School Focused Youth Service Review and Development Findings

1
School Focused Youth ServiceReview and
Development Findings
David Riley Manager, Youth Services Youth
Services Youth Justice Office for Children
2
Introduction

• SFYS objectives and desired outcomes have not
  been reviewed or formally changed since the
  inception of the program in 1998 although there
  have been significant changes in the political
  and social policy contexts.
• In 2006/07 a two-part review and program
  development process of the SFYS has been
  undertaken. The purpose is to capture the
  learnings and issues of the program over the last
  three years.
• The two-part review is made up of an external
  evaluation and a SFYS program development process
  involving regional consultations.
• The information from the external evaluation and
  development process will inform a strategic
  development plan for the program.

3
Evaluation Purpose

• The purpose of the external evaluation was to
• Assess the impact of the SFYS program on schools
  and young people in the programs target group
• Assess the effectiveness of the SFYS in
  facilitating and strengthening partnerships
  between schools and community sector agencies
  with a view to supporting young people
• Receive advice and recommendations in regard to
  enhancement of the current service delivery model
• Assess the value-add of the SFYS program in
  relation to other current DHS and DoE
  initiatives.

4
Evaluation - Methodology

• Program logic approach
• Quarterly reports statewide (2005/06)
• Case studies 5 cluster sample
• Stakeholder interviews - 5 clusters statewide
• Schools survey - statewide

5
Evaluation Findings

• SFYS is leading to positive impacts on the lives
  of young people.
• The development of partnerships is considered to
  be an area of strength.
• The effectiveness of the SFYS in identifying
  service gaps is most effective at the local level
• The activities and outcomes of the SFYS program
  are consistent with the programs objectives and
  intended targets.

6
Evaluation Findings

• The program continues to deliver on Government
  objectives and reflects current government
  policy.
• SFYS program enhances other programs and is
  aligned with the direction of current government
  policy.
• SFYS incorporates a range of activities designed
  to meet the specific needs of the target group
  and bring community agencies and the education
  sector together.

7
Evaluation Key Areas for Improvement

• Boundaries
• Reporting / Evaluation
• Advisory structure, membership roles
• Communication strategy
• Monitoring impacts and outcomes of SFYS
• Renewing partner commitment
• Enhanced regional support
• Support for identifying service gaps and
  responses
• Supporting community development and networking
• Consistency in underlying principles for
  brokerage funding
• Reviewing auspice agencies
• Clarifying expectations of coordinator positions

8
Development Process Methodology

• Discussion paper development distribution to
  1002 stakeholders statewide.
• Regional world café consultation sessions
  involving 321 stakeholders.
• Documentation and publication of discussion paper
  responses.
• Formulation of recommendations by Future
  Directions Working Group based on documented
  stakeholder responses.

9
Development Process Findings

• Need for SFYS to be developed and brought in line
  with current government policy.
• Funding security to enable continuity of staff
  and maximise the potential to achieve desired
  outcomes.

10
Development Process Recommendations

• Objectives
• Acknowledge importance of working with young
  people in their community and family. Community
  should include, but may not be limited to school
  and family.
• Wording of objectives should be clarified, better
  linked to measurable outcomes phrased
  positively.
• Guidelines should reflect SFYS promotion of youth
  participation model/philosophy and acknowledge
  the importance of working with young people in
  the context of their community.

11
Development Process Recommendations

• Outcomes
• Outcomes should be clarified, expressed using
  measurable terms, phrased positively.
• Program guidelines should reflect outcomes that
  primarily focus on young people and their
  connection with schools but in the context of
  their community.

12
Development Process Recommendations

• Target Population
• The existing target population of 10-18 year olds
  with focus on 10-14 year olds is considered to
  be relevant.
• Target population age should be an issue for
  consideration and review.
• Terminology used to define at risk young people
  should reflect new legislation such as, Children
  Youth and Families Act) and current government
  policy.

13
Development ProcessRecommendations

• Service Response
• Guidelines should reflect an evidence-based
  approach to the identification of service gaps.
• Be clear about the purpose of SFYS and what it
  sets out to achieve.
• Clear purpose of advisory bodies,
• Flexibility around membership and operations of
  local and regional advisory groups.
• Clarity around roles and responsibilities of
  partners and advisory group members.

14
Development Process Recommendations

• Brokerage
• In order to achieve SFYS objectives and outcomes,
  brokerage should be reviewed in terms of
• The annual allocation of brokerage to service
  providers.
• Reviewing guidelines around increasing time
  allocation for funded brokerage projects.
• Further enhancing the evaluation of brokerage
  programs.
• Maintaining flexibility to allow brokerage for
  tailored responses to meet locally identified
  needs.
• Addressing inconsistent application of brokerage
  across the state.
• Using brokerage more strategically across the
  region.

15
Development Process Recommendations

• Brokerage
• Brokerage applications could be improved by use
  of common language.
• Partnerships
• The purpose and function of the LAG, SAG and RAG
  should be reviewed and clarified.

16
Development Process Recommendations

• Boundaries
• SFYS boundaries should be reviewed
• A review of boundaries should consider
• Levels of disadvantage and growth corridors
• Alignment with existing boundaries/catchments
• Links with school networks.
• Number of school in an area and the distance
  between these schools

17
Development Process Recommendations

• Communication
• A SFYS communication strategy should
• Improve communication of the purpose and function
  of advisory bodies.
• Improve communication of roles and
  responsibilities of advisory group members.
• Improve communication to and from the LAG, RAGs,
  SAG and executive committee.
• Improve communication and promotion of SFYS
  purpose and function to all school staff.

18
Development Process Recommendations

• Broad Reflection
• Consideration should be given to the introduction
  of consistency in the required skill set and pay
  scale for SFYS coordinators.
• Consideration should be given to the provision of
  increased support to SFYS from DoE Central in
  terms of resources and promotion of SFYS.

19
Publication Details

• The SFYS evaluation, executive summary and
  development process recommendations are published
  at
• http//www.dhs.vic.gov.au/youthservices
• (Available from Wednesday, 11 July 2007)