Drug &
Alcohol
Services
For under
19s
END
OF YEAR
REPORT
OCTOBER 2002
TO
SEPTEMBER 2003
Drug &
Alcohol
Services
For under
19s
INDEX
1.
Introduction.
2.
Tier 2 – Targeted
Education.
3.
Tier 3 – Assessment, Care
Planning & Intervention.
4.
Tier 4 – Intensive
Intervention.
5.
The Staff and Caseload
Management.
6.
Other Areas of Work.
7.
Conclusion and Proposals
for the Coming Year.
8.
Appendices:-
i.
Staff Structure
ii.
First Year Stats
iii.
Education Tutorial Stats
iv.
Evaluation Report of Tier
2
v.
Beach Project Write Up
vi.
Dans Story
vii.
Monthly Referral Graph
viii.
Staff Monthly Caseloads
ix.
Individual Training
Record
Y-Smart End Of Year Report
1st October 2002 – 30th September 2003
The purpose of this report is
to provide information for all interested parties on the achievements of the
service so far. The service has been open for a year, since the 1st October 2002 and so is still in its infancy but we feel that good progress has
been made so far. We still have some way to go in raising the profile of the
service and gaining credibility with prospective service users.
Our mission statement is:
Y-Smart aims to provide high
quality, accessible targeted prevention and planned treatment services for
young people across Northern Devon. Wherever possible we aim to
provide a confidential and accessible service, which promotes physical and
mental well being and reduces the harms that can be associated with drug and
alcohol use amongst young people.
As service
manager, I have been very pleased with the progress so far. The staff ( See
Appendix 1 ) are committed and work very hard to ensure engagement with young
people and to raise the profile of the service within local communities. We
have exceeded, in the main, the contact targets ( See Appendix 2 ) set in the
original service specification and have received positive responses from
service users and the community. We have had positive promotion in the media
and have been involved a number of high profile multi-agency projects. We have
ideas about developing the service and these are included in this report.
Sarah Simpson
Y-Smart
Tier 2 Targeted Education
Louise Gray, targeted educator
with Y-Smart, has been delivering educational programmes since we opened in
October. We have received a very positive response from both young people who
have received the education and staff at the organisations that we have
targeted. To date we have delivered educational packages to North
Devon College,
Carewize, Barnstaple Tutorial Unit, St George’s Road
residential children’s home, Chelfham
Mill EBD School,
North Devon Training Services and local schools. Some of these packages have
been in the form of one off sessions or days and others have been four or more
sessions. Each session has been designed specifically for the group’s ability.
It is fair to say that some of the work done in school has been support to the
existing curriculum activity and therefore is Tier 1 work. All of the work
described below relates to the last academic year and there is a graph (See
Appendix 3) and an evaluation (See Appendix 4) of this work included in this
report.
The work in the Barnstaple
Tutorial Unit comprised of six sessions of drug and alcohol education followed
by project work with a group of young people who wanted to make a drugs
awareness video. The group decided on
the structure, wrote part of the script and performed in the video which is
currently being produced by Middlemoore. The video will be used in further
sessions with the new intake of pupils at the Barnstaple Tutorial unit.
North
Devon College
has received programmes for the learning and college access groups. These
groups are either pupils excluded from mainstream education or those with
barriers to employment and training. We have also delivered tutorials to A and
AS level and B’Tec students and this has received positive feedback from both
the students and professionals.
We were fortunate to receive a grant from the
Government Office South West in order to promote the FRANK campaign over the
summer. Information about this work is included in this report ( Appendix 5
).We have also received a grant from the DAT/ Children’s fund to do a piece of
work around alcohol and young people and we are currently working with a group
of young people who are organising a positive alternatives day and some peer
education. This work is expected to be completed before March 2004.
Part of the work that Louise has
undertaken includes building up resources and designing programmes and specific
worksheets etc for use in her delivery. All of the programmes include harm
reduction messages, positive health promotion and risk. Something that we are
particularly proud of is the Y-Smart Board Game. Louise designed this and it
has been professionally made up and piloted in several sessions.
We have used the service user
feedback forms and the evaluation exercise to inform our practice and have
therefore redesigned elements of our delivery to include more extended
programmes and project work to follow these up. The one off sessions will
continue, time allowing and as well as a continuation of work at the Barnstaple
Tutorial Unit, we are intending to include a three day drug programme.
We have done some research in
areas around Northern Devon to look at accessibility for
all young people. As a result of this we are looking at the feasibility of a
drop-in at Bideford College
and of joint work with detached youth workers.
We are also undertaking a
Consultation/ evaluation exercise with Drugscope which commences on the 31st October 2003 and
runs for six months. It is hoped that this will enable us to more effectively
evaluate our own work and therefore inform future practice.
Tier 3
Assessment, Care Planning and
Intervention.
The service is
open access and as such receives referrals from many different sources. So far
we have had young people self-refer, we have had referrals from parents,
schools, GP’s, to name a few (see appendix 2). The referrals have flowed
steadily throughout the year and we have been fortunate in being able to offer
a quick response to all referrals without there being a waiting list. It is
important for us that we can continue to do this as we are very aware of the
need to take advantage of the ‘window of opportunity’ when a young person first
feels able to seek assistance.
To date we have received 71
referrals that we have deemed as tier 3. There has inevitably been some
fallout, several of the young people have moved out of area or failed to engage
at the outset. On the whole though this work has been positive and includes
young people engaged on a voluntary basis as well as those for whom it is a
statutory requirement (i.e. though the youth justice system).
As well as engaging with service
users, this work has required us to look at partnership working and protocols
and procedures. We have devised (with help from On The Level – Somerset Young
People’s Service) a comprehensive assessment tool and we have also looked at
evaluating this work which we have started to do both by user feedback forms
and by using the Christo Inventory. We have had to consider issues of
confidentiality and how and when we can offer confidential services to young
people and we have had to make links with the local child protection forum. We
have also worked out integrated care pathways with the Quay Centre, Addaction,
EDP, Connexions and the Youth Service and we maintain contact with our
referring agencies although some of this needs to be formalised.
We have also been able to offer
throughcare to five of our young people who have had custodial sentences. One
of these young men is still in Ashfield Young Offenders Institute and is being
seen by Y-Smart on a weekly basis, the others have been released and work with
Y-Smart has been a requirement of their licence. Two of these young people have
opted to continue work on a voluntary basis after the end of their licence
period. We are particularly pleased that they feel able to continue in their
efforts to make more appropriate life choices.
The care plan that we use
includes service users in setting their own goals for treatment. This is
obviously tempered by the assessment of risk and identified need but we felt
that it was important for young people to have ownership of their pathway
through the service.
We need to improve on the initial
take-up rate between referral and first appointment and we could also improve
on the amount of young people that we successfully get to care plan and
treatment stage. Some of this fallout is due to the chaotic nature of the
clients but my feeling is that there is more work to be done both to ease
accessibility and to assist the process of stabilisation. To this end we have
contributed to the post of young people’s housing worker with BPAG and we spend
time sitting on the local housing forums and trying to access funding for
housing provision. We also provide bus passes for clients and we have provided
food vouchers for young people in particular difficulty. This is both to help
out in crises and to encourage further engagement.
Some of these tier three clients
are long term in their engagement with the service and we have more work to do
in terms of evaluating effective practice. As the service is still in its
infancy it is difficult to effectively evaluate the work so far as we do not
have sufficient numbers who have reached the end of treatment. I can, however,
quote positive examples of young people who have arrived into the service in
crisis and who, through the work that they have done with us have reduced their
usage to the point where they function much better and are able to maintain
full-time education or employment (appendix 6).
Tier 4
Intensive
Intervention
The tier 4
element of our service is made up of heavy end clients who present with chaotic
and risky behaviours. We decided very early on in the process that all tier 4
clients will be jointly allocated to two members of the team. This being the
case, there will always be input from our CPN who will be the key worker but
another worker will be allocated in order that they can pick up some of the
general support needs such as benefits and housing.
To date the numbers of referrals
have been small. In this first year we have received four referrals, we are
currently still working with two, one we are hoping to re-engage with in the
near future and one has been moved to tier three provisions. It has been hard
to categorise these individuals as they have not always been in receipt of
medical intervention other than nursing input but have always been assessed
with a tier 4 need.
The young people in this category
veer from being motivated to change to presenting in crisis to not wanting to
engage at all. Of the two clients that are currently on the books, one is
currently undergoing a methadone stabilisation programme and is ward- based for
about 10 days before returning to the community. The other is considering an
in-patient detoxification but is unsure of this and if we can stabilise her in
the community then we would prefer this as a way forward.
We have made links with three GP
practices in the area all of whom have agreed to work with us. We still have
some way to go in terms of shared care arrangements and have yet to negotiate
with the PCT to be included in the latest recruit and training of GP’s. We have
also linked with the Quay Centre in order to access prescribing from the
specialist GP and have written a prescribing protocol to facilitate this. We
have arranged for the Quay Centre to invoice us where necessary both for this
and for urine screening.
Needle exchange is being
organised through local pharmacies. We have made links with all of those
pharmacists locally who are providing needle packs and have given them
literature and business cards to give out to clients. We have also agreed with
them that, wherever possible, we will see a young person immediately if they
request it when they present at the pharmacist for a needle pack. The Quay
Centre facility is also available for needle exchange. We are not currently
aware of the numbers of young people accessing needle packs through the
pharmacists.
We have also linked with the
local Mental Health teams, JAT and the Accident and Emergency Department at the
hospital. We have linked with the Local Child and Adolescent Psychiatry team
and have undertaken joint work with them where dual diagnosis is likely.
I have to stress that there is no
consultant covering our work. The Consultant Psychiatrist with CAMHS does not
consider drug and alcohol dependency to be within the realms of her experience.
This provides a difficulty with prescribing for young people, for example we do
not have access to Subutex.
The Staff and
Caseload Management
We are lucky
enough to have a dedicated team of workers who are able to be flexible
(appendix 1). The work that they undertake ranges from education with young
people to staff training to structured counselling and treatment.
Caseloads have
been manageable (appendices 7 and 8) because we have used Louise Gray to cover
some of the tier three work and we have had use of Sarah Screech from the Youth
Offending Team, who has carried half a case load since we opened. We have had
some staff turnover due to a community care worker leaving shortly after we
opened. On the whole, though, staff morale is high and people are very willing
to help each other out. We have not had a waiting list to manage but it is
still early to be predicting accurate numbers.
The staff has
undergone a substantial amount of training over the past year (appendix 9).
Four of the staff has gained places on the OCN Advanced Certificate in
Practitioner Skills in the Management of Substance Misuse. This training has a
work based focus and is being run by Harbour Peninsula Training.
Other Areas Of Work
We have specified
within this report the work completed within the given tiers but we have also
given time to the following:
·
We have set up a multi-agency steering group
comprising of representatives from the Youth Service, Youth Offending Team,
Connexions, Education, Health, Social Services and the Voluntary Sector. This
group meets quarterly.
·
We have assisted in the delivery of drug and
alcohol education in school based workshops in five secondary school in Northern
Devon.
·
We have a member of staff with specific
responsibility for diversity, who attends meetings and has written a pro-active
diversity plan for our service.
·
We have delivered the following training courses
to multi-agency groups:
22nd November Tier One
27th & 28th
January Tier Two
22nd March (1/2 day) Referral Panel Members Training
3rd June (evening) Volunteer Training – Youth Enquiry Service
1st & 2nd
July Harbour training – working with young people
·
We have delivered four parents evenings in
schools.
·
We are currently administrating for both the
South West Drugs Workers Forum and the JCG.
Conclusion and
Proposals
For The Coming Year
As stated throughout this
report, we are pleased with the progress so far. We have received positive
feedback from service users and other agencies, parents/carers etc and we have
used any constructive criticism to improve our practice as we have gone along.
There is still room for improvement, however, and these areas have been
highlighted in this report.
We have also spent time in the
last year negotiating for premises. The original idea was a portacabin adjacent
to the Youth Offending Team Offices, unfortunately this was unachievable due to
the need for access to a gas main that crosses the car park. The second
premises that we looked at was directly behind the Youth Offending Team
Offices. After the completion of a building inspection, it was ascertained that
the cost of making the premises habitable would be in excess of £29,000 and we
could only get a short term lease on the property. This was a disappointment
but we could not justify that sort of expenditure for a short term lease. The
plan now is to look for much larger premises in conjunction with Devon Youth
Service, The North Devon Youth Offending Team, with the possibility of other
partners. This would make sense in terms of easing communication and creating
better accessibility to young people for all of the above services.
As well as the improvements
that we need to make, we have ideas for development of the service. We intend
to broaden the reach of the targeted education work that we are doing and the
first addition to this area will be programme delivery to the young people that
North Devon Care Leavers Team are working with. We also aim to continue with
our promotion of the FRANK campaign and, with the support of Government Office
South West, hope to build on the success of the beach project.
We have also started
negotiations with the Remand Fostering Co-ordinator for Devon
to looking at setting up a specialist fostering placement. It is anticipated
that this specialist fostering will provide a placement for young people who
need a high level of support to complete community detoxification and will come
under the umbrella of the Remand Fostering Scheme with high level support from
Y-Smart.
As the year has gone on, more
people are recognising our branding and our name is mentioned frequently. The
service profile has been raised and we are gaining credibility. We aim to be
even more accessible and young person friendly in the future.
EVALUATION
OF
Y-SMART
PROGRAMMES
2002
- 2003
Evaluation by Emma Rushworth,
District Researcher Devon & Cornwall Constabulary for Louise Gray,
Community Care Worker, Y-SMART.
EVALUATION OF
PROGRAMMES
EVALUATION BY GROUP
BTEC GNVQ
SCORE
GIVEN
|
1-3
|
4-6
|
7-9
|
10
|
|
ANYTHING
LEARNT
|
1
|
14
|
50
|
11
|
|
BENEFIT GAINED
|
3
|
14
|
45
|
14
|
|
CONTENT
|
2
|
8
|
47
|
19
|
|
RIGHT LEVEL
|
0
|
7
|
47
|
22
|
|
PERCENTAGE
|
1.97
|
14.14
|
62.17
|
21.71
|
BTEC/GNVQ
group/S - 72.4% of the group
were male and 97.4% were British. the
majority (83.88%) gave the programmes high scores (7-10). Very few of the young
people thought that it was not aimed at quite the right level (9.21%) and few
considered that the session did not cover enough (13.2%). Almost 20% considered
that they had not learnt a lot from the sessions and 22.36% did not consider
that they had benefited much from the experience. Only 6 comments were made and
all were very positive. In sum the programme delivery and reception appear to
have been well to very well received by the BTEC/Gnvq group/s.
AS LEVEL
SCORE
GIVEN
|
1-3
|
4-6
|
7-9
|
10
|
|
ANYTHING LEARNT
|
15
|
47
|
158
|
31
|
|
BENEFIT GAINED
|
13
|
60
|
142
|
36
|
|
CONTENT
|
4
|
25
|
167
|
55
|
|
RIGHT LEVEL
|
2
|
19
|
163
|
67
|
|
PERCENTAGE
|
3.32%
|
14.76%
|
63.44%
|
18.48%
|
AS/A LEVEL GROUP/S
- The aggregated statistics suggest that the programmes could be aimed a little
higher as 24.71% of the young people felt that they had not learnt a lot from
the experience and 29% did not feel that they had benefited greatly from the
programme. However, 91.6% felt that it
was aimed at the right level and 88.4% that the session covered enough. The
overall response was, therefore, very positive.
There were 85 comments made, 70 of which
were positive, 4 of which were other, 7 of, which were negative, and a further
4 were suggestions. Many of the comments reflected the view that it would be
useful to look at drugs in more detail and perhaps cover more complex issues as
some of the information had already been covered by the school.
LIFE SKILLS
SCORE
GIVEN
|
1-3
|
4-6
|
7-9
|
10
|
|
ANYTHING LEARNT
|
0
|
0
|
5
|
1
|
|
BENEFIT GAINED
|
0
|
0
|
6
|
0
|
|
CONTENT
|
0
|
1
|
4
|
1
|
|
RIGHT
LEVEL
|
0
|
0
|
5
|
1
|
|
PERCENTAGE
|
0%
|
4.2%
|
83.3%
|
12.5%
|
LIFE SKILLS GROUP/S
- There were relatively few young people in the Life Skills group/s and the
results were very encouraging with 95.8% giving very positive feedback on all
areas covered. All comments made were positive and reflected the feeling that
they had learnt a lot and enjoyed the experience.
TORRINGTON SCHOOL
SCORE
GIVEN
|
1-3
|
4-6
|
7-9
|
10
|
|
ANYTHING LEARNT
|
0
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
|
BENEFIT GAINED
|
0
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
|
CONTENT
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
|
RIGHT LEVEL
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
3
|
|
PERCENTAGE
|
0%
|
20%
|
40%
|
40%
|
TORRINGTON SCHOOL GROUP/S
- The young people at Torrington School were positive towards the scheme overall with 80% giving a
score of 7-10 across the specified areas.
They all considered that the programmes were aimed at the right level
and the majority strongly agreed that the session covered enough. Likewise, the
majority felt that they had learnt something from the session. However, 40%
(2/5) did not feel that they had gained a lot of benefit from the session
(score 1-6). Overall the response was
positive and the comments fed back were encouraging and to the effect that
their attention had been kept and they had enjoyed the experience.
CAREWIZE TUTORIAL
SCORE
GIVEN
|
1-3
|
4-6
|
7-9
|
10
|
|
ANYTHING LEARNT
|
0
|
1
|
8
|
2
|
|
BENEFIT GAINED
|
0
|
2
|
7
|
2
|
|
CONTENT
|
0
|
1
|
8
|
2
|
|
RIGHT LEVEL
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
9
|
|
PERCENTAGE
|
0%
|
11.4%
|
54.5%
|
34.1%
|
CAREWIZE TUTORIAL GROUP/S
- The overall response from the Carewize Tutorial group/s was positive,
especially with regards the level at which the programme was aimed.
91% felt that they
had learnt a lot (score 7-10) from the session and the same number felt
strongly that the session covered enough. Likewise, the same number considered
that the sessions were aimed at the right level. However, 18% did not consider
that they had benefited a lot from the session. Nonetheless, the sessions were
well received and comments made reflected this.
PRU
SCORE
GIVEN
|
1-3
|
4-6
|
7-9
|
10
|
|
ANYTHING LEARNT
|
0
|
1
|
3
|
3
|
|
BENEFIT GAINED
|
0
|
2
|
4
|
1
|
|
CONTENT
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
2
|
|
RIGHT LEVEL
|
0
|
0
|
3
|
4
|
|
PERCENTAGE
|
3.6%
|
14.3%
|
46.4%
|
35.7%
|
PUPIL REFERRAL UNIT GROUP/S - Responses from the Pupil Referral Unit were positive, as
were comments made. 82.1% felt that the sessions were of a good to very good
standard overall, with 86% considering that they had learnt quite a lot or a
lot from the sessions. However, 28.6% (2/7) did consider that they had not
benefited greatly from the session. The same number felt that the session did
not cover enough (score 1-6) but they all considered that the session was aimed
at the right level.
LEARNING ACCESS
SCORE GIVEN
|
NO
|
SOME/MAYBE
|
YES
|
|
HAVE YOU ENJOYED SESSIONS?
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
|
DID YOU LEARN A LOT?
|
0
|
4
|
0
|
|
DO YOU FEEL YOU KNOW MORE?
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
|
WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO MORE SESSIONS?
|
1
|
3
|
0
|
|
PERCENTAGE
|
18.8%
|
68.8%
|
12.5%
|
LEARNING ACCESS GROUP/S
- The Learning Access group was given a more basic evaluation sheet using faces
to express their feelings about the sessions rather than a number scale. The
questions are expressed differently but ask for the same feedback as the
standard evaluation sheet used.
12.5% gave very
positive feedback whereas 18.8% were negative in their responses and 68.8% were
unsure either way. They all considered that they had learnt a little or were
not sure how much they had learnt. 1 was not willing to partake in any more
sessions whilst the rest were unsure.
Interestingly in this group the only female in the group was the one
member of the group to give a positive response to having enjoyed the sessions.
She was, however, the only member of the group to state that she did not know
any more about substances following the session.
Clearly there are
problems with this style of evaluation sheet as there is much more room for
interpretation of each ‘face’ and as such it is difficult to be specific about
what each face means to the respondent. It would perhaps be recommended that
the sheet take a text format, keeping basic questions but using a smaller
number scale or a system of ticking boxes with options so as to gage a more
accurate response from the young people, an example is shown on page 6.
PUBLIC SERVICE GROUP/S
- Two different evaluation sheets were given to the Public Service group/s and
as such will have to be assessed separately. The first evaluation sheet was
more basic and did not use a number scale for evaluation.
PUBLIC SERVICE
SCORE GIVEN
|
YES
|
SOME/MAYBE
|
NO
|
|
KNOWLEDGE GAINED
|
9
|
1
|
2
|
|
BENEFIT GAINED
|
10
|
1
|
1
|
|
RIGHT LEVEL
|
12
|
0
|
0
|
|
PERCENTAGE
|
86.1%
|
5.6%
|
8.3%
|
The majority of the
group felt that the experience had been a positive one, and all 12 group
members considered that the session/s had been aimed at the right level for
them. However, 25% of the group (3/12) considered that they had learnt little
or nothing from the session.
16.7% felt that they
had not benefited from the session/s, but overall they seem to have found the
experience a positive one. This more basic evaluation sheet allowed the group
further comment about what they would like included in future sessions. Two
group members felt that it would be useful to see actual drugs, two thought
that more information would be helpful; two specified books or leaflets about
drugs, and another young person felt that s/he would like more discussion on
the actual effects of drugs.
There were a few
inappropriate comments made that need not be included in this evaluation.
PUBLIC SERVICE
SCORE GIVEN
|
1-3
|
4-6
|
7-9
|
10
|
|
ANYTHING LEARNT
|
3
|
5
|
18
|
4
|
|
BENEFIT GAINED
|
2
|
8
|
15
|
5
|
|
CONTENT
|
1
|
2
|
18
|
9
|
|
RIGHT LEVEL
|
1
|
1
|
23
|
5
|
|
PERCENTAGE
|
5.8%
|
13.3%
|
61.7%
|
19.2%
|
The standard
evaluation sheet given to the Public Service group/s shows positive feedback
with 80.9% of responses falling under the 7-10 scores. Nonetheless, a third of
the young people (33.3%) considered that they had gained little or no benefit
from the sessions. Also 26.7% did not consider that they had learnt a lot from
the session/s.
The comments made
were varied. Seven responses were congratulatory and therefore positive whilst
three young people commented that smaller groups may have been better. Two
further comments were about specific drugs.
GENDER BASED EVALUATION OF Y-SMART PROGRAMMES
Following the
collation of data from all groups certain conclusions and inferences can be
made regarding the success of the sessions using gender as the point of
reference.
For this purpose the
results from all groups were brought together solely under gender headings
rather than by group.
69% of the young
people who attended the sessions and completed the evaluation sheets were male
and 31% were female.
Of these numbers, and
using the completed evaluation sheets as evidence, the females were generally
more receptive and more positive than the males about the sessions. 91.28% of
the females gave a score of 7 or above overall compared to 81.72% of the males.
Both the males and
the females were most positive about the level at which the sessions had been
pitched and felt that it was the appropriate level for their group/s.
Likewise, both groups
felt that the content was good and that the session certainly covered enough,
with 87.6% of males and 93.3% of females making this evaluation.
76.1% of males
considered they had learnt quite a lot / a lot from the session (score 7-10)
compared to 87.6% of females. Of those males who did not consider that they had
learnt much from the session, 3.48% felt that they had not learnt anything
(score 1 – 3) and 20.4% thought that they had learnt little (score 4 - 6).
Of those females who
did not believe they had learnt much from the session, only 1 person thought
that she had not learnt anything (1.1% of the group) with 11.2% of the group
determining that they had learnt little.
This clearly shows
that the males considered that they had learnt less than the females.
The lowest scores
from both genders were for how beneficial they felt the session had been to
them. 5.5% of males considered that the session had not been of benefit to them
(score 1 – 3) whilst 22.9% felt that the session had not been of much benefit
to them (score 4 – 6). Thus 28.4% of males did not consider that they had
gained a lot of benefit from the session. 71.6% of males felt that the session
had been beneficial or very beneficial to them (score 7 – 10).
Although there were
not any females who considered that the session had not been beneficial at all
to them, 13.5% did reason that the session had not been very beneficial to them
(score 4 – 6). 86.5% thought that the session had been beneficial or very
beneficial to them (score 7 –10).
The gender-based
evaluation did not include those groups that completed the basic evaluation
sheet, although both Public Service males and females were very positive about
the sessions.
The Learning Access
males were less positive and 75% were fairly ambivalent about the sessions,
with a further 16.7% expressing a negative reaction to the sessions.
ETHNIC BASED EVALUATION OF SESSIONS
Although only 6.2% of
the young people who took part in the sessions considered themselves
non-British, they did give lower scores overall than those who considered
themselves British. The percentage of non-British that scored between 1 – 4 on
all questions was 27%, compared to 17.1% of the British young people. However,
the percentage of those giving a score of 10 was greater for the non-British
(25%) than for the British group (20.1%). Nonetheless, the majority from both
groups gave the sessions a score between 7 – 10.
|
NON-BRITISH
|
|
|
BRITISH
|
|
SCORE GIVEN
|
1-3
|
4-6
|
7-9
|
10
|
SCORE GIVEN
|
1-3
|
4-6
|
7-9
|
10
|
|
ANYTHING
LEARNT
|
2
|
5
|
15
|
3
|
ANYTHING
LEARNT
|
16
|
66
|
228
|
50
|
|
BENEFIT
GAINED
|
4
|
5
|
11
|
5
|
BENEFIT
GAINED
|
13
|
85
|
208
|
54
|
|
CONTENT
|
2
|
4
|
12
|
7
|
CONTENT
|
6
|
34
|
236
|
84
|
|
RIGHT
LEVEL
|
2
|
3
|
10
|
10
|
RIGHT
LEVEL
|
1
|
25
|
233
|
101
|
|
PERCENTAGE
|
10.00%
|
17.00%
|
48.00%
|
25.00%
|
PERCENTAGE
|
2.50%
|
14.60%
|
62.80%
|
20.10%
|
OVERALL
EVALUATION OF THE PROGRAMMES
The feedback from all
groups was generally positive, with the majority responding well to the
sessions conducted.
Most notably, the
vast majority of the young people who took part in the sessions considered that
they were aimed at the right level. This is clearly a good sign, as this would
greatly affect the reception of the scheme.
The two most
problematic areas with regard reception of the scheme by young people are the
amount they consider to have learnt from the session and how beneficial they
feel the session has been to them.
These should be
addressed for the next academic year; it may be that the schemes for the AS
Level students need to be made more advanced, for example.
The degree to which
the sessions have been beneficial to the young people is quite subjective, as
they will all come to the session with different levels of knowledge and
differing degrees of interest, depending upon previous drugs education,
personal experiences and peer group experiences.
However, the above
analysis by group should be reviewed by those preparing or presenting the
programmes in order to gain a better knowledge of which groups overall
benefited most.
Although from the
gender based evaluation it is clear that the males did not respond as well to
the programmes as the females did, the overall evaluation by both was positive.
The ethnic based
evaluation likewise reflects the overall positive response, although it does
show that those who considered themselves British felt more positively than
those who did not. The disparity, however, does not seem so great that it need
be a consideration for further changes to the evaluation sheets.
Y-Smart
Beach Project 2003
This summer, Y-Smart has been
involved with a pilot scheme to promote the ‘Talk To Frank’ campaign. With a
grant from the GOSW Drugs Team, we were able to set up a beach project which
covered most of the beaches across Northern Devon.
Our
aim was, not only to promote FRANK, but also to work with a group of young
people locally in order to raise their awareness of drugs and alcohol issues.
The pilot has also helped to build the young people’s confidence and
self-esteem.
The
young people were nominated to participate by North Devon College, North Devon Training
Services, Millennium Volunteers and Y-Smart. All of the young people attended
several meetings and an initial training day. They were also involved in the
decision-making processes regarding the shape that the project was to take and
the kind of activities that would be undertaken on the beaches. The young
people were also asked for ideas about FRANK promotional materials that could
be used to give away in competitions.
‘Frankly speaking,
FRANK is an excellent idea – health promotion and drink and drug awareness
is vital for our kids. Coming to beaches is a good way of reaching the
target audience – let’s hope people listen. I find the Y-Smart guys very
friendly, professional in their approach. Well done, keep up the good
work.’
Boushra Sanosi -
Epping
|
|
It
was decided that we would target a different beach every Monday and Wednesday
over the summer. The young people had the idea that they would organise games
on the beach and that we would hold a juggling master class to attract people.
It
was also decided that a competition to win a surfboard would be held over the
whole of the summer whereby entrants should answer questions on drugs and
alcohol in order to be able to win.
I’m pleased to see
the Y-Smart project using FRANK to target people across the board here. We
need a lot more broad based and open education and discussion about drug
use and misuse. Good luck !
Sue Talbot - Leeds
|
|
The
beaches covered were Croyde, Westward Ho!, Saunton Sands, Woolacombe, Instow,
Putsborough. All the beaches, with the exception of Westward Ho! are privately
owned and we had to seek permission to work on them. The local beach owners and
their management have been very supportive and helpful, with Ruda/ Croyde even
donating a body board to add to the competition!
During
the project contacts were recorded and there was a lot of positive exchange. We
found that the drug and alcohol questions promoted conversation between young
people and their parents/carers and people were very pleased to see us on the
beach.
The
project has reached a total of 1220 contacts, all of whom have been spoken to
and received FRANK leaflets and promotional materials. There were 823 entries
to the competition, which we had fun marking! Surprisingly, the amount of
correct entries only totaled 197 and this clearly exemplifies the need for
drugs and alcohol education !!
DEVON DRUGS TREATMENT CASE STUDIES
Support when
it’s needed most………
Dan’s story
“I’ve taken substances for most of my life. I started smoking at the age of eight, then I
tried pot and moved on to lighter fuel when I was 10. I knew it was dangerous but I didn’t really
care. I didn’t have anything else to do
with my time. My parents had split up
and I lived with my dad for a bit in Sussex but he left to come back here for a job so I stayed with
friends. I got so wrecked on substances
– by then I was taking pills, pot, speed and diazepam - that I ended up
sleeping rough a lot on the common. I
had a breakdown when I was 15. I sorted myself out for a while and got a job on
a farm but started injecting speed as it was stronger. I lost contact with my
family for a year, then I started dealing, lost my job and the police caught up
with me. I was given a formal warning
but it didn’t make any difference. My
doctor was still prescribing drugs so I was never short. Eventually, I had to attend a hearing where I
was sentenced to community service and six months on a Youth Offending
Programme and was referred to Y-Smart.
That was when everything changed.
I haven’t taken speed or pills for seven months now. Y-Smart got me a placement with a local pub
and I’m now training to be a chef. I’ve
already been in this job longer than any other one. I hope to go to Newquay when I’ve finished my
training and start a new life.”
May 2003
For
further information, please contact Irene Johnston on 01666 841 273 or email: irenejohnston@livewirecomms.co.uk
or visit: www.swdrugstrategy.info
