HeadStart Kent Knowledge Seminar 2 21 st January 2015 Measuring - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

HeadStart Kent Knowledge Seminar 2 21 st January 2015 Measuring Outcomes

Time Agenda Who 9.30 – 9.40 Introductions (around the table and presenters) Florence/Angela 9.40 – 9.45 Recap of Learning from Seminar 1 Alex Hassett Key Messages: Summary Broader Strategic Issues For Headstart Project 9.45 – 9.55 Feedback on the Board and Shadow Youth Board Angela Ford 9.55 – 10.05 Broader Evaluation Programme Ugochi Nwulu 10.05 – 10.30 Activity: Challenges faced measuring resilience outcomes. Individual and Alex Hassett group exercise – feedback to the wider group 10.30 – 11.00 • Challenges and practical issues in measuring resilience Mark Kerr • Measures of resilience – some ideas • A domains approach to measuring resilience 11.00 – 11.20 Coffee Break 11.20 – 12.00 Activity: Mapping where your service fits and what you measure Mark Kerr and Alex Hassett 12.00 – 12.15 Feedback on learning Alex Hassett 12.15 – 12.30 Way Forward Florence / Angela

Key Messages: Summary  Resilience is not a trait but an interaction between risk and protective factors  We need to ensure we take an ecological and developmental view of resilience  It is useful to focus on resilience in terms of the areas or ‘domains’ of a person’s life that can be changed.  Negotiation and navigation  We need to consider what resources are available and how accessible are they

Broader Strategic Issues for Headstart Project The following are the long term issues that need to be addressed:  Developing an overarching framework of resilience that the range of agencies can sign up to  Encouraging a long term interdependency between individuals, services, agencies on providing an holistic approach to young people  Providing a coherent system for evidence based evaluation ensuring that each element of the system is clear on how they evidence outcomes and impact

Reminder of Kent Activity Partnership Programme Board, Shadow Board, Knowledge Seminars Coproduction throughout Young people and Families Canterbury North West Kent Thanet Penn State Resilience in Safe Spaces in schools Restorative approaches secondary schools in schools Safe Spaces in Penn State Resilience in community hubs Restorative approaches primary schools. in the community Coping packs Penn State Resilience in Target Restorative Family Focus KS2 ACP community and target approaches in schools Peer mentors workers Restorative Active listening mentors Ambassadors Family approach TBC Youth MH First Aid Restorative approaches families Online counselling Resilience Mentors: evidence based model of intensive support. FRIENDS Social Marketing: skills roadshows, coping packs, phubbing . Digital World: full services directory , volunteering & mentoring opportunities, self - referral form and sign posting to social media

Feedback from Young People  Young people found the domains resilience approach useful  Identified areas of HeadStart Kent they felt would have most impact  Resilience mentors  Coproduction  social marketing  Family resilience  Safe Spaces  Peer support  Online directory

Kent’s Emotional Wellbeing Strategy for Children, Young People and Young Adults  Ensure Kent’s Emotional Wellbeing Strategy is central to developments.  Contributing to service redesign  Connecting to the system and enabling change  Wider stakeholders already mapping and exploring system redesign Outcomes  Early Help: improved emotional resilience and receive early support  Access: Receive timely, assessing and effective support  Whole Family : Recognises and strengthens and wider family relationships.  Recovery and Transition: Prepared for and experience positive transitions

Workshop  Every one needs to consider how they contribute to building resilience, and what they could do enhance it further.  If our outcomes frameworks are to be guided by the domains (risk and protective factors), we need strategic cohesion across Kent including :  Workforce being prepared to work systemically.  Shared language  Less duplication  Easy moving and less transitions.

Workshop Messages  There is a greater awareness of activity locally and countywide and a lot has happened over a short period of time  People fed back that the knowledge seminars have been useful and thought provoking.  Some of the challenges include:  How to build coherence and ecological links when more than one intervention is working in the same area.  How to involve more young people of greater diversity  How to get passion and buy in from professionals  How to increase the understanding and scale of social marketing

HeadStart Kent Knowledge Seminar 21 January 2015 For HeadStart information http://kelsi.org.uk/pupil_support_and_wellbeing/targeted_ support/inclusion/kiass/headstart.aspx HeadStart Kent Twitter is: @HeadStartKent #headstartmatters

HeadStart Kent Knowledge Seminar 21 st January 2015 Evaluation progress Ugochi Nwulu Ugochi.Nwulu@kent.gov.uk

Evaluation team  Ugochi Nwulu - KCC / University of Kent  Rob Comber - Education and YP’s Services, KCC  (Eileen McKibbin - Research and Evaluation, KCC)  Gabriela Sette - CHSS, University of Kent  (Prof Patricia Wilson - CHSS, University of Kent)

Process evaluation of HeadStart Kent Key evaluation questions: 1. What are the HeadStart interventions? 2. What is the theory of change across the programme? 3. How does each intervention contribute to the theory of change? 4. What is working well and not so well in the implementation and the delivery of HeadStart Kent? 5. What are the critical and effective elements of the programme which now need to be scaled up fora Kent wide approach to building emotional health and resilience

Learning from participants and stakeholders Kent area Intervention 1 Intervention 2 Intervention 3 Data sources: HeadStart operational team / Community practitioners / School staff / Resilience mentors Young people Evaluation Case study Focus group Questionnaires methods

Baseline data collection How we will measure the impact:  HeadStart Schools data - demographics, risk factor profiles - pupil absences, exclusions - numbers accessing targeted support - CYP who participate in the HeadStart programme

Next steps  January to March:  National HeadStart conference  Synergies with the national evaluation - field work, surveys  Informal interviews and refinement of plans  March to May:  Focused data collection period  Data analysis and write up  Evaluation report  Will include plans for an impact evaluation of fully scaled up projects

Exercise One  Take a few minutes to think about the challenges you face in measuring resilience outcomes in the work that you do or the work that you commission. Please note down your challenges and concerns  Now spend a few minutes discussing with your group what those challenges are. Please can each group decide on the 2 main challenges or concerns they face when considering measuring resilience outcomes?

Example outcome model Increased Protective Personal Factors Intrinsic Outcomes Development (individual well-being) Social Results In Producing Development Extrinsic Outcomes Educational (wider social good) Decreased Development Risk Factors Source: Young Foundation, 2012

Challenges in measuring  Can we measure resilience  The ‘what’ are we measuring – what is our Dependent Variable (DV)  Whether to use a global resilience scale or domain based measure  Self report versus third party rating  Age appropriateness of measure  Validity of measure  Requirements of analysis

Can we measure resilience?  ‘The development of a measurement instrument capable of assessing a range of protective mechanisms within multiple domains provides an approach to operationalising resilience as a dynamic process of adaptation to adversity (Olsson et al., 2003)  Ideally, measures of resilience should be able to reflect the complexity of the concept and the temporal dimension. Adapting to change is a dynamic process (Donoghue and Sturtevant, 2007)

Measuring Resilience  Assessments of resilience need to consider: I. a) the risk or adversity II. b) assets/resources that might offset the effect of the risk III.c) the outcome  Quantitative direct measurement – using a resilience measurement scale as an outcome measure  Quantitative indirect measurement – modelling a range of data with multivariate statistics  Qualitative – understanding individual experiences

Measuring Resilience cont’  Several scales developed but not widely adopted and no clear preferred option  Definitional clarity needed which influences how we tackle this  Virtually no valid measures or children  Would need to measure availability of resources at all ecological levels to understand those that demonstrate  Only potential measure: California Healthy Kids Survey – The Resilience Scale of the Student Survey (Sun and Stuart, 2007)

The ‘DV’ problem  Remember ‘resilience’ is the ability to overcome adversity due to the interaction of risk and protective factors  Cannot assess resilience until the child experiences adversity  Current Headstart project requires us to focus on the antecedents of resilience i.e. protective factors