1 / 14

Case evaluation of a holistic approach to addressing female youth violence.

Case evaluation of a holistic approach to addressing female youth violence. Anna McLeay 12/10/11. Case background. Local Authority Early Intervention Team 15 year old female Excluded from school – previously truanted Offending in community – violent offending

boris-ross
Download Presentation

Case evaluation of a holistic approach to addressing female youth violence.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Case evaluation of a holistic approach to addressing female youth violence. Anna McLeay 12/10/11

  2. Case background • Local Authority Early Intervention Team • 15 year old female • Excluded from school – previously truanted • Offending in community – violent offending • Several moves between caregivers • Preston-Shoot and Williams (1987) model of evaluation – aims, objectives, indicators and review/findings.

  3. Overarching Aims • Safe and stable place to live and be cared for • Reflects difficulties in developing secure attachments • To promote wellbeing (Children Scotland Act 1995 and Getting It Right for Every Child) • General aim pertinent to holistic approach

  4. Objectives • Establish relationship with Claire. • Secure a safe place to live. • Accessing educational provision then encouraging Claire to engage with this. • Reducing offending. • Access and engage with formal supports.

  5. Intervention • One-to-one work with Claire. • Supporting Mum • Multiagency working – developing a formal support network • Social Background Report

  6. Indicators (1) Objective 1 (relationship) - Engagement with one-to-one sessions (quantitative) Objective 2 (safe and secure place to live) - Whether Claire had a safe place to live (absolute) - Perceived accuracy of SBR (qualitative) Objective 3 (educational provision) - Whether educational provision accessed (absolute) - Attendance (quantitative)

  7. Indicators (2) Objective 4 (offending) • Rate of offending (quantitative) Objective 5 (formal support network) • Whether formal support services accessed (absolute) • Pattern of engagement with formal support services (quantitative) Overarching aim 2 (promote wellbeing) • DoH ‘Adolescent Wellbeing Questionnaire’ (quantitative and promoted discussion)

  8. Review/findings (1) • Relationship • 10/16 sessions attended 2. Safe place to live (including assessment) • Living in safe place • Assessment accurate? - To an extent. Effectiveness of SBR unknown. 3. Education • Educational provision accessed • 61.25% overall attendance (varying over 8 weeks)

  9. Review/Findings (2) 4. Offending • Reduction in offending over last 5 months 5. Formal support network • Accessed (Youth Offending; Homelessness service; Intensive Support Service) • Engagement – varied Overall safety and wellbeing • Safe place to live although volatility of situation meant contingency plan required. • DoH ‘Adolescent Wellbeing Questionnaire’ score reduced from 12 to 8.

  10. What worked well • Systematic approach to evaluation - allowed reflection. • Allowed me to apply theory to practice. • Seeking Claire and her mother’s views was valuable as an indicator.

  11. Challenges • Not easy to measure and quantify qualitative indicators e.g. trust. Qualitative approach better for evaluating work with female offenders (Hedderman et al. 2011). • Being objective when evaluating own practice. • Need for objectives and indicators to be flexible to allow for changing situations.

  12. Key tensions • Balancing risk - referral to Reporter vs. risk of situation deteriorating. • Multiagency working . • Success of preventative work may be difficult to measure. • Time restraints on qualified workers affects ability to evaluate work.

  13. Lessons for future evaluation • Setting up indicators with family. • Useful to further consider how outcomes of different objectives are dependent on each other. • While large-scale quantitative evaluation of outcomes are necessary, small-scale case evaluation could be valuable for continuous learning and professional development.

  14. References 4 research articles Biehal, N. (2008) ‘Preventative Service s for Adolescents: Exploring the Process of Change’, British Journal of Social Work, vol. 38, pp. 444-461 McAra, L. and McVie, S. (2010) ‘Youth crime and justice: Key messages from the Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime’, Criminology and Criminal Justice, vol. 10(2), pp. 179-209 Moran, P., Jacobs, C., Bunn, A. and Bifulco, A. (2007) ‘Multi-agency working: implications for an early intervention social work team’, Child and Family Social Work, vol. 12, pp. 143-151 Thomas, J. and Holland, S. (2010) ‘Representing Children’s Identities in Core Assessments’, British Journal of Social Work, vol. 40, pp. 2617-2633 Evaluation model Preston-Shoot, M. and Williams, J. (1987) ‘Evaluating the Effectiveness of Practice’, Practice, vol. 1(4), pp. 393-405

More Related