Section 5: Case Examples

This section contains a number of examples of PAR projects. You can use the information in this section to help orient new staff or your co-inquirers on how PAR might be undertaken. As you develop examples of your own PAR you can add them to your resources.

The first case example is a composite of a number of different PAR cases and experiences. It is intended to be a tool for you to read and see how a number of themes in establishing a PAR process play out. You may find it useful as a training exercise at your agency or with your PAR co-inquirers.

The other case examples (2 -7) are drawn from the experiences of particular Reconnect and NAYSS services. They are not intended as models to be copied, but as examples of how PAR was used and written up in different contexts.

None of these examples are comprehensive. Most were written originally as summaries. However each is illustrative of one or more aspects of PAR. Each example is introduced with a short commentary by this manual’s authors.

5.1 A hypothetical case study

This is a hypothetical example. The circumstances and strategies referred to are drawn from various AR experiences and reports. Reading this case example might assist you to see how various processes referred to in earlier sections can be put into practice in a particular context. This may assist you in developing your own PAR process.

Macro question: What would it take to improve young people’s engagement with family and education?

This is a big question. There are many complex and inter-related factors contributing to disconnection from school and family. These include individual family histories and values; specific cultural and community contexts; the unique situations, capacities and attitudes of a young person and groups of young people; the policies, procedures, values, capacities, resources, accessibility and organisational cultures of education and training institutions; the views and responses of the local community, police, local council. And so on. This question could take many years to properly answer in your community. Coming up with a smaller question that is still relevant yet more realistic is a process in itself (see Section 2.3.1 – 2.3.3).

The big question, and ideas for smaller questions, can be discussed with all of your stakeholders both informally and formally. Day to day work provides the opportunities for this talking. These discussions sow seeds for collaborative research work. A set of smaller, targeted and related micro questions can be explored (see Section 2.3.4).

In this hypothetical example it is understood that the quality of a young person’s connection to family and school is directly related to the general stability of their living situation. The workers are in contact with parents who are distressed by either their child’s suspension or expulsion from school or their refusal to attend. These parents are desperate to see them re-engaged in learning rather than bored and wandering the streets. In this agency both the youth worker and the family worker understand the critical link between school failure, family connection and pathways to homelessness. They are also aware that this risk will be even greater if parents are at their wits end and close to ‘washing their hands of their kids’. Inclusion in school and support to parents are two factors that the workers believe will lessen the likelihood of young people heading down the path towards homelessness. The workers are concerned about their underdeveloped links with the school and the absence of mutual understandings of each other’s (community agency and school) roles and capacities to support and hold these young people and families into school and the wider community.

Prior to initiating a PAR process with their community of stakeholders, the workers in this example undertake some internal agency reflection. They reflect on their observations of young people and families, on the reasons for young people’s disconnection – or risk of disconnection – from school and family, and the agency’s current work to support and assist these young people and their families. In staff meetings, case management reviews and with the agency board of management discussions are held to consider how, what, when and with whom they could initiate a PAR process. Big questions are tossed around in a process of critical reflection on the agency’s current practice and the areas they wish to better understand and strengthen. Focussed discussion and planning also occurs around:

• Who within the agency will take the lead in a PAR process?
• Who will support, supervise and encourage ongoing observation and reflection?
• Who are our stakeholders?
• How will workloads be shared and managed to enable PAR to be given a priority place in daily practice?
• How will recording and documentation be resourced to enable it to occur throughout all phases of the process? (see Section 2.1)

At this initial stage – as in daily practice – ethical concerns about peoples’ rights, and the agencies responsibilities and the commitment to do no harm, are affirmed as critical elements of any PAR process (see Section 3.3).

Engaging Stakeholders and Coming up with a Realistic Question (Part 2)

To get their observations and concerns into a larger community arena the agency decides to use their existing connections with those stakeholders affected by concerns around young people’s risk of disconnection from school and family. They take all opportunities to interact with the school executive and key support personnel. They make contact with a number of individual young people who have been recently suspended and/or expelled from school. They note the numbers of young people at risk and those already experiencing disconnection. They begin to document. They keep a diary of their activity – identifying forces affecting disconnection and re-connection as they go. They note what they do and with whom. They note the observations, perspectives and ideas of all the stakeholders with whom they have contact. These notes will be shared with these stakeholders in PAR processes along the way.

The workers have identified some openness for re-engagement with school amongst some young people. In a number of cases this appears to be borne out of a high degree of boredom and trouble with local police. The workers met some of these young people through their parents – mainly mothers – who are struggling to cope and want your assistance to get their kids back into school. They begin to think and chat about the big question with these young people and their parents whenever possible. They tell them about their research ideas and note their responses. They start posing some smaller related questions:

• What could we do to get the school to engage with us about this issue?
• What could we do to improve support to families struggling to hold their children into school?
• What could we do to support parents struggling with the challenging behaviours of their sons and daughters?
• What could we do to get support to vulnerable young people and minimise the risk of disconnection from school and family?
• What could we do to improve the young people’s openness, readiness and capacity to return and settle into school?
• What could we do to get some alternative learning program going?

All these questions have been generated out of the workers observations, and their listening and reflection on their day to day work. They are all relevant questions – some are bigger and more complex than others. Coming up with a realistic initial question will be a process that considers what is meaningful right now for their service, their clients and the other key stakeholders. The PAR question should reflect a current practical issue in the work that an action inquiry could both shed light on and strengthen the capacity for improved service responses (see Section 2.3.6: Table 6: Characteristics of Good Micro Questions).

In this example a practical starting point and manageable question would be to focus on improving the communication between the young people, the families and the school. Improved communication will be critical if all the stakeholders are to work together to address the complex issue of improving connections for vulnerable young people with family, school and community supports and opportunities.

Getting Started (Part 3)

Getting people together will be a key starting point. The workers in this example sought meetings with key school personnel – the guidance officer, the deputy principle, the school nurse and the student support unit. They provided information to the school, prior to this meeting, about their agency and their requirement to undertake PAR within the framework of early intervention services and youth homelessness. They prepared for this meeting by gathering together the key facts and observations that had led to their concern about the numbers of young people disconnected – or at risk of disconnection – from school and family. They managed to do a quick literature search around this issue and came up with some relevant material that they gave to all stakeholders, either at formal meetings or informally, as appropriate and as day to day service delivery brought them into contact. This included a very relevant report done by a service in another part of the country, and alarming statistics on the levels of suspension and exclusion in the region. These facts, readings and other preparatory notes were all copied and housed with other documentation relating to the PAR project in the central place they set up in their agency for PAR documentation (see Section 2.3: Table 2: Common Approaches for Recording PAR).

The research question and proposed plan of action continued to be refined as the workers invited and enabled the participation of all the identified stakeholders. In this example the stakeholders were a mix of the agencies delivering core services such as education, police, supported housing and income support services and the less empowered young people and parents who were often at odds with these services. The community agency initiating the PAR process was in a unique position. It had links and relationships with all the parties and could play a critical role in convening bigger facilitated consultations or smaller less formal conversations. In these forums different observations and views can be heard and reflected on, questions can be posed and issues and ideas aired before decisions and plans are made for a course of collaborative action.

In this example, the parents’ views tilted things in the direction of wanting activity that gets something happening for their kids. The school’s input leant towards questions about how the community agency could assist them to manage very vulnerable young people with challenging behaviours who are at risk of being suspended or expelled. For the agency itself a critical issue was their current workload, a range of competing demands and the need to set realistic priorities. All of these issues and constraints were discussed with all the stakeholders – to various degrees as appropriate. At the heart of things was a question about how everyone could improve how they shared and worked together to improve the situations of the most vulnerable.

After the first round of engagement, consultation, reflection, agreement and documentation the PAR question evolved into:

What could we do to build stronger communication and real collaboration between our agency, vulnerable young people and their families and the local high school/s?

This question was a step towards creating the ground to answer the bigger question. Without dialogue, trust and collaboration, the bigger questions cannot be addressed. The task now was to create an action plan that attempted to find a way to improve the communication, involve young people and families and achieve some real collaboration with the local school and other sources of opportunity and assistance in the community (see Section 2.4.1).

Developing a PAR Plan (Part 4)

Achieving real participation was a challenge in relation to this issue. The parents of excluded students wanted some hope that new options would emerge for their children. School personnel were initially seeking some practical solutions in return for their time with a community agency who is talking about ‘collaborative problem solving’. Young people needed some encouragement to be involved. They questioned whether their complaints and aspirations would really be heard and understood. The challenge was to facilitate a series of processes in which these potentially estranged stakeholders could participate and, in so doing, influence the whole process.

The discussions with stakeholders – both formal and informal – worked on clarifying the focus of the inquiry and working out how it could be overseen and implemented.

A reference group was established made up of the agency’s PAR worker, local school representatives, two parents, a local police representative and other community organisation representatives that the stakeholders agreed should have a place at the table. This group agreed on a plan that involved:

• Ongoing reference group meetings to review progress, synthesise feedback, analyse data being gathered and monitor and support overall activity and its documentation.
• The agency workers recruited, trained and supported a small group of young people to undertake peer interviews, in collaboration with the reference group. These young people had been engaged through the case work activities of the service and through the school. They were involved in discussions about the focus of the PAR project, and were key contributors, along with parents and the reference group, in determining the interview questions, language and style of the questionnaire to be used with their peers. The data collected from these interviews assisted the stakeholders to understand what was happening for young people, and what needed to be the focus of adult collaborations.
• Consultation with parents. The agency workers undertook the consultation with assistance from the parent/s on the reference group and school guidance officer/support unit.
• Analysis of the peer interviews and consultation. This was done by the agency worker and the school guidance officer and discussed with the young people, parents and reference group. A summary was developed and distributed to all participants in easily understood language.
• A facilitated session between key services and institutions with responsibilities for young people at risk of disconnection from school, family and community. This session focussed on understanding the different roles and responsibilities of participants, as well as discussion, reflection and brain storming on ways to improve and sustain interagency communication, collaboration and responsiveness. Protocols for information sharing and collaborative activity began to be considered. This session occurred after the peer interviews and parent consultation had been completed and analysed.

The peer interviews and parent consultation revealed a number of issues and concerns held by young people and by parents that had not been fully aired in an interagency forum. While there was a tendency by participants to want to leap in and start trying to address these issues and concerns the interagency gatherings endeavoured to remain true to the initial PAR question.

The process itself started to deliver outcomes in the form of improved relationships and communication between the various participants in the process, and an enhanced understanding about what was driving disconnection (evident from the reference group minutes and worker journaling). The basis has been laid for developing specific strategies which can be trialled as possible ‘answers’ to the main question. See Section 2.4: Table 8: Some questions to ask when you plan.

Action and Learning (Part 5)

The outcome so far has been to undertake some initial investigation, and use this to bring together various stakeholders in different forums, some formal, some not, so that a collaborative plan could be developed. The decision is made to trial a set of protocols and strategies that focus on improving communication between the school, young people, parents and the early intervention service. The school agreed to contact where possible the early intervention service when a young person was at risk of being suspended or expelled. Information sheets on support available to parents were to be developed and distributed, and young people involved were invited to form the core of a peer support strategy within the school so that students experiencing distress had someone they could talk to and who could assist them to find support. The reference group discussed how each of these would be evaluated.

This question What could we do to build stronger communication and real collaboration between our agency, vulnerable young people and their families and the local high school/s? asks participants to think about how they could get better at working together. It asks the community agency to consider what they could do and insists that they get feedback from their stakeholders. It asks all participants to consider the input of the more vulnerable - young people at risk of unfinished schooling, unemployment and homelessness. It seeks to understand their position and the position of their parents and families. The question seeks to include the perspectives of all the stakeholders and together seriously explore how - through ‘having a go’ - everyone from the key institutions, support services, young people and parents could be respected as having something to contribute to finding better ways of doing things. No doubt there will be barriers to achieving this - not all strategies will work first time, some may need changing or refining, and others may simply be classified as ‘good in theory’. The process of inquiry can put people in a better position to identify constraints and engage in systems and policy advocacy to address these.

Some questions to consider:

• How is this scenario similar or different to your context?
• At what points in a PAR process would you seek assistance to convene and facilitate stakeholder meetings/gatherings?
• What do you imagine were the ideas generated in the facilitated sessions to improve communication and create real collaboration in the above example?
• What are the biggest challenges when trying to ensure the participation of clients?
• What do you think they tried?
• What would you do in your context?
• What do you think they learnt?
• What would you be looking for in the documentation of this example of a PAR process?
• What do you think the next PAR cycle could focus on?

5.2 Engaging across services
      PAR with CaLD young people and Centrelink

This example was provided by the Centre for Multicultural Youth (CMY), Victoria.

The following example demonstrates a clear articulation of the components of the PAR cycle (i.e. observation, reflection, planning and action), and the clear engagement and participation of key stakeholders (young people and Centrelink) in the process.

Macro question (A Reconnect Question of National Significance):

What would it take to improve early intervention outcomes through coordination of, and collaboration between, services delivered by government and the community sectors?

Micro question:

What would it take to provide alternative opportunities for young people to participate in providing feedback to and communicating with Centrelink?

Observe: Young People and Centrelink

• Reconnect had been trialling feedback mechanisms for young people in South East Victoria
• The worker observed that many young people were taking up the opportunity to write their comments on issues for young people and CaLD young people
• Centrelink were implementing their new Youth Strategy at the same time and were keen to get some direct feedback from young people

Reflect: How to facilitate feedback to Centrelink

• The Reconnect worker and Centrelink staff felt this was a great opportunity to work in collaboration to gather feedback from young people
• As this had already been happening at YouthLinks, a generalist drop in Youth Centre (the base for the Reconnect position in the South East), it seemed like a great opportunity
• Centrelink staff were also keen to respond to issues young people identified

Plan: Trial using graffiti to gather feedback

• Planned to trial the process of gathering feedback from young people at YouthLinks rather than at Centrelink sites as with previous attempts
• Planned to use graffiti style for feedback as young people were used to this form and a graffiti project was running at the same time in YouthLinks
• Met with Centrelink to plan questions and timeframes

Act: Ask questions & provide means to make a response (graffiti)

• Placed large sheets of paper up on the wall and asked three simple questions:
  • ‘How do you think Centrelink’s staff treat young people?’
  • ‘How could Centrelink work better with culturally diverse young people?’
  • ‘Have you noticed any changes in the last year?’
• The project was trialled over one month
• Pens were attached to the paper and the receptionist encouraged young people to make comments

Observe: Young people engaged

• Lots of young people wrote comments on the graffiti paper
• Many had the time to write while in the waiting room
• The young people didn’t need much encouragement to contribute

Reflect: Right environment, right medium

• It was the sort of environment where young people felt comfortable in expressing their opinions
• Graffiti seemed to be a familiar form to the young people who participated and the workers reflected on the fact that this has been a form that young people use to feed back to society about their feelings anyway
• The workers then identified a need to compile all the feedback for Centrelink and to prepare a document
• Some ideas for further development of the concept include: asking questions in different languages, encouraging young people to write in their first language or doing something visual

Plan: Digitalise young people’s feedback, provide to Centrelink

• The workers decided to digitally scan each comment that young people made in order to maintain the authenticity of their comments
• The workers then planned to submit the document to Centrelink for comment and to place Centrelink’s response up on the wall for the young people to make further comments – engaging in more of a dialogue with Centrelink

Summary

CMY learned key lessons about the use of creative techniques for gathering feedback from Refugee and CaLD young people. In particular, this cycle provided an opportunity to work with Centrelink on a key barrier for Refugee/CaLD young people: providing feedback. It also empowered the Centrelink staff involved to more effectively ‘engage’ with Refugee/CaLD young people in that they had the opportunity to provide feedback and seek further responses from the young people through the use of an Action Research approach.

Porter Orchard 2002 – 2003 Reconnect Action Research Reports: Summary and Analysis

5.3 Embedding PAR into everyday practice
 ‘A day in the life’ of Reconnect workers using Action Research

This example was contributed by Connect, Northern Territory and is an updated version of an earlier version that was produced in the Reconnect Action Research Kit (2000).

This ‘day in the life’ illustrates through a worker’s eye how PAR plays out in their day to day practice. It shows how PAR can be woven into everyday practice in a variety of ways, and that a number of questions can be pursued simultaneously. It includes simple systems that allow for the recording and analysis of observations.

This narrative highlights how a worker might contribute to several AR processes in a single day, particularly if strategies have been set up at the agency to record ‘data’ from existing lines of inquiry. In this way over time AR becomes embedded into the daily practice of the worker and the service.

Being a Reconnect worker means that on any given day you can work across a huge spectrum of areas, using a number of interventions and with goals ranging from individual client change to long-term systemic change. The use of PAR in everyday work is imperative to the continued development of the Connect services in Darwin, Palmerston and East Arnhem. With such a large emphasis put on the process over the years, Connect has ingrained the use of AR questions and ways to develop/change how the program is run in response to client/community feedback, into every aspect of its service provision.

This is a typical (if you could call it that) day in a Connect worker’s life…

8.30am–9.15am

Begin work, receive a message on the answering machine from Rita (Joanne’s Mum who I provide case support to) requesting an immediate response. A phone call is made back to her after speaking with the other Connect worker, who supports the young person. Rita is asked for her preferred way of receiving support. The result was that the other Connect worker finds out if Joanne would be OK about a meeting between them all.

Action Research Component

An ongoing Action Research question is ‘whether it is more viable for the young person and their parents to have separate workers’. It has been found through AR that this was often the case, but with the recognition that every client is different, this is a question that is asked of clients and ourselves every time we engage with a family.

10.00am–12.00pm

Meeting with the local Headspace service. Now that the new service has been operational for a short while and other mental health services have commenced in the Top End, Headspace is again bringing together key stakeholders in the area to look at “What would it take to improve the mental health response for young people living in Palmerston?” The service has had involvement in discussions with service providers and young people in the area over the past five years. A part of this was improving co-case management practices when working with young people and their families.

Action Research Component

It is terrific to see another service utilising AR! One of the key things to come out of the meeting was that there are still many service providers who don’t know what each other do in relation to mental health responses. We’ve committed to doing further work to improve communications across the sectors and through this to improve outcomes for young people (…and loved the lunch).

1.00pm–2.30pm

Meeting with a young woman who is 14 years old. Went to shopping centre food court and discussed current issues. These included school truancy, self-harming behaviour and violent behaviour towards other people. On returning from the meeting, a few observations regarding our meeting are placed in the 12 to 15 file.

Action Research Component

The key to making AR successful in terms of client work has been the ability to make it accessible on a daily basis. An example of this is creating a file titled ‘what works with 12 to 15 year olds?’ This came about as a result of observations by workers and in dialogue with local agencies. This age group’s support needs seemed to be different. The aim of this file is that when a worker has dealings with someone in this age group, they jot down what was effective, whether it be ‘meeting for shorter times’ or ‘driving the whole time’, and drop this in the file. This was a time-effective way of collecting information that was later collated. Then it was used at the service level and fed into an inter-agency process for improving access of under 15’s. This helped to support services and improve their capacities to respond effectively.

2.45pm–3.00pm

Return from client visit and receive a message (amongst others) from the school counsellor at a local high school. Return her call to accept a referral for a 15 year old male requiring assistance with a mix of issues including extreme conflict with parents and the need to look at income support needs. Time made to meet with him and the school counsellor tomorrow.

Action Research Component

The school counsellors and Connect workers have agreed to use AR to look at the best ways the service and school can work together to have the optimum result for the young person. Though this practice has been in place for a long time, staff change regularly and it’s important to re-energise questions for new staff in Connect and with the school. Tomorrows meeting will be a good opportunity for observation and reflection on how collaborative early intervention case work can happen. At a practical level, we are asking ‘what would it take for the young person and their family to have more options for referral, advocacy and support?’

3.00pm–4.30pm

Pick another client up from school and take her to Centrelink in relation to a breach that has been imposed. Exceptional circumstances have come to light in our work with her. During this interview, it strikes me that Connect staff have been regularly providing additional information to Centrelink at the time of a breach and that a collaborative look at communication processes between the agencies might improve the information base for decision making. I make a note to follow this up with Centrelink.

Action Research Component

The statements and experiences of young people (anecdotal evidence) indicated it was worth looking at this area. This insight led to communication with Centrelink and it was later decided we would look collaboratively at how the service and Centrelink could improve communication, particularly at the time of breaches. A page in the back of the service daybook (a book used between workers to communicate information during the day) was created to record client experiences of, and worker communications with, Centrelink. This information was then able to go to the regular collaborative meeting we have with Centrelink staff as a basis for improving practice between the agencies and identifying any emerging issues. From the meetings, collective decisions could be made.

4.30pm–5.00pm

Message in daybook from other Connect worker saying that Joanne says that she will meet with her Mum tomorrow night. Contacted Rita and told her that a meeting time has been made for tomorrow night after work at the office with her daughter. I help her prepare for the meeting and clarify with her the main issues she wishes to raise and discuss with her the potential impact on her daughter of speaking about these issues. The conversation ended with Rita being asked how she found phone contact as a way of getting support and indicating that face-to-face was always an option. Rita said she was happy with phone support as the main way of communicating, as it was very convenient for her.

Action Research Component

Another AR question constantly being explored by Connect is ‘What is the most effective way to support families?’ One strategy for exploring this is for phone support to be actively offered to parents, as well as face-to-face meetings. There was some anecdotal evidence that parents often find phone contact a more viable and practical means of support. The worker records Rita’s feedback on the Action Research Observation Sheet which has been set up to look at phone support, (a one month focus). So far this is showing that phone support is a viable form of client work and not ‘just a phone call’.

Next day: East Arnhem 8.30am

Start work, young woman 17 comes into Connect office, hungover and hungry, wanting water and something to eat. She slept out last night and couldn’t get a lift back home as the night patrol had finished. Made a cup of tea with her and had a chat. She was a client of a pilot program that has recently finished. She says she’s drinking more since the program finished.

Action Research Component

With the end of a pilot Alcohol and Other Drugs (AOD) program which was developed through the Action Research question, “What would it take to support young people with alcohol and other drug issues?” we are gathering information about what’s happening for young people who were engaged in the program now that it’s finished. I write a note about what she told me and pop it into the AOD file.

9.30am -10.30am

Mental health assessment with Debbie (a client), her mother, and the mental health worker in our office. Debbie has had thoughts of suicide and has agreed that she needs help from her family and from the mental health mob. She has requested that we all be present for her assessment, and the mental health workers have agreed to this.

Action Research component

“What would it take to support young Indigenous people to access mental health support?” One of the suggestions from this question has been that offices other than the clinical spaces be used, such as the Connect counselling space, or home visits. Debbie already had a relationship with our service and is comfortable there so it makes sense to have the assessment there.

11.00am to 12.30pm

Meeting in a community with the parents of young men boarding at a high school in Darwin. The young men are getting into trouble at the school, and parents are concerned they’ll get expelled if they don’t get more support and do something with their spare time.

Action Research component

During the meeting the question “What would it take to better support young people at boarding school?” emerged as something the parents wanted to look at. The parents’ idea is that they would like the young men to be participating in more cultural activities, e.g. hunting, spear making and fishing, so they are doing the things that keep them strong as cultural young men. I agree to contact the Connect service in Darwin to see how they can help this group of young men stay connected to their culture and families, and bring this information back.

1.30pm to 3.00pm

Responding to phone calls and messages from the morning. There’s a message from the midwives at the hospital asking if there is anything we can do for young mothers. There are seven young women pregnant at the moment whom won’t access mainstream child birth education nor attend appointments regularly. They’re hoping there’s something we can do together to help these young women.

Action Research component

In the first years of our service we conducted a young mothers’ program, using the question, “what would it take to support young mothers in East Arnhem?” We refer back to this information to discover that the strong women were trained to deliver child birth education. We’ll arrange a meeting with these women and the midwives to see if we can support them to get it happening again.

3.30pm to 5.30pm

Running of a girls’ group. This is a socio-educational group is based on health and wellbeing goals. Young women are engaged in the planning process and use Participatory Action Research processes to evaluate it.

Action Research component

The group was developed following hunches by workers that sexual health information out there was not being understood by many young people and a lot of misinformation was noted from discussions with young people during case work. “What would it take to improve young women’s access to sexual health information?” Sent workers on a search for a suitable program for the region and the information found was brought back and shared with the elders. With approval from elders, a program was implemented and continues to be evaluated.

5.4 Using a visual template to summarise your PAR
‘Riding the Waves’

The following example is contributed by St Luke’s Anglicare in Victoria.

This example uses a visual template to summarise each cycle, of which there are four in total. The development of the strategy to make a video is told in an engaging way. The inclusion about how people felt as the project developed adds to the sense of authenticity. A summary such as this can convey a lot of detail in a small space.

5.5 Engaging stakeholders across multiple cycles
PAR in a Rural setting

This contribution is from Mercy Reconnect in Western Australia. It has been partially de-identified for publication in this manual.

This example demonstrates clear use of the phases of the PAR cycle, the engagement and participation of key stakeholders in the PAR process, and how changes and improvements to service delivery emerged from the PAR process.

This research first explored the Question of National Significance:

“What would it take to maximise involvement and collaboration with schools and what does/would it take to address these?”

They then developed the following micro question:

“What would it take for our rural team to provide relevant and effective services to the regional agricultural college?”

Cycle 1

Observation/Reflection/Plan

Background

Our Reconnect service provides a telephone support service to young people and families living in regional Australia. Within the service delivery region there are a number of residential agricultural schools. Since the commencement of a telephone support service the Reconnect case workers have experienced difficulty accessing students at regional schools and residential colleges. Based on reflections on previous experiences and Action Research we speculated that a more effective strategy to establish strong working relationships with agricultural schools in our region would involve the following:

• Establish a working relationship with staff at residential schools and meet (where possible) in person to discuss the service and the specific needs of each school.
• Gain trust and a ‘profile’ with students attending each residential college.
• Where possible Case Workers need to visit individual schools and explore with students what role they would like our service to play in their school and community.
• Work collaboratively with staff and students at each school to establish an individualised service incorporating Individual Case Management and Community Capacity Building within the school and for the wider community.

As a result of working collaboratively with the staff at the agricultural college and with our clients, it was arranged with the Principal that our case workers would meet at the school to explore the potential role of our Reconnect service. Information and promotional material was sent out to the school prior to the visit and an agenda for the visit was devised.

The agenda of the meetings was as follows:

• Meet with the Principal and support staff to explain the role of our service and discuss the issues facing teachers and students at the school.
• Explore the support networks in place at the college and within the local community for students.
• Meet with the college Student Council to discuss the potential role of our service at the school and to discuss current issues for the students.
• Have a tour of the school, dormitories and the farm with the students.

Primary Objectives:

• Establish a working relationship with staff and students at the college.
• Provide a support service to students at the college as identified by the students.
• Find out what the ‘issues’ are for young people living away from home in a residential college.
• Identify gaps in services for the college and the local community.
• Explore the success of formalising a working relationship with the college and determine how transferable that is for other agricultural colleges/schools in our service region.

Evaluation Measures

To monitor the support that is provided to the community via:

• Identified college and/or community projects
• Qualitative feedback from college staff and students
• Number of client referrals
• Feedback from Reconnect Case Workers

Action: engaging stakeholders

During June and July 2002, staff from our service had a number of meetings with staff and students at the college.

We met with:

• School Principal
• School Nurse
• Associated teaching and support staff at the college
• Student council (10 students with representatives from all year groups)
• Students attending the college

Feedback from Principal and staff:

• Principal reported that the College has very few support agencies available for their students.
• Principal explained that the school is a popular referral point for Department of Community Development agencies where young people are Wards of the State or unable to live in the family home.
• A large proportion of the students have therefore experienced a variety of family conflict issues and the Principal expressed concern for their psychological well-being.
• The school accesses the services of a non-government school psychologist once a term. The Principal explained that this is not enough for students to build the rapport and trust that is required for effective intervention. The Principal described his staff as very supportive and explained they often play “counsellor role” to the students.
• The Principal suggested that our Reconnect service could offer an alternative support option for young people at the school who require more than what is currently being offered by the staff there.

Feedback from the Student Council:

• Met with the student council at the College on two occasions and advised of our service and asked what they perceived the issues to be for young people living at the college and accessing the local community. Also enquired about their perceptions of the role of the Reconnect workers at the school and in the community.
• We were advised that having a Reconnect case worker attend the school for a day (on a regular basis) would be a good resource for young people to use as they could talk to someone who does not work at the school. Reconnect staff could also run ‘groups’ for specific groups of students as the need arose.
• Additionally they detailed they would be interested in participating with our service on a Community Capacity project that addressed the boredom issues faced by young people in their free time and at weekends.

Outcomes of the meetings:

• The Principal advised that he sees a strong role for the staff at the college, utilising Reconnect, to provide support options for his students. The students also saw a role for the Reconnect service in the college.
• It was agreed that due to the college’s geographical location (being one hours drive from a capital city CBD) the Reconnect service would have a Case Worker attend the school once a fortnight on a set day for students to speak with. This was set up so that the young people could speak informally or engage as Reconnect clients with case workers. Once clients had engaged in person with a case worker they would then set up regular telephone counselling times.
• The school provided a room to meet with individual clients and an ‘introduction’ for the students of the services of Mercy Reconnect.
• Case workers supported students to identify a Community Capacity Project. Students identified the need for a BMX Bike track located at the school. Case workers negotiated with students and college staff and a team of students worked with the College property manager. They identified a suitable location on school grounds and were planning to commence construction in 2003 with support from our Reconnect service to secure funding for cost of gravel etc.
• Three Reconnect case workers ‘rotated’ so that each fortnight a different Case Worker attended the college. This was so that one case worker did not become the ‘face’ of the service with staff and students.
• It was agreed that this would be on a trial basis, given the other commitments of our Reconnect Case Workers. It would be re-evaluated in the second term of 2003.

Observation: strengths and difficulties

Over a three month period of ‘trialling’ the model of a case worker attending the college once a fortnight the following observations were made:

• Consulting with the young people a number of times through the student council proved to be highly effective for a number of reasons:
  • They consulted with other young people at the college and we received feedback from a number of students as to what they wanted the role of Reconnect to be in the school.
  • The ‘word spread’ about who we were and the supports that we could offer – this resulted in establishing trust with the young people and subsequent client referrals.
• Attending in person to make initial contact with the young people proved to be effective and further contact with the client was via the telephone. Some clients advised that they ‘preferred’ face to face contact and this caused some resistance to speaking over the telephone.
• Being ‘on site’ at the school allowed us to establish strong links with the staff and support staff at the school and get a real ‘feel’ for the heartbeat of the college.
• It was difficult to arrange times to speak with clients over the telephone for a number of reasons:
  • Lack of private space for young people to make telephone calls. Payphones were located in the dormitories (one per dorm) but due to the large number of people wanting to use the phones time was limited.
  • The college was experiencing difficulty with their telephone lines and there was no opportunity to make another phone line available (financial cost).
  • Student timetables were very structured and a majority of their time after classes were accounted for.
  • It was difficult to pass messages on to clients via the telephone as there was no ‘after hours’ number to call.

Throughout the time we attended the college a number of referrals were made to the service, both self referred and referred by teaching and school support staff for a variety of issues.

Reflection: positive developments and issues to address

• Consulting with the young people a number of times through the student council proved to be highly effective.
• Attending in person to make initial contact with the young people proved to be effective.
• It was difficult at times to provide effective support to the young people via the telephone.
• From our case management a number of patterns emerged for young people at the college including:
  • Conflict between students in the dorms – particularly the year 9 girls.
  • Anger issues – particularly males.
  • Boredom after school and during the weekends.
  • Isolation from parents.
  • Limited interaction with other schools (e.g. socials).
  • No counsellor attached to the school that they could go and talk to.
  • Sexuality issues – conflict with the rules of the college regarding personal relationships between students.
• By offering both counselling and community capacity projects the ‘stigma’ for the students of talking to a Reconnect case worker was significantly reduced. Students approached us about a variety of things: school issues, sticker competition, family problems, conflict with other students.
• Due to service commitments and time constraints with the service it was difficult for Case Workers to commit to attending in person each fortnight and as agreed this was to be reassessed in 2003.
• The guidelines we devised incorporated working practice, accessibility to telephones for students and responsibilities of the school.

Cycle 2

We implemented the changes at the commencement of Term 1. The following Guidelines were agreed to by the college Principal and Reconnect staff:

Guidelines for Work Practices between Reconnect and the Agricultural College

• Unless it is a duty of care issue, Reconnect will inform the Principal of Reconnect Case Worker involvement. This will be done via e-mail on case commencement and case closure.
• We would consider the list of Reconnect clients as confidential and in keeping with the ethos of anonymity, for example the list will not be distributed among college staff.
• We are prepared to work collaboratively with other agencies where appropriate with client consent.
• In the past Reconnect has offered an outreach service to the College on a fortnightly basis. Due to how well the telephone counselling service has worked with the clients the face to face contact will be reduced.
• Reconnect will maintain a presence in the school by supporting them to develop community projects and facilitating groups with students at the school.
• We anticipate the College will provide a safe and private space for young people to phone our service.
• We anticipate the College will support the young people to access our service by providing them with the opportunity to contact us.

Summarised from Porter Orchard 2002 – 2003 Reconnect Action Research Reports: Summary and Analysis

5.6 Empowering service users to take a central role in service development
      Parents of teenage children with abusive behaviours

This example is contributed by Bridges Reconnect in Queensland. It has been edited by the authors of the manual from the service report Bridges Reconnect Action Research for Addressing Violence Against Parents 2004 – 2005.

This is an example of Emancipatory Action Research. It demonstrates the challenges for workers who are committed to enabling service users to be fully empowered as stakeholders in a PAR process.

About the target families and community

It was not uncommon for the adults in the families of this target population to have criminal behaviours and for their young people to be following suit. It was not uncommon for their young people to be involved in criminal activities which could include violence against others. This was seen to be OK – a bit of honour amongst thieves. However, when their son or daughter’s violence turned on their family it was experienced as a problem for parents – as ‘out of control’ behaviour. Working with this group of families was not easy.

Cycle 1

‘What will it take to support parents who are being abused or at risk of abuse by their young people?’

Plan: How to bring parents together

The first stage did not focus on how to address parent abuse. Its focus was on how to bring people together, in a safe environment, to discuss the problem. The workers – aware of the stigma attached to the problem – did not want to advertise the project. They chose to use a ‘word of mouth’ communication strategy.

Many meetings occurred. These were mainly debriefing sessions as parents shared stories. They were all struggling to find effective strategies to manage their teenage children‘s behaviour. Parents wanted to be involved in finding answers. Male participants took it upon themselves to encourage other fathers and step-fathers into the group.

Tensions did emerge between male and female participants when the women felt that the men were taking over particularly when the abusive behaviour by young people was generally directed towards women. Fathers who were experiencing the aggression of their children were in the minority.

Tensions did emerge between male and female participants when the women felt that the men were taking over particularly when the abusive behaviour by young people was generally directed towards women. Fathers who were experiencing the aggression of their children were in the minority.

Act: Working with ambivalence and empowering parents

The families were outwardly distrustful of the key institutions that they had encountered to date. These included the statutory child protection system and the justice system. They were ambivalent towards the Reconnect worker – wanting the worker to both ‘fix the problem’ while hostile to ‘professional interference’ in their family. Working closely with the original sets of parents the Reconnect worker provided suggestions and ideas for them to share with the whole group.

The Reconnect worker was working to enable the parents to lead this process and often experienced being ‘tolerated at meetings’ because of the resources the worker provided for the parents to address the problem.

The parents identified these issues:

• The shame of admitting abuse by their young people
• The stigma of being viewed in the community as a poor parent
• The fear of the Department (statutory child protection) becoming involved in their family
• Their fears for the future of their young people
• The escalating violence and criminal behaviors of the young people
• The increase in young people’s power over parents because of parents’ inability to control them
• Mothers fearing for their lives
• Parents feeling they had ‘no rights’ and being ‘held to ransom’ by young people who were threatening to report them to the department
• Parents unable to trust helping services, who they experienced as having ‘a tendency to take over’, to be critical of them as parents and to use power over them.

Local police and community organisation personalities were invited in to provide information and/or support in dealing with aggressive young people. The group functioned well although attendance waxed and waned. It was observed that the more conflict parents were in with their young people, the more they attended. When things were quiet, parents tended to stay home.

Observation: ‘The cycle of violence’

Parents’ web based research provided information on a number of strategies and programs from around the world. This information was shared and discussed. A peer mentoring strategy was employed by parents for parents who were in crisis. Parents could phone each other for support.

The Reconnect worker observed that parents appeared to be ‘sucked in by their young people’. They observed that violent episodes were being followed by a period of remorse in which young people promised not to do it again. At a planned meeting the Reconnect worker gave a presentation on the cycle of violence. This was particularly challenging for some parents who did not want to believe their children should be classed as ‘perpetrators of violence’.

Reflection: Parents in control at group meeting

Throughout the group’s development the Reconnect worker continued outreach visits to the participating families. In these individual family focussed meetings the worker was treated with respect and ‘allowed’ to provide support. However at group meetings the interactions with the Reconnect worker were different. The general consensus was that the parents had control and they would provide the support and guidance for problem solving. The worker’s status at the parents meeting was that of a ‘non-voting visitor’.

On the basis of new information from web research some parents left the group to pursue ‘tough love’ style programs. The parents who remained were keen to find a ‘family approach’ to addressing the violence. A range of options were explored and discussed. These included parent run ‘Behaviour Camps’ and fund-raising to send young people to America for intensive residential programs. Ideas emerged, created excitement and fizzled when they failed to meet expectations. Parents were looking for concrete evidence of solutions that could ‘fix the problem’. They found programs that addressed violence but not violence against parents. These parents decided to develop their own program for their young people.

Cycle 2

Reflection: Parents confronted by the literature.

Parents were reflecting on:

• The affect of the group on parents and their families.
• The risks for young people as a result of their abusive behaviours.
• What others were saying at a state, national and international level

Parents were confronted by the frequent use of the term – ‘parent abuse’ – in the literature. Many had understood their children’s behaviour as ‘part of adolescent transition’. The group was divided in its acceptance of this concept yet were in agreement about their desire to develop a ‘family response’ to the issue – something they had not found in their research.

Plan: How to address the issue.

The parents were able to identify in their group the affects of their young people’s aggression on the family. They wanted the program to address these issues:

• Good memories of their young people being overtaken by bad memories related to their violence.
• Distrust of their young people’s positive behaviour because of fear they are being manipulated.
• Loss of respect – not a lack of love - for the aggressive child and a preference for their non-aggressive siblings.
• Allowing their young people to ‘couch surf’ as a means of passing the problem around to family and friends. Yet young people quickly wore out their welcomes and shelters or the streets became the final option.
• Fathers, who were unable to control their teenage children, lost the respect of their spouse. They were then more likely to ‘put their young people out’ to prevent the constant reminder of their failure as a Dad.
• Younger siblings showing signs of depression or a mimicking of aggressive behaviours in order to prove to older siblings that they were not ‘mummy’s boys’ or girls.
• Siblings being fearful that their older sibling would ‘kill parent or them’.

Parents wanted a program, run by an outsider, to address these issues with their young people. It would be an eight week program for young people and parents would attend a weekly parents meeting so that a team approach would add more weight to the strategy. The Reconnect worker, who was Scottish, referred to the young people as ‘wee scallywags’ not ‘violent young people’. This non stigmatising reference stuck and the program became The Scallywags Program.

Plan: How to engage young people and what to do with them?

Parents discussed strategies to engage young people. Everything from ‘lock’em up and force them to attend’ to using blackmail and rewards was suggested. Although the more forceful options were popular with parents they were able to accept that this would not happen. There were a few smiles along the way which helped to lighten the discussion.

Brainstorming and diary entries provided the worker a very large list of complaints from parents about their young people’s behaviour. The list appeared to be endless and planning to address these issues became a nightmare. The initial plan was to work with young people on:

• Positive communication,
• Respect for parents and
• Taking responsibility for their actions.

Finding a model to achieve these outcomes became the next challenge. Reconnect workers poured over books and literature. The specific model was eventually chosen by the parents who, ‘not having a good history in the education system’, wanted something basic. They wanted it to be about ‘good and bad choices’ and not some psychological model which required a degree in psychology to understand.

Act: The first Scallywags Program

A pocket money program was selected to commence its first action cycle. A parents’ group commenced at the same time as the young peoples’ group. This provided the parents with feedback about the group’s progress and the Reconnect workers with feedback from parents about how their young people were responding.

The program was successful in relation to:

• Young people doing chores at home
• Reducing stress levels in parents
• Parents feeling they were getting more respect
• Using a family model combined with pocket money.

In the parent group the Reconnect workers were gathering information about the different behaviours that were getting young people into trouble. With this knowledge the workers tried to find and develop exercises to address these behaviours. However, monitoring the group and the individual young people ‘became a nightmare’. Workers had to manage each young person’s case, keeps abreast of what the young people were doing and what they were up to at home and in school. They researched other programs for answers to a new question: How do we monitor any improvements or regressions in young people and their behaviour?

Observe: Improvements and ongoing challenges.

Parents appeared to be experiencing improved relationships. Young people appeared to be responding positively to new learning. On the whole chores were being done and pocket money paid. Where parents had not signed off on chores completed young people were engaged in discussion about what was happening and encouraged to try harder next week.

The ongoing challenge was that completed chores did not equate with changed attitudes at home. These changes were slow and minimal. The workers went back to the drawing board to find other solutions.

Cycle 3: What works – what doesn’t?

Reflect: Improving participation and evaluation

Each new program brought a new set of parents. It was observed that parents’ interest in the program remained high when conflict was high at home and waned once young people showed some improvement.

The workers, with psychology students on placement, and the parents used butchers paper exercises to identify the strategies used to meet the desired outcomes. The butcher’s paper lived on the agency walls for some weeks. Other parents, staff, visitors and community organisations added to the growing list of behaviours and strategies. The students were especially keen and used placement time to research useful ideas and information.

Reviewing past strategies indicated that those activities with artistic, symbolic or highly interactive elements showed evidence of good participation by young people. Changing negative behaviours at home continued to be difficult to evaluate, particularly as evidence relied on the feedback of parents. Reconnect workers wondered whether positive reports about program effectiveness were being provided by parents because they felt supported by the Reconnect workers and therefore felt compelled to give a favourable evaluation.

The key questions included:

• How can we use symbolism effectively to catch young people’s attention and improve participation?
• How can we use incentives (rewards) effectively?
• What tool can we develop which clearly evaluates a positive change in young people’s behaviour?
• How can we maintain parents involvement in the development processes, including fathers?

Plan: The ‘What’s What’ tool

The team developed a tool to improve the programs capacity to evaluate change. The tool was a form to be completed by parents each week as they evaluated any changes to their participating young people’s behaviour. It was a one page document covering four behavioural areas: respect, responsibility, accountability and leadership/maturity. The form asked parents to grade their young people’s behaviours.

The team also developed a new incentive program and rewards for young people who reached the highest level of improvement each week.

Act: Trialling new processes, tools and incentives

The parents group formed into three parts:

• Information sharing – on young people’s behaviours during the week.
• Debriefing – an opportunity to give and receive peer support.
• Education on strategies for collaborative and positive relationship with their young people.

An interactive game show strategy developed as an activity for young people provided some very useful insights about their behaviour at home. Young people revealed that they resorted to violence at home because:

• People made them angry;
• They were frustrated;
• It made them feel powerful;
• They got their own way; and
• Because they could.

Workers were aware that young people’s attitudes to violence and abuse were not those of the general population. They now however had learnt that:

• Young people were aware their behaviour was abusive towards parents.
• Young people were very proud of their ability to hold power over, and to manipulate their parents.
• Young people saw a parent’s purpose in life as purely to provide a young person’s wants/needs. They found it difficult to comprehend a parent needing or wanting anything outside the realm of ‘bringing up children’.
• Young people fail to see past the here and now. Although they can perceive of long term consequences, they feel they have plenty time to undo abusive behaviours before they become adults.
• Young people think their parents worry too much about their behaviour and that their behaviour is accepted in society so parents just have to learn to accept it – “It’s no big deal”.

Young people were unaware of the harm they could cause to parents. The program rewarded their honesty and commenced looking at consequences of abusive action – including long term consequences – with the young people.

Scallywags’ workers, while maintaining individual confidentiality, were able to share the young people’s responses with the parent group. In the group the parents discussed what was needed to monitor and manage these behaviours before they were out of control or abusive.

Observe: Positive outcomes yet more questions

Observations of the parents’ group and the young people’s group were exciting. Parents were providing positive feedback in relation to behaviour change in their young people. Workers were interested in developing a tool to measure changes in parental behaviours.

In a group exercise young people were asked about the behaviours of parents that were detrimental to good relationships. The whiteboard was filled by their responses. With this material the workers developed a measurement tool for parental behaviour. This was taken to the Scallywags group for young people to score their parents’ performance. The workers’ expectation was that parents would not rate well. However this was not the case. This raised further questions:

• Is the young person rating their parents well out of loyalty or to protect them?
• Do the scores young people give them actually reflect their parents’ skills?

The workers decided it was too early to hypothesize and that they needed to gather evidence over another year and then look at it again.

Cycle 4: Questions within a question

In this cycle practice questions were being more refined. They were asking:

• How do we better identify problem behaviours in young people and track changes as a result of intervention?
• How do we personalise Scallywags to address the individual needs of each participant and their family?
• How do we make the Scallywags program more interactive and creative?
• How do we help young people understand the impact of their behaviour on others and on their life chances?

Plan: Refining tools, creating resources and adapting the parents’ group

The ‘What’s What’ tool was further developed. It was enlarged to capture parents’ feedback and enable Scallywags facilitators to:

• monitor young people’s behaviours on a week by week basis
• monitor parents’ stress levels and coping skills
• provide information on each young person’s progress
• reflect on the information and how it could influence the content and context of each Scallywags session

Planning also focused on developing new ideas and activities to make the sessions more interactive, creative and fun. For example, to teach young people about the need for rules in society a story was written and CD developed about the collapse of a society when young people rebelled.

For parents, fortnightly groups were proposed as an alternative to weekly. Parents were to be encouraged to continue completing the ‘What’s What’ tool and opportunities were created for easy delivery of the completed form to workers.

Act: Innovations and information exchange.

Young people responded well to new interactive activities.

Parents were completing the longer ‘What’s What’ forms.

Workers began playing with another new idea for activity with young people it was called the Bank of Emotions. It was trial and error at first. In time it developed into a useful tool to build young people’s understanding of how their behaviours and attitudes affect their parents.

Scallywags work was becoming known in other localities and many invitations were received to speak at community meetings, run workshops and engage in an information exchange with an interstate service experiencing some success in work with parents but less so with young people.

Observe: A parent family perspective worked best.

Referrals to the Scallywags program became ‘fast and furious’. Word of mouth by the parents of previous participants continued to be the key source of advertising for the program.

Understanding and respecting the individual parents and their family cultures was critical.

Using the word ‘WE’ brought down barriers between workers and families. The greatest levelers were the following acknowledgements:

‘No one is perfect - sometimes we can make a poor choice in our behaviour’.

‘Sometime we as parents/individuals get it wrong’,

‘Sometimes we as parents have to make some changes in order to fix it’.

The introduction of a male worker to the team further reduced barriers and resulted in more men attending the parents’ group.

The parents’ group became more of a working group and the workers were not viewed as ‘the enemy’.

The success of peer mentoring for parents – both on and off site – has led to the establishment of a peer mentor group for the young people. Peer mentors are selected from the graduating Scallywags class. They are young people who have excelled and are now making positive choices regarding their behaviours and attitudes. This work will generate its own Action Research question in time.

Reflect: Managing demand

Reflecting on the evolution of the Scallywags program and what it means for the future has been thrashed out at individual meetings with stakeholders, meetings with other services and within agency team meetings. Contact with other services at a national and international level has been positive and encouraging, and sharing resources strengthened the work. Referrals for the program and requests to provide training opportunities have increased.

A concern for this Reconnect service is that the Scallywags program has the potential to take over the Reconnect service. Requests for more programs in different geographical areas are increasing. Funds continue to be inadequate.

Ongoing questions:

Is this an effective service because it is in demand and can offer an effective strategy for dealing with young people with aggressive behaviours?

Is this an ineffective service because we do not have the capacity to meet the community needs (waiting lists are too high)?

While the service acknowledges they can only do as much as the funding of 2.5 workers enables, it is not easily explained to stressed out families, nor is it acceptable for workers who have to turn away families in distress.

‘Scallywags will always be a program in development; each time we hold a Scallywags session we learn something new. The important lessons we learn is how to do it better. Both young people and their families are a wealth of knowledge and they in fact become our trainers (educating us)’.

The original unedited version of this report is titled ‘Bridges Reconnect Action Research for Addressing Violence Against Parents 2004 – 2005’ and is in Porter Orchard & Associates (2006) 2004/ 2005 Reconnect Action Research Reports Summary and Analysis, pages 11-22.

5.7 Developing a new strategy using PAR
Engaging Indigenous young people in education

This example is contributed by Connections Cherbourg-Murgon Reconnect.

This is an example of how a significant new service approach was developed in collaboration with other services, including schools. This process, undertaken between 2003 and 2006, used a number of cycles to find out, try out, and confirm. Note that the State High School was situated in another town to where the young people lived.

Questions

Macro question: What would it take to improve young people’s involvement in education and training?

Micro question: What would it take to keep Indigenous Young People in Education?

Cycle 1. Observation:

By Reconnect: From the Reconnect service’s work with clients we became aware that there existed a very poor transition rate from primary school to high school. Anecdotal information suggested that a percentage of young Indigenous people were not making a successful transition from primary school in Year 7 to high school at Year 8.

Plan:

• A series of surveys was designed to investigate the concerns of Year 7 students with respect to transitioning to high school.
• Reconnect and the local high school staff organised Transition Days for Year 7 students transitioning to Year 8 at the local high school in the following year.

Action:

The surveys were prepared and distributed to young Indigenous people aged between 12 and 13 years, throughout the local district. Reconnect staff supervised the process of this activity and collated all the participant feedback.

Outcome:

In conducting this survey we attracted several young Indigenous people who participated in our survey and provided us with feedback about why they like going to school and why not. Survey results were collated and displayed.

Reflection On Process:

This process proved very successful in assisting us to collate information from young Indigenous people who were transitioning from Year 7 to Year 8. It also allowed Reconnect workers to become more aware of the program objectives.

Initially we considered including more specific youth participation in the planning and completion of the survey. In retrospect, results demonstrated that if we had chosen that particular option, further relevant results may have been achieved.

Reflection On Outcome:

Feedback from the young people indicated that the overall concept was well received and highlighted both positive and negative aspects of the transition.

Restated question: What would it take to improve young people’s involvement within the School?

Cycle 2. Observation

Reconnect Workers observed the involvement at school of young Indigenous people. This demonstrated that some had poor attendance records at high school. In addition, the young people were not motivated to get out of bed in time to catch the school bus to school.

Plan:

We designed a program which would cater to the needs of these same young people. This program had the aim and intention to motivate students to eat a nutritious and healthy breakfast which would, in turn, assist students to concentrate throughout the day. The program also included children being picked up early from a nearby local community to attend the Reconnect Service for breakfast and then be able to get to the high school on time.

Action:

A School Transition Support Program was introduced and targeted at the young people who were either not attending school or coping with the transition from primary school to high school. Reconnect workers picked up the young people every morning at 7am and provided them with a nutritious breakfast three days a week. The young people also participated in organised activities.

Reflection On Process:

This process was very supportive toward the young people and proved to provide them with some motivation. It also ensured that young people were receiving a healthy breakfast several times a week which would work to improve their concentration.

Reflection On Outcome:

The program resulted in a long day for the young people who, by the end of the day were very tired. This resulted at times in some of the children being suspended or sent home.

Cycle 3. Observation:

The Reconnect Service and high school believe that the educational needs of all young people were not always being met and school did not always cater to the needs of young Indigenous children. In particular, these children demonstrated low social skills, literacy and numeracy skills. The children appear to learn more by practical methods rather than through theory.

Plan:

After making these observations the Reconnect Worker in conjunction with the high school, designed an Alternative Education Program to better meet the unmet needs of the children. The ensuing Program was therefore designed to increase their social skills, literacy and numeracy skills. It was designed to provide the young people with a more suitable learning environment while also decreasing the hours of participation in a day to lessen their frustration and tiredness.

Action:

Further action was taken to implement the Alternative Education Program which was scheduled to be conducted for three days each week. The program was located at the Reconnect service and operated between 9am and 1pm. During this time an allocated teacher from the high school accompanied the students to the Reconnect service and conducted a two hour teaching course on Literacy and Numeracy. The Reconnect Workers also supervised an activity with the young people to increase their social skills.

Reflection:

The program was perceived as successful as it increased the attendance of the children and improved their social skills. However, it is thought that these young people were still not able to make a successful transition to the high school environment.

Cycle 4. Observation:

Reconnect workers discovered that the children were not receiving enough education as became evident in the outcomes. However they were also not prepared to complete a full day of school. A need existed for increased learning in literacy and numeracy skills as well as spending an appropriate time within an educational institution environment.

Plan:

• Reconnect Staff Members discussed altering the Alternative Education Program in an attempt to cater more for the children’s needs while also meeting the requirements of high school policy.
• Develop funding submissions for a partnership program between the Reconnect service and high school.
• Work with primary schools and high school to discuss Year 7 students transitioning to Year 8, their individual needs and the most suitable programs and support for them.

Action:

In 2006, we commenced the Transitions program which operates for four days a week, between 9am and 3pm with students enrolled for four subjects (Maths, English, Science and SOSE). The children attend only for the duration of the particular subject. At the conclusion of the subject the students are transported to the Reconnect service where they engage in a program focusing on social skill development.

Reflection:

The education component of the program has proven successful. Social skill development required more structure to develop skills within the students’ boundaries.

Cycle 5. Observation

Students would benefit from more structured social activities acknowledging small steps of success and recognised success.

Plan

In conjunction with the Department of Communities, the Reconnect service planned the commencement of Duke of Edinburgh Bridge Award for students in their non-educational time to develop their social skills.

Action:

• Bridge Award commenced with students participating in supported activities;
• Skill – Building and performing with a ‘Junk Orchestra;’
• Physical Activity – Bowling;
• Social Service – Cleaning at the old people’s home.

Reflection

This has proven to be a highly successful program with all participants likely to transition into mainstream schooling in 2007. Other groups of young people not engaged in school have been identified. This has included young people returning from detention and youth mothers.

Cycle 6. Observation

Young people returning from detention rarely make a successful transition back into education due to the lack of structure and routine in their lives and the large class sizes in comparison to the 1:2 support received in detention.

There are between 14 and 30 young mothers (under 17) in the local town, none of whom are engaged in education or training.

Plan

The program has been planned in conjunction with Education Queensland District Office, schools, Youth Justice and Queensland Health. Committees have been formed and applications submitted.