Report of the Quality Assurance

Internal Inspection Week 2004

September 2004

Ray Barnard (Youth Service Manager)

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Inspection arrangements

3. Key findings

4. Ratios of staff to young people

5. The quality of relationships

6. The quality of youth work practice

7. The quality of the curriculum

8. The quality of outcomes for young people

9. Additional points from summary comments

10. Welcoming of the inspectors

11. Reports

Appendix 1 List of projects inspected

Appendix 2 Recording form used for inspection visits

Appendix 3 Guidelines for completing forms and giving

feedback

Appendix 4 List of areas of praise and improvement

1. Introduction

1.1 Hampshire County Youth Service (HCYS) internal quality assurance (QA) procedures have been implemented over the past five years to help monitor and improve, the quality of youth work managed by the service. The development of a QA framework built upon work on quality standards undertaken at county staff meetings. Input at the meetings involved one of Her Majesty's Inspectors and two Ofsted additional inspectors.

1.2 HCYS quality assurance processes relate directly to Hampshire County Council's corporate aims of improving services and maximising life opportunities.

1.3 This report summarises the key findings of the HCYS Internal Inspection Week 2004.

1.4 The purpose of the internal inspection week was to improve the quality of the service by:

· providing current information about the quality of provision across the county

· identifying strengths and areas for development

· prompting local action in response to constructively critical feedback

1.5 The report makes reference to the major strengths of the work observed during the inspections and highlights areas for development. Action, aimed at improving the service, is highlighted in bold and italic. It is not the intention of this report to identify the specific strengths and weaknesses of individual projects, as these are being followed up locally.

1.6 Arrangements have been made to feedback grades and recommended action points to the individual projects inspected, and to monitor the improvements made.

1.7 A review took place earlier this year of the processes involved in giving feedback to projects from internal inspection visits undertaken by managers and peers. The revised processes were utilised for the 2004 internal inspection week.

1.8 From October 2004, a full revision of the HCYS quality assurance framework is being undertaken under the leadership of the deputy county youth officer.

2. Inspection arrangements

2.1 Arrangements were made, through the HCYS district offices, to inspect three projects per district during week beginning 21 June 2004. The thirty three projects selected were chosen to reflect the variety of HCYS managed projects in the county. A full list of the projects visited is in Appendix 1.

2.2 Twenty two of the sessions inspected were in the evening, 8 were in the afternoon and 3 were in the morning. For logistical reasons 5 of the thirty three projects were visited during week beginning 28 June.

2.3 The range of projects visited:

10 open centre/club based, working with young people aged fourteen and over

6 detached/street work

4 advice and information centres

3 school based inclusion groups

2 centre/club based, working with young people aged ten to thirteen years

2 groups for young people with special educational needs

1 mobile project

1 sports based project

1 young parents group

1 health drop in

1 non-school based inclusions project

1 Duke of Edinburgh's Award open centre

2.4 Eighteen of the projects were visited by a pair of inspectors and the remainder by a single inspector. A blank copy of the pro-forma used for recording the visits made by inspectors, is attached as Appendix 2 and Appendix 3 is the list of guidelines issued with the pro-forma.

2.5 Some initial feedback to projects was given by inspectors at the end of the

observed sessions and the contents of the completed pro-forma were discussed with project staff by arrangements through senior youth workers.

2.6 To ensure recommendations for improvement are followed through,

appropriate action has been agreed locally and re-inspection visits will be made where necessary.

2.7 The majority of the feedback received from those involved in the inspection week indicates that arrangements made for the visits were generally satisfactory. Some of the inspection team, and staff at district offices, suggested earlier notice of the actual projects to be visited would have improved the process. However, feedback from the projects was split about whether there should have been longer notice of the visits. Some of the written feedback received from youth workers suggested that no notice at all should have been given and others would have welcomed a longer lead in period.

2.8 Judging by the feedback received from the projects, most staff welcomed the inspectors' praise and their constructive criticism. However, one project did find it difficult to accept some of the feedback given during the visit and two others had not seen the completed written report by the time they completed an evaluation questionnaire.

2.9 The issue of length of notice to be given of inspection visits, and other suggested improvements to the process, will be considered during the QA framework review.

2.10 The inspection team was drawn form the youth service senior management team, youth officers, senior youth workers and members of the training and development team. All inspectors were briefed by the youth service manager responsible for QA, either in groups or on a one to one basis.

2.11 Feedback suggests a training day ahead of next year's inspection week would be welcomed by the majority of the inspection team. The focus of the training will be the assessment criteria. This will be considered within the QA framework review.

2.12 Some colleagues made reference in feedback to the lack of involvement of young people in the inspection week.

2.13 Pilot work is already underway in two districts to involve young people in QA inspection visits and this approach will be built upon in the QA framework review.

3. Key findings

3.1 Project Grades

3.2 The inspectors used the following scale in grading projects:1 = Excellent; 2 = Very Good; 3 = Good; 4 = Satisfactory; 5 = Unsatisfactory; 6 = Poor; 7 = Very Poor.

No sessions were graded 1 Excellent 0%

Nine were graded 2 Very Good 27%

Fourteen were graded 3 Good 42%

Five were graded 4 Satisfactory 15%

Two were graded 5 Unsatisfactory 6%

One was graded 6 Poor 3%

No projects were graded 7 Very Poor 0%

Two projects were Un-graded 6%

3.3 The percentage of projects graded satisfactory or above is: 85%. This is close to the related 90% target in the Department of Education and Skills document Resourcing Excellent Youth Services (REYS) but still leaves room for improvement.

3.4 It is a credit to the youth workers that 70% of the projects visited (23 of 33) were graded at 3 - Good or above.

3.5 3 of the projects graded 2 - Very Good have been reported by the inspectors as being very close to attracting a grade of 1 - Excellent.

3.6 Due to issues between the various partners involved in one project, no young people were in attendance at the time of the inspection visit. Therefore, it was not possible to grade the project but the inspectors recommend a course of action which was welcomed by the youth workers. Local follow up action has now been taken.

3.7 During the inspection of one detached project, no contact was made with young people in their usual local meeting places. A very heavy down pour of rain being the obvious reason. On this occasion the inspectors gave feedback on the quality of the project's organisational arrangements and recording processes.

3.8 The County Youth Officer will be kept informed about the support given to the 3 projects graded 6 - Unsatisfactory and below, and the subsequent progress they make.

4. Ratios of staff to young people

4.1 The average ratio of workers to young people at the projects visited was 1:4 and the highest ratio was 1:14. The attendance level at projects during the inspection period was considerably lower than average. This was partly attributable to the televising of the Euro 2004 football tournament.

5. The quality of relationships

5.1 The quality of relationships between youth workers and young people was of a consistently high standard across the county.

5.2 The inspectors often described the quality of relationships between the workers and young people, as `very good' and occasionally referred to it as `excellent.' Words like `positive' and `respectful' were also commonly used. On a significantly high number of occasions, the inspectors praised the quality of relationships between young people and their generally positive behaviour.

5.3 In terms of constructive criticism of working relationships between youth workers and young people, a small number of workers were not seen to pro-actively engage with young people. Some less experienced staff, who had established a good rapport with young people, missed opportunities to use their relationship to enable learning to occur.

5.4 Where inspectors found room for improvement in working relationships they fed this back to the workers at the end of the observed session. Appropriate support, and follow up visits, have been arranged.

6. The quality of youth work practice

6.1 Positive comments, and other observations about the quality of youth work practice, were varied and specific to given projects. The most often repeated comments noted by the inspectors, referred to high quality interventions, which were responsive to individual needs. Some imaginative interventions drew high praise.

6.2 In groups it was often noted that good interventions were made to encourage

participation and to encourage young people to make active choices.

6.3 The good use of modern technology, and innovative ways of looking at serious issues, were highlighted by some inspectors. Positive comments were made about the use of informative CD ROMs and equipment specially designed to safely simulate, some of the affects of alcohol.

6.4 Good interventions were observed which challenged inappropriate language

and behaviour. Agreed codes of conduct were used as a tool for considering the implications of anti-social behaviour and to address equality issues.

6.5 Several of the inspectors praised the inter-personal and communication skills of youth workers. Positive comments were also made about youth workers using their planning skills to good effect.

6.6 The most repeated criticisms made about the quality of practice refer to missed learning opportunities. Some of the inspectors observed missed opportunities for young people to learn from being challenged about the affects of their behaviour on others, whilst others noted equality issues not being picked up by youth workers during the observed session.

6.7 Where inspectors found room for improvement in youth work practice they fed this back to the workers at the end of the observed session and noted it on the recording forms. Where appropriate, support and follow up visits, have been arranged.

6.8 The points raised about missed learning opportunities and equality issues, have been fed back to the staff development team for consideration when planning staff development opportunities.

7. The quality of the curriculum

7.1 A significantly high proportion of inspectors praised the quality of planning and preparation that went into the activities on offer during their visits. There were good examples of adjusting plans to respond to issues that arose during the sessions and of youth workers picking up on informal learning opportunities. This was noticed in 1:1 situations and in group-work.

7.2 There were positive comments about the involvement of young people in planning and about the curriculum reflecting the needs of young people. Further positive comments referred to the learning which arose from the good use of social, recreational and fun activities.

7.3 Constructively critical observations of the curriculum were specific to individual projects. These included the questioning of whether it was appropriate for a particular activity to be a `one off' rather than part of a developmental curriculum or a wider strategy.

7.4 In a small number of projects, inspectors noted the need for new staff to receive more direction and support. The use of experienced workers as role models, coaches and mentors was recommended. It was also noted that workers need to be familiar with, or thoroughly briefed about, the curriculum materials used and about any issues that may arise from using them.

7.5 In some building based projects staffing levels, and/or the lay out of buildings, reduced learning opportunities and diverted workers to monitoring and patrolling roles. The best use of shared buildings, and improvements in the way equipment could be laid out, was also raised by a few inspectors.

7.6 At one project, where the session had a major change of emphasis part way through, the transition failed to take account of the needs of individuals. At a project where work during the session was split between two sites, there was considerable variation in quality between the two sites. Other observations included inconsistencies in responses by workers to similar opportunities for spontaneous learning and the need for time to be built into sessions for young people to evaluate.

7.7 Where inspectors made recommendations to improve the curriculum on offer, they fed this back to the workers at the end of the observed session and noted it on the recording forms. Where appropriate, support and follow up visits, have been arranged.

8. The quality of outcomes for young people

8.1 A significantly high number of observations were made of young people gaining knowledge relevant to their lives, including: the affects of drugs; the law; facilities in the community; local decision making; recreational opportunities; training and further education opportunities; equalities; sexual health and other health related issues.

8.2 The inspectors also observed examples of young people developing their personal and social skills. For example, some young people informed inspectors that as a result of attending a HCYS project, they had gained in confidence, improved their anger management and felt better about themselves.

8.3 The most common criticism about outcomes for young people, referred to the lack of recorded learning outcomes and missed opportunities to accredit learning. However, most staff in charge of projects, made it clear that work to address these matters was currently going on in district and project teams.

8.4 The major area of improvement identified by the internal inspection week was the need to improve the recording, and accreditation, of learning outcomes.

8.5 This is a high priority for the service, and work has begun to address this at county, district and project levels. The most recent county staff development day was dedicated to recording and accrediting learning. A new HCYS certificate of achievement, and associated guidelines, have been produced and distributed. Targets have also been set for improving the level of accredited learning outcomes, including developing further use of the Duke of Edinburgh's Award.

9. Additional points from summary comments

9.1 Positive comments in the summary sections of the inspection pro forma, not referred to elsewhere in this report, included praise for good displays of information and positive references to high levels of awareness of health and safety. Comments were also made about the link between good planning and good delivery.

9.2 Reference was made by some inspectors to the need for easier access to e-mail and the internet, and for greater promotion of youth service projects to young people and the local community.

9.3 Additional constructive criticisms found in the inspectors' summaries are specific to the individual projects and have been followed up locally.

9.4 Appendix 4 is a list of the inspection teams `top 10' most common areas of praise and the `top ten' areas for improvement.

10. Welcoming of the inspectors

10.1 Inspectors reported feeling welcomed at all thirty three projects visited.

11. Reports

11.1 An initial feedback report, outlining the key findings of the internal inspection week, was circulated on 27 July 2004 to senior youth workers and to other colleagues involved in the inspection team. The purpose of the initial report was to give youth service managers an early indication of the results of the inspection and to enable senior youth workers to follow up the recommendations in district teams as soon as possible.

11.2 A summary of the findings has been produced as part of a report on quality assurance to the November meeting of the County Youth Panel.

Ray Barnard 15 September 2004

Appendix 1

Hampshire County Youth Service Internal Inspection Week 2004

List of projects visited

Rushmoor Havant

Cove School inclusion group Havant/Bedhampton detached work

Cody Youth Centre 739 healthy lifestyles drop-in

Project Bogart detached work Leigh Park work with 10-13 year olds

Eastleigh Basingstoke

Bursledon Hound and Hamble detached work The Hurst outreach work

Eastleigh Town detached work The Gateway Award Project

The Basement Youth Centre Friday + Club work with young parents

Hart

Yately Information Point

The Point advice and information centre

RAF Youth Centre

Gosport

Duke of Edinburgh's Award open award centre

Teenzone social inclusion work

Bridgemary work with 10-13 year olds

Winchester

Mobile Project (Wickham)

Carroll Youth Centre

Alresford Youth Centre

Test Valley

Winton School inclusion group

Romsey School inclusion group

Blenheim Hall Youth Centre

Fareham

Odyssey work with 10-13 year olds

Street Based Team detached work

Genesis Youth Centre

New Forest

Colors Youth Centre

The Bridge at Fordingbridge

Lymington sports project

East Hampshire

Bordon Youth Centre

The Station advice and information project

South detached work

Appendix 2

Hampshire County Youth Service Quality Assurance Procedures

This recording form of observations, comments assessment and recommendations, is to be used by managers and other designated staff, following quality assurance (QA) visits to County Youth Service provision. The contents will be used as a basis for feedback to projects and will inform countywide QA reports.

The form will be used during periods designated for `Internal Inspections' and to record all other QA visits.

The form must be completed immediately after the visit and all the associated guidelines for this process must be followed.

1. Details of visit

This form records the QA visit

By (name) On: (date)

To: (district) (name of project )

From: (time of arrival) To: (time of departure)

2. Staffing

Name of worker in charge at time of visit:

Ratio of staff to young people: 1:

3. Quality of relationships

(Trigger questions: How well are the youth workers getting on with young people? How are the young people behaving towards one another? Are the relationships conducive to learning?)

Observations and Comments

4. Quality of Youth Work practice

(Trigger questions: What interventions did the youth workers make? Were their actions in keeping with good youth work practice?)

Observations and Comments

5. Quality of the Curriculum

(Trigger questions: Was there evidence of planned learning activities? How well did young people engage with what was on offer? How well did the youth workers respond to any spontaneous/unplanned opportunities for learning?)

Observations and Comments

6. Quality of outcomes for young people

(Trigger questions: What did young people learn or achieve? Was their learning and achievement recognised and/or leading to accreditation?)

Observations and Comments

7. Summary comments and other observations

(Trigger questions: How good was the session overall? Did you observe other important points not recorded elsewhere e.g. about Health and Safety, the equipment used, accessibility etc?)

Observations and Comments

8. Grade

Using the 1-7 scale in the guidelines, what was your assessment of the project?

9. Recommended areas of improvement and any action points

(Trigger question: What needs to be addressed to improve the quality of this project?)

Observations and Comments

10. As a visitor to the project did you feel welcomed? YES / NO (Please circle)

Signed:

Date sent to County Youth Service information officer and to the senior youth worker

Please return to: Nigel Richardson

Information Officer

Hampshire County Youth Service

Room 118, Castle Avenue

The Castle

Winchester

SO23 8UG

Appendix 3

Hampshire County Youth Service Internal Inspection Week 2004



Hampshire County Youth Service Quality Assurance Procedures

Guidelines for completing the recording forms and giving feedback, following a quality assurance (QA) visit by a manager or other designated member of staff.

Hampshire Youth Service staff undertaking quality assurance visits and giving feedback will:

· attend the relevant briefing or training on county youth service QA procedures

· familiarise themselves with these guidelines and the feedback form to be used

· make any required arrangements with colleagues and the project

· observe at first hand the youth work going on in the session

· speak to young people and staff about the quality of relationships, the curriculum on offer and what young people learn and achieve from being involved in the project

· make brief notes during the session but do not carry a clipboard, or attempt to complete the form during the visit

· stay for the whole of one working session whenever possible

· give brief (10 minutes) feedback to the project staff at the end of the session if practicable

· complete the form immediately after the visit or within a maximum of 48 hours

· when working in a pair prepare any immediate feedback together and arrange the time when the written form will be completed

· be courteous, sensitive, honest, objective, fair and constructively critical

· use the following 7 point scale to grade the quality of work observed where indicated on the form:

o 1 = Excellent; 2 = Very Good; 3 = Good; 4 = Satisfactory; 5 = Unsatisfactory; 6 = Poor; 7 = Very poor

· make written observations, comments and recommendations succinct and to the point

· if requested, be prepared to discuss their observations and feedback at a later date with managers, the senior youth worker and the worker in charge

· send the original copy of the form to the information officer at the county youth office.

The process to be followed will include:

· the briefing and training of the managers and other staff involved

· informing the worker in charge and the senior youth worker before the visit

· informing the project staff and young people (if possible) by the worker in charge before the visit

· the visit will be at an agreed time on an agreed date

· brief feedback to the staff at the end of the session

· the completion of the recording form by the visitor(s) within 48 hours of the visit

· the sending of the form to the county youth service information officer and the senior youth worker in the relevant district, within the agreed time-frame

· the senior youth worker arranges feedback to the project (if required through a three way meeting of the senior youth worker, the worker in charge and the visitor). The senior youth worker informs the youth service manager of outcomes from the visit

· the worker in charge and where appropriate other staff, use the recommendations and the other feedback to plan improvements to their work

· using the copy of the form sent to the county office for monitoring the quality of the service and to compile county-wide QA reports



Appendix 4

Hampshire County Youth Service Report of the Quality Assurance Internal Inspection Week 2004

The items on the `top ten' lists below have been kept as succinct as possible and have been produced by amalgamating observations and comments made by the inspectors.

The `top ten' list of the most common areas for praise of the projects visited by the inspection team:

1. High quality of working relationships between youth workers and young people.

2. Constructive and friendly relationships amongst young people themselves.

3. Good preparation and planning of the curriculum.

4. Wide range of learning observed by inspectors and fed-back by young people.

5. Good use of youth work skills to facilitate learning.

6. Good use of challenging, enjoyable, fun, and social activities.

7. Good range and display of information.

8. High levels of awareness of health and safety issues.

9. Imaginative use of equipment including some modern technology.

10. Co-operative approach and good general behaviour of young people.

The `top ten' list of the most common areas for development

1. Increase the accreditation of the learning achieved by young people.

2. Improve the recording of what young people learn from being involved in the service.

3. Ensure that the best use is made of the space available in building based projects.

4. The curriculum needs to be developmental in approach, with the emphasis on the growing participation and empowerment of young people.

5. Youth workers need to aim for a consistent response to spontaneous learning opportunities.

6. Access to e-mail and the internet should be more widely available.

7. Publicity should be increased to attract greater numbers of young people and promote good youth work.

8. Feedback from young people should be integrated into sessions and used to evaluate work.

9. Workers need to be briefed about any new curriculum materials they may be using and any associated issues.

10. Experienced workers should act as role models to new members of staff.