3. Discussion

Introduction

The foregoing summarises the complex set of responses and interactions arising from the consultative process. They constitute a robust defence of the general YOUTHREACH model as it has evolved since its inception, and a reassertion of the programme's approach, notwithstanding inconsistencies and difficulties. The central message is that early school leaving is still a significant problem, that those with least qualifications remain marginalised, even in a buoyant labour market, and that there is continuing need for active interventions on their behalf. Respondents do not suggest that YOUTHREACH is the sole answer. Rather, it is understood as one element in a suite of interlinked responses, guided at national level and delivered at local level. However, the centrality of its contribution across its three strands and the ongoing validity of its overall approach were vigorously asserted. It therefore follows that respondents believe that the model is indeed still relevant, but the programme needs to maintain, and preferably increase, its inherent responsiveness, flexibility and localisation, its capacity for change and innovation, and its range of infrastructural supports.

It will have to do so in an increasingly dynamic environment. The end of the 20th century saw Irish society and the national economy grappling with global phenomena of enormous power. One of these is the change from a society in which wealth was generated by the production and distribution of goods to one dominated by information and services. Globalisation is another, paradoxically shadowed by the development of ever-more local and particular markets, as is clear from the Internet. These forces offer both opportunities and challenges, but they also pose the risk of further excluding the marginalised from active and positive participation in society and the economy.

3.1 General conceptual frameworks

It is beyond the scope of this report to discuss the many forces that will impinge on Irish education and training policy in the 21st century, of which change itself is perhaps the most immense. However, there is no doubt that YOUTHREACH will develop within an overall national framework of ideas, policies and operations. Furthermore, if the past decade is an indication, the programme is likely to be in the front-line of changes which will in due course affect the mainstream. So, the programme is not divorced from wider considerations of the future. Equally, YOUTHREACH's contribution to national agendas and its fulfilment of a particularly complex role in a continuum of service should not be overlooked in future planning.

The key concepts that will frame our education and training actions in the next decade are already clear and have been identified as national priorities. Social inclusion is one. It represents a complex challenge. Social exclusion is now understood as a dynamic and multi-dimensional process of detachment and denial of social rights. Poverty, by contrast is a static outcome (for example of low income). So, social inclusion extends far beyond simply creating employment, or raising standards of living.

Similarly, the adoption of lifelong learning as an overarching conceptual and operational framework poses a range of challenges in the delivery of services and the development of systems. New forms of guidance will be one. Individualisation, which is already a dominant force in information and communications technologies, is another, i.e. the need to establish individually tailored responses and pathways. Localisation is a third - the need to set provision into a local and appropriate setting. The risk of developing a marginalised 'parallel' system alongside, but never intersecting with, the mainstream system is a fourth.

Responding to these challenges will demand new approaches, for example from institution-based solutions to outcome-based solutions. In a world characterised by change and flux, flexibility and the capacity to react rapidly and effectively will be of paramount importance. Therefore, territorialism, isolation and rigid boundaries must become things of the past in education and training and social inclusion policies for youth generally. Increasingly, schooling, vocational training and out-of-school provision, including youth work, will be seen as overlapping sets, not as mutually exclusive boxes. As a result, permeability will, indeed must, become a characteristic of these sets. Thus, for example, a young person could be both at school and in YOUTHREACH, if this was the most appropriate arrangement. Another might be in work and in school, in a youth project, and so on.

However, the most fundamental concept is an old one, that the young person is the focus of action, not the programme or the institution.

3.2 Early school leaving in a dynamic economy

At national level, the recent explosive growth of the Irish economy has been well documented. Less publicised, but no less significant for the topic under discussion, has been the attendant increase in early school leaving and decrease in youth unemployment. Retention to the end of senior cycle is now at 81%. In November 1993, there were over 43,000 young people between 15-24 unemployede. By late 1999 this had dropped to 28,500. This experience is consistent with international trends.

However, early school leavers are at grave risk of future isolation, should there be a significant slowdown in the economy. Moreover, some are more vulnerable than others. It is already clear from labour market research that those without qualifications are least likely of all school leavers to sustain labour market participation even in an economy with acute labour shortages. The need to address this group's lifelong learning needs is a national imperative, and respondents clearly envisaged that YOUTHREACH would sustain a role in so doing. However, this will demand considerable development and co-ordination between a range of players, including the social partners. It will also require new methods of management and delivery. The difficulties of doing so in many of the workplaces where unqualified early school leavers find employment should not be underestimated.

An attendant phenomenon is reported in YOUTHREACH. As already indicated, providers maintain they are recruiting increasing numbers of young people with multiple disadvantage. This also is consistent with international trends. However, it clearly poses a fundamental question regarding the suitability of the existing model and the programme's general resourcing for this new, more complex clientele. At the very least, it will be necessary to establish staff information and training processes to develop appropriate skill and coping mechanisms. It will also be necessary to review and, if necessary, re-define the limits of the programme's competence. Finally, it will be important to have referral mechanisms and appropriate communication and operational channels and inter-agency links in place at local level, guided by a national strategy and management structure.

Throughout the consultations, there was an emphasis on the young person, and the primacy of her/his needs over those of the institutions. However, a competitive environment exists in many locations, one in which providers are resourced according to numbers of participants and evaluated according to quantitative criteria which take no account of varying levels of learning or behavioural difficulty. In such circumstances, it is difficult for institutions to collaborate and innovate. It is even more so as staff teams become entrenched, or burn out from the demands of dealing with extreme disadvantage and behavioural problems on a daily basis, with balancing the demands of assessment and certification with a person-centred approach, with high levels of turnover and constant pressure for recruitment. These phenomena make demands at all levels -

3.3 National policy frameworks

The future development of a programme like YOUTHREACH cannot be considered in isolation. Unemployment is no longer the problem it was in the late 1980s and, notwithstanding the increases in early school leaving since 1997, a range of measures to retain pupils in school has been introduced. However those young people who leave with poor qualifications, i.e. YOUTHREACH's core target group, remain extremely vulnerable to the vagaries of the economy, and generally fail to sustain satisfactory participation in the labour market. Moreover, early school leaving is recognised as a European problem and has remained a constant feature of even the most successful economies, each of which supports actions broadly similar to YOUTHREACH. Accordingly, it is appropriate to continue the programme's activities, developing and changing it according to the current needs of the target groups. The attendant challenges of resourcing, supporting and managing in such a dynamic environment must be addressed as a matter of urgency.

Before discussing the implications of the consultative process in this regard, it is important to consider the policy, structural and operational settings in which the programme must deliver. This may mean a shift in YOUTHREACH's focus, from unemployed young people to social exclusion and lifelong learning. It would appear from submissions to the consultation process that this change is already in train.

The service architecture is being renovated and rebuilt in line with national aspirations on social inclusion and lifelong learning. Optimistically, the period 1999-2001 may be envisaged as a transition stage leading to a fully developed and integrated service infrastructure. Nonetheless, as described in 2.4.4 above, a wide range of disconnected actions have been launched, often targeting the same target group and involving significant expenditure of resources. Confusion, duplication and competition are reported from many areas of the country, as are service lacunae and incompatabilities. Recent Government initiatives such as the Integrated Service Process are highlighting the need for an integrated inter-agency service infrastructure and operational culture. However, there is an urgent need to situate all actions in a general framework of principles, objectives, policies, structures, operational strategies and programmes and evaluative processes. Fundamentally,

But how are these aspirations to be achieved? As is manifest in the National Development Plan, the State is investing substantially in the fight against social exclusion. Actions targeting disadvantaged young people are proposed across a broad spectrum of sectors. In many cases, they identify the same general target groups. It is imperative that their implementation is co-ordinated at both national and local level. Arising from the consultation process, two connected strategies suggest themselves, the first at national level and the second at local level.

3.4 National management framework

YOUTHREACH is formally managed by an inter-Departmental Committee which represents the Departments of Education and Science and Enterprise, Trade and Employment/FAS. Informally, this committee's functions have devolved to a small operational sub-committee. However, this is just one of a range of committees through which various initiatives are guided. Many of these have been established on an ad-hoc basis. There is a considerable overlap in membership. In the interests of clarity, consistency, effectiveness and maximum beneficial impact of resources, it may be argued that the purpose, structures and membership of these committees should be reviewed. Such may be one outcome of the ISP. However, there is also a clear need for a unifying statement of principle, policy and strategy regarding the plethora of initiatives directed at young people. Urgent consideration should be given to the formulation of an inter-Departmental Green Paper on Programmes and Services for Young People.

As regards YOUTHREACH national management, the inter-Departmental committee should be reactivated and expanded. It should meet at least twice yearly, devolving functions to sub-committees as appropriate. In addition, there is a compelling argument that all education, training, youth service and employment actions targeting early school leavers in the 15+ age range should be placed under this committee's general direction, in order to bring cohesion and consistency of intent, resourcing and standards to provision, and in order to oversee the mainstreaming of such project strands as Youthstart. As regards the committee itself,

3.5 Local management framework - the District Approach

If national statements of principle and policy are not to remain aspirational, and if national programmes are to be accessible, consistent and effective, considerable attention must be devoted to local management and delivery.

YOUTHREACH itself has been described as a national programme which is managed and delivered at local level. It was originally intended that the programme would draw on the best practice from education, training and youth work. It should therefore demonstrate a practical approach to joint action, and how a seamless range of supports can be provided to combat social exclusion, and how marginalised young people can be integrated back into the mainstream. In many places it does so. Elsewhere, however, consultation and collaboration are weak. This often masks the effectiveness with which the education and training systems have separately responded to the needs of early school leavers. The challenge identified in the consultation process is twofold:

Towards meeting these challenges, the outcomes of the consultation process suggest the renewal of the 'district approach' or area-based strategy, in order to co-ordinate programmes and services and ensure maximum effectiveness. However, it will be necessary to redefine terms. It is clear that interpretations differ and that partnership is not a consistent feature of service delivery throughout the country. In the light of the considerable resources to be devoted to the battle against social exclusion over the period 2000-2006, it will be necessary to address this issue. As respondents pointed out, terms like 'district approach' and 'local partnership' will remain largely aspirational unless active steps are taken to unify policy and practice. Therefore, the key question concerns the development and operation of this approach. The outcomes of the consultation process indicate:

It is therefore envisaged that every area would develop a local action plan for those who have left school early. This should dovetail with parallel plans aimed at potential early school leavers who are still in school. The active participation by schools should be encouraged and every effort made to manage young people's exits from (and re-entry to) school in such a way as to maximise their prospects of continuing their education and training. It is likely that the Education Welfare Board will fulfil a significant role in fostering such relationships at local level, when it becomes operational. The contribution of community and voluntary agencies should not be overlooked.

In the longer term, the local co-ordination of services may also be addressed in future considerations of local government reform, for example by the establishment of a position (analogous to an Adult Education Organiser) of County Co-ordinator of Young People's Programmes and Services. Such a development would be consistent with patterns in north European countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands, in which municipalities are directly involved. It would also go some way towards meeting the call for regional co-ordination made in the ESF Programme Evaluation Unit's report on Early School Leaver Measures (1996).

It is beyond the remit of this report to recommend such a strategy. However, the authors urge that the issue of local co-ordination of programmes and services be addressed as a priority.

Having discussed the policy settings, we will now turn to the programme itself.

 

3.6 YOUTHREACH post 2000

The consultative process is clear regarding the future outlines of YOUTHREACH:

3.6.1 Management

In the above scenario, 'outreach' may include a range of actions and settings, including visiting tutors and satellite centres.

3.6.2: The need for a philosophical basis and a set of principles (2.1 above)

Whereas the submissions did not challenge the founding documents of YOUTHREACH, changing circumstances and the turnover of staff indicate the need to restate and work through the programme's core philosophy and set of values with providers. These should be consistent with those agreed at national level as suggested at 3.3 above.

Regarding the challenge of achieving equality of outcome (2.1), one respondent commented that 'this is the challenge and the game'. However, the implication of adopting this as an objective is clear - progressively greater expenditure according to need, and exponentially greater investment in the education, training and support of the most disadvantaged. This issue is discussed below.

3.6.3 Structure, process and supports

The consultation process indicates four stages for the programme - Engagement, Foundation, Progression, Integration, encompassed in two broad phases, Foundation and Progression. In addition, the following comments may be made:

The range of issues which emerge from this developing scenario have been set out in Section 2 above. The following comments are directed towards their resolution:

3.7: Management and structures

The revitalisation of the inter-departmental approach has already been discussed at 2.2 and 3.3 above. Outstanding issues raised include

Regarding administrative and reporting systems, a multi-modal programme and approach will demand new ways of thinking among policymakers and providers and will need new and more flexible reporting and administrative systems. These will have to dovetail with internal and other tracking and reporting systems, for example of the Education Welfare Board, FAS mainline and Employment Services, Local Employment Services and Youth Services. Other implications are discussed below.

3.8: The structure and approach of the programme

The general contours of the next phase of the programme have already been outlined in 3.2 above. However, a number of issues were identified but unresolved in the consultation process.

3.8.1 Engagement: the role of induction/gateway programmes

One issue concerned the concept of a gateway or induction stage. This needs to be resolved. In the outline of future development at 3.6 above, this is identified under the general heading of engagement. A number of model actions exist, of which Gateway is the most numerically significant. This was introduced by FAS in 1999 as a part-time, short-term appraisal programme aimed at early school leavers who are incapable of or lack the motivation to enter YOUTHREACH. The young people explore a range of options, including a return to education, training or employment. It is envisaged as a more flexible way of engaging with early school leavers, as complementary to Foundation education and training and as part of a continuum of provision.

Similar actions have emerged elsewhere. They include aspects of both the Youthlynx project in Kilkenny and the HOUSE project in Cox's Demesne, which were funded by Youthstart. Other provision with much in common with Gateway include certain Garda Youth Diversion Projects, Health Board Neighbourhood Youth Projects, LINE projects, projects in Drug Task Force areas and aspects of both 8-15 Early School Leaver and Springboard projects. Indeed, there is no general shortage of this kind of action. However, there is a major problem regarding their cohesion and co-ordination (local and national) and quality assurance. It would be opportune to evaluate these actions with view to harmonisation and mainstreaming. In the meantime, they should be continued on a pilot basis, as appropriate and as agreed by national management.

3.8.2: YOUTHREACH participants as unqualified young workers

The degree to which the labour market is now impinging on the programme's work is clear from the responses. This concern dovetails with a broader national issue, i.e. the lifelong learning needs of unqualified young workers. Whereas many young people now leave school and YOUTHREACH for employment, this is frequently a retrograde step in terms of their long-term interests and development. The economy's need for workers is acknowledged. But equally, society clearly has responsibilities to these young people. What are the limits of these, and how are they to be discharged in a buoyant labour market? Education and training prepare the young people for the workplace, but who prepares the workplace for the young people?

There are no simple answers to these questions, but finding them is a priority equal to that which attached to young unemployed in the past. Central to solving the problem will be a continuity of concern and involvement - i.e. longitudinal support. Research indicates that a significant proportion of YOUTHREACH participants move in and out of both the programme and employment many times. Therefore, while the ex-trainee is in employment, s/he should remain a YOUTHREACH participant, with ongoing access to all the supports the programme can offer. This already happens informally in many cases. For the future, the programme should be resourced to discharge this function, or otherwise supported. The Advocates project has already demonstrated how such support can operate.

This line of thought indicates that mentoring, which is already a feature of many workshops and centres, and effective models of which have been developed in a variety of pilot projects, should become a core function of the programme, with appropriate resourcing, staffing and staff training. It also suggests that in future some 'hard skill' training will take place in the workplace rather than the workshop, and that the programme's emphasis will move more emphatically towards personal development and communications skills. In particular, there will be need for flexible funding for programmes of literacy development for young people in the workplace, in partnership with the social partners. These may be delivered through YOUTHREACH - this is a policy decision. However, particular attention should be directed at the marginal employment situations in which many early school leavers find jobs. In addition, providers should be able to assist ex-participants in continuing to accrue credits towards certification.

It is understood that YOUTHREACH will not necessarily cater for all these young people, and the degree to which other education and training and youth mechanisms provide for early school leavers is acknowledged. Traineeships, Bridging programmes and the Back-to-Education Initiative represent considerable conceptual advances.

Finally, provision for unqualified young workers must be generally accessible and consistent, and should be nationally co-ordinated and evaluated.

3.8.3 Progression

Much the same issues arise regarding the Progression phase of the programme. Of necessity, progression is a more diffuse concept. However, a very significant range of internal and external options has developed. For example, 858 early school leavers entered standards-based apprenticeship in the first half of 1999. Numbers entering other options between January and June 1999 are as follows (M=male, F=female):

Linked Work Experience (33M; 74F)

Bridging (69M; 53F)

Community Training (115M; 93F)

Customised Training (49M; 56F)

Ring-fenced Specific Skills Training (175M; 111F)

Traineeship (36M; 30F)

Special CTW Progression Options (140M; 173F).

Other progression options opening up include PLC and CERT courses. 32 centres and workshops are currently offering the Leaving Certificate Applied. In 1999 over 250 young people from all three strands of the programme sat the Junior Certificate in whole or in part. Statistics regarding NCVA certification are given in section 3.9.

The central question does not concern the nature of the progression options available. Rather it is to do with access, consistency and sustainability. Are these options available throughout the country? Are they consistent as regards delivery and outcomes? Do the young people sustain their participation? How can they best be supported to ensure maximum positive outcomes? Should part-time bridging programmes be developed linking YOUTHREACH with various mainline options? Should these providers refer young people with basic learning needs to YOUTHREACH workshops and centres to address those needs? If so, how should YOUTHREACH providers reciprocate?

Once again, mentoring emerges as a significant positive factor. For example, whereas the progression rate to employment in centres and workshops where there was an Advocate did not increase, the proportion returning to education rose from 5% to 14% and those progressing to training rose from 12% to 24%. In itself, this is a strong argument for the mainstreaming of this service.

3.9: Assessment and Certification

That certification did not feature strongly in the consultation process has been noted. There has been marked progress in this area since the programme's inception. By way of example, the statistics for NCVA certification for May 1999 are as follows:

It has been noted that the increased demand among Travellers for certification indicates that they see it as a means of achieving equality of access and outcomes to the settled community.

That said, the apparent consensus that more needed to be done to articulate the various forms of certification, and to market the less widely known is important. After all, the participants come to YOUTHREACH with few qualifications in the first place. The enactment of the National Qualifications Act should set in train the major national project of agreeing a national qualifications framework. In time, this will resolve the issue of recognition of certification, and the inter-connection of different systems of qualification. The issue of marketing qualifications is a more complex matter, and it is beyond the remit of a report such as this to offer recommendations in that regard.

Another major challenge, to the programme, qualifications authorities and the wider community, arises from the question of young unqualified workers. If, as seems likely, young people are moving in and out of programmes, employment and other roles, how will their progress be assessed and recognised? If a participant has begun to accrue certificates or records of achievement, how can s/he be supported to continue this process while in the workplace or elsewhere? What outreach supports will be needed and how can they be provided? What changes must be made in assessment and certification procedures to accommodate this changed situation? What role will employers play, and how?

These issues are already being addressed by FAS and the NCVA. However, the questions also apply to the Junior Certificate, the Leaving Certificate Applied and the Leaving Certificate. Furthermore, the same general questions arise further along the qualifications trajectory, for example at Post-Leaving Certificate level. In their resolution, the rights and needs of the participants must be placed in the foreground.

A number of options are indicated, including part-time programmes, visiting teachers and night programmes in YOUTHREACH workshops and centres. It is acknowledged that the changing pattern of participation poses significant challenges to providers, qualifications authorities and employers. However, given the particular vulnerability of the YOUTHREACH target group, it is incumbent on both to endeavour to dovetail their arrangements in the interests of the lifelong learning needs of the young people.

Finally, if there is an increased emphasis on certification, there is a risk that YOUTHREACH will become curriculum-focused rather than needs-based. The kind of reflection and review processes indicated elsewhere in this report may help providers to retain the core emphasis on the needs of the individual young person. Doing so allows for certification to be introduced as and when appropriate, and maintains the holistic and achievement-oriented culture which has served participants well in the past.

3.10: Guidance, counselling and psychological services

The broad support for guidance services is acknowledged, as is the need to develop existing services, particularly for those at risk of or already dabbling in drugs. In general, there is a palpable need to ensure access, relevance and quality of service, national pattern and cohesion and measures should be undertaken towards these objectives, including a review of activities delivered under existing funding mechanisms in 1998 and 1999. In this regard, the report of the Task Force on Guidance, Counselling and Psychological Services in YOUTHREACH (1998) recommended the appointment of a National Co-ordinator for these services. This should be reviewed in the light of emerging policy and structures. However, a clear mechanism for the co-ordination and (particularly) the professional support of these services should be set in place as a matter of urgency.

There is also a need to elaborate on the integrated model of guidance indicated in the Task Force report. In particular, the role of non-formal guidance (and those activities sometimes known as MAGIC activities, i.e. mentoring, advocacy, guidance, information and counselling) should be developed. In this regard, the experience of a range of initiatives will be relevant, and YOUTHREACH 2000 is likely to provide an appropriate umbrella for their mainstream adoption. These include the following:

Finally, important reservations were expressed regarding young people with drug problems and with other multiple disadvantages. Where does YOUTHREACH draw the line? Is it appropriate that some of the young people now being recruited onto the programme have severe emotional and behavioural problems? If so, are the staff appropriately trained, do they recognise both their responsibilities and their limitations, and is YOUTHREACH adequately resourced (particularly as regards staffing, expertise, supports and referral mechanisms)? At what point and on what grounds do workshop and centre staff refuse a referral, and when they do, what other options are in place? Once again, answering these questions is not in the remit of this report. However, clearly these are issues which must be resolved both at national and local levels, ideally through a process such as that envisaged in 3.1 and 3.2 above.

3.11 Literacy resources,

High levels of functional illiteracy among adults in Ireland have been highlighted by the OECD in recent years. It is now a national priority, and significantly increased funding is being devoted to its alleviation, especially among adults. Underpinning this initiative is the view that literacy is fundamental, not only to self-esteem, but also to active participation in social, economic and cultural life. In addition, in January 2000 the Minister for Education and Science launched the National Reading Initiative. This is intended to promote reading across a range of environments, including education/training, the home and employment.

Significant numbers of early school leavers have poor levels of literacy. In many cases they are poorly motivated to address the situation. Their early incorporation into the labour force is likely to lead to significant problems in the future unless measures are taken to tackle their low levels of literacy. Action may be envisaged at a number of levels:

Finally, it is understood that these developments will operate in consort with other lifelong learning initiatives.

3.12: Tracking system/managed entries and exits

One of the abiding mysteries of the Irish education system is the disappearance of up to 1000 children each year, who do not make the transition from primary to post-primary education. The difficulties involved in managing a database of a million names is acknowledged. Nonetheless, the Department of Education and Science has been examining how its database may be developed in order to address this issue. Coupled with the activities of the proposed Education Welfare Board, this should ensure that young people are tracked through, and out of, the education system.

In turn, this should prompt concentration on the young people themselves, and on ensuring managed entries and exits from, and back to, education, training and employment. This is a clear recommendation from the consultative process and is consistent with profiles of participants, many of whom experience difficulties in transition. It is also consistent with the notion of longitudinal support, and takes account of the dynamic (and sometimes volatile) relationship that many of the young people have with education, training and employment systems.

Tracking is not simply a matter of ensuring that no young person is accounted for in her/his passage through and from schooling. It is also important in defining the broader group of early school leavers, some of whom will not participate in YOUTHREACH at any point, but all of whom should be tracked and where possible offered an appropriate service. It is also important in establishing the long-term or 'down-the-line' impact of the programme on participants.

There are models of good practice in the management of entries and exits. Two have already been instanced - FAS's Advocates project, which is in the process of being mainstreamed, and Synergy's Second Chance School in Mallow. Pathways, another Youthstart project, is another. In addition, it is also reported that schools are increasingly liaising with centres and workshops with a view to accommodating certain young people. It appears likely that the Education Welfare Board will establish a national context and pattern of delivery which will incorporate the experience of these activities. In the interim, and in the particular context of YOUTHREACH, it would be appropriate to review the issue of tracking into and out of the programme.

3.13: Longitudinal tracking and support

The case made during the consultation for longitudinal supports is strong. The concept is consistent with the tracking system and managed entries and exits described above. The central issue concerns their delivery -

A range of (largely outreach) activities may be envisaged under this general heading. Fundamentally, the longitudinal supports should be working with those young people who may be or who have been participants on the programme. Therefore, they include street work, gateway or satellite programmes, liaison with a wide range of local services, mentoring former participants in progression, etc. It may also include additional supports, including financial, for past participants engaged in progression training and education programmes.

A policy decision must be made as to where such services would be located. Already a significant amount of outreach activity is based in the workshops and centres, much of it unresourced. Locating these supports in the centres/workshops would be consistent with the recommendations of the National Economic and Social Forum, according to which 'health, guidance, counselling and support services should be "clustered" around the programme'.

As regards resourcing, the concept indicates a separate funding line, analogous to that for guidance, counselling and psychological services.

3.14: Regional and local co-ordination

As outlined in 2.4.9 above, respondents also called for a range of other supports for the programme. The difficulty posed for the National Co-ordinators in fulfilling a wide range of briefs as well as adequately supporting over 150 centres was acknowledged. However, there was no consensus as to how the programme's direct providers could best be supported. A national resource centre was suggested, but where would it be located? And, bearing in mind the degree to which centres and workshops are diffused throughout the country, how would it be used? Another suggestion proposed a support team be established, along the lines of that established for the Leaving Certificate Applied. This is worthy of consideration, but where would it be located and how would it be staffed?

Yet another possibility raised was of regional co-ordinators. The submission emanated from the VEC side, rather than the CTW. It referred to the recommendations made in the ESF Programme Evaluation Unit report of 1996, and to existing models of regional co-ordination in City of Dublin VEC and County Dublin VEC. However, the ESF report was written at a time when Regional Education Boards were envisaged. They are not now on the agenda. Moreover, the VECs in question have the advantage of economies of scale. They provide significant numbers of places, and the regional co-ordinators are resourced from within their overall allocation. Difficulties may be envisaged with this proposal elsewhere, even if it were to be restricted to the Department of Education and Science's side of the programme.

FÁS, on the other hand, being a regionalised organisation, has no such difficulties and has regional co-ordinators in each of its regions. Their establishment is a significant advance towards the concept of a more local co-ordination of activities. However, they tend to operate within a FÁS framework in general, and their function is largely to do with administration and recruitment. They do not fulfil the wider professional and programme development remit envisaged in the ESF Programme Evaluation report, and there are communications difficulties at local level in many areas.

Therefore, the core issue remains, i.e. the need for a more localised technical and professional support service for the programme. Consequently, the following general recommendation is made:

 

3.15: Funding mechanisms

If the foregoing is to have a meaningful prospect of fulfilment, then radical flexible funding strategies for education will be required for education and training in order to tilt the bias of the system towards equality of outcome. Given the increased difficulties reported as the programme penetrates further into levels of disadvantage, this is particularly important. As indicated above, two such strategies were identified, differential funding and longitudinal funding.

The first of these, differential funding based on level of need, was widely supported during the consultation process. However, its development and implementation is fraught with technical and professional difficulties. The assessment of need according to which such an allocation might be made must be based on appropriate and clearly stated criteria and (in the interests of transparency, confidentiality and coherent application of standards) must be carried out by competent professionals, answerable to appropriate local authorities and under the general direction of the national authorities. The difficulties of developing an appropriate model must not be underestimated.

This differential funding also argues for some form of observation/assessment in the early stages of a young person's engagement with the programme. It is accepted that some young people may not disclose problems until considerably later in the programme, when trust has been established. It is also recognised that some young people will not disclose at all because to do so would mean the break-up of their families. These may need to be factored into the funding mechanism.

It is also accepted that in practice some elements of this approach already exist. For example, the Copping On programme, and various contributions from members of the Garda Siochána, youth services, Area-Based Partnerships and Health Board personnel constitute an additional level of resourcing. So too does the availability of supports such as the Customised Training Option. However, these supports are neither universally nor consistently in place in YOUTHREACH. The questions arising are as follows:

However, this is a critical issue and must be addressed if we aspire to equality of outcome for the most disadvantaged young people.

The second funding mechanism to arise during the consultation process was longitudinal funding. This arose from discussion of the many kinds of outreach activity needed. It was agreed that many examples of best practice already existed. When respondents argue that they should not be expected to resource outreach activities from their core training budget, it is difficult to disagree. The consequence is that they should be given a separate funding line for the longitudinal tracking and support of early school leavers and past participants who are in employment or otherwise occupied. But how might this be envisaged? The following represents one possibility:

A fund line

Core education and training activities

B fund line

Outreach work, including tracking, recruitment, advocacy, etc. May also include guidance, etc.

C fund line

Special programmes for exceptional groups or individuals

As with differential funding, many workshops and centres already have an embryonic form of this model in place. In other words, the precedents exist. Once again however, the issue concerns the management, administrative and operational implications of making this the standard practice.

While each strand of early school leavers' provision has traditionally had separate funding mechanisms, differences in these mechanisms, allied with variations in literacy provision allocated by the education sector to the CTW network, have made it difficult for centres to plan their activities. The funding regime for the programme should be clear, logical and consistent across the three strands. It should be based on the needs of the young people, and on the resources required to achieve the maximum positive outcomes for them.

3.16: Staff induction, training and career development

In any discussion of YOUTHREACH, the contribution of the staff to its development and success must be a starting point.

However, as has already been noted, there is a constant turnover of staff in the programme. This appears to be particularly acute among part-time staff. This is not a new phenomenon, and was noted in the 1996 ESF Evaluation Unit report. Consequently, there is an ongoing need to train new staff. It is accepted that those recruited to the programme in the past have been chosen on the basis of their experience, attitudes and empathy with the participants. However, this is not sufficient to sustain them in their work. Further, in the present labour market and given the salaries the programme offers, providers report increasing difficulties in recruiting staff with the appropriate levels of experience and empathy, especially to fill part-time positions. Three core points emerge.

Firstly, it is imperative that all staff receive an induction training programme. This is particularly important regarding staff recruited to teach 'subjects', for example in the Junior Certificate, or programmes deriving from the education system, such as the Leaving Certificate Applied. It is understood that those providing the latter are trained to do so. But YOUTHREACH is not the same as school, and new staff must be introduced to the programme's approach. In general this training should be carried out at local level. In this regard, the consultation process heard of the inclusion of new YOUTHREACH staff (including full-time resource staff) in induction training for new staff by the City of Dublin VEC. The sponsoring Departments should emphasise the importance of such training to the programme's providers. At national level, common induction modules should be available and certain aspects of induction should be co-ordinated, if not actually organised centrally.

Secondly, staff training and support should be ongoing during the programme - this is not merely a matter of developing technical expertise. It is intrinsic to the programme's approach, to the development of coherent team strategies and effectiveness, and to the maintenance and comfort of the programme staff. It is understood that many thus trained will use their expertise elsewhere in the education and training system.

Clearly, there are logistical difficulties to be overcome. A great deal of staff training takes place, some as part of national initiatives, some as an outcome of local or regional initiatives. Preparation for assessment and certification is another avenue of development. However, in many locations the programme is dependent on part-time staff, and particular difficulties attach to their participation in training. Furthermore, many centres have only two full-time staff, and it is rarely possible for both to undertake training at the same time. As the programme develops additional outreach facilities, this problem is likely to increase rather than decrease. Notwithstanding these difficulties, each workshop/centre should have a staff training programme combining local and national initiatives, and should report on this annually.

Thirdly, the problem of burn-out is of increasing concern to the National Co-ordinators, and was referred to in a number of discussions. It is important that those working in difficult situations are appropriately supported. In certain areas, the psychologists and counsellors working the workshops and centres have also worked with teaching and instructing staff. This is a human resource management issue, and VECs and CTW Boards of Management should be reminded of their responsibility in this regard by the Department of Education and Science and FAS. Furthermore, staff entering the programme, and particularly existing staff those whose expertise has contributed so much to the success of the programme, should be able to envisage their work in terms of a discernible career path. Notwithstanding agreements on pay and conditions reached in recent years, such a sense of security and the attendant sense of professional status and personal value still eludes many.

How are these issues to be resolved? Clearly, the greater the quotient of full-time staff, the greater the prospect of stability, maintenance of human resources and maximum impact of training. This is to do with the programme's staff resourcing, and is contingent on national policy decisions. It is thus beyond this report's remit. As regards the training elements, the programme has hitherto balanced national and local approaches. Similarly, a significant level of inter-agency training has taken place, particularly regarding certification systems and in the Copping On programme. In the main, however, staff training adheres to the departmental boundaries within which given centres operate. For the future it is appropriate to examine mechanisms whereby staff from all three strands can train together.

3.17: Research

The need for continuous research, both into the programme and early school leaving and disadvantage in general, is acknowledged. The research commissioned in recent years has been invaluable both in helping to understand the context in which YOUTHREACH operates, and in elaborating on a range of programme-centred education and training issues. Of particular significance were the enquiries into perceptions of guidance needs, Junior Certificate results and early school leaving patterns in Dublin and Cork. However, two points may be made:

3.18: The role of the arts

The importance of the arts in YOUTHREACH as a means of developing personal and social skills, promoting self-esteem and a range of transferable skills was strongly argued in a number of submissions. The National Co-ordinators have observed the positive benefits at first hand, through various YOUTHREACH drama, musical and visual arts activities. In addition, a number of projects, for example the Firkin Crane Youthstart project 'Youth Moves to Dance', based in Cork, have explored the introduction of arts-based activities to YOUTHREACH environments. However, the benefits of such activities are restricted by the availability of appropriately skilled staff, and the proximity or otherwise of theatre, music or visual arts centres or promoters. This is a field which needs to be further explored. In collaboration with other appropriate authorities, such as the Arts Council, the National Co-ordinators should review the experience of arts-based activities in the programme, with a view to establishing an outline strategy. This would be consistent with national intentions regarding social inclusion. As the Combat Poverty Agency/Arts Council report Access and Participation in the Arts indicated, few individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds participate in any of the arts. YOUTHREACH can, and should, establish a gateway to such participation. Such a review would form an important input into the deliberations of the recently announced Task Force for Arts and Education and the Arts in Education.

3.19: Intercultural issues/aspects

Two key developmental issues arise in this regard. The first concerns the participation by Travellers in programmes run in YOUTHREACH Centres and CTWs. It is important that all staff (including administrative staff) are sensitised to the issues arising and are appropriately trained. The second concerns the small but increasing presence of young people born outside the State, or from other cultures within. It is likely that, in line with the experience of other wealthy European countries, this group will increase as a proportion of the YOUTHREACH population.

3.20: Technical issues

The range of technical issues raised is acknowledged. The central issues are

Given the present labour market situation, and the level of income available to unskilled young people, a case can be made that the training allowance paid to participants should be raised.

Other technical issues also need to be addressed, for example travel allowances. It is accepted that certain rural school buses are accessible to YOUTHREACH participants. However, the majority are not travelling in the right direction at the right time, and are not available at all when schools are closed. Yet, many potential participants either live great distances from the nearest workshop/centre, or must travel complex journeys in order to gain access to the programme. Their situation should be acknowledged - whereas the present travel allowances may be adequate to the needs of urban participants, they are not so for many in rural areas.

Similarly, there is a need to review and harmonise allowances paid to lone parents to ensure their operation does not act as a disincentive to participation.

The question of crèche facilities and provision for childcare also surfaced. There is already a significant expenditure in this regard. However, it would be useful to have a review of activities thus supported, with a view to ensuring equality of distribution and access, effective take-up of the training possibilities offered under the programme, and quality of service.

3.21: Youthstart and other projects

The issue of mainstreaming Youthstart projects was raised. This is a wider issue, involving as it does certain Integra and NOW actions, as well as a range of other pilot programmes funded by, among others, FAS, Area-Based Partnerships, the Combat Poverty Agency and the Department of Education and Science. These concerns raise a fundamental issue regarding the scale of pilot actions, and the degree of mutual engagement between the pilots, their funding providers and the statutory education and training interests at both national and local level. It should be that such projects have an interest in the wider implications of their actions and operate in a policy environment which is itself interested in the lessons of the projects and committed to their adoption, where appropriate. Regrettably, this mutual engagement is often absent. Pilot projects have become a path through which local consortia (generally in the community and voluntary sector) are enabled to deliver various programmes and services. In many cases, this results in duplication and competition.

At the beginning of the year 2000 there is a clear need to systematically address this issue. YOUTHREACH is a natural channel through which the experience of a significant number of Youthstart projects can be mainstreamed. A mainstreaming forum has been established by the Department of Enterprise Trade and Employment regarding the Employment projects, and all key players are represented. It is acknowledged that some projects have already been incorporated into YOUTHREACH. However, there is a danger that some projects may slip through the net.

In general, it is inappropriate for proposals regarding local actions to be made by project promoters to national management without their having been discussed and set into a broader local strategy agreed with local management. It is equally inappropriate for projects which effectively deliver a YOUTHREACH programme to be funded on a continuing basis by other Government Departments or national bodies without their being drawn under the general policy umbrella regarding out-of-school programmes for early school leavers outlined at 3.1 and 3.2 above.

Regarding the forthcoming European Community Initiative EQUAL, the National Co-ordinators should liaise with the ESF mission in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment towards the agreement of a general strategic framework to guide proposals under the new initiative regarding out-of-school programmes targeting early school leavers. Particular attention should be paid to the articulation of measures and services at local level.

3.22: The active involvement of young people

The comments noted at 2.7 above concerning the involvement of participants in the general operation of the programme is acknowledged. Consultation of consumers is standard practice in other domains. The central issue concerns the mechanisms by which this can be achieved. Two of the National Co-ordinators participated in a Leonardo da Vinci project which explored this issue. The outcomes were ambiguous. For example, the participants do not necessarily wish to involve themselves with committees.

Each workshop/centre should establish a system whereby participants are directly engaged in an ongoing and meaningful way in the operation of the programme, and particularly in

The outcomes of this process should be published in the workshop/centre's annual report.

3.23: Local and community involvement

The positive benefits of community-level management committees and of the involvement of local schools, parents, local employers and community/voluntary organisations and leaders are acknowledged. Regarding VEC-run centres, it is recommended that they develop such a management support structure. Where possible, this should dovetail with other such local structures. Such a committee may be constituted as a sub-committee of the VEC under the 1930 Act. Regarding Community Training Workshops, it is recognised that FÁS has engaged in a substantial development process regarding management committees and has signed a new Agreement to Collaborate between FÁS and CTWs. A further protocol has been drawn up which recognises and resources IACTO in a new and pivotal role as the National Support Body for the Boards of Management of CTWs.

3.24: Quality assurance

Quality and effectiveness is a central issue in all education and training programmes. In this regard, the value of the present consultative process is recognised, and YOUTHREACH should engage in such a national programme re-evaluation every five years. Bearing in mind the particular needs of the target group, it is important that the criteria on which practitioners evaluate their work should be appropriate. Towards this end, the National Co-ordinators should establish a working group to agree a general framework of quality indicators for the programme, and a general reporting framework should be agreed by national management. An annual report on the programme should be published.

As regards the centre and workshop level, diversity is to be expected in a locally delivered programme and, insofar as it represents an innovative and progressive response to particular local factors, encouraged. However, variation in the quality of the programme is another matter. Yet a concern with different standards, however rare, was a clear preoccupation with some respondents. Their concern is acknowledged. Accordingly,

3.25 Promotion/publicity

The need to promote and publicise the programme is accepted. However, it is the view of the National Co-ordinators that the most effective promotion occurs at local level, and that it is there that the principal promotional effort should be expended. Towards a general promotion, a number of documents will be generated at national level for dispersal at local level. The following are suggested:

The YOUTHREACH Web-site (www.youthreach.org) refers to the entire programme. It contains links with a wide range of sites, including FAS, the Department of education and science, Scoilnet and the ESF. However, its centre profiles refer only to VEC-run YOUTHREACH centres with their own web-sites. It is envisaged that during 2000 it will be extended to all such Centres. It should also be extended to include CTWs and STTCs, and other initiatives targeting early school leavers, either directly or through Web links. At present the STTCs have their own website. Either way, all centres and workshops should be either represented on a single site or on three linked sites. This should be seen as part of a general programme development in ICTs.

3.26: Reconciling the national and local

As previously noted, YOUTHREACH is a national programme, which is managed and delivered locally. Such an arrangement allows for very significant energies to be released, and fosters a strong sense of ownership among providers. However, it also allows inconsistencies in approach and quality to emerge. It is important that the different levels of the programme's operation 'play to their strengths' towards maximising the programme's possibilities. It may be argued that YOUTHREACH needs more co-ordination, vision and management from national management, that the national level should promote, stimulate, recognise and reward local initiative and local responsibility. The corollary is that the local must be more open to co-ordination, positive direction and collaboration.

3.27: Information and Communications Technology

As Ireland increasingly engages with the information age, there is an increasing risk that young people who re already educationally disadvantaged will be further excluded from optimal participation in the social, cultural and economic possibilities of the new technologies. Consequently, it is incumbent on programmes such as YOUTHREACH to offer these young people training options in information and communications technologies. The standards already achieved across the country are acknowledged, as is the increased emphasis on ICTs, e-mail and the internet in very many centres and workshops. However, as the programme moves into the 21st century, providers may need to envisage communications training models which challenge our traditional concepts of training centres. In this regard, the work of the Integra National Support Structure on the Internet and Social Exclusion is noted, as is the model of the Hi-W@y café, piloted by County Meath Vming should also include the dissemination of the model on a wider basis.EC and its YOUTHREACH centre in Navan. This is being mainstreamed at local level in 2000. However, in this instance mainstrea

3.28: A new Framework of Objectives and Operators' Guidelines

The programme's founding documents date from 1988. They should be re-written in the light of the consultation process and to accommodate the significant changes taking place in Irish society.