           103         18              593
 Total
                                         (79.6%)       (17.4%)      (3.0%)        (100.0%)



Distribution of soft outcomes
Figures 4.8 and 4.9 show the distribution of soft outcomes across the sample of
beneficiaries, only including those that were recorded as either ‘directly’ or ‘jointly’
attributable to Exodus. Figure 4.8 shows that, as would be expected, the ‘engaged’
beneficiaries (that is, engaged for more than four months) achieved more outcomes than
the ‘disengaged’ (engaged for under four months). Nearly 70% of engaged beneficiaries
achieved between 5 and 14 soft outcomes, while around three-quarters of the
disengaged achieved between none and four. However, not all engaged beneficiaries
achieved many outcomes and, conversely, not all disengaged beneficiaries achieved
few or none. For example, 12% of the engaged achieved no or one soft outcome; and
25% of the disengaged achieved five or more.



                                              48
From Figure 4.9, it can be seen that just under half of all the sampled beneficiaries
achieved between 5 and 14 soft outcomes each, while 35% achieved between one and
four, and 16% achieved none.




            Figure 4.8: Distribution of directly & jointly attributed soft outcomes
                        among engaged & disengaged beneficiaries
 % of
 beneficiaries
              35%                                                             30%
              30%         27%
                                          25%
            25%                                          22%      23%
                                                      20%
            20%                                                      18%
                                                                                            15%
            15%
            10%      6%              6%                                             5%
              5%                                                                                  2%
              0%
                     None             1                    2-4      5-7       8 - 10           11- 14
                                                 No. of outcomes achieved

                                                      Engaged    Disengaged




               Figure 4.9: Distribution of directly & jointly attributed soft outcomes
                               among all sampled beneficiaries


                                9%
                                                16%

                                                                              None
                    19%
                                                                              1 soft outcome
                                                       15%                    2 - 4 soft outcomes
                                                                              5 - 7 soft outcomes
                                                                              8 - 10 soft outcomes
                                                                              11- 14 soft outcomes
                      21%
                                                20%




                                                      49
Because of the relatively small size of the sample included in the soft outcomes review,
the research team decided not to conduct a statistical analysis of the relationship
between soft outcomes achieved and other variables. However, the sub-group of
beneficiaries who had achieved the most soft outcomes – defined as those 34, or 28%,
of the 121 sampled beneficiaries who had achieved eight or more outcomes – was
examined to see if it had any particular characteristics.


The first point to note with respect to this ‘high outcomes’ sub-group was that it included
beneficiaries from 9 of the 12 DPs. In terms of gender, age and ethnicity, the make-up of
the sub-group reflected that of the beneficiary sample as a whole. This was also broadly
true of the level of drug use and lengths of last prison sentence among the members of
the sub-group.


One notable feature of the ‘high outcomes’ sub-group was that it included a
disproportionately low number of PPOs: only 3, or 9%, of the 34 sub-group members
were PPOs, compared to 24, or 20%, of the 121 beneficiaries in the full sample. It is
perhaps unsurprising that PPOs were under-represented among the beneficiaries who
had achieved most outcomes, since PPOs were more likely than other beneficiaries to
have intractable problems. A related feature of the ‘high outcomes’ sub-group was that it
had a disproportionately high number of beneficiaries with a single previous conviction –
at 5 of 19 (26%), compared to 8 of 73 (11%) of the full sample (excluding cases on
which data were unavailable). Again, this is to be expected, given that beneficiaries with
short offending histories may have been the most amenable to using and building on the
help offered by Exodus.




                                             50
5       QUALITATIVE FINDINGS OF THE SOFT OUTCOMES REVIEW



This chapter focuses on the qualitative material collected on the soft outcome review
forms. The qualitative material largely comprises case workers’ detailed descriptions of
work conducted under Exodus and the extent to which soft outcomes resulted from this
work.18 Three main themes emerged from the qualitative analysis: first, that there is
often – although not always – a need for sustained, multi-dimensional interventions if
soft outcomes are to be achieved; secondly, the fact that different kinds of outcomes can
mutually reinforce each other; thirdly, the existence of factors that can inhibit the
achievement of soft outcomes. Each of these themes is discussed in turn in this
chapter.


Sustained, multi-dimensional interventions


Many of the cases examined for the soft outcomes review illustrate that the achievement
of soft outcomes depends on sustained engagement between the individual and the
agencies supporting him, and on the provision of help with the range of problems faced
by the individual. As has long been recognized by the research literature in this field, ex-
offenders tend to face multiple barriers to labour market entry. The barriers can be any
combination of factors such as a low level of basic numeracy and literacy skills; a lack of
educational qualifications and training; a lack of recent employment experience
(particularly if the offender has just been released from a custodial sentence); physical
and/or mental health problems; social or behavioural disorders; and discrimination on
the part of potential employers.19 Addressing these difficulties as interlinked factors,
rather than focusing on particular issues in isolation, appears to offer a greatest chance
of success in achieving outcomes of all kinds. Indeed, this is a rationale of the multi-
agency approach deployed by the Exodus programme, within which beneficiaries have
the opportunity to engage with the various services which make up the development
partnerships.


18
  As recorded on the soft outcomes review data collection forms – see Appendix B.
19
  See, for example, Social Exclusion Unit (2002), Fletcher, Woodhill and Herrington (1998),
Nacro (2006).


                                               51
Among the beneficiaries sampled for the soft outcomes review, the large majority of
those who achieved several soft outcomes had evidently received multi-dimensional
interventions over substantial periods of time. Just one example is that of John: a 37-
year-old repeat offender who was released from Wormwood Scrubs having served a
four-month sentence for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Following his release,
he maintained regular contact (amounting to more than 100 hours) with Exodus over
almost two years, during which period he achieved many soft outcomes and, ultimately,
full-time employment. Through his involvement with Exodus, John received practical
guidance and assistance with writing his CV, filling out job applications, identifying
appropriate training courses (including a forklift truck driving course which he undertook),
applying for his passport and setting up an email account. He was also supported when
he appeared in court with respect to his rent arrears; participated in role-play group
sessions aimed at improving self-confidence; and encouraged to re-build his relationship
with his father and brother who – he was convinced – had always seen him as the ‘black
sheep’ of the family.



                                   Beneficiary quotation 6:

               I have changed my outlook on life and due to the support I have
               found a job and am happier in all areas of my life. I am pleased
                to have been involved with it and hope others benefit as much
                                          as I did…

              (26-year-old with convictions for burglary and driving offences.
              Having previously not worked for 4 years, he is now employed
              as a ‘driver’s mate’.)




Specific dimensions
In many cases, housing-related interventions were a particularly significant component
of the multi-dimensional work undertaken with beneficiaries. Very often, effective work in
other areas could not be carried out unless and until a beneficiary’s need for stable
accommodation had been dealt with. A notable example here is that of 28-year-old
Michael who, over the course of the year in which he was engaged with Exodus,
received help of various kinds but particularly focused on housing. The Exodus workers



                                             52
contacted local housing associations on his behalf, and supported him as he was
interviewed and took up the offered accommodation. The result was that, in the words of
the case worker, ‘he has gone from being homeless with severe drug [heroin] addiction,
he is now in stable accommodation and applying for college courses and attending
counselling’.


Likewise, dealing with health and, in particular, drug or alcohol issues was often an
integral part of work under the Exodus programme. This typically took the form of
referring beneficiaries to appropriate health and drug or alcohol services, and supporting
them as they took up the services. In the case of a 35-year-old prolific offender and
crack cocaine user, for example, his case worker liaised with his PPO police officer over
referral to a drug day programme, and subsequently liaised the day programme itself
regarding the beneficiary’s attendance and level of motivation. On another project, a
case worker helped her 47-year-old client access residential treatment for alcohol
dependency; having received this treatment, the beneficiary was then able to start re-
establishing relations with his family, including his two teenage children.


For many beneficiaries, finances were another aspect of daily life with which they
needed direct and urgent assistance. Financial problems were often closely related to
other problems they faced – and resolving any looming financial crisis could be a
precondition for making progress in other areas. Jane was a 57-year-old beneficiary who
had served a sentence at Holloway Prison for benefit fraud. After enrolling with Exodus,
she had almost 150 face-to-face and telephone contacts over the following 20 months,
most of which focused on debt management and access to benefits. The caseworker
also attended court with her when she appeared with respect to council tax areas, and
helped her apply for grants from charitable organizations to assist with living expenses.
For the soft outcomes review, the case worker reported that Jane was ‘gaining control of
own financial management – now even keeps files and records of all financial outgoings
and bills’.


Another important aspect of the Exodus programme’s holistic, multi-dimensional
approach to working with offenders was that it permitted a focus on the relatively minor
but nevertheless significant aspects of life, alongside the emphasis on the ‘big’ issues



                                             53
such as housing, health and finances. For individuals who had long considered
themselves, and been considered by others, far outside the mainstream of society,
undertaking something as relatively straightforward as visiting the dentist (several
beneficiaries visited the dentist for the first time in many years – sometimes
accompanied by the Exodus caseworker), opening an email account or joining a library
could in themselves signify small advances towards a more settled way of life.


While many Exodus interventions were highly practical in nature, all the Exodus DPs
also had ample scope for undertaking work focused on beneficiaries’ emotional and
psychological needs. Much of this work was broadly aimed at enhancing levels of self-
confidence (see discussion of the ‘virtuous circle’ of outcomes, below); in many cases,
also, the emphasis was on encouraging beneficiaries who had hitherto lived highly
chaotic lives to be more organized and self-disciplined. For example, an important
feature of the support offered by Blue Sky, as a project directly engaged in providing
employment, was that beneficiaries were strongly encouraged and motivated to get up in
the morning and attend the project on time - ready and equipped for a day’s work.



                                   Beneficiary quotation 7:

               This project really helped me to improve my confidence, helped
                with travel and clothes and they really supported me. I really
                                benefited from the programme.

              (26-year-old with convictions for burglary and drugs offences. He
              is now working for the first time in 5 years – as a handyperson.)




The minority requiring a more focused approach
While, as argued above, many of the Exodus beneficiaries required multi-dimensional
interventions to address their multiple needs, there was a minority who required more
focused work in discrete areas. These were individuals who were not entrenched in an
offending and chaotic lifestyle, but had perhaps just one or two convictions, and had a
previous life of legitimate employment to which they (potentially) could return. Individuals
such as these might need assistance with particular practical or legal issues, and
possibly reassurance that they were able and qualified to take up employment again.


                                            54
One such individual was Sam, a 41-year-old with one conviction for sexual offences, for
which he served a 13-week prison sentence. He thought that, as a sexual offender, he
would not be employed again; the caseworker explained that this was not the case,
worked on disclosure issues with him and referred him to an agency through which he
gained full-time employment. This was achieved over just a six-week period of
engagement with Exodus. A similar case was that of Marc, a 26-year-old first time
offender (deception, for which he served 7 months); his caseworker swiftly helped him
establish that he could return to his university course and to his part-time employment. A
further case was Allen, a 25-year-old former bank worker who had been jailed for six
months for stealing from his employer. As someone who had been shocked to find
himself embroiled in the criminal justice system and jobless, he had needed help with
understanding the system of home detention curfew on which he had been released,
and with accessing benefits.


The ‘virtuous circle’ of outcomes


As noted in Chapter 1 of this report, soft outcomes can be seen as ends in themselves -
as manifestations of an individual’s greater inclusion in society and improved quality of
life – and as means to the end of achieving other outcomes. If the relationships between
different kinds of outcomes (both hard and soft) are examined, it rapidly becomes clear
that a ‘virtuous circle’ exists whereby an individual’s achievements of one kind both feed
into and feed off progress of other kinds.


Nowhere is this more apparent than with respect to the soft outcome of ‘improved self-
confidence’. As already noted, the promotion of self-confidence was an aim of much
work conducted under the Exodus programme. Certain activities undertaken by
beneficiaries, including sessions of group work and many one-to-one sessions with
caseworkers, were specifically devoted to enhancing self-confidence and self-esteem.
These efforts reflected a conviction that improved self-confidence would help an
individual to address his personal problems and to seek, find and maintain education
and employment. At the same time, successes in these other spheres – that is, in
addressing problems and pursuing employment-related goals – apparently helped to



                                             55
build confidence. Clearly, this reinforces the more general finding that interventions that
simultaneously target different areas of an individual’s life are likely to produce the best
results. Figure 5.1 provides illustrations of the inter-relationship between improved self-
confidence and other (soft and hard) outcomes.


Just as enhanced self-confidence could be both a building block and a consequence of
other outcomes, so also the establishment of family support and involvement could play
a pivotal role in relation to outcomes of other kinds - as illustrated by the examples
provided in Figure 5.2. A number of the caseworkers who contributed to the soft
outcomes review wrote of how beneficiaries had managed to re-establish ties with
parents, siblings or children that the offending behavior had fractured. The re-
establishment of these ties was often a reflection of the beneficiaries’ progress in other
areas; and the support and sense of responsibility that ensued from the renewed family
relations was a potential source of motivation to make further progress.




                                   Beneficiary quotation 8:

               I knew my prospects were very limited and it would have taken
                  me a long time (if ever) to achieve this without the Exodus
               team…I wanted to work and now I have a chance, and I’m very
                 grateful to them….It’s been a big weight off my shoulders….

               (36-year-old who received help which enabled him to acquire a
               heavy goods vehicle driving licence.)




                                             56
                               Figure 5.1: Inter-relationship between improved self-confidence and other outcomes


At the age of 50, Lucia had completed a 12-month prison                         Simon was a 29-year-old who had a number of convictions for theft –
sentence for fraud – her first offence. According to her                        the last of which resulted in a six-month prison sentence. On
caseworker, the experience of being convicted and serving a                     registering with Exodus, he ‘didn’t think he’d be able to get a legitimate
prison sentence had left her with no self-confidence.                           job – couldn’t even phone employers’ (as reported by his caseworker).

Lucia spent a year on the Exodus programme. Over this                           Over the few months he spent on the Exodus programme, his
period, in addition to receiving help with issues such as                       caseworker helped him with disclosure issues and supported him as
disclosure and preparing her CV, she began to undertake                         he carried out internet job searches and approached potential
voluntary work for the DP lead agency, and ultimately acquired                  employers. Initially, the caseworker attended with him when he
full-time, paid work with the agency. The caseworker                            registered at recruitment agencies; but as he became more confident
concluded that ‘The Exodus project was directly responsible                     he started to attend alone, and eventually succeeded in getting a job
for client gaining employment, and raising confidence and self-                 through his own efforts.
esteem to enable this.’

                                                              IMPROVED SELF-CONFIDENCE

Jim, a 54-year-old with approximately six                                                                Gabriel, a 23-year-old, had convictions for offences
convictions for driving-related offences,                                                                relating to drugs, violence, and offensive weapons.
registered with Exodus a month before release                                                            He registered with Exodus while in prison on remand;
from his latest (4-month) prison sentence. He                      OTHER OUTCOMES                        subsequently he was sentenced to a community
maintained regular contact with Exodus after                                                             order with a drug treatment requirement, aimed at
release, and after about six months was given            Joseph, a 46-year-old originally from           tackling his cocaine habit.
a one-day-a-week placement with the DP lead              Uganda, had 9 convictions for driving-
agency, so that he could gain work experience.           related offences when he registered             Under the Exodus programme, Gabriel received help
                                                         with Exodus. His last conviction – for          of many different kinds – including with finances,
The placement involved running a cookery                 drink driving and driving while                 accommodation, developing leisure interests, and
workshop for people with mental health                   disqualified – had resulted in a 5-month        initiating contact with his son. He also completed
problems – something which, according to his             prison sentence.                                basic skills education (maths and English) which,
caseworker, ‘he would never have had the                                                                 according to his caseworker, provided a considerable
opportunity or confidence to do [previously]’.           He was in regular contact with Exodus           boost to his previously very low self-confidence. He
Although he had not yet gained employment at             over an 18-month period, during which           was subsequently successful in acquiring some
the time of the soft outcomes review, the work           he received help with his housing               cleaning work, and was permitted to leave the drug
placement had led to job interviews.                     benefit claims, job applications and CV         treatment programme early because of progress
                                                         preparation. He also took up an                 made.
                                                         opportunity to volunteer for the local
                                                         ‘meals on wheels’ service. He told his
                                                         caseworker that the experience of
                                                                                 57
                                                         volunteering had helped to him to build
                                                         his confidence, develop skills, and
                                                         generally become more job-ready.
                    Figure 5.2: Inter-relationship between re-established family ties and other outcomes


Mac was a 28-year-old PPO with multiple convictions for
driving-related offences and theft. After release from his
latest prison sentence, he maintained regular contact with               Leon, a 35-year-old PPO, had a total of 22 convictions for theft and drugs
Exodus. Through his involvement in the programme, he                     offences. His last custodial sentence was 8 months. Over a period of two
was helped to gain accommodation with a local housing                    years, Exodus provided him with a great deal of various kinds including, in
association, undertook various training courses, gained                  particular, support with his efforts to address his heroin and crack cocaine
some temporary employment, and obtained a gym pass                       habits. He was also helped to obtain accommodation (in the form of a
which he used regularly.                                                 hostel) and to enroll on a training course.

Exodus also supported him as he sought to increase his                   Exodus also liaised with Leon’s family members. A sign of Leon’s improved
contact with his family. He was successful in developing a               self-confidence and the progress made in other areas was that, for the first
relationship with his mother, who encouraged him to                      time in several years, he spent Christmas with his family in 2006.
attend appointments with the dentist (whom he had not
visited for six years), optician and hospital.

                                                           RE-ESTABLISHED FAMILY TIES




                                                                 OTHER OUTCOMES

Paul, a 37-year-old, was serving his second prison sentence
for assault when he registered with Exodus. On release from                      19-year-old Rick was completing a 4-month sentence for assaulting
the 9-month sentence, he was – according to his                                  a police officer when he registered with Exodus. He self-referred to
caseworker – highly aggressive, and felt ‘the whole world                        the programme, having been recommended it by his step-father,
was against him’.                                                                an existing Exodus beneficiary.

Over the course of a year, he received general guidance                          Over the 18 months from registration with Exodus, Rick was in
and support from Exodus, as well as practical help with job                      regular contact with the programme, and received assistance with
searches, CV preparation, interview techniques and so on.                        job searches, accessing training, and more generally building his
He successfully addressed his problem drinking habit. His                        self-confidence. His caseworker also helped him to develop his
two children – a girl of 13 and boy of 6 – were in foster care                   relationship with his grandmother – having recognized that his
(their mother was an alcohol and drug abuser), and he                            mother, with whom he was initially staying, was not a good
spoke of his wish to gain custody of them. Exodus                                influence on his behaviour. At the time of the soft outcomes review,
supported him in this, for example by providing a character                      Rick was living with his grandmother, and she was helping him to
reference for an initial custody case. His caseworker wrote                      find suitable accommodation. Rick’s brother – a non-offender and
for the soft outcomes review that he ‘now has regular                            positive influence on him – was also living with the grandmother.
contact with his daughter, and is going in a positive
                                                                        58
direction, which is making him more settled and happier.
Factors inhibiting achievement of soft outcomes


It is argued above that the achievement of both soft and hard outcomes often
depends on tackling the range of problems that beneficiaries typically face. It follows
from this recognition that most beneficiaries had multiple needs that there were
multiple potential points of disruption to the services provided by Exodus – however
holistic and wide-ranging those services were. In other words, even where the
appropriate help was available, beneficiaries’ progress could be hindered by
unresolved problems such as drug or alcohol dependency, family and other
relationship breakdown, mental illness and homelessness. The converse of the
‘virtuous circle’ where achievements in different spheres of life feed into each other is
a vicious circle in which problems of one kind merge with and reinforce other
problems.


Among the cases submitted for the soft outcomes review were many in which the
beneficiaries’ pre-existing difficulties undermined the Exodus interventions, with the
result that no or very few soft outcomes were achieved. These included, for example,
the case of a 36-year-old PPO with many burglary convictions, who was directly
employed by one of the DPs. It was reported that he was given ‘lots of support … to
help him with his continuing heroin addiction, but it interfered heavily with his ability to
work and to get to work’. As a result, he left the programme. In another case, the
caseworker described a beneficiary’s reason for disengaging from Exodus as:
‘mental health issues and drink problem. Breakdown of relationship due to above’. (It
was also suggested that another contributory cause of the disengagement was that
the original caseworker who had worked with this individual had left the project.) Two
further examples were that of a 41-year-old who had been jailed for drink driving and
was said to have disengaged because he was ‘back drinking – had to leave hostel
and whereabouts unknown’; and a 38-year-old who had been making progress in
setting up his own computer cleaning business until there was a ‘sudden loss of
contact. Moved – mobile and email no longer connected. Suspect housing issues
was the problem’.


Very often, problems of drug dependency, homelessness and so on are intermeshed
with offending behavior; and as these problems re-emerge or continue, a return to
offending and ultimately to prison may almost be an inevitability. One beneficiary, a
25-year-old PPO with convictions for burglary and vehicle crime, was said to have


                                            - 59 -
been registered with Exodus for a year, but to have never fully engaged during that
period: ‘As soon as released ends up back in prison – hasn’t been at liberty for long
enough to achieve any goals’. Of course, the beneficiaries who fail to break the
habits associated with offending face other risks also: for example, one individual
initially registered with Exodus while in custody, but then was not heard from again
until the Exodus workers learnt through a local news report that he had been stabbed
in the neck and was in hospital in a critical condition. (The workers then attempted,
but failed, to make contact through the hospital.) In another tragic case, a 35-year-old
beneficiary with a history of shoplifting and drugs offences initially engaged well with
Exodus; but after a period of no contact the caseworker heard from a family member
that he had suffered a fatal drug overdose.


The cases cited above clearly illustrate that the availability of appropriate
interventions is not all that is required for beneficiaries to make progress under
Exodus. Even more critical is the individual’s motivation to engage and thereby
address whatever difficulties he faces. Often motivation is lacking – as is evident
from the substantial number of beneficiaries whose reason for disengaging from the
programme is simply recorded as ‘no contact’. In some cases, beneficiaries
apparently displayed commitment and motivation when initially registering on the
programme while in custody; but this was not sustained once release brought with it
full exposure to the distractions, frustrations and temptations of the outside world.
(Table 4.12 in the previous chapter shows that 29 of the sampled beneficiaries
disengaged from Exodus through loss of contact or because of not wishing to
engage, and a further 8 were said to have disengaged on release from custody.)


In some cases, beneficiaries sustained a degree of motivation over a relatively
extended period of time and achieved certain goals as a result; and yet, as obstacles
arose, were not sufficiently committed to overcome them. One such case was that of
Sally – a 32-year-old PPO with convictions for shoplifting and theft. She was
employed by the DP lead agency with which she was registered, and worked for
some months which was reported to be ‘the longest this beneficiary had ever held
down a job’. However, she subsequently ‘fell back into using drugs, … she got
caught in a stolen car and was sent back to prison’. At the time this happened, she
had just been given a college place to study for an NVQ2 in horticulture. Another
example is provided by Rebekah, a 40-year-old who had been imprisoned for drugs
supply offences. She was given help with setting up her own retail business; the
progress made was described as follows:


                                            - 60 -
       She started the prog with enthusiasm, but lacking in confidence in her
       business skills and herself. After spending a good deal of time training in
       reasoning and methods of business planning, she made good progress and
       produced a final business plan ready too apply for funding.

       At that point her skills were much improved, her daughter was very supportive
       and her confidence was up. She then began to cancel meetings at the last
       minute, and eventually sent a message to say that she needed to put
       everything on hold for the time being.

       A number of attempts have been made to find out if any help can be offered,
       as she had come so far, but she is resisting any offers.

Clearly, motivation is a dynamic rather than a static concept, and it is highly unlikely
that any individual could remain consistently motivated over the months and even
years of Exodus engagement. Some beneficiaries were able to overcome periods of
frustration and disappointment, while others could not. However, it is to be hoped that
the initial progress made by beneficiaries such as Sally and Rebekah will serve to
encourage and motivate them when opportunities arise again, in the future.       .


It is important to note also that early disengagement from Exodus did not always
reflect a lack of motivation on the part of the beneficiary, and/or the re-emergence of
personal problems. At least two of the sampled beneficiaries disengaged on the
grounds that they wished to ‘do it alone’ or ‘stand on their own two feet’. Two female
beneficiaries, both with young children, appeared to disengage because they wished
to break their links with their prison experience, and focus on their parenting role.




                                            - 61 -
5       CONCLUSIONS



Exodus was an ambitious and wide-ranging programme, funded by the European
Social Fund, which aimed to enhance the employability of ex-offenders and thereby
reduce recidivism and facilitate rehabilitation. It encompassed 13 multi-agency
projects across London and the south-east of England; these involved a range of
voluntary and community sector agencies and statutory services, and were variously
based in prison and community settings. The Exodus programme focused on current
or recent short-term prisoners and prolific or other priority offenders (PPOs). Over
the 30-month period of the programme’s operation, a total of 928 beneficiaries
registered on it.


MegaNexus was commissioned to undertake research into the ‘soft outcomes’
achieved by the Exodus programme. Soft outcomes are understood to be
manifestations of beneficiaries’ progress towards social inclusion other than the
attainment of employment, work placements and training and education. (The
achievement of these latter ‘hard outcomes’ has been evaluated separately, by
HOST Policy Research.) Soft outcomes can take a wide variety of forms – ranging
from specific and practical accomplishments such as opening a bank account or
making a long-delayed visited to a dentist; to more fundamental social and domestic
processes, such as resuming contact with estranged family members or acquiring
stable accommodation; to general improvements in the individual’s emotional or
psychological state.


The soft outcomes study entailed a review of Exodus monitoring data collated by
EISS; analysis of the results of a job-readiness questionnaire for beneficiaries known
as ‘Exercise 3’; and analysis of data submitted by caseworkers on 15% of all
beneficiaries (an exercise referred to as the ‘MegaNexus soft outcomes review’). In
addition to being reported upon here, the findings of this research will be considered
within the wider evaluation of Exodus Action 2 being undertaken by HOST Policy
Research.


Key findings


The EISS monitoring data show that 870 beneficiaries had registered on the
programme between August 2005 and August 2007, of whom 90% were male.


                                          - 62 -
Three-quarters of the beneficiaries were aged between 20 and 40 – although the full
age range was from 18 to 71. The majority – 58% - of beneficiaries were white, and a
little over one quarter black. Just 14% of the beneficiaries were PPOs.


The challenges associated with the Exodus aim of enhancing the beneficiaries’
employability should not be under-estimated. All beneficiaries were unemployed on
joining Exodus, and just over 40 per cent had been unemployed for over three years.
Among the beneficiaries sampled for the MegaNexus soft outcomes review, 70% had
more than five criminal convictions, and only 11% had a single conviction – with
drugs offences, theft, assault and burglary being the most common types of offences
committed (taking account of each beneficiary’s most serious offence only). Sixty-five
per cent of beneficiaries were said to be drug users, including those with alcohol
problems; a little more than a third were said to use heroin and/or crack/cocaine.


Exercise 3 findings
The Exercise 3 form listed 19 different aspects of ‘job readiness’, in relation to each
of which beneficiaries were asked to specify if they had ‘much improved’, ‘improved’
or remained the ‘same’, since being involved in Exodus. For as many as 14 out of the
19 factors, over half of the beneficiaries noted an improvement. Indeed, five of the
factors showed an improvement rate of over 70%; these were: ‘I know what to do to
achieve my goals’; ‘I know where to turn for advice’; ‘I work as part of a team’; ‘I can
talk to and listen to others’ and ‘I understand my strengths and weaknesses’.


Analysis of the distribution of ‘improved’ and ‘much improved’ job readiness factors
among the beneficiary respondents reveals that the 51 individuals varied widely in
the scope or range of their perceived improvements. While seven beneficiaries
believed that they had experienced three or fewer areas of improvement, 12
perceived an improvement with respect to 16 or more of the 19 job readiness factors.


Exercise 3 included open-ended questions about the help that had been received
from Exodus. The responses tended to refer to three broad kinds of help:


      Help in the form of practical assistance provided with job-related and other
       matters including accommodation and benefits;
      Help that produced attitudinal change – particularly in terms of enhancing
       focus, motivation and self-confidence;




                                           - 63 -
      The general sense of receiving support and care from individual case
       workers, and consequently having people to turn to at times of need


Of the 43 beneficiaries who answered the open-ended questions, 39 reported entirely
positively on Exodus, and four gave somewhat ambivalent responses.


MegaNexus soft outcomes review findings
For the soft outcomes review, data were collected on 121 beneficiaries from 12 of the
13 Exodus DPs. The data collection form included a section for recording specific
soft outcomes achieved by each beneficiary and noting whether they were
attributable to the Exodus programme directly, jointly, or to a limited extent. This
established that the soft outcomes achieved by beneficiaries were many and varied.


Some of the outcomes related to the general orientation (e.g. self-confidence) or
circumstances (e.g. accommodation, family situation) of the beneficiary; others
directly reflected practical efforts to enter employment (e.g. training, job enquiries);
and yet others reflected the achievement of highly practical tasks such as a visit to
the dentist or opening a bank account. The outcomes most commonly recorded were
‘sourced/undertook training’ (11% of all outcomes), ‘improved self-confidence’
(10.5%) and ‘more job-ready’ (10.3%). Other relatively common outcomes related to
sustained engagement with other services, accommodation, telephone job enquiries,
internet job searches, disclosure, and CV production. Just under half of all the
sampled beneficiaries achieved between 5 and 14 soft outcomes (counting those that
were directly or jointly attributable to Exodus only), while 35% achieved between one
and four, and 16% achieved none.


From qualitative data collected for the soft outcomes review (descriptions of work
conducted under Exodus and the resultant outcomes), three main themes emerged:


4. The need for sustained, multi-dimensional interventions
Many of the cases included in the review demonstrate that the achievement of soft
outcomes depended on sustained engagement between the individual and the
agencies supporting him, and on the provision of help with the range of problems
faced by the individual. Among the sampled beneficiaries, the large majority of those
who achieved several soft outcomes had evidently received multi-dimensional
interventions over substantial periods of time. In many cases, interventions related to
housing, health (including drug or alcohol dependency), and finances were


                                            - 64 -
particularly significant components of the help received. Another important aspect of
the Exodus programme’s multi-dimensional approach was that it permitted a focus on
relatively minor, highly practical issues alongside the ‘big’ issues such as housing,
health and finances. The Exodus projects also evidently had much scope for
undertaking work focused on beneficiaries’ emotional and psychological needs.


5. Different kinds of outcomes can mutually reinforce each other
When the relationships between different kinds of outcomes (both hard and soft) are
examined, it becomes clear that a ‘virtuous circle’ exists whereby an individual’s
achievements of one kind both feed into and feed off progress of other kinds.
Nowhere is this more apparent than with respect to the soft outcome of ‘improved
self-confidence’. It appears that improved self-confidence helped individuals to
address their personal problems and to obtain employment; and, at the same time,
successes in addressing personal problems and finding employment could help to
build confidence. Similarly, the re-establishment of family ties sometimes played a
pivotal role in relation to outcomes of other kinds: several beneficiaries managed to
re-build their relationships with family members, which was often a reflection of their
progress in other areas, and also helped to motivate them to make further progress.


6. There are factors that can inhibit the achievement of soft outcomes
It is argued above that the achievement of both soft and hard outcomes often
depended on tackling the range of problems that beneficiaries faced. It follows from
the fact that most beneficiaries had multiple needs that there were multiple potential
points of disruption to the services provided by Exodus. Progress could be hindered
by unresolved problems such as drug or alcohol dependency, family and other
relationship breakdown, mental illness and homelessness – particularly where the
individual lacked motivation to address these problems. The converse of the ‘virtuous
circle’ where achievements in different spheres of life are mutually supportive is a
vicious circle in which different kinds of problems intermesh and reinforce each other.


Summary
Previous research has demonstrated that ex-offenders seeking to enter the labour
market tend to face multiple barriers to employment. It is clear that the Exodus
beneficiaries did not, on the whole, provide an exception to this general rule. Many of
them faced a range of difficulties and disadvantages, which impacted not only on
their prospects of gaining employment, but also on their broader life chances and
quality of life. Thus the achievement of soft outcomes – both as ends in themselves


                                           - 65 -
and as means to the end of enhancing employability – was a necessary and critically
important goal of the work of Exodus, even if this goal was not always made explicit.
It is difficult to quantify precisely and objectively the extent to which soft outcomes
were in fact achieved, because of their very nature; nevertheless, this study found
evidence of significant and wide-ranging successes in this regard.


Recording and monitoring issues


There are no specific criteria for defining ‘soft outcomes’. Whereas it is relatively easy
to determine what constitutes a hard outcome of the Exodus programme – success
in gaining part-time or full-time employment, for example, or in completing a training
course20 – a multitude of social, psychological, domestic or practical
accomplishments can potentially be considered soft outcomes. Moreover, soft
outcomes range from very large to very small signs of progress. For individuals with
the most pressing problems and disadvantages, seemingly small steps in the
direction of social inclusion may have great significance.


The fluidity of the concept of soft outcomes, and the accompanying difficulties of
definition, in turn make it difficult to measure their achievement. There is bound to be
a subjective element to any assessment of soft outcomes, and such an exercise is
likely to demand the collection of detailed qualitative as well as quantitative data.


Within these constraints (and pressing time constraints also), the study reported
upon here has sought to produce a reasonably systematic and comprehensive
account of the soft outcomes achieved by the Exodus programme. However, there is
no doubt that had the Exodus DPs been encouraged to undertake routine recording
and monitoring of soft outcomes, throughout the projects’ duration, a broader and
more conclusive study could have been carried out.


Such a system of internal soft outcomes monitoring would ideally involve the
collection of information on all beneficiaries’ job-readiness, self-perceived strengths
and weaknesses, and other facets of social inclusion or exclusion, when they joined
the programme. This information would then be updated at regular intervals – with
sufficient flexibility to permit the inclusion of new or re-defined issues as these arose,

20
  However, defining hard outcomes is not always entirely straightforward: for example, an
individual who gains casual employment, or works for a very short period of time only, may or
may not be perceived as having achieved the hard outcome of ‘employment’.


                                             - 66 -
and the smaller as well as the larger developments in the lives of the beneficiaries.
The availability of baseline and monitoring data of this kind would have obviated the
current study’s entirely retrospective approach to assessing the progress made by
the sampled beneficiaries.


In pointing to the need for soft outcomes monitoring, there is no intention to suggest
that the recording practices of the Exodus DPs were poor. On the contrary: the
MegaNexus research team generally found the beneficiary case files to be up-to-date
and ordered, and to contain highly detailed information on the work undertaken with
the individuals. But there is a strong case to be made for programmes like Exodus
making the achievement of soft outcomes an explicit rather than implicit dimension of
their work and, as part of this, ensuring that soft outcomes are routinely and
specifically monitored.


However, in developing any such reporting system, it is important to avoid adding too
much to the overall burden associated with project monitoring. Where monitoring is
seen as too burdensome, the likelihood is that it will not be carried out thoroughly or
accurately. Hence any system of soft outcomes monitoring should be made as
simple and easy to use as possible, while also sufficiently flexible. It is also important
to make the rationale for recording soft outcomes clear: that is, how the achievement
of soft outcomes inter-relates with other programme goals, and the value of soft
outcomes in and of themselves. Some of the Exodus caseworkers who completed
the soft outcomes data collection form for the MegaNexus review made it clear to the
researchers that while they had initially questioned the value of the review, they
ultimately found the process of completing the forms rewarding. The process had
helped them recognize the significance of some of the beneficiaries’ achievements
that were otherwise overlooked – and hence to gain a broader sense of their
respective projects’ successes.


A final issue to note with respect to the monitoring of soft outcomes – which applies
equally to their evaluation – is that of attribution. In any multi-agency project, and
particularly where the beneficiaries (like the Exodus beneficiaries) may
simultaneously be receiving other interventions, it can be difficult to disentangle the
roles played by different agencies and services in the achievement of specific goals.
Hence whatever processes of monitoring and evaluation are undertaken, these
should provide scope for detailing and analyzing, where possible, the processes by
which particular interventions have produced particular soft outcomes.


                                            - 67 -
Pointers to good practice


The Exodus soft outcomes study was not undertaken with the specific aim of
producing good practice guidance. However, it is possible to draw from the findings
of the study some pointers to good practice for projects focused on the employability
of ex-offenders:


   Projects should adopt a holistic, multi-dimensional approach wherever possible:
    that is, for each beneficiary they should seek to address simultaneously, and on a
    sustained basis, the range of problems and disadvantages that are likely to be
    barriers to gaining and maintaining employment.


   The adoption of a multi-dimensional approach should help to ensure that
    beneficiaries receive help with highly practical matters – whether employment-
    related or not – alongside help with broader issues.


   It should be recognised that relatively minor social or practical accomplishments
    can have particular significance for individuals who have long been excluded from
    the mainstream of society.


   Different beneficiaries are likely to have different needs; thus interventions must
    be flexible and tailored to the individual. For example, not all beneficiaries will
    require sustained, multi-dimensional interventions: a minority are likely to need
    short-term help that is focussed on one or two specific areas of difficulty.


   Where a supportive relationship is built up over time between a beneficiary and
    an individual project worker, the existence of this relationship – and the
    accompanying sense of having a person to turn to at times of need - may be as
    important to the beneficiary as the specific help or advice that is provided.


   The promotion of self-confidence and self-esteem should be seen as a key
    objective of project work. Increased self-confidence can be both a precursor to
    and a consequence of the achievement of other goals.




                                            - 68 -
   It is always likely that some beneficiaries will lack the necessary motivation to
    achieve significant outcomes: hence a certain attrition rate must be accepted.
    Projects should recognise that motivation is often lost immediately after an
    individual leaves custody – and should therefore make a strong effort at
    maintaining contact and commitment over this period.


   The achievement of soft outcomes should be explicitly recognised as a necessary
    and critical dimension of project work; and flexible systems for monitoring soft
    outcomes should be built into project design.




                                           - 69 -
APPENDIX A:           EXERCISE 3 FORM


[Insert blank Exercise 3 form]




                                   - 70 -
APPENDIX B:            SOFT OUTCOMES REVIEW DATA COLLECTION
                       FORM

       EXODUS SOFT OUTCOMES DATA COLLECTION SCHEDULE

REFERENCE (NI No.): _______________

ENGAGED __________________________

DISENGAGED _______________________

CATEGORY ____________________

Section One: Personal Details

1. Male                            Female

2. Age?                              ........... years

3. Ethnic origin?

                           White                             Asian or British Asian
                           British                                            Indian
                             Irish                                         Pakistani
       Any other white background                        Any other Asian background


                          Mixed                              Black or Black British
       White and Black Caribbean                                          Caribbean
         White and Black African                                             African
      Any other mixed background                         Any other black background


    Chinese or other ethnic group
                          Chinese
                        Any other



4. Marital status

                                  Single                                 Co-habiting
                                                                (living with partner)
                                Married                                    Divorced
                        (first marriage)
                             Re-married                                   Widowed

                                Separated
              (but still legally married)



                                            - 71 -
5. Children?




   6. Current housing situation?

 Renting (council/Housing Assoc)               Probation/Bail Hostel
 Renting (private)                             Squat
 Owner Occupier                                No Fixed Abode
 Bed and Breakfast or hotel                    Residential Rehab
 With friends or family                        Other (write below)
 Hostel or shelter


   7. Employment status?
 Full time (30+ hours per week)                Unemployed
 Part Time (<30 hours per week)                Full Time Education
 Sick/disabled and unable to work              Part Time Education
 Training Scheme                               Self Employed
 Looking after family/home                     Other (please write below)



   8. Qualifications?

 None                                          A levels
 GCSEs/O levels/CSEs                           University
 NVQs/technical qualifications                 Other (state below)



Section Two: Offending History

   9. Main Offence types (inc approx number)




                                      - 72 -
   10. Custodial sentence

   Length of last sentence                       ....................

   Date released                                 ....................

   Prison                                        ...........................................




   11. Drug user?                                ....................

   Preferred drug(s) of use          ...........................................


   12. PPO?             Yes .                                No


Section Three: Exodus Programme

13. Date registered with Exodus                  ..........................

   Date de-registered                            ..........................

   Reason for disengagement                      ………………………

14. Contact with Exodus

   (list dates and describe type of contact)




                                            - 73 -
15. Other Exodus Interventions? (Describe with dates)




                                     - 74 -
Section Four: Soft Outcomes

16. Attribution of soft outcomes (add to list as appropriate)




                                                                Direct result from Exodus team

                                                                                                 Achieved with Exodus and other

                                                                                                                                  Exodus contributed to process
       Examples
       Acquired bank account
       Acquired ID or passport etc
       Sustained engagement with other services
       Engaged in leisure activities
       Gained suitable/stable accommodation
       Developed more self-confidence
       Became more job ready
       Completed CV
       Sourced/completed training courses
       Telephoned employers re job vacancies
       Completed job applications
       Set up email account
       Used internet for job searches
       Visited dentist
       Resumed contact with family
       Change in attitude
       Undertook temporary/voluntary work




                                           - 75 -
Descriptions of Exodus inputs and contributions to soft outcomes (example: was
Exodus project directly responsible for outcome or did team refer beneficiary to
another agency who supported in achievement of soft outcome); provide dates (where
appropriate) of all that apply




                                        - 76 -
18. Other agency contributions:

    Agency               Introduction by          Type of         Working alongside   Contribution to soft
                          Exodus team       contact/involvement     Exodus team           outcomes




                                   - 77 -
APPENDIX C:               ADDITIONAL BENEFICIARY DATA

Data on all Exodus beneficiaries – from EISS monitoring data

              Table C1: Gender of Exodus beneficiaries, by DP lead agency

                                  Gender of beneficiaries
        Lead agency                                                       Total
                               Number male    Number female
     Action Acton                  38                    -                 38
     Blue Sky                      44                    3                 47
     Kent Probation                44                    4                 48
     Portobello Business
                                   60                    17                77
     Centre
     St Giles Trust                110                   60                170

     St Mungo’s                    215                   -                 215
     Southampton City
                                   158                   -                 158
     Council
     HMP Springhill                86                    -                 86
     Westgate Support &
                                   19                    -                 19
     Care
     Total*                       774                  84                   858
     (% ben.)                   (90%)                (10%)                (100%)
    *Missing values are excluded; hence total figure is less than 870.


                      Table C2: Age of beneficiaries, by DP lead agency

                                        Age range of beneficiaries
  Lead agency                                                                          Total
                      No. 18-20   No. 21-30     No. 31-40     No. 41-50     No. 51+
 Action Acton             1           21            12           4                -     38
 Blue Sky                  -          26            16           4                1     47

 Kent Probation           15          26            6            1                -     48
 Port. Business
                          2           34            25           16               3     80
 Centre
 St Giles Trust           10          81            50           21               4     166

 St Mungo’s                -          87            81           38               3     209
 Southampton
                          4           75            44           26               8     157
 City Council
 HMP Springhill            -          29            17           17              23     86
 Westgate
                        -           12              2            4                1     19
 Support & Care
 Total*                32          391             253          131              43      850
 (% ben.)             (4%)        (46%)          (30%)         (15%)            (5%)   (100%)
*Missing values are excluded; hence total figure is less than 870.



                                               - 78 -
                  Table C3: Ethnicity of beneficiaries, by DP lead agency

                                       Ethnicity of beneficiaries
   Lead agency                                                                                   Total
                     No. white    No. black No. Asian No. mixed               No. other
 Action Acton           17            9             3           5                 3               37
 Blue Sky                30            8             4            2              3                47
 Kent Probation          43            3             1            1               -               48
 Port. Business
 Centre
                         24           46             3            4              2                79
 St Giles Trust          78           63             2           17              5               165
 St Mungo’s              85           84             23          16              6               214
 Southampton            131            9             3            7              8               158
 HMP Springhill          67            9             5            3              2                86
  Westgate
                        18            -               -            1              -               19
  Support & Care
  Total*               493          231             44            56             29            853
  (% ben.)            (58%)        (27%)           (5%)          (7%)           (3%)         (100%)
 *Missing values are excluded; hence total figure is less than 870.



 Table C4: Beneficiaries’ lengths of unemployment on joining Exodus, by DP lead
                                      agency

                                   Length of unemployment of beneficiaries
 Lead agency        No. under 6      No. 6-11    No. 12-23    No. 24-35                   No. 36+        Total
                       mths           mths         mths         mths                       mths
Action Acton             4              3            9            1                         20            37
Blue Sky                 4                 6              6              6                  20            42
Kent Probation           5                 9              10             6                  17            47
Port. Business
                         13                22             11             7                  15            68
Centre
St Giles Trust           45                14             25             14                 70            168
St Mungo’s               38                16             23             21                116            214
Southampton              49                21             17             19                 48            154
HMP Springhill           27                14             10             5                  30            86
Westgate
                         3              2                 5              2                  5             17
Support & Care
Total*                 188             107               116              81               341             833
(% ben.)              (23%)           (13%)             (14%)           (10%)             (41%)          (101%)
 *Missing values are excluded; hence total figure is less than 870.




                                                - 79 -
            Table C5: Registration status of beneficiaries, by DP lead agency

                                    Beneficiaries’ registration status
      Lead agency                No. de-registered        No. continuing                Total
                                   (% of agency            (% of agency
                                  beneficiaries)           beneficiaries)
                                         11                      28                       39
 Action Acton
                                       (28%)                   (72%)                   (100%)
                                         22                      25                       47
 Blue Sky
                                       (47%)                   (53%)                   (100%)
                                          1                      47                       48
 Kent Probation
                                        (2%)                   (98%)                   (100%)
 Portobello Business                      6                      76                       82
 Centre                                 (7%)                   (93%)                   (100%)
                                         68                     105                      173
 St Giles Trust
                                       (39%)                   (61%)                   (100%)
                                         83                     134                      217
 St Mungo’s
                                       (38%)                   (62%)                   (100%)
 Southampton City                        79                      80                      159
 Council                               (50%)                   (50%)                   (100%)
                                         73                      13                       86
 HMP Springhill
                                       (85%)                   (15%)                   (100%)
 Westgate Support &                       3                      16                       19
 Care                                  (16%)                   (84%)                   (100%)
 Total                                  346                     524                       870
 (% ben.)                              (40%)                   (60%)                    (100%)


Data on beneficiary sample from soft outcomes review

                         Table C6: Gender of sampled beneficiaries

                                                     Gender
          Beneficiary category                                                        Total
                                            No. male      No. female
                                               57
          Engaged                                              9                       66

          Disengaged                           46               9                      55
          Total                               103               18                      121
          (% ben.)                           (85%)            (15%)                   (100%)

                            Table C7: Age of sampled beneficiaries

                                       Age range of beneficiaries
Ben. Category                                                                                  Total
                     No. 18-20     No. 21-30    No. 31-40    No. 41-50      No. 51+
Engaged                 1              26             20        10            7                 64

Disengaged              2              27             17        7             1                 54
Total*                  3           53            37            17             8                118
(% ben.)              (3%)        (45%)         (31%)         (14%)          (7%)             (100%)
 *Missing values are excluded; hence total is under 121.


                                                    - 80 -
                        Table C8: Ethnicity of sampled beneficiaries

Ben.                                  Ethnicity of beneficiaries
                                                                                         Total
Category            No. white     No. black   No. Asian    No. mixed      No. other
Engaged                41            16            6           3              -           66

Disengaged             29            17            2           6              -           54
Total*                 70           33             8            9                         120
                                                                              -
(% ben.)             (58%)        (28%)          (7%)         (8%)                      (101%)
 *Missing values are excluded; hence total is under 121.




                            Table C9: Sampled beneficiaries’ housing

                                               No. beneficiaries                        Total*
Housing
                                          Engaged           Disengaged                (% ben.)
                                                                                           27
Staying with friends/family                   12                     15
                                                                                        (26%)
                                                                                           26
Renting – social housing                      16                     10
                                                                                        (25%)
                                                                                           12
Renting - private                             10                     2
                                                                                        (12%)
                                                                                            3
Owner occupier                                2                      1
                                                                                         (3%)
                                                                                           14
Hostel                                        9                      5
                                                                                        (13%)
                                                                                            5
Supported accommodation                       5                      -
                                                                                         (5%)
                                                                                           12
No fixed abode                                4                      8
                                                                                        (12%)
                                                                                            3
Residential rehabilitation                    -                      3
                                                                                         (3%)
                                                                                            2
Prison                                        1                      1
                                                                                         (2%)
                                                                                          104
Total                                         59                     45
                                                                                       (101%)
*Missing values are excluded; hence total is under 121.




                                              - 81 -
Table C10: Sampled beneficiaries’ educational qualifications (highest qualification
                                   recorded)

                                            No. beneficiaries                       Total**
Level of qualification
                                       Engaged           Disengaged                (% ben.)
                                                                                         3
University                                     2                  1
                                                                                      (3%)
                                                                                         7
A-level (or equivalent)                        5                  2
                                                                                      (6%)
                                                                                        39
GCSE*                                         20                 19
                                                                                     (34%)
                                                                                        32
NVQ (or equivalent)                           15                 17
                                                                                     (28%)
                                                                                         4
Basic skills                                   -                  4
                                                                                      (3%)
                                                                                         4
Other                                          3                  1
                                                                                      (3%)
                                                                                        26
None                                          16                 10
                                                                                     (23%)
Total                                                                                  115
                                              58                 53
                                                                                    (100%)
*Where both NVQ and GCSE-level qualifications were specified, this is counted here as GCSE.
** Missing values are excluded; hence total is under 121.




                                           - 82 -
                            Table C11: Types and numbers of soft outcomes recorded

                                                                    No.s recorded, with level of
           Outcome
                            Soft outcome                                attribution to Exodus        Total
           category
                                                                    Direct        Joint    Limited
                            Sustained engagement with
                                                                     28          17          2        47
           Engagement       other services
           and social       Gained suitable/stable
                                                                     27          13          5        45
           inclusion        accommodation
                            Resumed contact with family
                                                                     10           5          2        17
                            members
                            Engagement in leisure activities         11           3          -        14
14 (12%)
15 (13%)
7 (6%)
13 (11%)
10 (8%)
18(16%)
15(13%)
11(10%)
3(3%)
2(2%)
40(35%)
8 (11%)                     Visited dentist                           2           4          -        6
                            Acquired passport/other
                                                                     27           -          -        27
           Administrative   identification
                            Acquired bank account                    13           2          -        15

                            Acquired email account                   10           2          2        14

                            Improved self-confidence                 44          17          1        62
           Attitude
                            More job-ready                           51          10          -        61
                            Change in attitude                        4           1          -        5
                            Sourced/undertook training               52          10          3        65
           Directly
                            Made job enquiries by
           employment-                                               41           6          -        47
                            telephone
           related
                            Conducted internet job
                                                                     43           2          -        45
                            searches
                            Dealt with disclosure issues             35           7          1        43

                            Produced CV                              37           2          -        39
                            Undertook work experience (inc
                                                                      4           1          -        5
                            voluntary work
                            Developed business plan                   7           -          -        7
           Self-
           employment       Raised business finance                   3           -          -        3
                            Other business                            3           -          -        3
           Other            Other*                                   20           1          2        23

           TOTAL                                                     472         103         18      593
             *Encompasses 18 different outcomes.




                                                           - 83 -

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:8
posted:6/26/2011
language:English
pages:83