Introduction: social exclusion.

If economic regeneration is to succeed, social regeneration has to enable disadvantaged communities to take advantage of opportunity when it is created.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation* talks about "factors that contribute to - and result from - poverty; that protect people from poverty; that can help to reduce or eradicate poverty; and… barriers that prevent such measures from being effective”.

Poverty and Disadvantage, programme summary, 2008

For example:

Children growing up in poverty and disadvantage are less likely to do well at school. This feeds into disadvantage in later life and in turn affects their children. To break this cycle, we need to address the attitudes and experiences that lie behind social differences in education…

Less advantaged children are more likely to feel a lack of control over their learning, and to become reluctant recipients of the taught curriculum. This influences the development of different attitudes to education at primary school that help shape their future… deprived children are more likely to feel anxious and unconfident about school…

These factors are at the heart of the social divide in educational outcomes, but have not been central in solutions so far.”

Experiences of poverty and educational disadvantage, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, September 2007

Factors such as family structure, neighbourhood and social support interact with parents’ temperaments, beliefs and their own experiences of parenting(there is a) clear link between poverty, parental stress and negative outcomes for children.”

The relationship between parenting and poverty, Ilan Katz, Judy Corlyon, Vincent La Placa and Sarah Hunter, Policy Research Bureau, 2007

• "(Difficulty in) parent-child relationship quality is associated with:
• Aggressive behaviour and delinquency
• Depression, anxiety and other internalising problems
• Social withdrawal
• High-risk health behaviours, such as smoking, illicit drug use, alcohol use
• Sexually risky behaviours
• A child’s own view of him/herself
• Social competence - (within peer relationships)
• Cognitive or academic outcomes”

Parenting and outcomes for children

Thomas G. O’Connor and Stephen B.C. Scott, Kings College London 2007

• High-risk areas are characterised by a struggle to get services: provision is sparse and inaccessible, the response to requests for support is inadequate.   

On Track Interim Report, (Sheffield University), March 2003

• While services can have…
• Different expectations and agendas
• Entrenched boundaries and separate identities
• No shared history of mutual trust
• Different processes and procedures
• Varying relationships with the community

Cf : Stephen Scott, Maudsley Hospital, Prevention of Anti-social Behaviour.

Resilience.

The "risk indicators” outlined above - and their affect on parents / families - can become a self-reinforcing cycle. They are inter-connected and complex: multiple risk factors are significant. Risk indicators are not labels (many children who experience them do well): they can help direct and focus intervention. Intervention should be about building resilience.

Resilience factors (also inter-connected and complex) can counter the above - and can be boosted, particularly by positive experiences. There is a complex relationship between risk and protection (not just the opposite).

To build resilience means focusing on positive outcomes, not the avoidance of negative outcomes.

Such a programme would need to

• Be non-stigmatising, allowing choice and providing positive experiences
• Use concepts of Need, Risk and Resilience
• Practise equality (engaging hard to reach families)
• Be holistic and integrated
• Offer multiple intervention and early intervention
• Balance universal with targeted approaches (universal can miss those most at risk, targeted can stigmatise / fail to engage)

And its participating services should have

• Common objectives, values and understanding.
• Skills and experience from a number of disciplines and agencies.
• Collaboration and focus on desired outcomes.
• Structure and a clear programme.
• A community base and links to existing networks.
• A target population and assertive outreach.

The provision of multi-modal services working at both the universal and the targeted levels, and incorporating parent support alongside direct work with children is now thought to be best practice in delivering interventions aimed at improving outcomes for children in high risk environments”.

National Evaluation of On Track, Policy Research Bureau, April 2004

Tylorstown On Track

On Track was a national research project, established by the Home Office to run from 2000 to 2007, measuring the validity of early identification and prevention, through innovative multi-professional interventions for families, children and young people, as well as the process and practice needed to establish multi - agency working at ground level.

Originally granted for the Tylorstown ward, the On Track Project in Rhondda Cynon Taf was rolled out to the whole of the Rhondda Fach valley - the school cluster area of Ferndale Community School - in 2002.

Subsequently the On Track Project was transferred from the Home Office to DfES oversight in England, in Wales to the Assembly (evaluation and research remaining with the Local and National Evaluation Teams).

In 2007 Tylorstown On Track’s funding was picked up by RCT’s Framework Partnership (Fframwaith) as part of a commission that included developing the approach in other communities in Rhondda Cynon Taf.

Originally 4 - 12 years, the age range was extended to 0 - 25 years old in 2007.

Tylorstown On Track has a multi-agency team based in the community - at the On Track centre in Tylorstown - who participate in open access community programmes within which identified or referred families who meet risk criteria are offered specialist, targeted intervention.

Tylorstown On Track 's model is to

• Identify the areas of greatest need and risk, and - to provide integration, focus and community engagement - align them with their School Cluster Group.
• Develop a multi-agency children and family service around, and in partnership with, the School Cluster Group.
• Linking specialist provision with universal services.
• Locating their planning and delivery close to the community.
• Building on universal services already provided in the community.
• Improving the access of all families to such services.
• Tailoring universal services to meet the diverse and demanding needs of 'at risk’ children and families.
• Delivering accessible targeted services within a context of enhanced community support and networks.

Partnership Working

Tylorstown On Track Services

The operational model of Tylorstown On Track is to develop:

• Services that are based on community partnership, needs assessment, community profiling and use of risk / protective indicators.
• Multi-agency partnership translated to multi-professional intervention giving practitioners from all agencies a focus to their involvement and clearer accountabilities.
• Intervention structured around evidence-based programmes (supported by individual work and home visiting) that can be evaluated and that have stated desired outcomes.
• A balance of universal and targeted programmes, making intervention more accessible and acceptable.
• Families engaging more readily and perceiving intervention more positively when it’s based on what they can achieve rather than monitoring what they do wrong.

Tylorstown On Track programme - 2008

Service Use

Tylorstown On Track service users 2001 - 2008

Current Use - Distribution by Intervention (as at June 2008)

Evaluation

Independent evaluation was commissioned by the Home Office Family Policy Unit, and was conducted in two phases. From 2000 to 2003 Sheffield University was commissioned to look at the content, structure and early lessons, while local evaluation teams (Cardiff University for Tylorstown On Track) looked at the quality of interventions. From 2003 to 2006 the Policy Research Bureau was commissioned to look at outcomes across the 23 On Track Projects. PRB also looked in detail at qualitative measures in 6 exemplar projects - Tylorstown On Track was one of them.

Sheffield University.

Much of their interim report addressed research on risk and resilience, which is incorporated in sections 1 and 2. They did, however, conclude:  

"Evidence and consultation confirm On Track is a good initiative because:

• It is non-stigmatising
• It allows choice
• It provides positive experiences   

With an effective approach that

• Offers multiple intervention
• Offers early intervention
• Makes use of risk assessment”

On Track Dissemination Conference 14^th March 2003

Cardiff University.

"The Intervention provides a positive input in relation to Parent Training, but also has a broader impact in relation to developing social networks; access to other On Track Interventions; and improvements in children’s behaviour in the home and community.  Parents’ accounts suggest a real partnership between themselves and professional agencies and evidences how they feel empowered to take on key roles in their community.

The Project puts considerable emphasis on the importance of genuine community engagement. The success of the Parent Support Strand owes much to that commitment.”

Cardiff University Project Evaluation, December 2002
Parenting work at Tylorstown On Track

"The input is intensive, but can claim significant success in changing individual family circumstances. There is evidence that the input has proved crucial in maintaining some family groups and preventing family breakdown and reception into Care.  It can also be said to have promoted social inclusion.”

• Cardiff University Project Evaluation, December 2002.
• Family work at Tylorstown On Track
• Factors contributing to successful start-up:
• Delivery Plan: continuity and clarity of interpretation 
• Flexible planning in line with local needs and resources
• Established grass-roots engagement
• Explicit rules and strategies adopted to effect engagement and access
• Support of local community in overcoming obstacles

Factors contributing to successful delivery

• Well resourced local premises
• Genuine engagement from Partner Agencies
• Strong Team spirit and sense of ownership
• Positive feed-back from impact on community
• Positive feed-back from successful outcomes

Cardiff University Project Evaluation, December 2002.

Project Implementation at Tylorstown On Track

Policy Research Bureau: National Evaluation: Reducing Risk and Increasing Resilience, May 2008

This report synthesises results from separate stand-alone publications from eight studies that together comprised the national evaluation of 23 On Track Projects. The report includes:

Impact at the level of individual children:

• emotional and behavioural problems… showed a decline in overall levels of difficulty for children in On Track areas and for children using On Track services
• In the primary schools survey disruptive behaviour at school had declined … A composite measure we labelled 'challenging behaviour’, which measured children’s immature behaviour, also declined significantly.

Impact at the level of the family:

• Some of the strongest evidence of impact was found at the level of the family. Protective factors at the family level… showed strong and consistent evidence of positive change that appeared to be associated with the presence of On Track.
• Children… reported significant increases in levels of parental supervision and monitoring...
• the findings were consistent with a picture of increasingly good relationships in families in the On Track areas, especially among those using On Track services… children reported significantly more parental warmth and involvement
• there was also a substantial increase in the proportions of parents who reported feeling 'very involved’ in their child's school life

Impact at the level of the peer group

• … the evidence for improvement in children’s peer relationships was encouraging. On Track did seem to have helped children in the highest need groups in particular to make new friends and to have more positive relationships with other children.
• Peer problems, as measured by a validated instrument, diminished over time for children living in On Track areas or using On Track services.

Impact at the level of the school

• Overall, there were positive changes at the school level in a number of dimensions, especially in relation to protective factors
• Qualitative data included observations by professionals that general behaviour and levels of concentration in class had improved in some primary schools following On Track services being established.
• School level protective factors showed (an) encouraging picture…older children’s attachment to and enjoyment of school showed substantial and significant positive changes over time… Primary school aged children also reported substantial increases on a measure of satisfaction at school.
• … we concluded that protective factors connected with school life showed promising evidence of improvement as the On Track programme matured.

Impact at the level of the community or neighbourhood

• some of the protective factors that were measured did in fact show positive movement over time.
• Youth views of the local neighbourhood got more positive over time for primary school children and especially so for children at schools with high levels of On Track activity.
• Service uptake appeared to increase in On Track areas once families were in contact with On Track, and showed strong increase amongst hard to reach section of the community. These findings are good indicators that On Track projects were successfully reaching out to parents and children in higher need groups…
• Policy Research Bureau: Phase 2: Qualitative Study, December 2005

This report looked in detail at qualitative measures in 6 exemplar projects (Tylorstown On Track was one of them - "Project E”) and found:

Changes to children’s behaviour

• Improving self-esteem and self-confidence:
• Improving social skills and how children relate to their peers or adults;
• Changing attitudes toward anti-social behaviour;
• Reducing disruptive behaviour in the classroom.

Changing and improving family relationships

• On Track interventions were described as helping to improve family relationships in a number of different ways: …by helping family members to recognise a problem or issue was present…
• Improving parent’s confidence in their parenting skills;
• Encouraging parents to respond positively to their child(ren); and
• Helping parents to change their responses to their children’s behaviour

Changes to children’s engagement and achievement in schools

• Improved attendance was reported as resulting from multiple interventions, intensive one to one work and/or effective transition work.  
• On track was believed to have contributed towards (preventing exclusion) … by providing schools with a different approach to dealing with children at risk of exclusion, which avoided the use of disciplinary measures.
• Support workers based in schools and mentors also reported seeing an increase in children’s enjoyment of lessons.  In other cases children seemed to enjoy school generally and particular lessons more when their own self-confidence had been increased through small group or one to one work.  

Community level changes

• Interestingly, initiatives around parenting skills and family relationships were also thought to have produced outcomes at the local community level…
• Parenting groups with positive dynamics were described as helping parents to find new social and support networks… fathers had taken to phoning each other during the week if they experienced a difficulty in relation to their child.  This was seen as a particular positive outcome of service intervention.  

Delivering on track services

• … what was striking was… (that the project) had developed a customised suite of activities and services which each contributed in their own way to an agenda of social inclusion and resilience …  it has clearly demonstrated that as exemplar… (the project) had created workable initiatives which were operating on a number of different levels…

The legacy of the On Track experience

On Track did have coherence as a programme …(whose) distinctive features (are)

• A shared theoretical framework for early intervention.  
• A focus on identifying local need and being flexible in design and delivery to accommodate that need
• Multi-agency planning and delivery outside the standard statutory agency environment
• Multi-disciplinary team and approaches
• Multiple interventions wherever possible to strengthen outcomes
• Varying levels of formal case-management systems to facilitate professional communication and make delivery to families seamless
• A strong focus on schools

Mick Millman, Head of Services for Young People, RCT Children’s Services. 26/06/08.