myplace Impact Evaluation Interim Report

Acknowledgements The evaluation team is based at Sheffield Hallam University and includes staff at the Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research (CRESR): Nadia Bashir, Elaine Batty, Chris Dayson, Sarah Pearson, Deborah Platts-Fowler, Elizabeth Sanderson and Ian Wilson; and at the Centre for Education and Inclusion Research (CEIR): Lucy Clague, Eleanor Formby and Claire Wolstenholme. Thanks to all at the Big Lottery Fund, Department for Education and in myplace centres who contributed time and expertise, participated in interviews and provided data and documentation. Particular thanks are due to staff in participating myplace centres for their support in administering the young people's survey. Thanks also to the Research Manager at the Big Lottery Fund, Renu Verma, and to members of the Evaluation Steering Group for their assistance in guiding the evaluation. The findings and recommendations expressed in this report are the authors' own and do not necessarily represent those of the Big Lottery Fund or the Department for Education. Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. i 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 2. The Evaluation ............................................................................................................ 2 3. The myplace programme: policy and practice context ............................................ 7 4. myplace locations and populations......................................................................... 11 5. Youth facilities funded through the myplace programme...................................... 16 6. Young People ............................................................................................................ 37 7. Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 60 Appendix 1: Young Persons' Survey Response Rates ................................................... 63 Appendix 2: Case studies.................................................................................................. 65 Appendix 3: Data sources and logic model ..................................................................... 68 Appendix 4: Assessing Impact and Value for Money ...................................................... 72 Appendix 5: Additional data tables ................................................................................... 76 Executive Summary This document presents interim findings from the impact evaluation of myplace. myplace was launched in April 2008 and has made 63 capital grants of between £1m and £5m each for high quality youth centres which offer young people access to a wide range of activities and support services. The programme aims to place young people in the lead in the planning and delivery of projects and is based on partnership working across sectors to develop centres that respond to local needs and priorities and are sustainable. The Big Lottery Fund (BIG) is delivering myplace on behalf of the Department for Education (DfE). Introduction myplace The myplace programme has its origins in the 'Aiming High' (HM Treasury, 2007) policy framework of the (then) Labour Government. This laid out a strategy for youth provision which focused on 'helping teenagers to develop important social and communications skills, build their self-esteem and self-confidence and, improve their attitudes to school and help them avoid risks such as experimenting with drugs, being involved with crime or anti-social behaviour. The programme has four outcomes:  more young people, parents and communities feeling that young people have attractive and safe places to go in their leisure time where they can get involved in a wide range of exciting activities  more young people, particularly the most disadvantaged, participating in positive leisure time activities that support their personal and social development  more young people having access to information, advice and guidance services from within places they feel comfortable  stronger partnership working between local authorities and their third, private and public sector partners to plan, deliver and operate financially sustainable facilities with and for young people. The Coalition Government's priorities for young people and services are set out in the 'Positive for Youth' policy statement (December 2011). Within this context, myplace investment is intended to drive the on-going reform of local youth provision, including an enhanced role for civil society organisations (CSOs) in delivering publicly-funded services. Projects are expected to focus strongly on evidence-based early interventions for vulnerable young people, to work collaboratively across sectors, to lever in additional resources and to increase engagement with the private sector. The evaluation BIG commissioned the Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research (CRESR) and the Centre for Education and Inclusion Research (CEIR) at Sheffield Hallam University to carry out an impact evaluation of myplace between November 2011 and March 2013. i The evaluation is addressing three questions:  what are myplace centres and other youth centres/ facilities achieving and what is best practice in measuring impact?  what are the on-going costs of provision and how should this inform future investment decisions by local authorities and others considering establishing youth centres?  how are myplace centres and other youth centres/ facilities generating income and what are the lessons for revenue planning in the future by local authorities and others considering investment in youth facilities? Methods include baseline and follow-up surveys of grant holders, and young people attending myplace centres (the participant group) and a 'comparator' group of young people living in areas that have not had myplace investment. These surveys will be used to identify relationships between provision and outcome change for young people. In addition, 10 case studies are being carried out to explore aspects of implementation and the ways in which young people benefit from myplace centres. The interim report presents data from baseline surveys of grant holders and young people, along with emerging evidence from case study myplace centres. The baseline data provides information on what myplace centres are offering to young people and on the characteristics, attitudes and behaviours of young people who are, and are not, attending myplace centres. Follow-up surveys, to be conducted in late 2012, will provide evidence of change. Differences in outcome change between the participant and comparator groups of young people will be used to identify the impact of the myplace investment. Key Findings Findings are presented in the context of the four programme outcomes. Outcome: more young people, parents and communities feeling that young people have attractive and safe places to go in their leisure time where they can get involved in a wide range of exciting activities Evaluation Findings myplace centres are located in areas which maximise opportunities for access by young people Centres are most commonly located in inner urban areas in central locations in towns and city centres and are thus close to local transport hubs, maximising opportunities for access by young people from across (and in some cases between) local authority areas. Central locations are sometimes also places where young people congregate. The catchment area for 63 per cent of the myplace centres within a local authority area. However, over 30 per cent of centres anticipate that young people will travel beyond local authority boundaries to access provision and a small proportion (five per cent) of projects report their catchment area to be the local community: young people living within a one mile radius of the myplace project. Young people are travelling to access myplace centres. Fifty per cent of young people attending myplace centres (and responding to the survey) live within 20 minutes' walking distance of the centre. Thirty seven per cent of those attending myplace centres live more than 20 minutes' walk away. ii myplace centres typically bring together a wide range of facilities, activities and services to provide a comprehensive offer to young people Seventy per cent or more of centres include a café/ restaurant, an area for study, an area to learn practical skills (such as workshop, recording studio, kitchen, or hairdressing salon), an indoor games and recreation area, and indoor sports area, and office or meeting space. Centres offer a range of opportunities for social, sporting and creative activitie. Outdoor space is also common, including gardens/ allotments and outdoor sports areas (available in 46 per cent of centres). myplace centres are attracting large numbers of young people who value the opportunity to meet up with friends in a safe environment, and use the facilities on offer. Young people were involved extensively in planning and design of myplace centres and this has produced buildings which are safe, appealing and welcoming to young people and which offer attractive environments in which to engage young people in activities and services. One third of projects currently attract in excess of 200 young people each week. These numbers are likely to increase as more centres open and become established. Young people are attracted to myplace centres and other youth provision for a range of reasons including opportunities to meet up with friends (68 per cent), having somewhere safe to meet (40 per cent) and to use the facilities (36 per cent). Centres are responding to community needs 85 per cent of centres have developed activities and services that respond to community needs and 81 per cent carried out community consultation on the location of the project. In 75 per cent of project community members are involved as volunteers and in 61 per cent local community members are involved in project governance. Outcome: more young people, particularly the most disadvantaged, participating in positive leisure time activities that support their personal and social development Evaluation Findings myplace centres are focused on early intervention to meet the needs of disadvantaged young people myplace centres are more commonly located in areas with lower than average child wellbeing and higher than average levels of deprivation, unemployment and truancy, and lower than average educational attainment. myplace centres are targeting young people with a wide range of needs. Between 60 per cent and 96 per cent of centres are targeting the following groups: deprived/ low income; NEET; young people with learning difficulties; young people with physical disabilities; offenders (or those at risk of offending); young people with substance misuse problems, young people from black and minority ethnic groups, young parents; young people who are looked after or in care; young people with physical or mental health condition. In addition, 37 per cent provide services for homeless young people. There is a strong emphasis on the social and emotional development of young people iii Eighty per cent of centres identify 'provision of personal and social development opportunities for young people as one of their main objectives. The second and third most common objectives are 'provision of a safe and welcoming space for young people (70 per cent), and 'provision of high quality sport and leisure facilities for young people (46 per cent) Eighty per cent of centres identify 'developing young people's social and emotional skills' as one of their main outcomes. The second and third most frequently identified outcomes are 'improving engagement in education, employment and training' (61 per cent) and 'reducing/preventing crime and anti-social behaviour (33 per cent). Young people are generally confident and have high levels of self-esteem Two measures were used to assess the self-esteem and well-being of young people: the Rosenberg self-esteem scale1, and the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being2 scale. Young people were asked all questions on the scales and individual scores added together (by the evaluation team), using the appropriate methodologies (including for instance taking into account reverse scored questions on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale). Young people in myplace and non-myplace areas obtain similar scores on self-esteem and well-being measures, generally scoring highly on both. Young people attending myplace centres are more confident) and more satisfied with life than their counterparts in nonmyplace areas. A minority of young people are engaged in anti-social and risky behaviours A minority of young people attending myplace provision report that they have engaged in anti-social and criminal activities within the last three months. Nineteen per cent of young people attending myplace centres and completing the baseline survey report that they have upset someone with hurtful name calling, 17 per cent report that they have threatened someone with violence and eight per cent have excluded someone from a group of friends or activities. Eight per cent say that they have smashed or damaged property, 7 per cent have stolen something from a shop or business site and 4.5 per cent have damaged another car or vehicle on purpose. Forty five per cent of young people attending myplace centres and 55 per cent in the comparator group report that they do not drink alcohol at all. Thirteen per cent of those attending myplace centres and five per cent in the comparator group drink alcohol once or twice a week. Ninety six per cent of young people in the comparator group and 83.5 per cent of those attending myplace centres do not take illegal drugs. Three per cent of young people attending myplace centres take drugs every day, compared to one per cent of the comparator group. Young people attending myplace centres are more likely than those in comparator areas to report that they are involved in violence against people and property and drinking alcohol on a regular basis. This may be a reflection of myplace centres targeting young people who are at risk. There are higher levels of self-reported engagement in anti-social activities amongst young people aged 8-12 years (when compared to older age groups). This confirms the importance of early intervention to meet the needs of those at risk. Analysis of baseline data relating to 1 See http://www.bsos.umd.edu/scoy/reserach/rosenberg.htm The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale was funded by the Scottish Executive National Programme for improving mental health and well-being, commissioned by NHS Health Scotland, developed by the University of Warwick and the University of Edinburgh and is jointly owned by NHS Health Scotland, the University of Warwick and the University of Edinburgh. See http://www.heatlhscotland.com/scotlands-health/population/Measuringpositive-mental-health.aspx 2 iv young people attending myplace centres reveals that although the majority are in the priority target group (13-19 years, up to aged 25 with additional needs) many are aged 12 years or under (13 per cent of those completing the young persons' questionnaire), indicating a substantial need for provision amongst these younger children. myplace centres are responding to this need by running junior youth clubs and other activities for younger children. Outcome: more young people having access to information, advice and guidance services from within places they feel comfortable Evaluation Findings There is widespread provision of information, advice and guidance Advice and guidance has a strong focus on education and work, and health, as well as counselling and financial advice. A majority of myplace centres responding to the grant holders survey indicated 'careers advice/mentoring' (91 per cent), 'youth health services' and 'vocational training' (89.5 per cent respectively) as services that they are providing. In addition, 70 per cent of myplace centres indicated that alternative education (for those aged 14 - 16 years) is, or will be, available to young people. Fifty eight per cent of centres provide counselling for young people and 51 per cent offer financial advice. Eleven per cent of young people report access to advice, guidance and support as a main reason for attending myplace provision. It is likely that much higher numbers are accessing services which located in accessible and friendly environments. Service providers report that the location of services within attractive and accessible physical spaces has increased opportunities to engage with young people, leading to better access and improved outcomes. Additional data on young people's use of advice and guidance (along with other services) will be collected via follow-up surveys. Outcome: stronger partnership working between local authorities and their third, private and public sector partners to plan, deliver and operate financially sustainable facilities with and for young people. Evaluation Findings Partnership working across sectors is central to the myplace programme and is bringing a range of benefits All centres are working in partnership to deliver services to young people. Benefits to emerge from partnership working include integrated service delivery (often as a result of the co-location of service providers in myplace centres), leading to improved contact with young people, better outcome, and service efficiencies. Partnership between Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and the public sector is widespread: 62 per cent of myplace centres report that CSOs are involved in the delivery of services or activities, and 60 per cent identify local authority youth services as a main partner. Some myplace centres are working in partnership with private sector organisations, although more intend to do so in the future. Across all centres 37 per cent of respondents to the grant holder survey indicated that they worked in partnership with private sector organisations to deliver services or activities and 19 per cent identified private sector organisations as providers of project funding. Forty Four per cent of centres see business sponsorship as a future income source, although 25 per cent of respondents indicate that v their project has no involvement from the private sector. Barriers to engagement with the private sector include lack of knowledge, contacts and skills. Young people are involved in decision making and have influence Young people continue to be involved extensively in decision making in myplace centres and have influenced the range of activities and services on offer, as well as operational issues such as staffing and resourcing. More than half of the centres have involved young people in decision making processes in relation to income generation, recruitment of staff, conduct and frequency of meetings and business planning. In an additional 40 per cent of responding projects young people have led decision making around activities and services and the design of the facility. In interviews, young people and staff report that young people gain skills and confidence from their participation in decision making. Most centres are financially sustainable in the short term, and larger centres (in terms of operating costs) and those led by the public sector are more likely to have shortterm funding in place Fifty-five per cent of centres have funds in place to cover operating costs for one or two years: twenty-four per cent have funds in place for three years or more However, 20 per cent of centres do not have sufficient funds to cover operating costs for the current financial year. These centres are pursuing a range of options, including commercial activities to increase income. Larger myplace centres, in terms of operating costs, are more likely to have secured income in the short and medium term and be confident about securing income in the future. More than 90 per cent of those with operating costs of £750,000 and over have secured funding to cover the next 12 months' operating costs, and more than 50 cent of these have secured funding to cover the next 24 months. By comparison 67 per cent of centres with small operating costs (£250,000 or less per annum) have secured funding to cover 12 months and only 33 per cent had secured funding to cover the next 24 months. Local authority grant holders are more likely to have short term funding in place but are less confident about the future. Grant holders in local authorities are more likely than those in CSOs to have funds in place to cover their operating costs over the next two years. 87 per cent of responding local authority centres have funds in place for up to twelve months and 53 per cent have funds secured to cover operating costs for the next two years. The comparative figures for CSO grant holders are 68 per cent and 41 per cent respectively. However, CSO grant holders are more confident in their abilities to generate income in the longer term: 82 per cent of CSO respondents agree that they will be able to generate enough income to cover their operating costs over the next five years, compared to 67 per cent of those in local authorities. In some cases business plans which had been developed on the premise of public sector service agencies acting as anchor tenants and establishing permanent bases within myplace centres have had to be revised as local budgets have shrunk and agencies have been unable to commit to planned activities. In others, local budgets for youth work have been revised, sometimes resulting in the withdrawal or reduction of grant funding for myplace centre. Centres have developed diverse funding portfolios to generate income from a range of different sources Income from hire of centre facilities, staging of events, general admission charges and sales income were most commonly identified (all by more than half of centres responding). vi Public sector grants remain an important source of income. Although less than half of respondents identify local public sector grants and contracts as an income source, they remain important for those that do. Centres expect that on average grants and contracts from local public sector bodies will make the largest contribution to operating costs (33 per cent). This is followed by hire of equipment, facilities and rooms (19 per cent) and grants from charitable trusts or foundations (13 per cent). The remaining income sources each contributed an average of ten per cent or less towards centre operating costs. This highlights the importance many centres place on local public sector funds to sustain their work compared to other types of income. This is further highlighted by the fact that 18 per cent of respondents (nine centres) expect local public sector funds to cover more than half of their operating costs and for 45 per cent of respondents (22) centres they amount to the largest single source of funds. Next Steps There are four main research tasks for the remainder of the evaluation period, to March 2013: Follow-up grant holder survey A follow-up grant holder survey in November 2012 will gather standardised information on delivery and will concentrate in particular on collecting updated financial data and information on activities and outputs to inform assessments of sustainability. Follow-up surveys of young people in myplace and non-myplace areas All young people who returned a completed baseline questionnaire, and who also indicated that they were happy to be contacted again by the evaluation team, will be invited to take part in a follow-up young people's survey in December 2012. This survey will be designed to capture evidence of change in attitudes, behaviours and outcomes for young people. Case Studies Fieldwork will continue in the case study centres until December 2012. During this period the evaluators will carry out interviews with myplace centre staff and volunteers, and representatives of partner agencies; and interviews and focus groups with young people. Financial and management information will also be collected and analysed. Reporting The evaluation will report in March 2013. Final outputs will contain analysis of all data to report on the impact, costs and sustainability of myplace provision. vii 1. Introduction 1.1. This report presents the interim findings from an impact evaluation of myplace, being carried out on behalf the Big Lottery Fund (BIG) and the Department for Education (DfE) by the Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research (CRESR) and the Centre for Education and Inclusion Research (CEIR) at Sheffield Hallam University. 1.2. The report is structured as follows:  chapter two outlines the evaluation methodology  chapter three discusses the policy and practice context for the myplace programme  chapter four provides information on where myplace projects are located and looks at key socio-demographic characteristics of populations in areas with a myplace centre  chapter five presents evidence on provision for young people funded through the myplace programme  chapter six looks at data from baseline surveys of young people attending myplace centres and those in non-myplace comparator areas  chapter seven contains the report's conclusions  appendix one contains details of survey response rates  appendix two contains details of myplace case studies  appendix three outlines how the evaluation is addressing key questions, and includes a logic model for the evaluation  appendix four discusses the approach to assessing impact and value for money  appendix five contains additional data tables. 1 2. The Evaluation Approach 2.1. The evaluation will make an important contribution to understanding the impact and cost-effectiveness of centre-based youth facilities and is designed to provide myplace providers and commissioners of youth services with evidence to support investment decisions. The evaluation addresses three main questions:  what are myplace centres and other youth centres/facilities achieving and what is best practice in measuring impact?  what are the ongoing costs of provision and how should this inform future investment decisions by local authorities and others considering establishing youth centres?  how are myplace centres and other youth centres/facilities generating income and what are the lessons for revenue planning in the future by local authorities and others considering investment in youth centres/ facilities? 2.2. Appendix Three outlines the research strategy and data sources for answering each of these questions and outlines a logic model for the myplace programme, developed by the evaluation team. 2.3. The evaluation aims to assess the influence of myplace centres on outcomes for young people, where there is strong evidence of a relationship between these outcomes and those 'hard' impacts which might be identified through analysis of changes in administrative data. These 'hard' impacts may be less sensitive to change over the relatively short timescales of the evaluation and less responsive to change proportionate to the level of intervention (i.e. where there are small numbers of young people engaging in provision). Figure 2.1 represents the evaluation's approach to measuring change in outcomes for young people. 2 Figure 2.1: Outcomes for young people qualitative research and survey questions to gauge impacts on outcomes admin data Source: myplace evaluation team Methods 2.4. 2.5. A scoping phase, conducted November 2011 to January 2012, involved semistructured interviews with programme and delivery partner representatives and collation of data held by BIG and its support contractor. This enabled the evaluation team to develop a clear understanding of the programme and to refine the overall approach to the evaluation, as outlined above. There have been three subsequent areas of activity:  myplace grant holder survey  young people's survey  case studies. Each of these is discussed briefly below. myplace grant holder survey 2.6. A baseline questionnaire was sent by post and electronically to all 63 myplace grant holders in March 2012. Fifty seven responses were received. The survey provides information on the ways that myplace grant holders are delivering provision for young people. 2.7. A follow-up grant holder survey will be sent electronically to all myplace grant recipients in November 2012. This will gather standardised information on aspects of delivery and will concentrate in particular on collecting updated financial data and information on activities and outputs to inform assessments of sustainability. 3 Young people's surveys 2.8. A baseline young people's survey has collected information from young people who are attending myplace centres (the participant group) and those in areas that have not had myplace investment (the comparator group). 2.9. A questionnaire was designed in consultation with BIG, DfE and Rotherham Young Advisors and was piloted with young people at the myplace centre in Chesterfield. The participant survey was sent to 39 centres open by the end of June 2012. 2.10. The comparator survey was sent to a sample of 3000 young people selected randomly from all pupils recorded on the National Pupil Database (NPD) aged 13-19 years and living in 23 non-myplace 'comparator' areas. These areas were identified by matching myplace and other local authority areas on a range of relevant variables:  youth population - percentage of total population aged 10-19 years  black and minority ethnic (BME) population - as a percentage of working age population  youth unemployment - percentage of 16-24 year olds claiming Jobseekers Allowance  educational attainment - percentage of Key Stage Four (KS4) pupils achieving five or more A*-C grades  deprivation - Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) average score  rurality - percentage of local authority categorised as rural (including large market town population) using DEFRA rural-urban classification. 2.11. Comparator group questionnaires were posted out in early June, and an electronic link was made available for on-line completion. 2.12. A total of 1450 valid responses were obtained from young people attending myplace centres, and 676 from young people in comparator areas. The achieved response for the comparator survey is thus 22.5 per cent. There is no accurate data available on the numbers of young people accessing myplace provision each week. However, responses to the provider survey allow an estimate of the average numbers of young people accessing provision at the time of the survey. This is illustrated in Table 6.1. Table 6.1: Numbers of young people accessing myplace provision Number of young people attending each week Number of centres Maximum attendees Minimum attendees 0 (centre not yet open at time of survey administration) 23 0 0 51 - 100 3 300 153 101 - 200 11 2200 1111 201- 500 13 6500 2613 500 + 7 13200 (assumed at 600) 3500 22,200 7377 TOTAL Mean attendees 14,788 4 n= 57 centres responding to grant holder survey 2.13. Full details of survey response rates, by myplace centre and comparator area are included at Appendix One. 2.14. Entry into a prize draw was offered to incentivise participation. For each survey (participant and comparator) there was a first prize of £200 of high street shopping vouchers, followed by second and third prizes of £30 and £20 of high street shopping vouchers respectively. 2.15. All young people who returned a completed baseline questionnaire, and who also indicated that they were happy to be contacted again by the evaluation team, will be invited to take part in a follow-up young people's survey in December 2012. This survey will be designed to capture evidence of change in attitudes, behaviours and outcomes for young people and will be administered at an interval of between six and eight months since completion of the baseline survey. The follow-up surveys are a key aspect of the evaluation's approach to assessing the impact of myplace. 2.16. The survey will seek to achieve as many responses as is possible with young people who had taken part in the baseline surveys. This will provide longitudinal, panel data for young people who have, and have not, attended myplace centres. This evidence base will allow assessment of the net additional impact of myplace centres on outcomes for young people. 2.17. A number of benefits arise from using longitudinal panel samples, built up from repeated interviews with the same individuals over time, to measure and understand change:  longitudinal data allow an assessment to be made of respondent, rather than population, change  compared with, cross-sectional, data, individual-level longitudinal data enables more accurate assessments to be made of the percentage of respondents reporting improved, worse or similar outcomes and interactions across outcomes  with individual-level data, any observed change is in effect more 'real', thus generating greater confidence and consequently requiring lower sample size to observe statistically significant results  because assessment is based on change for young people, analyses will automatically control for (or take into account) fixed, person-specific characteristics, such as a respondents' gender, which may influence the likelihood to give a particular answer. Case Studies 2.18. 2.19. Ten case studies are providing evidence on aspects of implementation and the ways in which young people use and benefit from myplace provision. Research activities include:  interviews and focus groups with young people, staff, volunteers, partner agencies, commissioners and funders  gathering and analysis of management information and financial data. Case study sites reflect a number of main programme features: 5 2.20.  geographical spread: at least one case study in each region  time of award: case studies representing Fast and Standard Track (one and two) funding rounds  delivery model: case studies with both statutory and third sector leads and delivering a range of activities for young people. The ten case study centres are Blackburn Youth Zone, Culture Fusion (Bradford), myplace Chesterfield, TAB Centre Plus (London Borough of Enfield), CRMZ (Halton), Middlesbrough myplace at the Custom House, OPEN Central (Norfolk), Pegasus Theatre - Building the Future (Oxford), The Young Persons Village (Stoke on Trent), and Parkfield (Torbay). Brief details of case study projects are contained at Appendix Two. Reporting 2.21. The evaluation will report in March 2013. Final outputs will contain analysis of all data to assess the impact, costs, of myplace provision and sustainability. 2.22. The next chapter reviews the policy and practice context for the myplace programme. 6 3. The myplace programme: policy and practice context 3.1. The myplace programme was launched by the (then) Labour Government in April 2008 and has made capital grants of between £1m and £5m for 'world-class' youth centres which offer young people access to a wide range of high quality leisure time activities and support services. The programme aims to place young people in the lead in planning and delivering projects and promotes an approach based on working in partnership across sectors to develop financially sustainable centres that respond to local needs and priorities. The Big Lottery Fund (BIG) is delivering myplace on behalf of the Department for Education (DfE). 3.2. Following three competitive bidding rounds, 63 awards were made across two rounds of funding. The first round of myplace opened to applications on 6 May 2008. Round one included a fast-track, which supported early investment in 21 projects that were already well developed, and a standard track that made investment decisions in February 2009 and supported 35 projects. An additional seven projects were awarded grants in myplace round two that was open for applications in June 2009. When central government funding ends (March 2013) around £240 million of capital investment will have been awarded to projects across England. 3.3. The programme has four outcomes:  more young people, parents and communities feeling that young people have attractive and safe places to go in their leisure time where they can get involved in a wide range of exciting activities  more young people, particularly the most disadvantaged, participating in positive leisure time activities that support their personal and social development  more young people having access to information, advice and guidance services from within places they feel comfortable  stronger partnership working between local authorities and their third, private and public sector partners to plan, deliver and operate financially sustainable facilities with and for young people. 3.4. myplace has its origins in the 'Aiming High' (HM Treasury, 2007) policy framework. The early development of the programme reflects a strategy for youth centres which focused on 'helping teenagers to develop important social and communication skills, build their self-esteem and self-confidence and, improve their attitudes to school and help them avoid risks such as experimenting with drugs, being involved with crime or anti-social behaviour. The programme rationale is twofold: early intervention (maximising opportunities for positive social, behavioural and cognitive development of young people); and diversion (building on evidence that young people who are involved in positive out of school activities are less likely to be involved in 'risky behaviours'). 3.5. myplace is also influenced by thinking around the role of place-based interventions in promoting joined-up services and achieving improved outcomes for young people. The Every Child Matters (Department for Education, 2004) and Youth Matters (Department for Children, Schools and Families, 2005) policy frameworks of the 7 (then) Labour Government made commitments to outcomes standards for all children and young people, and the Children Act 2004 created a duty on all local authorities to promote co-operation between sectors to achieve these aims. The focus of Youth Matters as a place-based policy to deliver targeted social and personal development reflected the priority of joined-up provision and proposed that young people should have increased choice of local activities and facilities, and more influence over what is available; more opportunities to volunteer and make a difference to their local communities; improved information, advice and guidance and more options around how, and where it is received; and better support to deal with problems. 3.6. In 2010 the myplace programme was placed on hold for a period of approximately six months during which the newly elected Coalition Government made decisions on its spending priorities for the forthcoming term. In a letter to grant holders issued in December 2010 the (then) Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Children and Families, Tim Loughton, confirmed as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review, that the capital funding for projects awarded grants through the myplace programme would be upheld. The letter also spelled out the Government's expectation that the capital investment will be used to drive the on-going reform of local youth provision, including an enhanced role for civil society organisations (CSOs) in delivering publicly-funded services; and the assumption that local authority-led projects will in the longer term transfer, or share, ownership and management of myplace centres with local communities and young people. In addition projects are expected to focus strongly on evidence-based early interventions for vulnerable young people, to work collaboratively across sectors, to lever in additional resources and to increase engagement with the private sector. 3.7. The Coalition Government's priorities for young people and services are set out in the 'Positive for Youth' policy statement (December 2011). The statement describes the Government's ambitions for a society that is 'positive for youth' and enables young people to have: 3.8.  supportive relationships - with parents and families, in strong communities and with early access to help for those who are disadvantaged or at risk  strong ambitions - to achieve in education and at work, to be healthy and safe and to be active in society  good opportunities - including access to high quality education and training, personal and social development opportunities, and support to become active citizens. The policy statement highlights the need for a partnership approach in which local authorities retain the duty to secure services to promote the well-being of young people but do so in partnership with agencies in the public, voluntary and business sectors and with local communities and young people. Principles for local arrangements include:  a positive role for young people, and influence on local decision making  a focus on whole-family support  a focus on the whole community's responsibility to support young people  integration across commissioning bodies, professions and providers  an evidence-based approach to early intervention and support for targeting disadvantaged young people 8  a more contestable market for young people's services  support for a more enterprising and innovative voluntary and community sector. 3.9. Within this context the Government anticipates that myplace centres will become catalysts for the transformation of local services for young people by acting as hubs, offering access to a wide range of advice and support services; involving young people in decision making and promoting a positive role for young people in society; focusing on early interventions with the most vulnerable young people (including those aged up to 25 with learning difficulties and disabilities); and leveraging in private investment from local businesses and corporate sponsors. 3.10. A process evaluation of myplace was published in April 2011 (Big Lottery Fund, 2011). This provided early evidence on the progress of myplace centres toward programme outcomes and the extent and impact of leading practice in the delivery of services to young people. The process evaluation identified the good progress made by myplace centres and in particular highlighted the high quality of facilities. It also reported on the wide range of participatory strategies used to engage young people which contributed to a sense of ownership, respect for the facilities and maintenance of good relationships between different user groups. 3.11. The process evaluation also revealed some challenges for myplace provision, which provide important context for this impact evaluation. Principal amongst these is the context of constrained public sector resources which has the potential to impact on revenue funding for myplace centres and affect business plans which were developed in a climate of optimism in relation to the prospects for public sector engagement in the delivery of services to young people. The second is the changing nature of youth provision, and in particular the trend towards integrated, targeted and intensive work which has implications for myplace provision, much of which has been developed on a model of open-access activities available to a wide user base. 3.12. These challenges have been explored further by the current evaluation team through a brief online survey of Lead Officers for Children's Services conducted in late 2011 in areas with a myplace centre (either open or in development). The survey aimed to gather contextual information on the relationships between myplace centres and other services for young people and asked four questions:  please describe your local authority's approach to commissioning services for children, young people and families  what is the approximate balance (within your local authority area) between open access youth facilities and those which target specific groups or communities?  what impact will the myplace centre have on other youth provision in the local authority area?  what will be the key challenges for youth provision in your local authority area over the next two years? 3.13. Responses were received from 10 local authorities. These limited findings confirm the complexities and variance of the organisation, scope and delivery of local services for young people. Local authorities continue to undertake direct delivery of youth services and are seeking to commission services within a mixed economy approach that is built upon developing partnerships with providers in the voluntary and community, and business, sectors. 3.14. There is variation in the balance between open access and targeted facilities: where respondents were able to quantify the proportion of open access provision this ranged from 50 to 99.5 per cent. However there is an indistinct division between 9 open access and targeted work, with targeted work delivered through open access centres (a model which is replicated in some myplace centres), or delivered by specialist providers with access to their own buildings. There is too an increasing emphasis on the contribution of youth work to Integrated Family Support and Early Intervention Teams and this is seen to be one of the key priorities in the future. 3.15. The survey also asked respondents to reflect on the key challenges facing youth provision over the next two years. Unsurprisingly, the need to respond to reductions in funding and to maintain high standards of service delivery featured prominently. The reconfiguration and modernisation of services, alongside a greater emphasis on involving young people and communities and supporting a robust voluntary and community sector, were also highlighted as challenges. And the need to diversify funding streams and for non-statutory youth services to be able to demonstrate their contribution to strengthening communities within a changing policy and political landscape also meant, for some respondents, a need for more robust performance management frameworks and for helping providers to evidence their impact. 3.16. Having looked at the important policy and practice developments impacting on context for myplace centres, the next chapter looks at key aspects of the areas in which myplace centres are located. 10 4. myplace locations and populations 4.1. myplace centres are working in diverse communities and are shaped by, and respond to, local circumstances. Activities and support are tailored to meet the needs of young people locally, reflecting best practice in developing centre-based approaches to supporting young people. Thus it is important to locate evidence on impact within understanding of the local contexts in which myplace centres are located. This chapter reviews the location of myplace centres and key socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of local populations, using the local authority district (LAD) as a proxy measure for the myplace locality. This is an appropriate spatial level for the analysis because, although myplace centres do vary in terms of their area of operation, as outlined at 4.7, 63 per cent of centres identify the local authority district as their main catchment area. This chapter also draws on responses to a baseline survey of myplace grant holders, conducted in spring 2012 which collected, amongst a range of other variables, information on the location and catchment area for myplace centres. myplace locations 4.2. The 63 myplace centres are spread across England. Figure 4.1 shows the number and proportion of centres located in each of the former Government Office regions. Just over a fifth of centres (21) are located in London; 16 per cent (10) are in the North West; and 13 per cent each (8) are in the South West and Yorkshire and the Humber. The remaining regions each host between five and ten per cent, with the fewest centres in the South East (3). Figure 4.1: Number and proportion of myplace centres by region Source: developed from BIG data on location of myplace centres Base: 63 myplace grants 11 Rural-Urban classification 4.3. Using the Local Authority Rural-Urban Classification3, developed by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) in 2005, Figure 4.2, below shows the types of area where the myplace centres are located. 4.4. Unsurprisingly given the over-representation of the English population living in urban areas, four-fifths of the myplace centres are located in areas classed as urban, with 38 per cent in 'major urban' areas. Of the remaining fifth located in rural areas, five are in areas with at least 50 per cent of their population in rural settlements (and larger market towns). Figure 4.2: Number and proportion of myplace centres by Rural-Urban classifications Source: developed from Defra Rural-Urban classification Base: 63 myplace grants 4.5. 3       The location of myplace centres has the potential to affect both levels of usage and the impact of provision on outcomes for young people. Because of this the baseline grant holder survey asked respondents to provide details on the location and catchment area of the myplace centre. Figure 4.3 demonstrates that the majority of myplace centres are located in central locations in towns and city centres and are thus close to local transport hubs, maximising opportunities for access by young people from across (and in some cases between) local authority areas. Central locations are sometimes also places where young people congregate. In Blackburn, for instance, a new myplace centre has been built in the town centre, partly in response to reports from local shopkeepers that young people were congregating The classification is a 'spectrum' comprising six categories: Major Urban: districts with either 100,000 people or 50 per cent of their population in urban areas with a population of more than 750,000 Large Urban: districts with either 50,000 people or 50 per cent of their population in one of 17 urban areas with a population between 250,000 and 750,000 Other Urban: districts with less than 26 per cent of their population in rural settlements and larger market towns Significant Rural: districts with more than 26 per cent of their population in rural settlements and larger market towns Rural-50: districts with at least 50 per cent but less than 80 per cent of their population in rural settlements and larger market towns Rural-80: districts with at least 80 per cent of their population in rural settlements and larger market towns. 12 there. And similarly in Norwich, where the myplace centre is also located centrally, interviewees agreed that the provision was much needed for the area and provided a safe place for young people to meet who had been 'hanging around' in the city centre. Figure 4.3 also indicates that the overwhelming majority of myplace centres are a single building or site, although a small proportion offers facilities, services or activities on more than one site. Figure 4.3: Location of myplace centres Source: baseline myplace grant holder survey Base: 57 respondents 4.6. Almost one fifth of myplace centres are not located centrally: they are in rural areas or in peripheral neighbourhoods or estates. These centres are meeting the needs of specific populations but may face additional challenges in terms of access or attracting sufficient numbers of young people to ensure sustainability. 4.7. The catchment area for 63 per cent of the myplace centres responding to the grant holder survey is within a local authority area. However, over 30 per cent of responding centres anticipate that young people will travel beyond local authority boundaries to access provision and a small proportion (five per cent) of responding projects report their catchment area to be the local community: young people living within a one mile radius of the myplace project. Deprivation (IMD) 4.8. Based on the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2010 the majority (84 per cent) of myplace centres are in areas with higher than average deprivation, and 18 of the 63 centres (29 per cent) are in the ten per cent most deprived LADs in the country. Ten myplace centres are in LADs that have lower than average deprivation, including three in the quarter least deprived LADs - Bath and North East Somerset, Hinckley and Bosworth in Leicestershire, and Dacorum in Hertfordshire. 13 Well-being (CWI) 4.9. The child well-being index (CWI 2009) is indicator of how well children are doing in a local area based on a number of different domains of their life including: material well-being; health; education; crime; housing; environment; and children in need4. 4.10. The majority (86 per cent) of myplace centres are located in LADs with lower than average child well-being, and a third of centres are in the ten per cent of LADs with the lowest child well-being. Three of the centres - in Bath and North East Somerset, Hinckley and Bosworth, and Dacorum - are in the quarter of LADs with the highest child well-being. Key population characteristics Youth population 4.11. Based on mid-year population estimates for 20115, young people aged 10-19 years represent 12 per cent of the total population nationally. Of the 63 myplace centres, 33 per cent are located in areas with higher than average youth populations (12.5 per cent or more of the total population). Black and minority ethnic population 4.12. Based on the 20126 Annual Population Survey data for working age people living in England (aged 16-64), the black and minority ethnic (BME) population nationally is estimated at 14 per cent of the total population. Based on estimates for LADs, over a third (38 per cent) of the myplace locations have higher than average BME populations. The most ethnically diverse myplace locations (with a BME population of over a third) are in London) (Brent, Harrow, Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Lewisham, Southwark, Enfield and Camden), Luton, and Birmingham. Twenty-four per cent of myplace locations have a BME population of less than five per cent. It is important to note that these population figures are based on the working age population, and thus do not necessarily represent accurately the BME population as a proportion of the total youth population. 4.13. Based on 'Claimant Count' figures published by the Department of Work and Pensions for September 2012, the national rate of unemployment for young people aged 16-24 was 5.8 per cent. This puts the majority (61.9 per cent) of myplace centres in locations with higher rates of youth unemployment than the national average and as high as 13 per cent in Hartlepool. In other myplace locations the youth unemployment rate is as low as 4 per cent (or less), for example in Camden, Bournemouth, West Somerset, Bath and North East Somerset, and Oxford. 4.14. The 'Claimant Count' is based on the number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA), and does not include all young people out of work. Another measure of economic inactivity for young people is the proportion of 16-18 year olds not in education, employment or training (NEET) within the local education authority area (LEA) 7 . The national NEET rate for the end of 2011 (the most recent data available by LAD) is 8.1 per cent. Using this as a benchmark, a majority (83 per cent) 4 The CWI follows a similar approach, structure and methodology as that used in the IMD. More information about how the index has been constructed can be found at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/communities/childwellbeing2009 5 Source: Mid-2011 Population Estimates: Quinary age groups and sex for local authorities in England and Wales; based on the results of the 2011 Census. 6 Figures are for Jul 2011-Jun 2012 7 LEAs are aligned with county and unitary authorities, rather than districts 14 of myplace locations have below average NEET rates. However, some myplace locations have relatively high NEETs rates; above nine per cent in Knowsley, Halton and Liverpool in the North West of England, and Stockton on Tees, Redcar and Cleveland and Middlesbrough in the North East. School experience 4.15. In 2011/12 (Autumn term 2011 and Spring Term 2012), the national average for unauthorised absences in maintained secondary schools in England was 1.3 pupil half days. At the district level, half (43 per cent) of the myplace locations have higher than average rates of unauthorised absence. The rates in Stoke on Trent is double the national average at 2.6 half days. 4.16. Educational attainment at key stage four (KS4) is strongly associated with longerterm life outcomes, particularly job success and income level. For England as a whole, 58 per cent of pupils left KS4 in 2011 with five or more GCSEs A*-C including English and Maths. A majority of 62 per cent of myplace locations had lower attainment rates than this, with rates less than 45 per cent in Knowsley and Middlesbrough. 4.17. This chapter has reviewed key aspects of the areas in which myplace centres are located and the populations living there. It has revealed that, the majority of myplace centres are located centrally in deprived urban areas. myplace centres are more common in areas of lower than average child-wellbeing and higher than average levels of youth unemployment and truancy and lower than average educational attainment. However, there are smaller numbers of centres located in rural areas or in areas with relatively low levels of deprivation and higher than average child wellbeing. A majority of myplace centres are in areas with below average rates of young people who are NEET. 4.18. The next chapter looks at aspects of the provision funded through myplace grants. 15 5. Youth facilities programme funded 5.1. This chapter looks at evidence on the scope, structure and activities of youth facilities funded under the myplace programme. For ease of reference these are referred to throughout this report under the generic term of myplace centres, although it is important to note that most centres do not incorporate myplace into their name. 5.2. Evidence outlined in this chapter is drawn from a number of sources: analysis of contextual administrative data and programme information held by BIG; a baseline survey of grant holders, administered in spring 2012; and case studies of myplace centres, which are being carried out between April and December 2012. Not all centres were open to young people at the time the baseline survey of grant holders was sent out. Respondents were asked to complete the questionnaire according to the current status of the centre and to report on their expectations for development of the centre over a range of time periods. Fifty seven completed questionnaires were received. Follow-up surveys conducted in November 2012 will provide information on the degree to which anticipated developments have come to fruition (including for those centres that are newly open). Initial analysis of this data provides some important parameters for the evaluation, highlights aspects of provision which are of interest to BIG and DfE and begins to explore some of the factors which may be associated with project sustainability. On-going case study work, and the follow up grant holder survey in November 2012, will provide opportunities to pursue, and refine, some of the issues and questions emerging. 5.3. Analysis is presented under six sub-headings:  myplace centres  services and activities  partnership working  involving young people and communities  income and expenditure  sustainability. through the myplace myplace centres 5.4. myplace has awarded 63 capital grants. There is an even split between grants awarded to partnerships led by a civil society organisations (CSOs) (31) and those led by local authorities (LAs) (32). At the time of the baseline survey administration, 34 centres (50 per cent) reported that they were open to young people and 23 centres (40 per cent) were yet to become fully operational. 5.5. Grants have supported both new builds and the refurbishment of existing buildings. In some instances buildings that were already acting as youth centres have been improved and extended so that a greater range of facilities and activities is offered. In others, myplace funding has been used to bring previously disused buildings back in to use. There are examples of listed buildings and local landmark buildings being 16 redeveloped as youth centres, sometimes at the request of young people. The collaboration between professional architects and young people that typified project development has produced myplace centres that are visually stunning and which offer places for young people to meet which are unparalleled elsewhere in their vicinity. The buildings are not without problems. As would be expected in any capital programme there have been niggling issues over specifications. And the efforts made to reflect the priorities and needs of young people (who themselves have different needs), local residents and professionals have sometimes led to compromises in design and specification that have not proved ideal when centres have become operational. Examples here include inadequate office space or space which is unsuitable for use by community groups and professionals; space which is inappropriate for young people with particular needs or conditions; space which can't be separated for use by adults and young people; and the use of components and materials that have proved expensive to replace and/or difficult to source. 5.6. However, these issues are marginal, and in interviews carried out so far, stakeholders are very positive about the myplace centres. This is a reflection of the thorough consultation which has characterised project planning. In particular, young people were involved extensively in the development and design of myplace centres (as a condition of grant funding) and this has resulted in facilities which are safe, appealing and welcoming to young people, and which offer youth workers and service providers attractive environments in which to engage with young people. TAB Centre Plus - London Borough of Enfield The myplace grant to TAB Centre Plus provided for the refurbishment of an existing building, to include a sports hall, gym space and dance studio. Interviews with centre staff suggest that the Centre now offers a safe environment for young people to meet away from territorial or gang-related issues and a facility in which service providers can engage with young people. Young people from the estates surrounding the centre use the provision, but it also attracts young people from neighbouring boroughs who wish to get away from gang related cultures in those areas. The local Youth Offending Team uses the centre to meet with clients and hold group sessions, and there is an extensive programme of activity involving the Tottenham Hotspur Foundation, including football, tennis clubs and fitness sessions. 5.7. Evidence from the grant holder survey provides information on the objectives and outcomes of myplace centres. Respondents were asked to identify three main objectives for their project. Almost 80 per cent identified 'provision of personal and social development opportunities for young people' as one of their main objectives. The second and third most frequently identified objectives were for 'provision of a safe and welcoming space for young people' (70 per cent) and 'provision of high quality sport and leisure facilities for young people' (46 per cent). The emphasis on personal and emotional support is a strong theme across myplace provision. One interviewee described the Centre's objectives as about young people: " enjoying and achieving, being able to go somewhere where they are safe, where they've got total respect, where they are not bullied ……… where there's a lot of love and laughter and a lot of support" 5.8. A separate question asked respondents to identify the three main outcomes for the project. Eighty per cent of responding myplace projects identified 'developing young people's social and emotional skills' as one of their main outcomes. The second and third most frequently identified outcomes were for 'improving engagement in 17 education, employment and training' (61 per cent) and 'reducing/preventing crime and anti-social behaviour' (33 per cent). Facilities, Services and Activities 5.9. Grants have funded single and multi-site centres. Some centres include residential provision for homeless young people, or facilities which meet the needs of young people with disabilities; others are open-access drop-in centres primarily offering diversionary activities during out of school hours. Many offer state of the art facilities for young people to engage in sporting, cultural and artistic pursuits; some also offer on-site educational and employment opportunities via alternative curriculum programmes, training workshops, catering facilities and commercial activities. 5.10. Figure 5.1 details the facilities available to young people in myplace buildings. Figure 5.1: myplace facilities Source: baseline myplace grant holder survey Base: 57 respondents 5.11. myplace projects are providing a wide range of services to young people, and there is a strong focus on work, health and education (Figure 5.2). When asked to identify the services that are, or will be, available to young people, a majority of myplace centres responding to the grant holders survey indicated 'careers advice/mentoring' (91 per cent), 'youth health services' and 'vocational training' (89 per cent respectively) as services that they are providing. In addition, 70 per cent of myplace centres indicated that alternative education (for those aged 14 - 16 years) is, or will be, available to young people. 18 5.12. Figure 5.2: myplace services Source: baseline myplace grant holder survey Base: 57 respondents myplace Chesterfield The myplace centre in Chesterfield offers new facilities designed specifically for young people with disabilities alongside a refurbished universal youth centre with an arts focus offering open access sessions in the evenings and on weekdays. In addition, alternative education is provided, targeted at young people experiencing difficulties at school, those struggling with transition between schools or who are not registered at school, and those who have left school with little idea about what to do next. A curriculum-based programme is provided on two days a week. 5.13. Similarly, there are many different activities available to young people through myplace provision. Activities that are available on a daily basis include those involving sports coaching and drop-in sports. However, most activities are offered several times a week or on a weekly basis: 89 per cent of responding organisations offer performing arts classes weekly or several times a week; 71 per cent provide senior youth clubs (13 yrs plus) with the same frequency and 71 per cent also offer regular fitness classes. The majority of activities are open access: 78 per cent of respondents indicated that 50 per cent or more of the activities that they provide are open to all young people. One example is the OPEN centre in Norwich, where daily drop-in sessions, which are run in after school hours and are free to young people, are attended by young people from schools across the city. Figure 5.3 details the types of activities offered to young people by myplace centres. 19 Figure 5.3: myplace activities Source: baseline myplace grant holder survey Base: 57 respondents 5.14. Thus myplace centres typically integrate a wide range of facilities, activities and services to provide a comprehensive offer to young people. This is illustrated by example of the CRMZ (Central Rooms) myplace centre in Halton. CRMZ (Central Rooms) Halton The centre facilities include a common room and café, a training kitchen, IT suite, creative arts facility, multi-purpose hall, recording studio, 'chill-out' space and floodlight outdoor areas. Specialist services are offered by a range of providers including Young Addaction, Youth Offending Team, Catch 22, Connexions and Brook. Day-time provision includes drop-in, plus targeted specialist provision. The centre's facilities are also available for hire to local community groups. In the evenings there are structured activities including clubs for junior members, youth club, and creative and sports groups. Partnership Working 5.15. The development of partnership arrangements across public and voluntary sectors was a condition of myplace funding and collaborative working across sectors has been emphasised as a priority for the Coalition Government (see Chapter Three for further discussion). As such, partnership working is central to the activities of 20 myplace centres. Respondents to the grant holder survey were asked to identify ways in which different agencies and organisations are involved with myplace projects. Sixty two per cent identify CSOs as being involved in the delivery of services or activities and 39 per cent report that CSOs are involved as a main partner; indicating that CSOs have a central role in the delivery of services to young people. Sixty per cent identify local authority Youth Services as a main partner. Culture Fusion - Bradford In Bradford, the Culture Fusion myplace centre offers a range of services for young people including information and advice, careers advice, training programmes, targeted support (for instance for those with mental ill-health), and youth work. The lead partner is the YMCA, and the local authority has seconded a member of staff to the centre. Other core partners are based in the building and hire out space to deliver services to young people. Each has a partnership agreement in place. The Culture Fusion Operations Group, comprising representatives of all partners, meets monthly to ensure that the needs of local young people are being met. 5.16. Further work in case studies will explore the ways in which partner organisations are collaborating to provide services. Interviewees commented on the benefits of partnership working between providers of services to young people, and in particular on the benefits of co-location which enabled the delivery of integrated services to young people. Two spoke about the benefits of partnership working in one myplace centre: "They have integrated services in the building so we can have meetings and give a little update on what they are doing. So if a young person comes in with a drug problem I can go and speak to Addaction who are also here, it's a coordinated approach". and "Because the services are integrated we know a lot more about what other services do and so you are more confident in referring (young people). It gives more confidence in what other services do - you know each other better, you see them every day". 5.17. The location of service providers in myplace centres also provides increased opportunities for engagement with young people, leading to improved outcomes for young people and opportunities for efficiencies in service delivery. The North Staffordshire Young Persons' Village provides an example. 21 North Staffordshire Young Peoples' Campus North Staffordshire Young Peoples' Campus, run by North Staffordshire YMCA and based in Stoke On Trent offers accommodation for vulnerable single young people under the age of 25, alongside a community sports and leisure facility. The myplace grant has contributed to the transformation of a formerly run-down accommodation block into an attractive centre which offers fit for purpose and flexible spaces, including a café, gym, climbing wall, meeting space and flexible learning and leisure space for use by young people. The refurbished building is helping to change local perceptions about the client group, and about the services and support on offer and as a result, more young people are engaging with services. It has also greatly enhanced the quality of interactions between youth workers and service providers and young people, contributing to improved outcomes. The Health Zone, located within the centre, offers a range of services including a sexual health drop-in clinic and a project which is addressing inappropriate A&E attendance. Although the sexual health drop-in service was previously offered to YMCA clients it was run in unattractive local premises and attendance numbers were low. In the new building the clinic is located in a busy area within the centre, allowing workers more opportunities for contact with young people and as a result attendance numbers have improved. The increased incidence of screening revealed high instance rates of Chlamydia amongst the young people accessing the service, leading to improved rates of detection and treatment. In addition, analysis of NHS data revealed that there was a high rate of A&E calls from YMCA clients. The Health Zone project supports young people by encouraging them to first contact Health Zone staff in the case of non-emergencies and by accompanying them to medical appointments. A key aim is to provide support and information on the appropriate use of emergency and non-emergency health services and since the project has been in operation the number of calls to A&E from YMCA clients has decreased. 5.18. There is too emerging evidence that myplace centres are working in partnership with private sector organisations. Across all centres 37 per cent of respondents to the grant holder survey indicated that they worked in partnership with private sector organisations to deliver services or activities and 19 per cent identified private sector organisations as providers of project funding. For example, four myplace centres are run by the Onside charity. A key element of the funding of these Youth Zones (in Blackburn, Manchester, Oldham and Carlisle) is sponsorship from local business. Other centres run by CSOs have secured preferred charity status with local branches of corporate organisations. North Staffordshire YMCA, for instance, which has used myplace investment to expand facilities at its Young People's Campus in Stoke, has become the adopted charity of its local branch of Sainsbury's. However, 25 per cent of respondents indicated that their project had no involvement from the private sector. It might be anticipated that engagement with business might be more prevalent amongst centres which are open (and which might have had time to establish relationships). However, there are no clear relationships to emerge when the status of the centre (open or not open) and lack of engagement with the private sector is considered. Interviewees suggest that barriers to engagement with private sector organisations include lack of skills, knowledge and contacts. 5.19. Relationships with schools are developing. Amongst the case study sites, myplace providers had engaged local schools in project opening phases, inviting young people to attend centres and to see the facilities and activities on offer. There are also examples of schools using commissioned services provided through myplace 22 centres (such as supported education and alternative curriculum projects). However, stakeholders commented that schools are experiencing financial pressures, and that particularly in the case of Academy schools, focus on academic achievement sometimes overshadowed social issues. Involving young people and communities 5.20. The grant holder survey provides evidence on the numbers of young people accessing myplace provision. At the time of administering the survey, 40 per cent of the myplace projects were not fully open to young people. Thus providers anticipate that the numbers of young people accessing provision will increase, and this data will be updated through the follow-up grant holder survey to be conducted in November 2012. Twenty per cent of myplace projects report that between 101 and 200 young people are accessing the project each week (and 21 per cent anticipate that this number would be accessing provision in six months' time). Twenty two per cent of projects currently attract between 201 and 500 young people each week (26 per cent of responding centres anticipate that this will be the case in six months' time). And 11 per cent of responding myplace projects report that they are accessed by more than 500 young people each week (36 per cent anticipate they will be accessed by more than 500 young people each week in six months' time). 5.21. In line with the funding priorities of the programme the majority of participants are within the 13-19 age group. In 34 myplace centres, 80 per cent or more of the young people attending are from the 13 - 19 age group. In over one third of responding myplace centres, 95 per cent or more of attending young people are from this group. In 21 myplace centres between 10 -20 per cent of young people are aged 20 - 24 with a disability and in two myplace centres, 30 per cent or more are from this group. myplace Chesterfield In Chesterfield, myplace funding contributed to the development of a new centre for young people with learning disabilities (alongside an arts centre open to all young people). A monthly youth forum, 'Vocal Point' consisting entirely of young people with learning disabilities, formed the basis of the Capital Build Group. Young people were able to share their ideas about what they wanted from the building. This included a catering sized kitchen, a sensory room, a hall for games and an outdoor space. Consultation made use of visual imagery (using pictures and photographs from brochures and magazines) so that when the footprint of the building had been established the group was able to plot where it thought things should be. The building was designed with the most profoundly disabled young people in mind, whilst still being what one interviewee described as 'a very modern, friendly, nice, trendy building that people want to come to'. The resulting centre has provided high quality facilities suitable for young people with complex needs which has enabled the lead organisation to expand and develop the services that it delivers to this group. 5.22. During the assessment period, grant applicants were encouraged by BIG to meet local needs, and for some myplace centres this has included providing facilities for younger children and older people. In 11 projects less than 75 per cent of attendees are within the 13-19 age bracket, and in four myplace centres young people from this group currently comprise 50 per cent or less of the total number of attendees. In one myplace centre, for instance, the decision to provide activities for children under the age of eight years was prompted by the realisation on the part of staff that young children were waiting outside the centre whilst their older siblings were attending events inside. 23 5.23. myplace centres are working with a wide range of young people. The majority of myplace provision is in deprived communities and there is a programme-wide emphasis on early intervention to meet the needs of disadvantaged young people. Thus the majority of centres responding to the baseline grant holder survey reported targeting young people from deprived communities or low income households, and NEETs (young people not in employment, education or training) (Figure 5.4). 37 per cent of myplace centres reported targeting young homeless people. Many centres work with young people from across these groups. The myplace centre in Chesterfield, for instance, targets young people in care, those who have problems with drugs or alcohol, or those known to require support. District Youth Teams are all part of multi-agency teams who refer young people to the centre. Other partners such as training providers also make referrals. Figure 5.4: Target groups Source: baseline myplace grant holder survey Base: 57 respondents 5.24. The inclusion of young people in decision making about services and issues that affect them is a priority for the Coalition government. Thus the myplace programme has placed emphasis on a central role for young people in the decision making processes in myplace centres and the ability to demonstrate strategies for incorporating young people’s views and priorities in project planning and delivery was a condition of grant funding. The interim evaluation highlighted the range of strategies used by centres to engage young people in the early development of projects and young people continue to be centrally involved in most aspects of the development and governance of myplace centres, including involvement in issue specific working groups (in 80 per cent of responding organisations), and representation on project steering groups/management groups (in 77 per cent of responding organisations). 24 Pegasus Theatre - Building the Future - Oxford A myplace grant contributed to the refurbishment of the Pegasus Youth Theatre in Oxford. The theatre involves young people in all aspects of decision making about its running and future development. There are two youth trustees with full voting rights on the board of trustees of the Pegasus Theatre Trust. There is also an open access members committee for young people which meets regularly to discuss issues associated with the running and development of the centre. The opinions of committee members are influential in deciding on activities and priorities and members sit in the recruitment board for new staff, are involved in marketing activities, and work with the café manager to decide what will be sold in the on-site café. They also produce an annual magazine 'Generation Pegasus'. 5.25. Consequently, young people continue to be involved extensively in decision making in myplace centres (Figure 5.5), and have influenced the range of activities and services on offer, as well as operational issues such as staffing and resourcing. More than half of the responding organisations have involved young people in decision making processes in relation to income generation, recruitment of staff, conduct and frequency of meetings and business planning. Similarly, young people have led decision making on activities and services and the design of the facility in more than 40 per cent of responding projects. Middlesbrough myplace at the Custom House In Middlesbrough, in-depth consultations were held with young people during the planning stages of the myplace centre. Local authority youth workers and voluntary sector agencies were involved and a dedicated project officer took the lead on consultation activities. Events were held at local schools and at the football stadium, and transport was provided to ensure that young people could access the events. Particular emphasis was placed on ensuring the views of a wide range of young people - including the most disadvantaged - were included, reflecting the centre's ethos 'for young people by young people'. Young people chose the site and building from a range of options on offer, making a choice to renovate the iconic, listed, Custom House building in an area slightly out of the town centre but which, containing a football stadium and new college building, was seen by the young people as 'neutral' territory. Young people also drew up a 'wish list' of services and facilities, most of which have come to fruition, the only exceptions being those which were not possible due to constraints imposed by the building, e.g. a bowling alley. Young people were also engaged in overseeing the design and renovation of the building. The new centre is seen universally as being 'impressive' and with 'the wow factor' that is not replicated anywhere else locally. 5.26. Interviewees are overwhelmingly positive about the inclusion of young people in decision making. Centre staff see the inclusion of young people in decision making as a fundamental principle of best practice in youth work and young people have developed skills and confidence as a result of their involvement. 5.27. Similarly, there has been a high level of community involvement in the development and governance of myplace centres (Figure 5.5). 84 per cent of respondents indicate that 'activities and services have been developed in response to community needs', 81 per cent indicate that the local community was 'consulted about the location of the project', and 75 per cent indicate that 'community members are acting as volunteers for the centre'. In Halton for instance, consultation with local residents was carried out by young people as part of the process of project development. Members of the local community forum were surveyed on their views about the 25 development of the youth centre in a previously derelict building that once operated as a health centre. Responses were positive. The Centre manager reported: "They were all really up for it. It’s about handing it back to the community, so they could see the benefits of having something new for the young people, the area it is surrounding - they did need something really" . 5.28. myplace centres are offering young people opportunities to engage in volunteering and to gain new skills and experience. In the Norwich OPEN centre, for instance, which incorporates a large commercial music venue, 36 young people are engaged regularly in volunteering, running the sound and lighting for events. A further 10 to 15 volunteers regularly help out at drop-in sessions, supporting paid workers to provide activities for young people. In another centre there are over 100 regular volunteers, 95 per cent of whom are young people. And in Oxford, where myplace funding contributed to the renovation of the Pegasus youth theatre, young people are involved in all aspects of the performances, for instance volunteering to run front-ofhouse as well as production. Young people also organise (and sometimes host) an annual international festival, bringing together young people from across the world to take part in and showcase theatre and creative arts. 26 Figure 5.5: To what extent are young people involved in decision making processes around the following issues associated with the myplace project? Source: baseline myplace grant holder survey Base: 57 respondents 27 Figure 5.6: How has the local community been involved in the development and governance of the myplace project? Source: baseline myplace grant holder survey Base: 57 respondents Income and Expenditure 5.29. Because the myplace programme provides capital funding, the capacity of centres to generate sufficient revenue funds to ensure their on-going operation is a crucial aspect of sustainability. Thus a section of the baseline grant holders survey explored aspects the centres' operating costs and the degree to which centres have been able to secure income to cover these costs on short (up to 12 months), and medium (24 months) term bases and whether respondents are confident in their ability to secure income on a longer term (60 months) basis. Operating costs are defined for the purposes of the survey as the self-reported costs of employing staff, building running costs, building maintenance and repair, utilities and insurances. For the purpose of further analysis respondents are grouped into those with reporting low annual operating costs - £250,000 or less (19 centres); those with medium costs £250,001 to £750,000 per annum (19 centres); and those with high annual operating costs of more than £750,000 (13 centres). 5.30. Fifty three grant holders responding to the baseline grant holder survey were able to indicate whether they had enough funds in place to cover the actual or projected operating costs of the centre on an annual basis (Figure 5.7). Overall, thirty two per cent of these report that funds are in place to cover costs for one year and 23 per cent report that they had funds in place for at least two years (from the time of responding to the survey). However, 21 per cent of respondents report that they do not currently have sufficient funds in place to cover operating costs. Of this 21 per cent (11 centres) 64 per cent (seven) were open at the time the survey was carried out and 36 per cent (four) were not yet operational. More than half of this group of 11 (60 per cent) reported low annual operating costs compared to 30 per cent who report medium costs and ten per cent with high operating costs. 28 Figure 5.7: Secured funds to cover operating costs Source: baseline myplace grant holder survey Base: 53 respondents 5.31. Other evidence also indicates that those centres which have lower operating costs (which may be taken as an indicator of smaller provision) have experienced greater difficulty in securing funds to cover their operating costs. Figure 5.8 suggests that higher proportions of those centres with operating costs of more than £750,000 per annum have secured income in the short and medium term and agree that they will be able to secure enough income to cover their operating costs over the next five years, particularly when compared to centres whose operating costs are less than £250,000 per annum. 29 Figure 5.8: Secured income by operating costs Source: baseline myplace grant holder survey Base: 43-46 respondents 5.32. As indicated above not all centres were open at the time of survey administration and, as such, some had been concentrating their efforts on successful completion of the capital project before moving on to developing income generation strategies. It might thus be anticipated those centres which are not yet open, or which had been open for the shortest periods of time when the survey was administered are less likely to have income in place to cover operating costs. However, this is not supported by analysis. 5.33. Figure 5.9 indicates that centres that were open at the time of completing the survey were more likely to have low operating costs than the projected operating costs of centres that were not yet open. By contrast centres that were not yet open were more likely to have project operating costs in the medium range when compared to open centres. A similar proportion of open and not open centres had operating costs at the higher end of the range. 30 Figure 5.9: Opening status by operating costs Source: baseline myplace grant holder survey Base: 51 respondents 5.34. Grant holders in local authorities are more likely than those in CSOs to have funds in place to cover their operating costs over the next two years. 87 per cent of responding local authority centres have funds in place for up to twelve months and 53 per cent have funds secured to cover operating costs for the next two years. The comparative figures for CSO grant holders are 68 per cent and 41 per cent respectively. However, CSO grant holders are more confident in their abilities to generate income in the longer term: 82 per cent of CSO respondents agree that they will be able to generate enough income to cover their operating costs over the next five years, compared to 67 per cent of those in local authorities. 31 Figure 5.10: funding to cover operating costs by LA and CSO grant holder Source: baseline myplace grant holder survey Base: 52 respondents 5.35. Additional analysis has explored relationships between the ability to secure income to cover running costs and factors such as the range of facilities, activities and services on offer, and the groups of young people targeted. There are no discernible patterns here, indicating that these might not be factors affecting project sustainability. However, these questions have elicited high response rates (see Figures 5.1 to 5.4) with more than half of respondents indicating that most facilities, activities and services are provided and between 60 and 96 per cent indicating that most groups of young people are targeted. The very small numbers of responses falling outside of these parameters make the identification of any significant relationships difficult. 5.36. The baseline survey did not collect programme-wide information on staffing or opening hours as it was anticipated that these would be subject to change, partly due to the relatively high numbers of centres not open at the time of survey administration. The follow-up survey wave will also explore these variables. 5.37. Chapter Three of this report highlighted the changing financial context for myplace centres. All have been affected by cuts in public sector spending and analysis here suggests that although local authority-led projects have been more successful at securing short-term income, those led by CSOs are more optimistic about prospects for future sustainability. In some cases business plans which had been developed on the premise of public sector service agencies acting as anchor tenants and establishing permanent bases within myplace centres have had to be revised as local budgets have shrunk and agencies have been unable to commit to planned activities. In others, local budgets for youth work have been revised, sometimes resulting in the withdrawal or reduction of grant funding for myplace centres and 32 other youth provision. One interviewee remarked on the impetus for changes in the business plan for the centre, which had resulted in reductions to staffing and a consequent reduction in the numbers of young people attending the centre: "partly through re-structuring, the cuts, the project's inception came at a time when there was a radically different picture in terms of funding, and the proposed structure of youth service delivery in the borough - it has had to adapt in its short lifespan to a radically different picture of provision. In the first 12 months it was getting the building up and running, we had lots of commitment from our partners to that but then with the change in the economic climate people had to withdraw. We were getting income from the PCT but they couldn't commit to that; the voluntary sector were going to collectively put money but they could not commit to that any more. So we lost quite a lot of commitment in terms of income but not from the actual project, people still really bought into it and it is seen as the iconic building in (the area) for young people". 5.38. And centres which have been in receipt of central government funding (for instance through Arts Council subsidies) have also experienced reductions in the level of funding available. One interviewee commented on the problems faced in securing awards: "We find that it's not sufficient because the pool of fund raising is getting smaller and smaller. We have had to make decisions about reducing activities, opening hours and members of staff. We have a target for about £150k a year that we need to raise in addition to our grants and earned income. I think we will get there this year, like last year, but it's hard work, more and more Trusts are writing back saying programmes are no longer open, or that they are reducing down. We had a fundraiser on board for the capital project, we thought we wouldn't need one when we re-opened but we soon realised we needed to keep them on board. More and more of my time is consumed with supporting and writing applications". 5.39. As such, centres have developed diverse funding portfolios and most respondents report that they receive income from a range of sources. Figure 5.11 provides detail on the proportions of myplace centres reporting that different sources of income are in place ('secured' at the time of survey administration) and are anticipated as future income sources ('planned', although the time period was unspecified). Secured income is concentrated in grants and contracts from the local public sector (a current source of revenue for 44 per cent of respondents) and grant holder anticipate that this will continue to be an important source of income in the future (40 per cent of respondents highlighted this as a planned income source). However, in terms of income generation plans there is a greater emphasis on commercial activities and the largest proportion of respondents (75 per cent) indicated that they planned to generate income by hiring out equipment/facilities and rooms. For 63 per cent, a planned source of income was through holding events, and 60 per cent planned to secure income through admission charges & sales income (e.g. from onsite shop or café). 33 Figure 5.11: Income generation plans Source: baseline myplace grant holder survey Base: 52 respondents 5.40. There is also evidence of an expectation that the private sector will play a greater role in financing future provision. Only 13.5 per cent of respondents currently have business sponsorship in place, but 44 per cent anticipate that they will do so in the future. 5.41. Respondents to the survey were asked to identify the percentage of operating costs they expected to be covered by each type of income (the time period was not specified). The average (mean) percentage contribution of each source is shown in Figure 5.12. This demonstrates that on average grants and contracts from local public sector bodies were expected to make the largest contribution (on average 33 per cent of operating costs) followed by hire of equipment, facilities and rooms (19 per cent) and grants from charitable trusts or foundations (13 per cent). The remaining income sources each contributed an average of ten per cent or less towards centre operating costs. This highlights the importance many centres place on local public sector funds to sustain their work compared to other types of income. This is further highlighted by the fact that 18 per cent of respondents (9 centres) expected local public sector funds to cover more than half of their operating costs and for 45 per cent of respondents (22) centres they amounted to the largest single source of funds. 34 Figure 5.12: Average (mean) contribution of income sources towards operating costs Source: baseline myplace grant holder survey Base: 49 respondents. Note percentages do sum to 100 due to multiple response categories. 5.42. However, myplace centres are beginning to develop, and pursue, strategies for income generation, as Figure 5.11 suggests, and there is wide variance in terms of the opportunities offered by the capital resources and the skills and capabilities of centre staff. In interviews in case study locales, the need to diversify funding, and to revise charging policies, boost commercial activities and develop new relationships with the corporate sector and private sponsors and philanthropists, were recognised as priorities, although most interviewees felt that centres had some way to go in these approaches. 5.43. Interviewees were also aware of the need to balance social and commercial priorities and for the need to ensure that facilities remain accessible and welcoming to young people. One interviewee commented on the centre's charging policy, with particular reference to the mixed backgrounds of young people attending the centre: "it's a battle to keep prices that low. We review prices and try to keep it financially balanced, what we didn't want to get into was means testing regarding people's status ……….. the stigma, like 'I'm on free school meals'. We want everyone to feel that they are paying the same so what we did last year is to ask parents if they can afford to pay more to make a donation and if they can't or don't want to that's fine." 5.44. There is some emerging evidence from the case studies that low staffing levels have the potential to threaten sustainability. Stakeholders suggested that staffing levels had (or may be) cut because of a lack of resources, or that plans for activities and services were reduced because insufficient staff are in place. In some myplace centres, the full potential of the capital facilities is not being realised because there 35 are too few staff (and associated revenue funds) in place. All centres make extensive use of volunteers, and the evaluation has not uncovered any problems in attracting, or sustaining, volunteer involvement in myplace provision. Clearly it will be important in the future for myplace centres to ensure that appropriate balances between levels of paid staff and volunteers are maintained and this is an area for further investigation in the follow-up survey. The Future 5.45. A final question asked grant holders for their views on prospects for myplace centres over the next five years. Respondents are optimistic: despite concerns over longterm funding (as discussed at 4.29) 84 per cent of responding organisations strongly agreed that over the next five years they would maintain or increase the involvement of young people in their facilities and activities; 80 per cent strongly agreed that over the next five years they would be at the forefront of youth service provision in their areas; and 76 per cent strongly agreed that they would establish or develop relationships with the local community. The majority of respondents also agreed that they would be able to maintain building(s) in good working order, and more than 70 per cent expected to establish or develop relationships with private sector organisations, with a view to attracting funding. However, responding organisations did not generally anticipate that loans or other social investment vehicles would offer a source of sustainable finance in the future: almost 50 per cent of respondents disagreed that they would use these sources of income, and less than ten per cent agreed that they would. 5.46. This chapter has reviewed evidence on the facilities and services provided by myplace centres, and on the funding and sustainability of the centres. It has highlighted the good practice of myplace centres in responding to local priorities and engaging young people and communities in the governance of centres. It has explored partnership working within myplace provision and revealed that collaboration between serviced providers is central to programme provision and is providing benefits for both practitioners and young people. However, it has confirmed that financial context remains challenging for myplace centres, and that smaller centres in particular appear to be vulnerable financially. Centres are responding positively to these challenges and report that they have plans for income diversification in the future. The next chapter presents findings from baseline surveys of young people attending myplace centres and a comparator group of young people in local authority areas not in receipt of myplace funding. 36 6. Young People 6.1. This chapter looks at characteristics, attitudes and behaviours of young people attending myplace centres, and those in a comparator group of young people living in local authority areas not in receipt of myplace funding. Data is drawn from baseline surveys administered via myplace centres for young people attending myplace provision, and by post to young people in comparator areas. All young people were given the option to complete the survey electronically, online, although a very small number did so (less than two per cent of the total returns). 6.2. Analyses contained in this chapter are not tested for statistical significance. The main purpose of the analysis contained here is to highlight aspects of the data which may have implications for the next stages of the evaluation. Follow-up surveys to be conducted in December 2012 will provide evidence on changes in outcomes for young people. Statistically significant differences in change between those in the participant and comparator groups will be taken as evidence of the impact of the myplace programme. 6.3. In addition, qualitative data which is currently being collected from interviews and focus groups with young people will be analysed to provide evidence on how outcome change for young people occurs. 6.4. Analysis is presented under six headings:  characteristics  engagement with myplace and other youth provision  education and employment  activities and well-being  emotions and outlook  attitudes to area. 6.5. Analysis primarily compares responses from those in the participant and comparator samples. The absence of data on young people accessing myplace provision means that it was not possible to adopt a targeted sampling approach to the baseline survey and thus we cannot compare the characteristics of those responding to the baseline survey against the characteristics of all young people attending myplace provision. However, the sample size (1450 responses) affords a reasonable degree of confidence that these responses represent an acceptable cross-section of myplace users. 6.6. Initial analysis of young persons' survey data suggest that there is a high degree of similarity between the base line samples of young people attending myplace centres and those sampled randomly in comparator areas. This is beneficial, in that it provides confidence that the evaluation will be comparing outcomes for young people on a 'like for like' basis and reduces the likelihood of the need for the use of Propensity Score Matching techniques which could reduce the sample size. However, the samples of young people responding to the follow-up surveys will 37 again be checked for similarities and differences before final analysis is undertaken. 6.7. The existence of data on respondents' characteristics enables analysis to explore relationships between these variables and the attitudes and behaviours of young people, as this is of potential interest to both policy makers and practitioners. These analyses revealed few consistent patterns, with the exception of age, which appears to be more important than other factors in influencing responses. It should be noted that the analysis of age related variables includes only young people attending myplace centres due to the high proportion of young people aged 13-19 years in the comparator sample. In addition, in relation to other characteristics, notably young people aged 20 years plus and those of Black and Asian ethnicity, the very small numbers of respondents falling into these groups mean that any findings need to be treated with a high degree of caution. Where points of relevance or interest did emerged from these analyses they are discussed in the main body of text in this chapter and data tables included for references at Appendix Five. 6.8. In all Figures in this chapter the following legend applies, unless otherwise stated: myplace Survey Comparator Survey Characteristics 6.9. There was a fairly even proportion of responses from males (52 per cent) and females (47 per cent) attending myplace centres (Table 6.1). However, in comparator areas more responses were received from males (57 per cent) than females (43 per cent). Table 6.1: Gender myplace Female Male Prefer not to say / missing Total Count 680 756 14 1450 % 46.9% 52.1% 1.0% 100.0% comparator Count 289 387 0 676 % 42.8% 57.2% .0% 100.0% Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1450 myplace, 676 comparator 6.10. The survey was targeted specifically at young people in the 13-19yrs (up to 25 yrs. with a disability) group, identified by DfE as the priority target group for the myplace programme. Thus the comparator survey was sent by post only to young people identified on the National Pupil Database (NPD) as being within the 13-19 age bracket, and almost all respondents fall into this category (Table 6.3). Guidance accompanying the administration of the young people's baseline survey in myplace centres suggested that the questionnaire should be completed only by those aged 13 years and over. Nevertheless, in terms of the responses from young people attending myplace centres, 76 per cent are in the 13-19 age group, 13 per cent are aged 12 and under and nine per cent are 20 years or older (Table 6.2). This is in line with findings from the baseline grant holder survey which indicate that in approximately 17 per cent of myplace centres, 25 per cent or more of young people 38 attending are out with the 13-19 years group. Table 6.2: Age myplace 8-12 yrs. 13-15 yrs. 16-19 yrs. 20+ yrs. Prefer not to say / missing Total Count 190 % 13.1% 690 418 134 18 1450 47.6% 28.8% 9.2% 1.2% 100.0% Comparator Count 1 % .1% 433 242 0 0 676 64.1% 35.8% .0% .0% 100.0% Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1450 myplace, 676 comparator 6.11. The majority of responding young people in both myplace and comparator areas are white (81 per cent and 80 per cent respectively). The proportion of Asian respondents is smaller in myplace areas than in comparator areas (four per cent and nine per cent respectively) and the proportion of responding young people who are black is larger in myplace centres (seven per cent against five per cent in nonmyplace areas) (Table 6.3). Analysis of LAD data for areas containing myplace centres (contained in Chapter Three) suggests that 65 per cent of centres are in areas which have average or lower than average BME populations, thus the relatively high proportion of respondents who are white is not unexpected. Table 6.3: Ethnicity myplace White Black Asian Mixed Chinese or other ethnic group Don't know Prefer not to say / missing Total Count 1170 104 60 77 5 8 26 1450 % 80.7% 7.2% 4.1% 5.3% .3% .6% 1.8% 100.0% Comparator Count 543 36 63 29 5 0 0 676 % 80.3% 5.3% 9.3% 4.3% .7% .0% .0% 100.0% Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1450 myplace, 676 comparator 6.12. Ten per cent of young people attending myplace centres are born outside of the UK, compared to seven per cent of those in the comparator areas (Table 6.4). Table 6.4: Born in the UK myplace UK born Born outside the UK Don't Know Prefer not to say / missing Total Count 1283 140 8 19 1450 % 88.5% 9.7% .6% 1.3% 100.0% Comparator Count 627 47 0 2 676 % 92.8% 7.0% .0% .3% 100.0% Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1450 myplace, 676 comparator 6.13. A slightly higher proportion of young people attending myplace centres are eligible for free school meals (28 per cent of respondents) than amongst responding young people in the comparator areas (20 per cent) (Table 6.5). The rate of free school 39 meals claims amongst young people responding to the myplace baseline survey is broadly in line with the national average (29.4 per cent at August 2011, DfE), although 84 per cent of myplace centres are in areas with higher than average levels of deprivation (see 4.7). Table 6.5: Eligible for free school meals currently or in the last year of school myplace FSM Not eligible Total* Comparator Count 359 % 27.8% Count 136 % 20.1% 931 1290 72.2% 100.0% 540 676 79.9% 100.0% Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys/National Pupil Database Base: 1290 myplace, 676 comparator (valid responses only (self-reported for myplace) ) 6.14. Ten per cent of responding young people in myplace centres have a self-reported disability, compared to four per cent in non-myplace areas (Table 6.6). The higher proportion of young people with disabilities attending myplace provision is likely to be a reflection of improved accessibility and facilities, including some myplace provision which is specifically designed to meet the needs of young people with complex or severe disabilities. Table 6.6: Disability (self-reported) myplace Disability None Don't Know Prefer not to say / missing Total Count 144 1187 37 82 1450 % 9.9% 81.9% 2.6% 5.7% 100.0% Comparator Count 24 624 6 22 676 % 3.6% 92.3% .9% 3.3% 100.0% Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1450 myplace, 676 comparator Engagement with myplace centres and other youth provision 6.15. This section looks at evidence in relation to young people's engagement with myplace centres and other youth provision. Questionnaires filled in by young people attending myplace centres asked specifically about their use of myplace provision. Those sent to young people in non-myplace areas asked the same questions, but in relation to other youth provision. Thus these questions enable comparison of responses. 6.16. Figure 4.3 demonstrates that the majority of myplace centres are located in central urban areas. This means that they are accessible to large numbers of young people. Accordingly, 51 per cent of the young people responding to the myplace young persons' baseline survey are attending myplace provision that is within 20 minutes walking distance of their home, and 37 per cent are travelling to myplace centres that are further than 20 minutes' walk away, suggesting that young people are prepared to travel to access high quality facilities (Figure 6.1). In non-myplace areas, 64 per cent of respondents lived within 20 minutes' walk of the nearest youth centre, and 25 per cent, live more than 20 minutes' walk way. 40 Figure 6.1: Distance to myplace or other youth provision (myplace centre and comparator areas) Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1407 myplace, 373 comparator (valid responses) 6.17. Young people are attracted to myplace centres and other youth provision for a range of reasons, including opportunities to meet up with friends and having somewhere safe to meet up (Figure 6.2). Young people in myplace and non-myplace areas have broadly similar motivations for attending centres, although slightly higher proportions of young people are attracted to the security and facilities offered by myplace centres and opportunities to engage in education and training or to access information or support. Conversely, slightly higher numbers of young people are attracted to sports and fitness activities, creative activities and other organised activities in non-myplace youth provision. Figure 6.2: Main reasons for attending myplace/other youth provision (myplace centre or other youth provision) Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1418 myplace, 218 comparator (valid responses) 6.18. Young people’s motivations for attending youth provision may be influenced by their age, gender, and ethnicity or by deprivation (explored here using receipt of free 41 school meals (FSM) as a proxy indicator). Analysis has explored relationships between these variables and young people’s reasons for attending youth centres. 6.19. In terms of age, all age groups are attracted to the social aspects of provision, and 50 per cent or more of respondents in all age groups attend youth centres as an opportunity to meet up with friends (Table 6.7). Those in the younger age groups are more likely than those in other age groups to seek opportunities to make new friends or take part in sports activities, and appreciate the security of youth centres as somewhere to hang out. Older groups are more likely to be participating in organised and creative activities, taking part in education or training or accessing advice, information and support. The opportunities for education and training and to access advice, information and support are particularly relevant for those in the 20yrs plus group. Thirty six per cent of respondents in this age group report that one of their three main reasons for attending youth provision is to access education or training (compared to seven per cent of those aged 8-12 years and 18 per cent of those aged 13-19 years) and 33 per cent are attending to access advice, information and support (compared to four per cent of 8-12 year olds and 10 per cent of those aged 13-19). Table 6.7: Three main reasons for attending local youth centre by Age (myplace only) 8-12 yrs. meet up with friends somewhere safe hang out use the facilities Total no. of respondents Count 154 103 75 187 % 82.4% 55.1% 40.1% myplace 13-19 yrs. 20+ yrs. Count 741 417 391 1088 % 68.1% 38.3% 35.9% Count 64 41 43 129 % 49.6% 31.8% 33.3% Total Count 968 568 512 1418 % 68.3% 40.1% 36.1% Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1418 myplace (valid responses) 6.20. There are few clear patterns when other characteristics are considered. Amongst those attending myplace centres boys are more likely than girls to identify the opportunity to use the facilities offered by youth provision or take part in education and training as reasons for attending provision (although the converse is true in comparator areas). Girls attending myplace centres are more likely than boys to be seeking to make new friends and to take part in creative activities or other organised activities (although for the latter two variables the situation is again reversed for the comparator areas). There are no clear patterns of difference in terms of ethnicity and in terms of deprivation, young people in receipt of free school meals attending myplace centres are slightly more likely than those not receiving free school meals to identify all factors except meeting up with friends, use of facilities and taking part in creative activities as main motivators, although the differences between the groups are small. Additional data tables exploring relationships between these characteristics and motivations for attending myplace provision are included at Appendix Five. 6.21. An additional question explored barriers to engagement with myplace centres and other youth provision (Table 6.8). As might be anticipated young people in both myplace and comparator areas are influenced by the activities of friends and peer groups, although nine per cent of respondents in myplace centres indicated that provision is not available at convenient times and seven per cent thought that costs are prohibitive. The equivalent figures in comparator areas are four per cent and two per cent. Although these are small numbers, additional evidence from qualitative work will explore the impact of costs and opening times on young people. 42 Table 6.8: Barriers to engagement - what stops young people from attending youth centre or activities more often? Comparator myplace nothing stops me friends don't go / take part not much I want to do not open / available at right times busy doing other things costs too much too shy to take part don't like other people taking part other reason not the right age Count 952 170 132 131 115 96 90 74 74 43 Total no. of respondents 1409 % 67.6% 12.1% 9.4% 9.3% 8.2% 6.8% 6.4% 5.3% 5.3% 3.1% Count 118 61 44 14 178 9 41 43 56 20 % 32.0% 16.5% 11.9% 3.8% 48.2% 2.4% 11.1% 11.7% 15.2% 5.4% 369 Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1409 myplace, 369 comparator (valid responses) Education and Employment 6.22. Figure 6.3 outlines the current main activities of young people in both myplace and comparator areas. The sample of young people for the baseline comparator survey was drawn from the National Pupil Database, thus a high proportion of respondents in the comparator sample are in full-time education. 6.23. Sixty two per cent of respondents attending myplace centres are in full-time education, nine per cent are NEET (not in education, employment or training) and eight per cent are studying part-time. Four per cent are in work and three per cent are involved in volunteering. Figure 6.3: Main activities Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1450 myplace, 676 comparator 43 6.24. The majority of respondents are positive about education and training, although responses were more positive amongst young people in the comparator areas than amongst those attending myplace centres (Figure 6.4). Ninety six per cent of young people in the comparator areas said that they enjoy school or college and 96 per cent also agreed that learning is interesting. Eighty seven per cent said that they would like to do more learning in the future. The comparative figure for young people attending myplace centres were 86 per cent who enjoy school or college, 85 per cent who agree that learning is interesting and 78 per cent who would like to do more learning in the future. Figure 6.4: Experiences of learning and education (proportion who answered always or sometimes) Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1317-1361 myplace, 460-465 comparator (valid responses) 6.25. The self-reported experiences of boys and girls were broadly similar in both myplace and comparator areas. However, those in older age groups tend to have more positive attitudes to education (Figure 6.5) and the most positive responses of all come from those respondents aged 20 years or older. 44 Figure 6.5: Experiences of learning and education by Age (myplace only) Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1317-1361 myplace, 460-465 comparator (valid responses) 6.26. Additional data tables, looking at experiences of learning and education by ethnicity, and by receipt of free school meals are contained in Appendix Five. 6.27. As a result of these generally positive experiences few young people in either myplace or comparator areas are missing school or college without permission. Only a small minority of those currently in education report missing school or college infrequently, although almost five per cent of young people attending myplace centres report missing school or college for weeks at a time (Figure 6.6). 45 Figure 6.6: Missing school or college without permission (only young people at school/ college) Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1237 myplace, 452 comparator (valid responses) Activities 6.28. The survey also explored the activities that young people are involved in in their spare time. As would be anticipated young people in both myplace and comparator areas are involved in a wide variety of activities outside of their engagement with youth provision (Figure 6.7). Young people in comparator areas are more likely to spend time at friends’ others homes or in organised activities such as attending the cinema, theatre or music events. Young people in myplace areas are more likely to spend time in public areas (on streets or in parks or playgrounds), they are also more likely to be engaged in music, art, drama, crafts and filmmaking. 46 Figure 6.7: Last month, what other things did young people do in their free time, not linked to the Youth Centre? Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1404 myplace, 434 comparator (valid responses) 6.29. Younger children (aged 8-12 years) are more likely to be spending free time at friends' houses or in parks and playgrounds and to take part in organised activities including sports, dance and swimming and creative activities. Older groups (20 years and older) are more likely to be involved in volunteering, or to attend religious or other faith groups (Table 6.9). Table 6.9: Activities in free time by Age 8-12 yrs. myplace 13-19 yrs. 20+ yrs. Total Count 135 107 89 % 71.8% 56.9% 47.3% Count 723 630 504 % 67.4% 58.7% 47.0% Count 65 36 56 % 50.8% 28.1% 43.8% Count 933 781 655 % 66.5% 55.6% 46.7% 117 68 72 45 62.2% 36.2% 38.3% 23.9% 491 281 206 235 45.8% 26.2% 19.2% 21.9% 34 34 26 21 26.6% 26.6% 20.3% 16.4% 652 389 306 305 46.4% 27.7% 21.8% 21.7% music group or lesson helped a charity / local group / did some volunteering 23 12 12.2% 6.4% 130 125 12.1% 11.6% 20 34 15.6% 26.6% 175 171 12.5% 12.2% art, craft, drama, filmmaking activity religious or faith group Total no. of respondents 21 11.2% 105 9.8% 12 9.4% 141 10.0% 15 188 8.0% 94 1073 8.8% 18 128 14.1% 130 1404 9.3% hung out at friends' houses hung out on the street or in town cinema, theatre, music concert / gig local park or playground sports, dance or fitness activity swimming youth club / group to take part in organised activities Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1404 myplace (valid responses) 47 6.30. Approximately 50 per cent of young people in both myplace and non-myplace areas are exercising on a daily basis. A further 34 per cent in myplace areas and 39 per cent in comparator areas are exercising at least once a week (Table 6.10). Table 6.10: How often does the YP do any kind of exercise? myplace Most days More than once a week Once a week Less than once a week Hardly ever Never Don't know Total Count 672 344 115 46 107 28 46 1358 % 49.5% 25.3% 8.5% 3.4% 7.9% 2.1% 3.4% 100.0% Comparator Count 335 194 70 11 50 3 11 674 % 49.7% 28.8% 10.4% 1.6% 7.4% .4% 1.6% 100.0% Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1358 myplace, comparator 674 (valid responses) Emotions and Outlook 6.31. myplace centres are aiming to help young people develop social and emotional capabilities that will enable them to make positive choices and decisions about their current and future situations. As such, the survey asked questions about young people’s views about the future, and about their levels of confidence, self-esteem and well-being. 6.32. Figure 6.8 shows how young people feel about the future. Most have an idea what they want to do in the future, although a sizeable proportion is unsure how to get there. Figure 6.8 Thinking about what you want to do in the future: which statement best describes how you feel now? Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1277 myplace, comparator 660 (valid responses) 48 6.33. However, young people's views on their future differ according to how old they are. Amongst young people attending myplace provision, younger children (those aged 8 -12 years) are more likely than those in other age groups to report that they know what they want to do in the future and know how to go about it (55 per cent of those aged 8-12 years, 51 per cent of 13-19 year olds and 42 per cent of those aged 20 years plus). Twenty eight per cent of those in the 20 years and older group report that they know what they want to do in the future but do now know how to go about getting there. However it is important to note that this group comprises less than 10 per cent of the total sample and that many in this group are likely to have additional needs arising from learning difficulties or disabilities. Figure 6.9: Views on the future by Age Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1277 myplace, comparator 660 (valid responses) 6.34. Other influences may include ethnicity and gender. Young people from Asian communities and girls are less likely than those in other groups to report that they know what they want to do in the future and know how to get there and more likely to report that they think they know what they want to do in the future but that they change their minds a lot. There are no discernible differences in the responses from young people receiving or not receiving free school meals. Data tables are included at Appendix Five. 6.35. Two measures were used to assess the self-esteem and well-being of young people: the Rosenberg self-esteem scale8, and the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being9 8 See http://www.bsos.umd.edu/scoy/reserach/rosenberg.htm The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale was funded by the Scottish Executive National Programme for improving mental health and well-being, commissioned by NHS Health Scotland, developed by the University of Warwick and the University of Edinburgh and is jointly owned by NHS Health Scotland, the University of Warwick and the University of Edinburgh. See http://www.heatlhscotland.com/scotlands-health/population/Measuringpositive-mental-health.aspx 9 49 scale. Young people were asked all questions on the scales and individual scores added together (by the evaluation team), using the appropriate methodologies (including for instance taking into account reverse scored questions on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale). 6.36. Young people in myplace and non-myplace areas obtain similar scores on selfesteem and well-being measures (Table 6.11 and Table 6.12), generally scoring highly on both. However young people attending myplace centres are more confident (Table 6.13) and more satisfied with life than their counterparts in nonmyplace areas (Table 6.14). This is clearly a positive finding and one which could be attributed to the impacts of myplace provision, although we have not, at this stage, controlled for length of attendance at myplace centres in our analysis and we do not know whether those who would be more inclined to complete questionnaire are those who would answer more positively to these questions - these aspects will be explored in further analysis leading up to the final report. 6.37. However, this generally positive picture does present some challenges in demonstrating the impact of myplace, in that movement towards positive outcomes is more likely to be experienced by those with a lower starting point - there is more 'headroom' for change. Detailed analysis of outcomes data obtained from follow-up survey will thus need to control for starting point, as well as explore relationships between a range of variables and change. Table 6.11: Self-esteem (Rosenberg self-esteem scale) (<15 low / 15=> normal to high) Comparator myplace normal-high low Total Count 966 241 1207 % 80.0% 20.0% 100.0% Count 502 131 633 % 79.3% 20.7% 100.0% Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1207 myplace, comparator 633 (valid responses) Table 6.12: Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Score (range 14-70, higher score = better mental health) myplace Comparator 14.00 70.00 47.60 1215 Minimum Maximum Mean Total 22.00 70.00 49.55 641 Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1215 myplace, comparator 641 (valid responses) Table 6.13: Skills - Feels very confident or confident about the following myplace Count 1111 1165 932 911 980 1140 % 79.6% 84.0% 67.3% 66.1% 71.0% 82.4% Meeting new people Working with other people in a team Being the leader of a team Speaking up in a group Explaining my ideas clearly Having a go at things that are new to me Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1379-1395 myplace, comparator 672-673 (valid responses) Comparator Count 472 558 406 428 478 545 % 70.1% 83.0% 60.4% 63.7% 71.1% 81.0% 50 Table 6.14: Life satisfaction - On a scale of one to 10, how satisfied are you with your life? myplace 7 or more 6 or less Total Count 933 384 1317 % 70.8% 29.2% 100.0% Comparator Count 528 135 663 % 79.6% 20.4% 100.0% Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1317 myplace, comparator 663 (valid responses) 6.38. Chapter Three discusses the origins of the myplace programme and highlights that one aim is to provide diversionary activities, to prevent young people engaging in anti-social and criminal activities. Thus the baseline survey asked young people to report on their engagement in a range of activities, with a view to assessing change in these responses in the follow-up surveys. Figure 6.10 and Figure 6.11 illustrate that a minority of young people reported involvement in anti-social and criminal activities. 6.39. One area where there is a clear difference between young people attending myplace centres and those in the comparator areas in is their engagement in anti-social behaviours. Young people attending myplace centres are more likely to report that they are involved in violence against people and property and drinking alcohol on a regular basis. This may of course be a reflection of that fact that myplace centres have successfully targeted young people who are at risk, and these sorts of behaviours are ones which myplace centres are helping young people to address. Follow-up survey data should provide evidence of their impact in this area. In addition the next stage of the evaluation will include interviews and focus groups with young people attending myplace centres to explore their views on myplace, and the ways in which they are benefitting from provision. 6.40. One issue which does emerge is the generally higher levels of self-reported engagement in anti-social activities amongst young people aged 8-12 years (when compared to older age groups) (Figure 6.12 and Figure 6.13). This confirms the importance of early intervention to meet the needs of those at risk and analysis of baseline data relating to young people attending myplace centres reveals that although the majority are in the priority target group (13-19 years, up to aged 25 with additional needs) many are aged 12 years or under (13 per cent of those completing the young persons' questionnaire) indicating a substantial need for provision amongst these younger children. myplace centres are responding to this need by running junior youth clubs and other activities for young children. 51 Figure 6.10: In the last 3 months, the YP has done the following things to someone else (as a proportion of young people willing to give an answer) Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1364-1384 myplace, comparator 672 (valid responses) Figure 6.11: In the last 3 months, the YP has done the following things (as a proportion of young people willing to give an answer) Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1357-1367 myplace, comparator 672-673 (valid responses) 52 Figure 6.12: Anti- social behaviour by Age Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1364-1384 myplace, comparator 672 (valid responses) Figure 6.13: Criminal activity by Age Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1357-1367 myplace, comparator 672-673 (valid responses) 53 6.41. Data tables examining relationships between self-reported engagement in anti-social and criminal behaviours and gender and ethnicity are included at Appendix Five. 6.42. Young people attending myplace centres are more likely to report regular use of alcohol (Figure 6.14) although 55 per cent of young people in comparator areas and 45 per cent of those attending myplace centres do not drink alcohol at all. Figure 6.14: In the last 3 months, have you had an alcoholic drink (a whole drink, not just a sip)? Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1387 myplace, comparator 676 (valid responses) 6.43. As would be anticipated, the likelihood of reporting regular consumption of alcohol increases with age, although the figures change most markedly between the 8-12 and 13-19 age groups (Table 6.15). Amongst young people attending myplace provision the proportion of those drinking alcohol once or twice a week increases from 2 per cent of those aged 8-12 years, to 14 per cent of those aged 13-19 years, to 25 per cent of those aged 20 years plus. Table 6.15: In the last 3 months, have you had an alcoholic drink (a whole drink, not just a sip)? by age 8-12 yrs. Almost every day Once or twice a week A few times a month Only once or twice in 3 months Not at all Prefer not to say Total Count 3 4 6 18 146 7 184 % 1.6% 2.2% 3.3% 9.8% 79.3% 3.8% 100.0% myplace 13-19 yrs. 20+ yrs. Count 29 150 207 203 424 52 1065 % 2.7% 14.1% 19.4% 19.1% 39.8% 4.9% 100.0% Count 7 31 19 22 42 3 124 % 5.6% 25.0% 15.3% 17.7% 33.9% 2.4% 100.0% Total Count 39 186 235 244 620 63 1387 Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1387 myplace (valid responses) 54 % 2.8% 13.4% 16.9% 17.6% 44.7% 4.5% 100.0% 6.44. Boys attending myplace provision are more likely than girls to report that they are drinking alcohol regularly (once or twice a week or more) although this is not the case in comparator areas and in comparator areas girls are more likely than boys to report that they are drinking alcohol once or twice a month (Table 6.16). Table 6.16: In the last 3 months, have you had an alcoholic drink (a whole drink, not just a sip)? by gender myplace Female Male Almost every day Once or twice a week A few times a month Only once or twice in 3 months Not at all Prefer not to say Total Count 26 119 126 131 285 24 711 % 3.7% 16.7% 17.7% 18.4% 40.1% 3.4% 100.0% Count 0 18 64 100 203 2 387 % 2.0% 9.9% 16.0% 16.9% 49.4% 5.9% 100.0% comparator Female Male Almost every day Once or twice a week A few times a month Only once or twice in 3 months Not at all Prefer not to say Total Count 13 66 106 112 328 39 664 % .0% 4.7% 16.5% 25.8% 52.5% .5% 100.0% Count 1 16 31 69 169 3 289 % .3% 5.5% 10.7% 23.9% 58.5% 1.0% 100.0% Total Count 39 186 235 244 620 63 1387 Total Count 1 34 95 169 372 5 676 Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1387 myplace, comparator 676 (valid responses) 6.45. % 2.8% 13.4% 16.9% 17.6% 44.7% 4.5% 100.0% A final question in this section explored young people's use of illegal drugs, including cannabis. This was more common amongst young people attending myplace provision than in comparator areas (Figure 6.15) although as with alcohol, the overwhelming majority of young people report that they do not take illegal drugs at all (83 per cent of those attending myplace centres and 96 per cent in comparator areas). 55 % .1% 5.0% 14.1% 25.0% 55.0% .7% 100.0% Figure 6.15: In the last 3 months, have you taken illegal drugs (including cannabis)? Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1367 myplace, comparator 676 (valid responses) 6.46. Thus some caution needs to be employed in analysing this data further, due to the small numbers of young people who report that they are taking illegal drugs. However, data suggest that both the prevalence and frequency of drug consumption increases with age (Table 6.17). Table 6.17: Consumption of illegal drugs by Age myplace 13-19 yrs. 20+ yrs. 8-12 yrs. Almost every day Once or twice a week A few times a month Only once or twice in 3 months Not at all Prefer not to say Total Count 3 1 1 0 177 3 185 % 1.6% .5% .5% .0% 95.7% 1.6% 100.0% Count 32 30 34 40 877 52 1065 % 3.0% 2.8% 3.2% 3.8% 82.3% 4.9% 100.0% Count 6 8 4 8 91 4 121 % 5.0% 6.6% 3.3% 6.6% 75.2% 3.3% 100.0% Total Count 43 39 40 48 1157 59 1386 % 3.1% 2.8% 2.9% 3.5% 83.5% 4.3% 100.0% Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1367 myplace, comparator 676 (valid responses) 6.47. These sorts of anti-social and risky behaviours are the ones which many myplace centres are helping young people to address, and there is evidence of individual successes. One example was given by an interviewee: "I know of young people who have been engaged in some quite risky behaviour and have accessed work at (the myplace centre) and it's veered them on a different path. There was one young lad and much of his family has gone into care, he was very low self-esteem and low confidence. He started to work with us and then at (the myplace centre) and he is really achieving well now. His social worker came into help, he got engaged in a music project and produced something at the end, it’s a real confidence builder". 56 6.48. Longitudinal data from the follow-up young persons' survey will help to provide further evidence on the extent to which these individual success stories are repeated across myplace provision. In addition qualitative work will be carried out with young people attending myplace centres. This will include interviews and focus groups and young people completing diaries and taking photographs. This evidence demonstrates young people's views of myplace and will be reflected on in the final evaluation report. Attitudes to Area 6.49. Young people attending myplace centres and those in non-myplace areas are very positive about the areas in which they live. Seventy six per cent of respondents attending myplace centres and 87 per cent of those in non-myplace areas agree that their area is a good place to live. They also trust local people (Table 6.18), believe that their views and opinions are taken seriously locally (Table 6.19) and report a sense of belonging (Table 6.20). Table 6.18: I generally trust people in my local area comparator myplace Count 223 % 16.4% Count 95 % 14.1% Agree 660 48.5% 393 58.4% Disagree 405 29.7% 157 23.3% 74 5.4% 28 4.2% 1362 100.0% 673 100.0% Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Total Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1362 myplace, comparator 673 (valid responses) Table 6.19: My views and opinions are taken seriously by people in my local area comparator myplace Count 155 % 11.5% Count 41 % 6.2% Agree 603 44.7% 283 42.9% Disagree 495 36.7% 268 40.6% 96 7.1% 68 10.3% 1349 100.0% 660 100.0% Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Total Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1349 myplace, comparator 660 (valid responses) 57 Table 6.20: I feel that I belong to my local area comparator myplace Count 282 % 20.8% Count 142 % 21.5% Agree 716 52.8% 370 55.9% Disagree 273 20.1% 120 18.1% 85 6.3% 30 4.5% 1356 100.0% 662 100.0% Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Total Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1356 myplace, comparator 662 (valid responses) 6.50. Young people attending myplace centres are more concerned about local crime than their counterparts in non-myplace areas (Figure 6.16). Forty one per cent of respondents from myplace centres think that crime is a big problem in their local area, compared to 24 per cent of young people in the comparator areas. Figure 6.16: Crime is a big problem in my local area Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1361 myplace, comparator 664 (valid responses) 6.51. Evidence also suggests that young people attending myplace provision and in receipt of free school meals, are more likely to perceive problems with crime than young people who do not receive free school meals (Table 6.21). 58 Table 6.21: Perceptions of crime by receipt of Free School Meals - Crime is a big problem in my area myplace non-FSM FSM Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Total Count 64 101 118 50 333 % 19.2% 30.3% 35.4% 15.0% 100.0% Count 1 29 72 32 134 % 9.8% 26.6% 41.9% 21.7% 100.0% comparator non-FSM FSM Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Total Count 87 235 371 192 885 % .7% 21.6% 53.7% 23.9% 100.0% Count 32 97 249 152 530 % 6.0% 18.3% 47.0% 28.7% 100.0% Total Count 172 385 538 266 1361 % 12.6% 28.3% 39.5% 19.5% 100.0% Total Count 33 126 321 184 664 % 5.0% 19.0% 48.3% 27.7% 100.0% Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1361 myplace, comparator 664 (valid responses) 6.52. Nevertheless young people generally feel safe in their local areas. Sixty two per cent of respondents from myplace centres and 66 per cent of those in comparator areas feel safe going out at night in their local area. They also do not generally perceive problems with cohesion locally. Sixty five per cent of young people in myplace centres and 74 per cent of those in comparator areas agree that their area is one where people from different backgrounds get on well together. 6.53. The next chapter reviews the interim findings and discusses their implications for the programme and for the remainder of the evaluation. 59 7. Conclusions 7.1. The findings presented in this interim report have been drawn from three main sources: a baseline survey of myplace grant holders; baseline surveys of young people attending myplace centres and those in areas which do not have myplace provision; and reflections on early evidence from interviews with stakeholders and delivery staff in 10 case study myplace centres. 7.2. The analysis presented is based on the evidence available at approximately two thirds of the way through the evaluation period. It has explored aspects of myplace provision (with particular reference to funding and early sustainability) and the characteristics, attitudes and behaviours of young people accessing myplace provision, and of those living in areas that do not have myplace investment. The surveys were designed primarily to collect baseline data against which to benchmark changes in outcomes for centres and young people (gathered via follow up surveys later in 2012), thus there are some limitations in the degree to which available data allows for detailed exploration of some aspects of provision. In addition, case studies are on-going, and some data collection activities (e.g. around costs, staffing and opening hours) and qualitative research involving young people, have been scheduled to take place in the latter stages of the evaluation - to allow for a maximum number of centres to be open and operational. 7.3. Nevertheless, the evidence presents a rich picture of the myplace centres, and the ways in which they are responding to the programme priorities set by the Coalition Government. Interim conclusions are presented below in relation to the four main programme outcomes. more young people, parents and communities feeling that young people have attractive and safe places to go in their leisure time where they can get involved in a wide range of exciting activities 7.4. There is strong evidence that the programme has delivered very high quality youth facilities. Young people, providers and communities are universally positive about the buildings and about the enormous range of activities on offer, and young people are attracted to them. Young people value the safety of myplace provision and appear willing to travel to access centres. 7.5. The evaluation cannot currently report on whether there are more young people accessing these facilities, because data prior to programme implementation is not available. Additionally, for new build centres, all users may in a sense be 'new', because it is not clear that myplace is replacing existing provision. These aspects, of additionality and displacement, will be explored further in final analyses. However, early data indicate that user numbers are high (an estimated range of 7,377 and 22,200) and are likely to increase as more centres open to young people. more young people, particularly the most disadvantaged, participating in positive leisure time activities that support their personal and social development 7.6. Centres are accessible to a wide range of young people and some centres offer provision that meets the needs of the most severely disadvantaged groups. There is 60 a very clear focus on early intervention to meet the needs of vulnerable young people. 7.7. The social and personal development of young people are clear priorities for myplace centres and the extensive efforts made to engage young people in project planning and development and in the on-going governance of the myplace centres, have contributed to the development of spaces which are safe, appealing and welcoming to young people from different social backgrounds and different communities. more young people having access to information, advice and guidance services from within places they feel comfortable 7.8. There is widespread provision of information, advice and guidance, with a strong focus on education and work, and health, as well as counselling and financial advice. Young people are benefitting from more co-ordinated and streamlined service delivery, and access to advice and guidance, sometimes afforded by co-location of service delivery agencies. 7.9. Although only 11.5 per cent of young people report access to advice, guidance and support as a main reason for attending myplace provision, it is likely that much higher numbers are accessing services which located in accessible and friendly environments. Service providers report that the location of services within attractive and accessible physical spaces has increased opportunities to engage with young people, leading to better access and improved outcomes. stronger partnership working between local authorities and their third, private and public sector partners to plan, deliver and operate financially sustainable facilities with and for young people. 7.10. Robust partnership arrangements are in place and CSOs have a central role in the delivery of services across all provision. 7.11. However, partnership arrangements can be affected negatively by cuts in public sector budgets, uncertainties over staffing and changes in arrangements for the local delivery of youth services which may lead to changes in the expectations and commitments of local delivery partners. myplace centres are addressing these issues by revising business plans, continuing to engage with partners over the delivery of activities and services and seeking opportunities for collaboration. 7.12. The evidence in relation to financial sustainability of centres is perhaps less positive at this stage. Centres are beginning to develop new funding arrangements, although some have progressed further down this route than others and there is a need for skills development and sharing of experience across all centres in relation to options and opportunities for income generation. One issue for concern in relation to sustainability may be the continuing emphasis placed by a minority of centres on public sector resources as a main source of funding. 7.13. Centres have pursued strategies which seek to maximise the commercial potential of buildings: renting out space or providing venues for sports, arts and entertainment events. This has proved fruitful in generating income but there is some risk that this may jeopardise the primacy given to the ownership and engagement of young people which is a key aspect of successful provision. The appropriate balance between activities which are available free or low cost to all young people and activities which incur charges to young people or other groups will be determined by local circumstances and priorities but there are clear tensions for myplace centres in identifying, and maintaining, that balance. 61 7.14. There is too some engagement with the private sector, particularly in relation to service delivery. But less so in relation to funding. Less than 20 per cent of centres work in partnership with private sector funders and 13 per cent have business sponsorship. Some centres led by CSOs have secured status as favoured charities of local corporate bodies (such as supermarkets or finance institutions) and a small number have benefited from philanthropic donations from individuals. The model of securing investment from local business sponsors (as typified by the four myplace centres run by Onside) has not been widely replicated. More than two fifths of centres see business sponsorship as a future income generation strategy but few have developed or pursued these strategies yet. 7.15. And not all centres have been able to maximise the potential of the capital asset in meeting the needs of young people. Early evidence from case studies suggests that there is potential for deficiencies in funding and staffing levels to lead to reduced activities and opening hours and place limits on the numbers of young people that the centres can engage with, and these issues will need to be explored further in the final stages of the evaluation. Larger centres (identified as those with operating costs of more than £750,000 per annum) appear to have been more successful at securing income to cover their costs and are more confident about the future, possibly as a result of greater capacity to use the physical resources offered by myplace centres to pursue income generation activities. 7.16. Evidence from the case studies suggests that youth services remain in a period of transition and it is perhaps too early to say that myplace centres are at the forefront of reformed local provision but they are offering examples of good practice: engaging young people, offering relevant activities in attractive environments, collaborating across providers and diversifying funding streams. These are acting as exemplars for youth service providers and commissioners and myplace centres are beginning to act as hubs for local services to young people. Stakeholders in the case study areas suggested that local emphasis is moving away from neighbourhood-based, outreach work and certainly the evaluation picked up anecdotal evidence in relation to the closure of community-based provision in some areas. The prominence of myplace centres in local arrangements is likely to increase over time if this trend continues. 7.17. This early analysis of myplace provision has highlighted a number of issues which require additional scrutiny. Further investigation in the next phase of the evaluation will review the factors associated with the sustainability of projects, and in particular identifying successful strategies adopted by myplace centres for securing income and exploring barriers to engagement with business. Relationships with service providers and commissioners will also be explored in greater detail. 62 Appendix 1: Young Persons' Survey Response Rates myplace centre responses Local Authority Camden Nottingham Chesterfield Lancashire Durham Leeds Devon Trafford Torbay Manchester Leicestershire West Sussex Birmingham Aston Middlesbrough Cumbria Lincolnshire Bath and North East Somerset Oldham Knowsley Stoke-on-Trent Southend-on-Sea Halton Norfolk Oxfordshire Sutton Kent Rotherham Hertfordshire Somerset Enfield Islington Birmingham Longbridge Nottingham Somerset Bournemouth Bradford Blackpool Total Project/ Centre Name New Horizon Youth Centre myplace at Westfield Folk House Young People's Centre myplace Chesterfield Bradley Youth Centre The Hub The Big Hub Dawlish Youth Centre The Fuse Parkfield Manchester Youth Zone Hinckley Club for Young People The Phoenix Centre Integrating Youth Project Middlesbrough myplace at the Custom House Carlisle Youth Zone The Showroom Southside Regeneration Youth Project Oldham Youth Zone OurPlace The Young Persons Village Shoeburyness Youth Centre CRMZ OPEN Central Pegasus - Building the Future Sutton Life Centre The Hub Rotherham myplace ExtremeConnections Access All Areas TAB Centre Plus Hornsey Road Baths Youth Centre The Factory The NGY Minehead EYE Primetime Culture Fusion Southpoint - the Blackpool Youth Hub Centre Count 106 95 % 7.3% 6.6% 93 93 89 85 68 67 60 59 57 6.4% 6.4% 6.1% 5.9% 4.7% 4.6% 4.1% 4.1% 3.9% 55 47 46 3.8% 3.2% 3.2% 41 39 38 2.8% 2.7% 2.6% 37 34 34 32 30 24 17 16 15 13 11 9 9 7 2.6% 2.3% 2.3% 2.2% 2.1% 1.7% 1.2% 1.1% 1.0% .9% .8% .6% .6% .5% 6 5 4 4 4 1 .4% .3% .3% .3% .3% .1% 1450 100. 0% 63 Comparator responses by Local Authority District Count 69 Column N% 10.2% Kirklees 65 9.6% Wirral 63 9.3% Cheshire East 53 7.8% Salford 42 6.2% Haringey 41 6.1% Rochdale 38 5.6% Peterborough 35 5.2% Newham 34 5.0% Basingstoke and Deane 28 4.1% Swale 28 4.1% Bedford 24 3.6% Preston 24 3.6% Hammersmith and Fulham 22 3.3% Barrow-in-Furness 19 2.8% West Dorset 15 2.2% Crawley 15 2.2% Havant 13 1.9% Exeter 11 1.6% Rother 11 1.6% Epsom and Ewell 11 1.6% Hyndburn 9 1.3% Corby 6 .9% Total 676 100.0% Coventry 64 Appendix 2: Case studies Fairplay Awarded: £2997940 28/11/2008 Chesterfield This project is to refurbish and add to an existing centre, to include sports halls, an art room, recording and dance studios, performance spaces and chill out area. Young people will be able to get career advice and counselling on issues such as sexual health through agencies like Connexions and Women's Aid. Targeting young people from 11 to 25, including those with learning difficulties and from disadvantaged areas, the centre will aim to raise their aspirations by developing new skills. Open Youth Trust Awarded: £1306571 28/11/2008 Norwich Norwich South This project will refurbish a listed building into a meeting place for young people. Facilities will include a live music venue, theatre, conference and other arts-based activities, a young people's nightclub, climbing wall, educational kitchen and cafe, music recording studios and video editing suites, plus a dance and performing arts space, health centre and education space with computers. The project will target young people aged 13-25 years but, more specifically, young people under the age of 18. Trinity at Bowes Methodist Church Awarded: £2218228 27/11/2008 Enfield Enfield, Southgate This project in Enfield will refurbish an existing building to provide a sports hall with semisprung floor, gym space and a sprung floor dance studio. It includes adding new rooms, changing rooms and showers, computer area and a sound proof media suite for singing, drama and photography. It will also offer counselling and advice sessions and a coffee shop. Aimed primarily at 13-19 years it will open 7 days a week. Middlesbrough Council Awarded: £4262062 04/03/2009 Middlesbrough This project in Middlesbrough will build a state-of-the-art building for young people aged 13 to 19 year olds and up to 24 years old for young people with disabilities. It will include a dance hall, cafe, climbing wall, media studio and an outdoor multi-use sports pitch, allotments and wildlife gardens. Young people will also be able to get advice and information on a range of issues. 65 Halton Borough Council Awarded: £2500000 04/03/2009 Halton Weaver Vale This is a project to refurbish and extend a listed building to accommodate a cinema, exhibitions, performance and arts activities, gym, chill-out rooms, ICT facilities, meeting rooms, and space for advice and guidance. Gardens will be designed to link outer and inner areas. Activities will include sports activities, performing and visual arts activities, cinema and IT access. There will also be free access to the gym. The building will be located close to a college and leisure centre. OnSide North West Limited Awarded: £5050000 04/03/2009 Bolton This youth-led project in Blackburn will create a new youth facility in the city centre, which will comprise a sports hall with climbing wall, arts zone, fitness suite, synthetic turf pitch. Young people aged eight to 21 years old will be able to take part in climbing, boxing, dance and football and have access to support and advice on a range of issues from support agencies including Connexions. Pegasus Theatre Trust Awarded: £1850000 28/11/2008 Oxford This project is to build a new arts facilities for young people up to 23 years old at the Pegasus Theatre Trust in Oxford. It will include a large auditorium, information point, rehearsal and dance studio, dressing room space, cafe and workshop area. It will benefit a range of young people, including those with learning and physical disabilities and those from low-income areas. Young people are at the centre of designing and running the project which will be open 7 days a week until 10.00pm. Torbay Council Awarded: £4875000 04/03/2009 Torbay This project led by Torbay Council will refurbish a current building and build a new facility to include a skate park, games area, performance space, recording studio, cafe, BMX dirt track and rope course. Activities offered will include music, dance, cycling, sailing and windsurfing and advice will be available on a range of issues. The project will be aimed at 13 to 19 year olds. Two mobile centres in Brixham and Eltham, Torquay will also be set up. Stoke on Trent & North Staffordshire YMCA Foyer Awarded: £4850000 28/11/2008 Stoke-on-Trent Stoke-On-Trent Central This project will renovate and add to an existing YMCA building, to include a sports hall, library and basement areas beneath residential blocks to provide additional training and exhibition facilities. Targeted at vulnerable, deprived and excluded young people and exoffenders, the project aims to give them somewhere safe to meet, socialise and find 66 accommodation, while participating in meaningful activities. It will also work with the wider community to confront negative public perceptions. City of Bradford YMCA Awarded: £5050000 04/03/2009 Bradford Bradford West This YMCA project will see the refurbishment and extension of an existing building. The new centre will feature a six-storey climbing wall, gym, dance studio, hostel accommodation, IT suite and rooftop cafe. Activities will include sports, dance and climbing, and the centre will also be used as a gig venue. Advice on topics from business and housing support to relationship counselling will be available. The project aims to create a safe, neutral place for young people of different backgrounds to meet. 67 Appendix 3: Data sources and logic model Table A3.1: Answering the evaluation questions Evaluation Question Research Strategy and Data What are myplace centres achieving and what is best practice in measuring impact?  mapping scale and nature of provision, levels of usage and relationships with existing facilities  quantitative and qualitative work in case study localities to provide detailed evidence on activities and outputs  outcomes captured through surveys of young people accessing myplace services and in areas without capital investment through the myplace programme, providing assessment of counterfactual  baseline and follow-up surveys identify change in outcomes for young people  interviews with young people to explore what has changed for them, and the mechanisms through which change has been achieved  focus groups with young people who are not accessing myplace centres to explore barriers to engagement What are the on-going costs of provision and how should this inform future investment decisions by local authorities and others considering establishing youth centres?  analysis of financial data and management information (MI) to provide evidence on the costs and outputs associated with the myplace programme  case studies to address additionality, displacement and substitution effects  analysis of comparative outcomes data to identify the impact of investment; monetisation of additional benefits to provide value for money assessment How are myplace centres generating income and what are the lessons for revenue planning in the future by local authorities and others considering investment in youth centres/ facilities?  analysis of MI and financial data addressing relationships between capital investment and income generation in the short and longer term  interviews with stakeholders in case study localities explore drivers and barriers to income generation and the strategies employed by centres to attract revenue resources. 68 Table A3.2: myplace logic model Activities Inputs Outputs Outcomes Impacts Developing world-class youth facilities myplace awards additional capital and revenue funding in-kind resources myplace capital projects sustainable centres which offer opportunities for young people Provision of wide-range of positive out-ofschool activities for young people membership fees and sessional charges opening hours, sessions, activities and facilities staff and volunteer time course fees and charges numbers and scope of sessions; placements and apprenticeships staff and volunteer time opportunities to engage young people in decision making re myplace provision; volunteering opportunities; opportunities for intergenerational and community involvement number and scope of services; frequency of sessions; signposting and referrals numbers of young people participating in positive out of school activities increased capacity of organisations to deliver high quality facilities; young people agree that facilities are appealing, welcoming and safe young people improve skills, confidence and self-esteem, develop better relationships and are less likely to participate in 'risky' behaviours numbers of young people participating in alternative and vocational training young people demonstrate improved attitudes to education and training and have higher aspirations young people involved in decision making; numbers of young people volunteering young people agree they have influence on decisions that affect them and feel a greater sense of satisfaction and belonging to local neighbourhood; improved adult perceptions of young people improved attendance; reductions in numbers of truancies and exclusions; improved attainment; better employment outcomes; reductions in numbers of young people NEET improved skills and employability amongst young people; improved community cohesion improved access to services for young people; improved collaboration and targeting of services young people agree that they know where to go for help and support; increased take up of services Provision of alternative curriculum and vocational training opportunities for young people Promoting young people's influence and support for volunteering Provision of services for young people reductions in crime, anti-social behaviour, substance misuse, teenage pregnancies; improved health outcomes improvement across a range of outcomes including health, teenage pregnancy, substance misuse, crime and anti-social behaviour, financial capability and inclusion, educational engagement and attainment, skills and employability. 69 Rationale: Engagement in positive activities and access to support services leads to improved personal and social outcomes for young people Assumptions: Improved outcomes for young people are dependent on successful development of myplace centres: provision of high quality facilities which appeal to young people will result in more young people engaging in positive activities, increase opportunities for young people to get involved more often or in wider range of activities, and improve young people's experiences. Thus there are benefits arising from the capital investment (above those which might anyway have been achieved) which lead to improved outcomes for young people. 70 Appendix 4: Assessing Impact and Value for Money Identifying the impact of myplace The analysis of impact will concentrate on the impact which myplace centres have had on core outcomes recorded within the follow-up young people's surveys. A first stage of analysis will assess gross outcome change for young people who have attended myplace centres. Gross outcome change will be calculated using cross-tabulations to establish 'within young people' change in outcomes. Significance testing, using McNemar tests or Wilcoxon tests (depending on nature of the outcome of interest), will be undertaken to establish confidence as to the degree to which any observed change is real. However not all of the gross outcome change identified will be due to young people's attendance at myplace centres. A given proportion of any reported change will have occurred in any case due to a range of other influences, such as young people growing older or family breakdown. It is therefore important to control for these factors to establish the net additional impact which myplace centres have had on outcomes for young people. The evaluation will estimate net additional impact by comparing outcome change for young people attending myplace centres against a comparator panel of young who have not attended myplace centres. This latter sample being taken to represent the counterfactual: what would have happened to young people's outcomes in the absence of myplace centres. An important assumption is that the comparator sample of young people who have not attended myplace centres will provide an appropriate counterfactual. In truth it is not possible to obtain a perfect counterfactual. However, minimising baseline differences will endow the analysis with greatest confidence that the comparator sample can serve this role. Descriptive statistics will be used in the first instance to assess differences in the two longitudinal panel samples of respondents. If these differences are small our preference would be to proceed with the analysis of impact without using any further matching techniques, since these would only serve to further minimise sample sizes. Early indications from responses received to the baseline survey, and discussed in chapter four, suggest that overall differences between the samples are not great. However, on should observed differences between the longitudinal samples be judged sizable, and a risk to the accuracy of the analysis, more advanced statistical matching techniques, such as Propensity Score Matching, will be deployed to achieve appropriate samples for assessing net additional impact. The net additional impact of myplace centres on young people's outcomes will be computed using a differences-in-differences approach. This is built up in two stages:  the first stage assesses net additional impact by calculating differences in un-modelled outcome change for young people who have attended myplace centres against those for young people who have not attended myplace provision  the second stage will build on this by calculating differences in modelled outcome change data. 72 The use of statistical modelling techniques allows underlying socio-demographic characteristics and propensities to record a given outcome to be taken into account, and adjusted, for. We would look to control for a range of individual specific socio-demographic characteristics on which the surveys collect information. As an indicative list, this is likely to include:     age sex ethnicity disability (self-reported). Other outcomes are not included within the models to identify net additional impact. This is to ensure that we do no adjust out, any 'multiplier effects' on outcomes: improvement on a particular outcome caused indirectly by myplace centres inducing improvement on a different outcome. As survey data will have been collected on outcomes for individual young people at two points in time there are two types of approach available to modelling net additional impact. The first approach seeks to identify a myplace effect by modelling 'change scores' or 'likelihood of change'. These consider whether there is statistical evidence that young people who attend myplace centres are, on average, more likely to report (greater) positive outcome change between the two time points. Indicative modelling techniques deployed within this type of modelling strategy are Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) and Logistic Regression. OLS is used where the outcome of interest can be considered (pseudo) continuous: for example change in wellbeing score, where the outcome will be a 'change score' ranging from -X to X. Logistic Regression is used to assess impact on a young person's likelihood of recording a positive improvement between survey waves where the outcome of interest can be considered binary: for example change from being not at school to being at school. The alternative approach is to use other longitudinal modelling techniques, such as fixed effects or random effects, which take more explicit advantage of the repeated nature of the data. These models seek to identify whether there exists statistical evidence of a myplace effect in terms of improved individual outcomes through time. The question being assessed here is subtly different: are young people who attend myplace centres, on average, statistically more likely to attain a given positive outcome in the second wave than comparator young people, taking into account personal characteristics and propensity to record an outcome. As with the previous approach impact on both (pseudo) continuous and binary outcomes may be considered. Importantly the evaluation will also seek to undertake an analysis to allow for the nature and intensity of attendance of young people at myplace centres, and for the nature of myplace provision. Young people will attend myplace centres for a range of activities or services. They will also have varying intensity of attendance. Therefore assessment of the impact of myplace centres may be watered down, or blurred, by comparing outcome change for all young people attending centres with the comparator sample of young people. For example, attitudes towards school are generally positive amongst those responding to the baseline surveys. However, change in these outcomes is most likely to be observed for young people attending myplace centres for regular education or training activities (as opposed, for instance, to those attending infrequently to meet up with friends). The analysis will therefore control for nature and intensity of attendance at myplace centres to allow more appropriate linking of myplace activities and services to outcomes. 73 Where evidence is found of net additional impact, attempts will be made to monetise this net additional outcome change within the Value for Money/Cost Benefit Analysis. Value for Money analysis The Value for Money analysis will assess the relationship between the resources behind myplace centres and the outputs and outcomes achieved. This work, which is summarised in Figure A3.1 , will focus on a robust assessment of the 'three E's'    economy: the cost of inputs efficiency: the ratio of inputs to outputs and effectiveness: the ratio of outputs to net additional outcomes. A cost benefit analysis will compare, in money terms, inputs to net additional outcomes. A key task here would be to estimate the monetised value of net additional outcomes. Valuation outcomes will be drawn from a range of sources including:  evidence from existing studies: for example literature is available linking and valuing productivity gains from non-cognitive skills10,11,12  evidence on savings to the public purse: for example from reductions in youth offending13  primary analysis to compute 'shadow pricing' values on perception outcomes for young persons; valuing outcomes by the impact which they have on subjective wellbeing; the study team have previously adopted this approach on the national evaluation of New Deal for Communities.14 10 Carneiro, P. et al (2007) The Impact of Early Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Skills on Later Outcomes. Centre for the Economics of Education. 11 Heckman, J. et al (2006) The effects of cognitive and non-cognitive abilities on labour market outcomes and social behaviour. Journal of Labour Economics, Vol. 24. 12 Feinstein, L (2000) The relative economic importance of academic, psychological and behavioural attributes developed in childhood. Centre for Economic Performance. 13 Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Antisocial Behaviour (2010) Time for a fresh start: The report of the Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Antisocial Behaviour. 14 Department for Communities and Local Government (2010) The New Deal for Communities Programme: Assessing Impact and Value for Money, London, Communities and Local Government 74 Economy? cost of inputs: are costs minimised? Figure A3.1: Overview of Value for Money Analysis Inputs differences in inputs required? Financial gains Efficiency? cost per output: are outputs produced efficiently? Outputs number of additional outputs achieved? Effectiveness? effectiveness of outputs delivering outcomes? Outcomes number of additional outcomes achieved? Additionality Total inputs MyPlace centre activities: what doing and cost costs MyPlace centres staffing Data sources MyPlace plans case study work monitoring data MyPlace centre surveys financial accounts Total outcomes Total outputs Sessions delivered Young persons attending sessions Data sources monitoring data case study work MyPlace centre surveys Young Person surveys Data sources Young Person surveys monitoring data case study work MyPlace centre surveys Outcomes which represent e.g.: economic activity schooling involvement in activities exercise crime and ASB bullying self efficacy wellbeing community Data sources Young Person surveys case study work MyPlace centre surveys 75 Appendix 5: Additional data tables Reasons for attending youth centre Table A5.1: Three main reasons for attending local youth centre by Gender myplace Female Male Count 501 298 306 734 meet up with friends somewhere safe hang out use the facilities Total no. of respondents % 68.3% 40.6% 41.7% Count 462 266 202 673 Count 84 49 26 116 Count 968 568 512 1418 comparator Female Male meet up with friends somewhere safe hang out use the facilities Total no. of respondents % 68.6% 39.5% 30.0% Total % 72.4% 42.2% 22.4% Count 76 26 39 102 % 74.5% 25.5% 38.2% % 68.3% 40.1% 36.1% Total Count 160 75 65 218 % 73.4% 34.4% 29.8% Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1418 myplace, 218 comparator (valid responses) Table A5.2: Three main reasons for attending local youth centre by ethnicity White meet up with friends somewhere safe hang out use the facilities Total no. of respondents Black myplace Asian Mixed Total Count 831 480 % 72.3% 41.7% Count 40 29 % 40.4% 29.3% Count 29 10 % 50.0% 17.2% Count 50 38 % 65.8% 50.0% Count 968 568 % 68.3% 40.1% 415 1150 36.1% 33 99 33.3% 27 58 46.6% 24 76 31.6% 512 1418 36.1% White Black Count % Count % meet up with friends 128 76.2% 13 81.3% somewhere safe hang 64 38.1% 3 18.8% out use the facilities 45 26.8% 10 62.5% Total no. of 168 16 respondents Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1418 myplace, 218 comparator (valid responses) comparator Asian Mixed Total Count 8 6 % 40.0% 30.0% Count 9 2 % 75.0% 16.7% Count 160 75 % 73.4% 34.4% 6 20 30.0% 4 12 33.3% 65 218 29.8% 76 Table A5.3: Three main reasons for attending local youth centre by receipt of free school meals myplace non-FSM FSM Count 222 150 127 354 meet up with friends somewhere safe hang out use the facilities Total no. of respondents % 62.7% 42.4% 35.9% Count 650 350 340 920 Count 968 568 512 1418 comparator non-FSM FSM Count 26 12 12 37 meet up with friends somewhere safe hang out use the facilities Total no. of respondents Total % 70.7% 38.0% 37.0% % 70.3% 32.4% 32.4% Count 134 63 53 181 % 68.3% 40.1% 36.1% Total % 74.0% 34.8% 29.3% Count 160 75 65 218 % 73.4% 34.4% 29.8% Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1418 myplace, 218 comparator (valid responses) Experiences of education Table A5.4: Experiences of learning and education by Ethnicity White I enjoy/enjoyed school/college I think learning is interesting I would like to do more learning in the future myplace Asian Black Mixed Total Count 954 % 86.1% Count 87 % 94.6% Count 54 % 94.7% Count 58 % 81.7% Count 1176 % 86.4% 901 83.7% 83 98.8% 53 96.4% 57 82.6% 1118 84.8% 817 76.1% 79 91.9% 51 92.7% 51 75.0% 1025 77.8% White Black comparator Asian Count % Count % Count I enjoy/enjoyed 355 95.7% 27 100.0% 43 school/college I think learning is 352 95.1% 27 100.0% 42 interesting I would like to do 317 86.1% 24 88.9% 40 more learning in the future Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1317-1361 myplace, 460-465 comparator (valid responses) Mixed Total % 100.0% Count 19 % 90.5% Count 447 % 96.1% 100.0% 20 95.2% 444 95.9% 95.2% 17 85.0% 400 87.0% Table A5.5: Experiences of learning and education by receipt of free school meals myplace non-FSM FSM I enjoy/enjoyed school/college I think learning is interesting I would like to do more learning in the future Count 297 276 250 % 85.1% 81.4% 73.7% % 87.5% 86.7% 80.1% comparator non-FSM FSM Count Count 799 767 708 % Count % Total Count 1176 1118 1025 % 86.4% 84.8% 77.8% Total Count % 77 I enjoy/enjoyed school/college 87 98.9% I think learning is interesting 86 97.7% I would like to do more learning in the 80 90.9% future Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1317-1361 myplace, 460-465 comparator (valid responses) 360 358 320 95.5% 95.5% 86.0% 447 444 400 96.1% 95.9% 87.0% Views on the Future Table A5.6: Views on the future by Ethnicity White I know what I want to do in the future and what I need to do it I know what I would like to do in the future but I'm not sure how to do it I think I know what I want to do in the future but I change my mind quite a lot I don't know what I want to do in the future and I don't want to think about it I don't know what I want to do in the future and I just don't care Total Mixed Total Count 534 % 51.1% Count 49 % 56.3% Count 27 % 48.2% Count 32 % 53.3% Count 653 % 51.1% 239 22.9% 22 25.3% 11 19.6% 10 16.7% 292 22.9% 208 19.9% 13 14.9% 16 28.6% 13 21.7% 256 20.0% 45 4.3% 3 3.4% 1 1.8% 3 5.0% 55 4.3% 18 1.7% 0 .0% 1 1.8% 2 3.3% 21 1.6% 1044 100.0% 87 100.0% 56 100.0% 60 100.0% 1277 100.0% White I know what I want to do in the future and what I need to do it I know what I would like to do in the future but I'm not sure how to do it I think I know what I want to do in the future but I change my mind quite a lot I don't know what I want to do in the future and I don't want to think about it I don't know what I want to do in the future and I just don't care Total myplace Asian Black comparator Asian Black Mixed Total Count 230 % 43.2% Count 17 % 50.0% Count 25 % 41.0% Count 14 % 50.0% Count 288 % 43.6% 125 23.5% 8 23.5% 18 29.5% 3 10.7% 155 23.5% 142 26.7% 9 26.5% 16 26.2% 8 28.6% 176 26.7% 29 5.5% 0 .0% 2 3.3% 2 7.1% 34 5.2% 6 1.1% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 3.6% 7 1.1% 532 100.0% 34 100.0% 61 100.0% 28 100.0% 660 100.0% Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1277 myplace, comparator 660 (valid responses) 78 Table A5.7 Views on the future by Gender myplace Female Male Total Count 359 % 55.7% Count 286 % 46.0% Count 653 % 51.1% 143 22.2% 148 23.8% 292 22.9% I think I know what I want to do in the future but I change my mind quite a lot 99 15.4% 156 25.1% 256 20.0% I don't know what I want to do in the future and I don't want to think about it 29 4.5% 25 4.0% 55 4.3% I don't know what I want to do in the future and I just don't care 14 2.2% 7 1.1% 21 1.6% 644 100.0% 622 100.0% 1277 100.0% I know what I want to do in the future and what I need to do it I know what I would like to do in the future but I'm not sure how to do it Total comparator Female Male Total Count 162 % 42.5% Count 126 % 45.2% Count 288 % 43.6% I know what I would like to do in the future but I'm not sure how to do it 97 25.5% 58 20.8% 155 23.5% I think I know what I want to do in the future but I change my mind quite a lot 96 25.2% 80 28.7% 176 26.7% I don't know what I want to do in the future and I don't want to think about it 23 6.0% 11 3.9% 34 5.2% 3 .8% 4 1.4% 7 1.1% 381 100.0% 279 100.0% 660 100.0% I know what I want to do in the future and what I need to do it I don't know what I want to do in the future and I just don't care Total Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1277 myplace, comparator 660 (valid responses) 79 Anti-social behaviour Table A5.8: Anti-social behaviour by Ethnicity White Upset someone else by calling them hurtful names Excluded someone else from a group of friends or from joining in activities Threatened to hit/kick or use any other form of violence against someone else Actually hit or kicked someone else, or used any other form of violence against someone else Taken money or other personal items from someone else Black Mixed Total Count 216 % 19.1% Count 12 % 12.9% Count 7 % 12.1% Count 17 % 24.6% Count 262 % 18.9% 93 8.3% 4 4.3% 4 6.9% 6 8.7% 111 8.1% 192 17.1% 10 10.8% 4 7.0% 14 20.9% 230 16.8% 151 13.5% 8 8.5% 5 8.5% 9 13.2% 183 13.3% 47 4.2% 1 1.1% 3 5.3% 2 3.0% 58 4.3% White Upset someone else by calling them hurtful names Excluded someone else from a group of friends or from joining in activities Threatened to hit/kick or use any other form of violence against someone else Actually hit or kicked someone else, or used any other form of violence against someone else Taken money or other personal items from someone else Asian Black comparator Asian Mixed Total Count 70 % 13.0% Count 3 % 8.3% Count 2 % 3.2% Count 3 % 10.7% Count 78 % 11.6% 40 7.4% 2 5.6% 2 3.2% 3 10.7% 49 7.3% 43 8.0% 4 11.1% 2 3.2% 4 14.3% 53 7.9% 35 6.5% 4 11.1% 3 4.8% 2 7.1% 44 6.5% 5 .9% 1 2.8% 2 3.2% 2 7.1% 11 1.6% Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1364-1384 myplace, comparator 672 (valid responses) 80 Criminal activity Table A5.9: Criminal activity by Ethnicity White Damaged a car or other vehicle on purpose Stolen from someone's home Stolen something from a shop or other business site Sprayed paint on walls or buildings (without permission) Smashed or damaged public property or something in a public place Sprayed paint on walls or buildings (without permission) Smashed or damaged public property or something in a public place myplace Asian Mixed Total Count 55 % 4.9% Count 3 % 3.2% Count 0 % .0% Count 3 % 4.3% Count 62 % 4.5% 27 2.4% 1 1.1% 0 .0% 3 4.3% 32 2.4% 79 7.1% 5 5.4% 0 .0% 5 7.0% 90 6.6% 48 4.3% 2 2.2% 0 .0% 3 4.3% 55 4.1% 99 8.9% 5 5.5% 1 1.8% 7 9.9% 114 8.3% White Damaged a car or other vehicle on purpose Stolen from someone's home Stolen something from a shop or other business site Black Black comparator Asian Mixed Total Count 0 % .0% Count 0 % .0% Count 0 % .0% Count 1 % 3.4% Count 1 % .1% 2 .4% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 2 .3% 5 .9% 0 .0% 0 .0% 2 7.1% 7 1.0% 1 .2% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 .1% 5 .9% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 3.6% 6 .9% Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1357-1367 myplace, comparator 672-673 (valid responses) 81 Table A5.10: Anti-social behaviour by gender myplace Female Male Total Count 143 % 20.2% Count 118 % 17.8% Count 262 % 18.9% Excluded someone else from a group of friends or from joining in activities 66 9.4% 45 6.8% 111 8.1% Threatened to hit/kick or use any other form of violence against someone else 147 21.0% 81 12.3% 230 16.8% Actually hit or kicked someone else, or used any other form of violence against someone else 125 17.8% 57 8.6% 183 13.3% 41 5.9% 17 2.6% 58 4.3% Upset someone else by calling them hurtful names Taken money or other personal items from someone else comparator Female Male Total Count 38 % 9.9% Count 40 % 13.9% Count 78 % 11.6% Excluded someone else from a group of friends or from joining in activities 24 6.3% 25 8.7% 49 7.3% Threatened to hit/kick or use any other form of violence against someone else 23 6.0% 30 10.4% 53 7.9% Actually hit or kicked someone else, or used any other form of violence against someone else 13 3.4% 31 10.8% 44 6.5% 6 1.6% 5 1.7% 11 1.6% Upset someone else by calling them hurtful names Taken money or other personal items from someone else Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1364-1384 myplace, comparator 672 (valid responses) 82 Table A5.11: Criminal activity by gender myplace Female Male Total Count 48 % 6.8% Count 13 % 2.0% Count 62 % 4.5% 25 70 3.6% 10.0% 7 20 1.1% 3.1% 32 90 2.4% 6.6% Sprayed paint on walls or buildings (without permission) 41 5.9% 13 2.0% 55 4.1% Smashed or damaged public property or something in a public place 83 11.8% 29 4.4% 114 8.3% Damaged a car or other vehicle on purpose Stolen from someone's home Stolen something from a shop or other business site comparator Female Male Count Damaged a car or other vehicle on purpose Stolen from someone's home Stolen something from a shop or other business site 0 % .0% 0 4 Sprayed paint on walls or buildings (without permission) Smashed or damaged public property or something in a public place Count 1 % .3% .0% 1.0% 2 3 0 .0% 1 .3% Total Count 1 % .1% .7% 1.0% 2 7 .3% 1.0% 1 .3% 1 .1% 5 1.7% 6 .9% Source: myplace/comparator baseline surveys Base: 1357-1367 myplace, comparator 672-673 (valid responses) 83 84 myplace Impact Evaluation Interim Report BASHIR, Nadia <http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1384-4849>, BATTY, Elaine <http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7524-3515>, DAYSON, Chris <http://orcid.org/0000-00032402-1183>, PEARSON, Sarah <http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5049-5396>, PLATTSFOWLER, Deborah <http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8241-6920>, SANDERSON, Elizabeth <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1423-1670>, WILSON, Ian <http://orcid.org/0000-0001-88133382>, CLAGUE, Lucy <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2965-6305>, FORMBY, Eleanor <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4137-6592> and WOLSTENHOLME, Claire <http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6660-6385> Available from the Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive (SHURA) at: http://shura.shu.ac.uk/26728/ Copyright and re-use policy Please visit http://shura.shu.ac.uk/26728/ and http://shura.shu.ac.uk/information.html for further details about copyright and re-use permissions.