inclusion analysis€¦ · web viewsalto-youth* training course on. inclusion and group...

SALTO TC Inclusion- A Focus on Group Initiatives 2002 – SALTO-Belgium – Evaluation Report

p. 1

SALTO TRAINING COURSE ON“INCLUSION AND

GROUP INITIATIVES”Blankenberge, Belgium

7-14 April & 31 May-6 June 200

EVALUATION REPORT

available onwww.SALTO-YOUTH.net

SALTO-YOUTH Belgium @ JintGrétrystraat 26, B-1000 Brussel, BelgiumTel. : +32-22.09.07.20 - Fax : +32-22.09.07.49E-mail : [email protected] site: www.salto-youth.net


SALTO-YOUTH* Training Course onInclusion and Group Initiatives 2002

Evaluation ReportBy Bryony Hoskins – SALTO-UK

INTRODUCTIONA long term priority of the YOUTH Programme and the Commission as a whole has been the Inclusion of young people who for one reason or another, such as unemployment, disabilities or regional location do not have the same chances in life as most young people. The definition and terminology of who is excluded from these opportunities has been a pre-occupation in the Commission’s strategy to reduce social exclusion. The original term used in the Commission was “disadvantaged young people” but this was changed to the less stigmatising title of “people with fewer opportunities”. No definition has been developed so far due to the fact that most definitions were found to exclude certain types of disadvantages. Therefore the definition has become locally constituted in the country and the region in which the young people live.

European Voluntary Service (EVS) was one of the programme’s created to increase youth mobility, heighten their awareness of European heritage and identity, and create a sense of active citizenship, for those that would not have the opportunity to have international learning experiences elsewhere. Despite the success of this action, there very few ‘disadvantaged’ young people participating in this programme. Therefore, a working group of Commission, Structure for Operational Support, National Agencies and experts was established in 1998 to have a look at how to increase participation of ‘disadvantaged youth’ in particular within EVS. This led to the creation off the possibility of doing short term EVS, for those who are not able to cope with a long period away from home.

* SALTO-YOUTH is shorthand for Support for Advanced Learning & Training Opportunities in the YOUTH programme of the European Commission. In September 2000, four SALTO-YOUTH centres were created (within the YOUTH National Agencies of Flanders-Belgium, Germany, UK & France) to enhance the quality of projects within the YOUTH programme, through the organisation of specialised training courses and the co-ordination of the different training efforts within the YOUTH programme.

p. 2


The priority of Social Inclusion remained paramount in the introduction of the current YOUTH programme and each National Agency was required to create a national strategy on inclusion.

SALTO-Belgium was created in 2000 to support the National Agencies of the YOUTH programme in their work on inclusion. In the first year SALTO-Belgium ran a training course on Inclusion with a focus on short term voluntary service.

The second year, SALTO Belgium continued the work on inclusion with a training course on Inclusion with a focus on Group Initiatives (action 3 of the YOUTH programme). National Agencies found that running projects under Action 3 was a difficult but rewarding objective for young people with fewer opportunities and a boost for their personal development.

AIMThe overall aim of the SALTO TC Inclusion 2002 was to promote the use of the YOUTH programme – and more specifically Group Initiatives (Action 3) in the work with young people with fewer opportunities - and to enhance the quality of the projects with these target groups. More concretely it wanted to… Bring together people working with the target group in question

(within or outside the YOUTH programme) to exchange working practice

Create a common understanding of what Group Initiatives are and are not

Develop knowledge, tools, attitudes and skills for coaching young people with less opportunities during a Group Initiative project (Action 3 of the YOUTH programme)

Address concrete follow up projects (Group Initiatives) and multiply (future training sessions with the NA) after this training course

Document the outcome of the training course

TARGET GROUP 25 participants per course from YOUTH Programme countries

(EU/EFTA/Accession countries) Living and/or work experience in the field of social exclusion and/or

inclusion Basic knowledge of group initiatives or read about it before coming

to the course. Not intended for staff members in National Agencies They should be involved in coaching young people with fewer

opportunities in doing a group initiative or intending to promote group initiative projects to young people with fewer opportunities

p. 3


after the course. This can be both youth workers, social workers, peer educators etc., both paid or voluntary

They should be prepared to pass on information, skills, knowledge and contacts stemming from the training course in further national training activities organized by their National Agency

They should be prepared to give their cooperation to the evaluation and follow up initiatives after the training course so that the real impact of the SALTO TC can be measured

They should attend the full duration of the course for the sake of group dynamics

They should be able to use English as a working language to establish smooth communication

There were two training courses: 7-14 April 2002 and 31 May- 7 June. Both training courses were held in Belgium in Blankenberge.

Evaluation processThe participants were asked to evaluate the training course at three points during the year of the training course: before the training course, immediately after the training course, and 3-6 months after the training course. The evaluation took the form of a questionnaire with both quantitative and qualitative questions.

The categories for analysis followed European Union country groupings: EU/EFTA Country participants and (Pre)Accession Country participants. The trainers’ feedback was collected from the Evaluation meeting in September 2002 at Royal Holloway, UK.

The evaluation focused on the participants’ learning of knowledge, skills and competencies for Inclusion and Group Initiative youth projects, the extent to which projects have been carried out and their ability to practically carry out projects using five indicators:

preparedness support skills confidence commitment

The aims of disseminating information and contributing to the support of Inclusion and Group initiatives to the National Agencies have also been evaluated using indicators of:

information passed by the participants to their own organisation, information spread by the participants to the wider field

information exchanged and built on through contacts with participants’ National Agencies.

p. 4


CONTENTS

The evaluation of the TC Inclusion & Group Initiatives training course is divided into 5 sections:

Section 1 Training Course begins by outlining who the participants were and gives a general overview of the training.

Section 2 Learning Outcomes contains an examination of the learning of the participants. It explores what skills and competencies the participants wanted to learn from the training course and, using self-assessment, what the participants thought that they had learnt by the end of the training course.

Section 3 Projects examines the difficulties participants had completing projects before the training course, the self-assessment of participant’s ability to carry out projects before and after the training course and the number and type of projects carried out to date.

Section 4 Long Term Impact outlines the participants’ assessment of the impact of the training course.

Section 5 Dissemination of Information explores the dissemination and multiplication of the information given from the training.

INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................2Evaluation process...................................................................................................4

CONTENTS...................................................................................................................51 TRAINING COURSE....................................................................................................8

Participants..............................................................................................................8Team........................................................................................................................9Methods and Programme.......................................................................................10Transferability........................................................................................................10Infrastructure and Support.....................................................................................12

2 LEARNING OUTCOMES............................................................................................13Expectation of Learning.........................................................................................13Learning Gained.....................................................................................................14

3 PROJECTS................................................................................................................16Difficulties..............................................................................................................16Creation.................................................................................................................32

5 DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION..........................................................................39Creation of network................................................................................................42

EVALUATION SUMMARY.............................................................................................43

p. 5


1 TRAINING COURSE

ParticipantsThere were appr. 65 applicants for 50 places. From these applicants the SALTO coordinator generally selected the participants according to the priorities of the National Agencies. Not all the participants attending the training courses fitted all criteria of the specified target group. The SALTO coordinator estimated that between 10-20 % of the participants did not fit the participants profile of the course; this was less the case for the second course. SALTO endeavours to provide a clear participants profile and asks the National Agencies to match this profile when sending candidates. It however remains the task of the NAs to select appropriate participants for them.

One participant attended two SALTO training courses in 2002, which SALTO tries to avoid to maximise the number of youth workers benefiting from the courses.

The trainer’s team noted that participants had very different expectations and backgrounds: ranging from occasional volunteers, fulltime youth workers, members of regional selection committees, formal educators and youth information officers.

An interesting development noted by the coordinator, was that compared to the first year’s courses, more youth workers with ‘fewer opportunities’ applied and participated. There were participants with a disability, from minority and socially disadvantaged backgrounds.

FIRST TRAINING COURSEIn the first course there were 24 participants (plus one personal assistant for a wheelchair user). Two participants dropped out just before the course began. Gender balance was 11 female, 13 male. Regional balance was 16 EU and EFTA and 8 Accession SECOND TRAINING COURSEIn the second course there were 20 participants (plus one sign language interpreter for a deaf participant). Four participants dropped out just before the course began. Gender balance was 13 female, 7 male. Regional Balance was 11 EU and EFTA, 9 Accession countries.The cancellations happened with such short notice before the training course that it was impossible for the coordinator to replace them with participants from the waiting list. 3 participants gave justifiable reasons for not attending and 3 gave no notice at all.

p. 6


In terms of gender balance there were slightly more male participants attending the first course and more females attending the second. In the first SALTO TC Inclusion & EVS in 2001, there were considerably more female participants, so this year’s composition of the group of participants was more balanced. There were more EU/EFTA than Accession participants on both courses but it was more balanced in the second training course.

TeamThe call for trainers was made to the National Agencies, people from the training course last year, trainers that were known in the area and word of mouth. The selection was made through trying to keeping a balance of

Different backgrounds and experience Gender Region At least one person from a National Agency

The criteria for selection was: Experience in the topic of Inclusion Experience in Group Initiatives Experienced international trainer English as working language

The 3 trainers selected for the TC Inclusion & Group Initiatives united experiences from working in the National Agencies with Group initiatives, from research on inclusion of street children, from ‘Second Chance’ outdoor and adventure education and from youth work with minority youth. The trainers were from Estonia, Sweden and Belgium and the gender balance was 2 female and 1 male. The SALTO coordinator (male, Belgium) safeguarded the link with previous training courses and SALTO. He also took up some minor tasks as trainer.

Methods and Programme

METHODSThe approach used in the training course was a non-formal education using learning by doing, active participation and exchange of experience between participants through methods such as role play, group-work, energisers and simulation games. External speakers and the trainers’ experiences were used to give inputs on relevant topics.

The trainers evaluated the methods and decided that the simulation of the selection committee (about the Group Initiatives) went very well as

p. 7


participants could see things from different perspectives (young person with fewer opportunities, NA, parents, local community). They also commented that the method of ‘Tie Groups’ was appreciated by participants as a good method and that they had already mentioned using it themselves.

TransferabilityOne of the most striking elements from the training course is the number of participants that had reused some of the methods. 92% of Accession Country participants and 80% of EU participants had reused methods (Fig. 1). This suggests that the methods used were considered beneficial by most of the participants and seen by them as easily transferable to other contexts.

Learning and then using new methods has been one of the largest impacts of this training course.

Fig. 1Reused methods

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

EU Accession All

participants by country groups

perc

enta

ge o

f par

ticip

ants

noyes

The toolbox of the TC Inclusion and Group Initiatives was put on the internet www.salto-youth.net/toolbox/ very soon after the training course which the trainers and coordinator remarked had stimulated the participants to continue with their projects.

p. 8

http://www.salto-youth.net/toolbox/


PROGRAMMEThe trainers evaluated the programme, saying that the logic of the different programme blocks made sense. Representatives from the Commission and Belguim National Agency were used as speakers and this was commented on by the trainers as being useful as a resource in the YOUTH Programme. The free afternoon in Brugge was described as good for participants as it meant that they could see a different part of Belgium. It was suggested that two preparation meetings were necessary to prepare this type of training course. 6 working days was considered the minimum duration to go in depth.

The areas for improvement that trainers noted about the programme were: To pay more attention to participants with special needs

(wheelchair, deaf) and bring it up for discussion or build it in in the Training Course.

Make sure participants are kept active when speakers do an input (prepare them, build in space for questions, using smaller groups, create interaction, etc)

The timing of courses was remarked as too close to summer; this gives a problem for participants to implement their action plans as their organisations often already had activities planned and is a difficult period to make contact with National Agencies.

Infrastructure and SupportThe practicalities and the support of the course were reported by the trainers to be good and run smoothly. They mentioned that there was good information beforehand to participants, a welcome pack upon arrival and all information was communicated in a very personal style.

The working facilities and living conditions were described by the trainers as very nice. The only difficulty was that there was no internet connection in the seminar place.

p. 9


2 LEARNING OUTCOMES

Expectation of LearningThe expectations of learning from the participants were to learn about Group Initiatives, how to implement a successful one and the skills and the methods needed to do this. They wanted to gain knowledge on Inclusion and the competencies of project management. They wanted the possibility to make contacts and network. The expectations from the participants were to meet new people from across Europe and learn about the different youth reality across Europe. They wanted to gain experience of working in a multicultural environment.

GROUP INITIATIVESThe participants expected to learn the knowledge of what group initiatives are and what they are not, those who benefit from them, what is their impact and what possibilities there are for doing this in a local context. They wanted to learn practical measures in terms of how to set up a group initiative, the development, operation and whole process of a group initiative and how to deliver this opportunity to the young people they work with. The participants expected to learn how to make a group initiative successful using examples of good practice across Europe and exchanging experience.

KNOWLEDGE ON INCLUSIONThe expectation of knowledge on Inclusion was to understand the different types and knowledge of how to use the YOUTH programme for people with fewer opportunities.

THE SKILLS AND COMPETENCIESThe main skill that participants requested to learn was Project Management: how to build, organise, manage, budget, monitor, improve quality and assess risks in international projects. They also requested skill and competencies on coaching, group work, Intercultural learning, leadership, organisation, how to be a trainer, how to work in an international team, communication in an international context and how to work with disadvantaged young people.

WORKING METHODS WITH YOUNG PEOPLEThe participants expected to learn how to motivate young people especially in the long term, how to support young people, how to advise them and help them realise their own ideas. They wanted to know how to get young people to participate in the community and how to help young people become independent, autonomous and

p. 10


responsible. They expected to learn how to reach young people with fewer opportunities.

Learning GainedThe learning that participants described as being gained from the training course was the skills of communication, intercultural learning and project management, in particular how to manage a Group Initiatives. The knowledge that participants gained was about Group Initiatives and the YOUTH programme. The participants also discussed learning new methods and approaches such as non-formal education. The participants mentioned learning how to make contacts and network.

COMMUNICATIONI learned ‘to listen as there were people from different countries with different mother tongues and cultural backgrounds, it was necessary to listen exactly to understand each other and analyse other people’s points of view’ (participant)

Many participants mentioned learning listening skills, in particular, active listening. Some also mentioned the need for clarity in communication, respectful communication, the need to learn more languages and how to communicate and disseminate information. One participant mentioned learning about communication through the possibility of e-networks.

PROJECT MANAGEMENTParticipants described that they had learned skills on how to manage projects particularly, how to make an action plan, how to promote a project, evaluation, risk assessment, SWOT and organisational skills. In the framework of Group Initiatives participants had learned project management skills of how to use a step by step approach, focus on process not results, how to find the target group of young people with fewer opportunities, to be open with young people, to let young people come up with ideas, to know what is possible, reduce expectations and how to start. One participant mentioned learning how to run a training course through observing the trainers.

INTERCULTURAL LEARNING‘Europe is very different but we have a lot to share’ (participant)Tolerance of different behaviours and lifestyles, cooperation with participants from other European countries, multicultural work – working with people from 18 different countries and learning about other people’s cultures were all mentioned by participants as being learnt from the training course. Participants also noted learning

p. 11


knowledge and experience of other European countries and learning about the reality of youth work in different countries and learning from each others experiences.

TEAMWORKThe participants mentioned that they had learned how to work in a group to solve problems.

YOUTH ProgrammeThe participants mentioned gaining knowledge on what a group initiative is how to construct a group initiative through the youth programme, how to apply for funds, the Commission perspective on inclusion and the meaning of SALTO.

METHODSParticipants noted learning the approach of Non-formal education such as how to use learning by doing, active learning, mutual support, group work, using humour, interactive exercises, using participants’ experiences, having a flexible programme and working with other participants as friends rather than competitors. Specific methods within this approach mentioned were energisers, games and role play. Participants mentioned learning methods for distinct purposes such as for reducing conflict, motivating young people and coaching young people. It was also remarked that they learnt that there were no ‘quick fix’ methods but a variety of tools to use.

NETWORK AND CONTACTSParticipants mentioned that they had learned how to make contact and networks across Europe

Compared to their expectations participants learned almost everything which they expected and more. The only learning points not mentioned after the training course were knowledge on Inclusion. Inclusion is mentioned by one participant in terms of learning about the perspective of the Commission. Some participants say they miss a definition of inclusion.

3 PROJECTS

DifficultiesThe difficulties that participants described in creating Group Initiatives were often due to the young people that they worked with who had low self-esteem, who feared failure and had difficulties in working with other people. The participants mentioned the difficulties of how to

p. 12


involve young people with fewer opportunities, how to keep them involved in the long term, knowing which methods would work, knowing how to communicate with young people and working with a public not open to young people’s initiatives.

YOUNG PEOPLE WITH LOW SELF-ESTEEM AND FEAR OF FAILUREThe young people that the participants worked with were described as lacking confidence and having low self-belief, they felt excluded and less important. They said that this affected the possibility that they might carry out projects as the young people expected failure and had low expectations for the future. For the young people this meant that they often feared taking on work in case they failed. Some young people were mentioned as having personal problems that were ‘too big’. Some of the young people were classed by participants as ‘trouble makers’ and caused the break down of projects and these were remarked on by the participants as the young people who needed to work on projects the most. Some participants mentioned having bad experiences of the disruption of projects and working with groups of young people who were not reliable. Some young people were described as finding it hard to manage on their own and as needing a high level of support. Other difficulties were that the young people would rather someone else did the work: they lacked responsibility, autonomy, independence and the will to act.

YOUNG PEOPLE NOT ABLE TO WORK WITH OTHERSSome of the young people were described as finding group work and team work difficult. Some were described as not showing respect for other people’s views and not accepting decisions which were made. Fearing of the ‘other’, new situations, contact with new people and foreign countries were all mentioned as difficulties to overcome. Some participants remarked that young people did not appreciate the resources or the professional help given.

ACTIVE INVOLVEMENT OF YOUNG PEOPLE WITH FEWER OPPORTUNITIESThe participants mentioned that it was often difficult to reach those most at need for example some young people may live too far away and the travel is expensive or long, parents may not allow them to come or other reasons created barriers to participation.

MOTIVATION AND TIMEIt was mentioned that it was difficult to attract young people to projects and find common interests among young people. The need to motivate young people over the long term was seen as a problem as young people quickly lost interest. The young people were described

p. 13


as needing quick results and success and it was difficult to manage the long period of cooperation needed to create a project.

METHODSThe participants said that they needed methods and tools to work with young people, particularly those which would motivate and bind a group. They needed advice on how to balance coaching and independent work. Some difficulties were that the methods took time and space for communication to begin and this needed money and resources.

COMMUNICATION How to give young people the information on Group Initiatives and how to explain to them information clearly and accurately was considered a difficulty. How to bridge the generation differences in the communication process and how to explain the ‘duties’ to the participants was also expressed as a difficulty.

ABILITY TO CARRY OUT PROJECTSIn order to explore possible increases in the participants’ ability to carry out an international project for youth workers and youth leaders, 5 indicators were chosen: preparedness, support, skills, confidence and commitment. The data below demonstrates the comparison between the participants’ self-assessment of their ability to carry out such international youth projects before and after the training course. Thus this shows the immediate impact of the training course on the participants. The participants’ assessment was based on a scale of 1-6 in which, for example, preparedness was measured between 1, feeling well prepared, and 6, feeling overwhelmed.

1 PREPAREDNESSBefore the training course, (Fig. 2) the participants generally scored in the middle between feeling well prepared and feeling alone. After the training course (Fig. 2) the participants gave scores towards being more prepared, giving a total of 88% of scores in categories 1 and 2, towards ‘well prepared’, and no-one towards feeling overwhelmed.

Fig. 2

p. 14


Feeling prepared a comparison between before and after the training course

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1 2 3 4 5 6

Degree of preparedness

Perc

enta

ge o

f par

ticip

ants

Pre AllPost All

Comparing the different country groups in Fig. 3, the graphs demonstrate that before the training course Accession participants felt slightly better prepared than EU. After the training course the two sets of participants described themselves at a similar level of preparedness and as better prepared (Fig.4).

Fig. 3Feeling of preparedeness pre TC comparing EU and Accession country participants

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1 2 3 4 5 6


Perc

enta

ge o

f pa

rtici

pant

s

EUAccession

p. 15


Fig. 4Feeling of preparedness post TC comparing EU and Accession country participants

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1 2 3 4 5 6


Perc

enta

ge o

f par

ticip

ants

EUAccession

SUPPORTThe participants were asked to assess the level of support they felt for creating international projects. Before the training course, in Fig 5, the participants gave scores that are quite widespread between feeling supported and feeling alone: the scores fell fairly evenly in categories 2-4 with a small number giving 1s and 5s and 6s. After the training course there was an increase in the feeling of support. 94% of participants scored 1 and 2, ‘well supported’, and there were no 4-6, towards feeling alone.

Fig. 5

p. 16


Level of support before and after the training course

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1 2 3 4 5 6

Degree of support

Perc

enta

ge o

f par

ticip

ants

Pre AllPost All

There was no obvious difference between EU and Accession Country participants before the training course (Fig. 6) and only little after (Fig 7). After the training course all Accession Country participants gave supported scores of 1 and 2 whereas EU still had 10% near the middle between feeling supported and alone.Fig. 6

The feeling of support pre TC comparing EU and Accession country participants

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1 2 3 4 5 6

Degree fo support

Perc

enta

ge o

f par

ticip

ants

EUAccession

Fig 7

p. 17


Level of support post TC comparing EU and Accesion country participants

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1 2 3 4 5 6

Degree of support

Perc

enta

ge o

f par

ticip

ants

EUAccession

SKILLParticipants were asked to rate their level of skill between 1 ‘skilled’ and 6 ‘inexperienced’. The results are shown in Figs.8-10. Before the training course, in Fig 8, the scores were quite widely spread between 1 and 5. After the training course, in Fig 8, there was less change in the scores than for the other indicators. There is an increase to 73% of the number of participants in 1and 2 but there is still 6% in category 4.

Fig. 8

p. 18


Having the skill

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1 2 3 4 5 6

Degree of skill

Perc

enta

ge o

f par

ticip

ants

Pre AllPost All

When comparing the different country groups, in Fig 9 and 10, EU and Accession Country participants are very similar before the training course. After the training course the same is the case but all those placing themselves in category of 4 are Accession Country participants. This means that 16% of Accession Country participants’ still felt slightly more inexperienced than skilled. Fig. 9

Having the skills pre TC comparing EU and Accession country participants

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1 2 3 4 5 6

Degree of skill

Perc

enta

ge o

f par

ticip

ants

EUAccession

p. 19


Fig. 10The level of skill post TC comparing EU and Accession country participants

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1 2 3 4 5 6

Degree of skill

Perc

enta

ge o

f par

ticip

ants

EUAccession

CONFIDENCE Participants were asked to rate their level of confidence between feeling very confident and unsure what to do on a scale of 1-6 (see Figs. 11-13). Before the training course, as with many of this course’s participants’ pre scores, there was a wide diversity of confidence (Fig 11). After the training course the participants felt very much more confident with 67% of participants giving very confident scores in category 1 (Fig 11). There were only 6% of participants in the near middle category 3 and none gave scores of confidence less than that.

Fig 11

p. 20


Having the confidence

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1 2 3 4 5 6

Degree of confidence

Perc

enta

ge o

f par

ticip

ants

Pre AllPost All

When comparing the country groups (Fig 12 and 13) the EU scores were very diverse before the training course. However, the Accession Country participants were generally more confident and less diverse with 85% in blocks 2 and 3 and none in 1 and 6. After the training course both sets of participants were feeling more confident. Accession Country participants gave the most confident score with 85% in category 1, compared with 55% for EU.

Fig 12

p. 21


Having the confidence pre TC comaparing EU and Accession country participants

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1 2 3 4 5 6


Perc

enta

ge o

f par

ticip

ants

EUAccession

Fig 13Level of confidence post TC comparing EU and Accession country participants

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

1 2 3 4 5 6


Perc

enta

ge o

f par

ticip

ants

EUAccession

COMMITMENTParticipants were asked to rate their level of commitment to carrying out an international project. The participants could choose between 1, ‘very committed’, and 6, ‘feeling sceptical’. Before the training course, Fig. 14, participants were already tending to be committed with 65% in 1 and 2, but there were scores in all 6 blocks. After the training course

p. 22


there was a shift towards more commitment by the participants with 87% scoring 1 and 2.

Fig 14Level of commitment to carry out an international project

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1 2 3 4 5 6

Degree of commitment

Perc

enta

ge o

f par

ticip

ants

Pre AllPost All

Before the training course there is no obvious difference between EU and Accession Country participants (Fig. 15). After the training course there was a different range of commitments (Fig. 16). Accession Country participants gave more scores in the very committed block 1 but also still gave a few in the not so committed category 4 where as the EU scores were more even between 1-3.

Fig 15

p. 23


Level of commitment pre TC comparing EU and Accession country participants

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1 2 3 4 5 6


perc

enta

ge o

f par

ticip

ants

EUAccession

Fig 16Level of commitment post TC comparing EU and Accession country participants

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1 2 3 4 5 6


Perc

enta

ge o

f par

ticip

ants

EUAccession

THE SUM OF ALL THE INDICATORSThe summary of all the indicators before the training course in Fig 17 shows Accession and EU Country participants as looking very similar with a wide range of scores of ability to create international projects.

Fig. 17

p. 24


Sum of indicators pre TC comparing EU, Accession and the average of all participants

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6

Degree of ability to carry out an international project

Perc

enta

ge o

f par

ticip

ants

EU totalAccession totalAll total

After the training course, Fig. 18, the improvement is clear for both country groups but there are some differences between them. Accession Country participants score the highest, 60%, in category 1 as very able to create a project but there are still a small number of scores towards the less able to create an international project in category 4. In contrast, EU participants score only 43% in category 1 but no-one scored below the middle in their ability to create a project.

Fig. 18

p. 25


Sum of indicators post TC comparing EU, Accession and average of all participants

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6

degree of ability to carry out an international project

Perc

enta

ge o

f par

ticip

ants

EU totalAccession totalindicators total

The patterns that emerge are that before the training course there is a wide range of scores with Accession and EU giving very similar scores. There is an improvement in scores after the training with Accession participants’ giving the higher and lower scores and EU participants’ improving in scores but in a more moderate way. Comparing the indicators the participants’ confidence increased the most and their skills increased the least.

Creation

Fig. 19

p. 26


YOUTH Programme projects managed by participants after the training course

0

1

2

3

4

prog euromed 3rd Coun prog euromed 3rd Count Programmecountry

Contactprogramme

ACTION1 ACTION2 ACTION 3 ACTION 5

Num

ber o

f pro

ject

s

EUAccess

3 months after the training course the participants were asked in a questionnaire about the projects they had been involved in. They described themselves as creating 8 YOUTH Programme projects that were influenced by the SALTO training course (Fig. 19). Most of these projects were Action 1 Youth Exchanges and 1 project was a Group Initiative.

APPLICATIONS FOR GROUP INITIATIVES3 months after the training course was perhaps too early to expect more group initiatives to have been created because of the time it takes to coach and support a group of young people to this stage. However, between 65 and 70% of all participants wanted to help support the young people they work with to carry out a group initiative (Fig 20).

Fig 20

p. 27


The intention to help the young people they work with apply for a group Initiative

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

EU Accession All

participants by country group

Perc

enta

ge o

f par

ticip

ants

noyes

In Fig. 21 it is seen that more than 85% of the participants who said that they intended or have already created group initiatives were working with young people from disadvantaged backgrounds.

These figures are encouraging for the future impact of the course on increasing inclusion.

Fig. 21

p. 28


Participants who have or want to help young people apply for a group initiative who work with young people who are from disadvantaged background

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

EU Accession All

Participants by country groups

Perc

enta

ge o

f par

ticip

ants

noyes

p. 29


4 IMPACT OF TRAINING COURSEThe long term impacts of the SALTO training courses were measured 3 months after the training course by sending out a questionnaire. Participants generally answered that the training course had had some impact on their work (Fig 19). Accession Countries described the training as having a greater impact with 62% of participants saying that it had had a lot of impact. EU Country participants only scored 28% in this category with most of the participants saying that it had had a little impact and 5% saying that it had no impact.

Fig. 19Impact of the training course on the participant's work

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

a lot a little none

Degree of impact

Perc

enta

ge o

f par

ticip

ants

EUAccessionALL

The impact of the training course can be categorized as improving the participants’ youth work, giving them a European and intercultural dimension, helping the young people that they work with, and using the knowledge, skill, competencies and contacts to do this. The participants had gained new opportunities in their work. Some participants mentioned the e-group as having had an impact on continuing the support and the exchange of ideas.

Fig. 20

p. 30


Increased or improved work since the training course

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

EU Accession All


perc

enta

ge o

f par

ticip

ants

noyes

IMPROVING YOUTH WORKParticipants said that the impact of the training course was on their youth work, particularly on giving them new approaches and methods. The new approach for some was non-formal education and using interactive and creative methods. Participants said that they now involved young people more in their work and had learned useful methods for coaching and motivating young people. They had become more focused on the target group of young people with fewer opportunities. Some participants mentioned that they had improved their work through sharing experiences and had an increase in their motivation for youth work. Some participants mentioned changing the focus of their work to group initiatives, staff training and one participant to working with deaf people. One of the clear impacts of the training course is about ¾ of participants from all country groups rated themselves as having improved or increased their level of work since the training course (Fig 20).

HELPED YOUNG PEOPLEParticipants discussed the impact on the young people that they worked with, describing how they now had new opportunities to create projects and to have experiences abroad. They said that the young people were very interested. The impact on young people was closely linked to participants’ new knowledge of Group Initiatives, their new project management skills and competencies (planning more carefully and step by step) and the new contacts which participants mentioned as having across Europe.

p. 31


NEW OPPORTUNITIESParticipants said that an impact of the training course was that it gave them new possibilities for work. Some which were mentioned were: role in regional group, now supported project workers, started seminars with other youth workers, helped a colleague do job shadowing, applied for volunteers and involvement in new international projects. EUROPEAN INTERCULTURAL DIMENSIONSome participants referred to mentioned the European and intercultural impact saying that they now knew how local communities can work on a European dimensions, that they now had a knowledge of youth work across Europe and had had experiences across Europe. They mentioned the impact of learning about different cultures: ‘how they work’, ‘which recourses they have’, on ‘personal life’ and ‘daily work.’

A LITTLEParticipants who remarked that the course had impacted ‘A little’ said that it had given them an insight into ways to work with young people. However, they felt they needed a definition of what young people with fewer opportunities were, that the methods and theory for them were not new, that they needed practical methods for the purposes of inclusion and that they needed methods for leading young people with fewer opportunities.

Some said that Action 3 was too problematic, took too much time, needed too much resource and needed too much space and that they felt that they could do more for young people through the other Actions of the YOUTH Programme. Some participants mentioned not being able to create projects.

NONEThose participants who said that the training course had had no impact generally remarked that it was because they could not use their learning as they did not have jobs, they were now full time students or they were not professional youth workers.

p. 32


5 DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATIONParticipants have been active in their dissemination of information to their own organisations. More than 80% of both groups said that they had passed information to their own organisation (Fig 24).

Fig. 24Passing on information to participants own organisation

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

EU Accession All


Perc

enta

ge o

f par

ticip

ants

noyes

The dissemination within their organization was to the director, school manager, group leaders, and people working with volunteers, staff and school management. The form this communication took was through running training courses, committee meetings, making action plans, meetings, reports, presentations, workshops and creating support groups for people trying to organize Group Initiatives. Some participants mentioned having difficulties with disseminating information because their colleagues were resistant to the new methods whilst others gained a real interest from their organization.

The dissemination of information straight to young people was described by a small number of participants only.

p. 33


The participants had not been so active in passing information to the wider community (see Fig 25), with less than half of EU Country participants disseminating information and just over half of Accession Country participants doing so.

Fig. 25Passing on information to a wider audience

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

EU Accession All


Perc

enta

ge o

f par

ticip

ants

noyes

The dissemination beyond the organization was either informally to youth workers and other youth clubs, or through writing articles in newspapers and youth magazines, presentations and information to regional committees and at National training courses.

The participants had had a significant amount of contact with their National Agencies since the end of the training course (Fig.26). The most contact, 85%, was by the Accession Country participants. Over half the EU Country participants also were in contact with their National Agency.

p. 34


Fig.26 Contact with National Agency

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

EU Accession All

Participants by country group

Perc

enta

ge o

f par

ticip

ants

noyes

The contact that participants had had with their National Agencies was varied. It is possible to split them into the different types of contact: sending, offering, requesting, discussing or National Agencies actively sending or requesting.

SENT The largest category of participants’ responses fell here with most participants mentioning that they had sent one or more of the following list: report, Application for project, short e-mail, Evaluation form, essay,

OFFERSThe participants sent offers of material, a proposal for further dissemination of information, and one participant offered to work as a multiplier but had no reply from their Agency.

REQUESTSParticipants asked the National Agency for help in finding partners, help on projects and to do another training course.

DISCUSSED A few participants remarked that they had discussed their experience from the course and the YOUTH Programme with National Agencies.

p. 35


NATIONAL AGENCIES SENDING OR REQUESTINGNational Agencies were said by a small number of participants to have sent guidelines and applications for group Initiatives for the next year and one participant was asked by a National Agency to be a resource person and run an intensive course on Group Initiatives for Young people.

Creation of networkAn interesting development from this training course is the setting up and continuing feature of the e-group. The coordinator has continued to update it with information on inclusion, future training courses and general information in the youth field. It has proved to be more than just the ‘weather in your country’ and ‘miss you’ statements that these groups can end up as. One way the group was used was for information and support of international projects in Tenerife and Italy.

Follow-up through e-groups and the Internet should be evaluated in the future to see if this support is useful for the participants youth work and project development.

p. 36


EVALUATION SUMMARYAIMS AND OBJECTIVESThe overall aim, to promote the use of the YOUTH programme and Action 3 Group Initiatives, has been successful with participants beginning to work on projects and wanting in the future to create Group Initiatives with the young people with fewer opportunities. The Learning Outcome shows that the training course managed to give participants an understanding of what a group initiative was and what it was not, develop skills and methods for managing a group initiative project and to exchange working practice. The training course did not have all participants who were the right target group and the use of participants after the course by the National Agencies could be improved.

PARTICIPANTSIn order to get the right participants at the SALTO courses, SALTO will endeavour to make the course descriptions and the participants profile as detailed and clear as possible to help the National Agencies in their selection. It remains nevertheless the task (or the right) of the National Agency to select the most appropriate candidate for them (for future cooperation).

METHODSLearning and then using new methods has been one of the largest impacts of this training course.

LEARNING OUTCOMESCommunication, Intercultural learning, Project Management in particular in the context of Group Initiatives, Teamwork, Knowledge of Youth Programme in particular Action 3, new methods and approach, how to make contacts and network.

PROJECTSThe difficulties that participants described in creating Group Initiatives were often due to the fact that young people that they worked with had low self-esteem, feared failure and had difficulties in working with other people. The participants mentioned the difficulties of how to involve young people with fewer opportunities, how to keep them involved in the long term, knowing which methods would work, knowing how to communicate with young people and working with a public not open to young people’s initiatives.

p. 37


INDICATORS OF ABILITY TO CARRY OUT INTERNATIONAL PROJECTThe patterns that emerge are that before the training course there was a wide range of abilities with Accession and EU giving very similar scores. There was an improvement in scores after the training with Accession participants’ giving the higher and lower scores and EU participants’ increasing in scores but in a more moderate way. Comparing the indicators, the participants’ confidence increased the most and their skills increased the least.

CREATION8 YOUTH Programme projects were being created by participants that were influenced by the SALTO training course, 4 Action 1 Youth Exchanges, 2 Action 2 EVS, 1 Action 3 Group Initiative and 1 Action 5 contact making seminar. Almost 70% of participants wanted to coach the young people they work with to the stage of achieving a Group Initiative and most of these worked with young people from disadvantaged backgrounds.

The figures are encouraging for the future impact of the course on increasing inclusion. Possible longer term follow-up should be considered here.

IMPACTImproving the participants’ youth work with new approach and methods, giving them a European and intercultural dimension, helping the young people that they work with, and using the knowledge, skill, competencies and contacts to do this. The participants had gained new opportunities in their work. Some participants mentioned the e-group as having had an impact on continuing the support and the exchange of ideas

REMAINING DIFFICLUTIESAction 3 was too problematic, took too much time, needed too much resources, and needed too much space. The information on the difficulties of Action 3 should be fed to the Commission with a view to a reduction in difficulties for the young people with fewer opportunities involved in Group Initiatives.

DISSEMINATION To their own organisation was at a good level. Information directly to young people and beyond their own organisations was less wide-spread.

p. 38

inclusion analysis€¦ · web viewsalto-youth* training course on. inclusion and group...

Documents