Identifying Young People ‘At Risk’

1. Identifying Young People ‘At Risk’ Deb Hull

2. Workshop • Research project • Current models • 2006 trial • Evaluation • Processes to support a ‘whole school’ model for MIPs

3. Research ‘At Risk’ of what? • Not completing school? • Becoming totally disengaged from education, training and work? • Youth offending? • Harm? Does everyone in your school agree on the ‘what’?

4. School-based indicators/behaviours • Truancy • Behavioural issues • Low literacy level • Low numeracy level • Significant change in demeanour, behaviour or performance • Attitude to schooling • Does not value school completion • Articulated intention of early school leaving • Negative peer influence • Aggression/violence

5. Community and family risk factors • Low parental education attainment • Poor family management practices • Poor parent-child relationships • Abuse • High crime neighbourhood • Incarcerated parent • Frequent change of location/school • High number of people in neighbourhood with vocational qualifications • Poverty • Low income household • Parental unemployment • Australian-born parents, English-speaking background • Aboriginal or Islander • Refugee • Fragmented/reconstituted family structures • Separation from family

6. Personal Risk Factors • Offending • Substance misuse • Association with anti-social peers/adults • Sex work • Social isolation • Male • Non-metropolitan • Working more than 5 hours of paid employment per week, especially for males • Primary carer for parent or guardian with illness or mental illness • Poor health • Low birth weight • Ill health or disability • Disruptive behaviours • Passivity • Low self esteem • Low motivation • Self-harming • High level of aggression/violence • Pregnancy/motherhood

7. School-based risk factors • Unsupportive school culture • Repressive discipline • Large class sizes • Unstimulating content • Competitive exam-dominated assessment • Negative student-teacher relationships • Negative peer relationships in school community • Absence of school counsellors • Lack of student participation in decision-making • Poor school/home relationships • Poor teaching quality • Lack of clear relationships with the wider community leading to an absence of support and referrals

8. Pitfalls of identifying young people as ‘at risk’ • Encourages focus on young person rather than school improvement • Pigeon-holing does not allow for resilience • No process to declare ‘no longer at risk’, no fresh start

9. Model 1: common practice Some combination of: • Referral from teachers • Referrals from parents • Self referrals from students • Review of literacy and numeracy levels • Review of school reports and assessment outcomes • Review of attendance patterns

10. Model 2: student survey • Detailed questions designed to elicit extent to which student has experienced or exhibited risk factors • All students complete • Analysis and reporting

11. Model 3: school checklist • Checklist/spreadsheet of risk factors • Completed by teachers • Access to complete and accurate information?

12. Model 4: staff-student connection • School structure at centre • Each student has one staff member who is responsible for their welfare, and for communication and maintaining positive relationship • Staff member may ‘follow’ the student through successive years at school • Staff member is first point of ‘at risk’ referral by teachers, parents, student • School processes support action by these staff members

13. Model 5: data review • Developed by Doug Smith – Brimbank-Melton LLEN • Draw down data from CASES • Identify list of ‘at risk’ young people • Teacher review of list, add and remove names

14. 2006 Trial of Model 5 • 5 schools in Brimbank-Melton area in 2005 • Up to 50 interested schools from Western Metropolitan Region and Grampians Region in 2006

15. Data review model • See handout • Includes capacity to map programs and services • Includes capacity to monitor student progress • Includes capacity to monitor effectiveness of programs and services

16. Evaluation • How do you know if the system your school is using to identify ‘at risk’ young people is working? • How can you improve if you don’t know?

17. Process • What are the processes (not the programs or services) that need to be in place to support whole-school approaches to retention/engagement?