Evaluation of the Partnership Outreach Education Model Pilot

The Australian Government made available $4 million to fund the POEM projects, which resulted in substantial in-kind and financial contributions from community partners at the local level. Given the successful outcomes of the Pilot and the considerable leverage that this funding was able to produce, POEM appears to have been a cost-effective strategy for re-engaging young people on learning pathways. Reflecting the flexibility of the programme’s guidelines, each POEM project has developed in ways that reflect the local circumstances in which it operates and also the core values and prior experience of the lead agency and its most active partner organisations. The POEM projects also varied significantly in the type of service delivery model that was employed. For example, some adopted a classroom-based approach to educational delivery, while others utilized octopus-like models across multiple sites. The differing needs of their client groups also impacted upon the form of service delivery offered and the types of partnerships that were developed. For example, those in rural and remote areas were often mindful of local labour market and industry needs, and partnered with local industry so that realistic pathways beyond POEM could be created for young people. Further, the possibility that some young people may need to relocate in order to access further education, employment and training was given consideration, and partners in other geographical locations were sought. POEM projects were often instrumental in coordinating the activities of a range of other services and programmes to more effectively support young people in their education and employment transitions.

The lead agencies delivering the POEM projects varied considerably, with a number having a strong focus on the provision of educational services, although often in settings such as juvenile justice institutions, religious-based youth and community services, or the VET sector. Others were delivered by youth and community service organisations, which already provided services such as accommodation, welfare, health and recreation to disconnected young people, and have now provided or expanded flexible educational options for young people through their POEM projects.

These differences in lead agencies do not, however, appear to have impacted significantly on the performance of the projects. The things that do appear to have an impact on the effectiveness of service delivery include strong leadership, a dedicated project coordinator, a client-centred focus, skilled staff who can build rapport with young people, flexible delivery of education programmes, individualised approaches and a good mix of youth support services and education and training personnel.

Project sites were required to submit both qualitative and quantitative data to DEST on a quarterly basis throughout the pilot phase. Projects were required to report quantitatively against two categories of participation – Strand 1 and Strand 2. Strand 1 comprised those young people who become full-time (or what constitutes a full-time capacity for an individual), POEM students. Strand 2 reporting consists of those young people who are either students ‘at risk’ who maintain regular school classes while attending POEM activities part-time or intermittently, or they are young people who are disconnected from education, but they are not ready to become full-time enrolled POEM students or on the wait list.

POEM participation was divided between two Strands to distinguish between those young people who engaged full time and those who were less engaged. In total 911 young people accessed Strand 1, while total attendance at Strand 2 activities numbered 1,570 (additional to Strand 1).

Nineteen project sites delivered a POEM programme for Strand 1 participants. Strand 1 activities were provided for those young people who had disconnected from mainstream schooling - that is, they were not enrolled in school (79.1%), were chronic truants (16.7%) or, in a small number of cases, were at risk regular school attendees (4.2%), and were attending POEM on a full-time basis. A total of 911 young people were engaged in Strand 1 programmes, with 749 exiting POEM during the 2002-2003 period. Of these 911 participants, 162 were continuing in a POEM programme in 2004. Strand 1 participants had an average age of 16.5 years, with an average length of participation of 22.1 weeks, and a split between males (57%) and females (43%). Two hundred and eighty-three (31.1%) participants were Indigenous, 328 (36%) were homeless or at risk, 14 (1.5%) had a disability, 103 (11.3%) experienced mental health problems, 65 (7.3%) were young parents, 199 (21.8%) had substance misuse problems, 169 (18.6%) were involved with Juvenile Justice, 126 (13.8%) had a learning disability, and 55 (6.0%) were from culturally and linguistically diverse groups.

Of those young people who exited in 2003, 40% of young people exited to further education and training, 18.9% exited to employment, 9.8% exited to another programme, 3.3% exited to detention, 15.8% did not engage in an activity after POEM, and it was uncertain as to what 12.2% of young people were doing after participation in POEM. In the latter two cases, some young people in the ‘no activity’ category were required to deal with emerging issues such as caring for children, while others in the ‘uncertain’ category may have entered into an activity in another location, but could not be tracked through this transition. Many young people participating in POEM have very transient lifestyles and it can be difficult to locate them once their on-site participation has ceased, although project sites made attempts to do so, usually through phone calls and links with local community networks.

The majority of young people in Strand 1 of the POEM projects also made sound progress towards developing their education levels, life skills and employability skills throughout their time in POEM. POEM providers gave each young person in Strand 1 a rating (0 indicating no progress, 1 indicating some progress, 2 indicating good progress, and 3 indicating incredible progress) towards the achievement of these outcomes during their time in POEM. On average, the young people in Strand 1 received a rating of 1.6 on progress towards education, 1.6 on progress towards life skills, and 1.5 on progress towards employability.

Nine project sites (ACES Wellington, Anglicare, Centacare, Cooktown, Mildura, OTEN, Papunya, Rivskills, and YEC), offered a Strand 2 option for young people. Strand 2 activities under the POEM projects involved a range of accredited short courses and activities aimed at assisting at risk young people to develop life skills, employability skills and self esteem. These participants were either still connected to but struggling with school, or disconnected from mainstream education but not ready for a more intensive Strand 1 programme or were on a wait list for Strand 1.

Total attendances at Strand 2 activities numbered 1570. There were 518 Indigenous participants and 221 culturally and linguistically diverse participants in a Strand 2 programme. A little more than half of the Strand 2 participants were still connected to school, with the remainder disconnected from school but either not yet ready for Strand 1 or on a wait list for Strand 1.
The qualitative evaluation section of the report has been structured under the following headings, which reflect the research questions which were detailed in the evaluation plan:

• engagement in POEM;
• underlying causes;
• level of disconnection;
• impact on local disconnected youth;
• local issues;
• community partnerships;
• learning Pathways Plans;
• accredited education and training;
• re-engagement with mainstream;
• action research;
• the role of DEST; and
• sustainability.

There appear to have been few problems in locating young people and a number of the projects had substantial waiting lists. Referrals came from a variety of sources, including partner agencies. Projects varied quite substantially on their inclusion criteria. Some projects accepted all comers because they did not wish to compound the rejection their client groups have experienced in other settings. Other projects had more rigorous inclusion criteria, including a strong desire on the part of the young person to be engaged in an education programme. It was clear from the evaluation that demand for places from genuinely disconnected young people exceeded supply and that there were currently inadequate numbers of places for flexible education provision such as those delivered by POEM. Although in some circumstances, POEM projects accepted young people with a tenuous connection to mainstream schooling during the pilot phase, this was done on a case by case basis. Acceptance of such young people into POEM required negotiation between all parties as well as an assessment of the likelihood the young person would disconnect from the mainstream setting in the immediate future. Alternatives other than a full-time POEM placement were negotiated where possible for ‘student at-risk’ applicants. Given the short supply of places for truly disconnected youth, it was imperative to prioritise their placement over those still connected to mainstream schooling. Clearly, the POEM initiative was not implemented to assist those young people exhibiting behavioural problems from transitioning out of mainstream schools into alternative education settings, however the demand for places in POEMs for such young people was also high and this demand remained unmet.

The projects that have accepted very disconnected and highly marginalised young people into their programmes have usually required more time to engage the cohort, offered lower levels of accredited education and training, and have usually taken longer to demonstrate positive outcomes. However, this was not the case for all. Some projects with highly disconnected young people, using intensive service delivery models with smaller numbers, were able to engage young people in certificate level courses that were completed within a relatively short period of time, and which lead to pathways into further education and training, occasionally at university level.

Induction processes varied from simple introductions to staff and students to quite complex processes which involved comprehensive interviews, the immediate introduction of Learning Pathways Plans (LPPs), and the administration of attitudinal and needs assessment questionnaires.

The most important and frequently cited engagement theme to emerge (with all stakeholders, including the young people themselves) was the importance of good relationships between project staff and young people. As a result of their smaller numbers, nurturing environment and flexibility, Partnership Outreach Education Model projects seem to provide a more suitable environment than do mainstream schools for this client group. So too, the democratic relationships with teachers that often occur in POEM projects helps continued engagement. Antagonistic relationships with mainstream teachers were the most common reason young people gave for disengaging from mainstream education in the first place.

Successful engagement strategies included the provision of food for young people (particularly breakfast), which was found to improve attendance, behaviour and attention; student involvement in designing their education programme, including multi-modal delivery (hands-on learning techniques were often a popular strategy); visibly celebrating student achievement at every opportunity; the provision of after hours and holiday programmes; and support for managing their often multiple issues.

The range of issues impacting upon the young people in POEM is enormous, and is generally experienced in clusters, rather than one at a time. Included are such issues as drug/alcohol use; homelessness; transience; legal and financial issues; volatile substance misuse; mental health and medical conditions; transport difficulties; and poor perceptions of their own capacity which impact on motivation and attendance patterns. When contrasted with the known risk factors that contribute to a range of adverse outcomes for young people, it is clear that POEM participants are a highly vulnerable group.

The POEM projects are strengthening the resilience and building the capacity of a very troubled cohort of young people, resulting in:

• a greater sense of optimism amongst participants;
• improved social competence and social skills;
• the development of supportive relationships with adults;
• improved behaviour;
• accredited education and training outcomes;
• improved access to support services, and
• successful post-POEM outcomes for many.

The POEM model provides effective intervention and prevention approaches for at-risk youth. It is an educational programme of merit in its own right; yet in addition, it also provides intervention in a far broader context, as a complementary service to other agencies, as well as acting as a link and coordinating mechanism between those agencies. POEM is a strategy aimed at preventing harmful behaviours, lowering risk, building social competence, and providing a necessary foundation for lifelong learning, for disconnected young people who have not yet managed to secure a footing on their transition to adulthood. Intervening early and providing clear pathways is critical to assisting young people. People without basic levels of education face a higher risk of marginalisation. Higher levels of education and continuous learning, when accessible to all, make an important contribution to reducing inequalities and social exclusion.

It is widely recognised that a lack of engagement in study or work raises the level of risk faced by young people, particularly as they try to navigate the transition pathways from school. Recent research by the Smith Family (‘Suicide risk for jobless’, an article in The Australian, 28 January 2004) reports that “Young jobless males were nearly nine times more likely to take their own lives than their peers who were working or studying … In September 2003, 21.6 per cent of Australians aged 15 to 19 were unemployed. For those aged 20 to 24 the statistics rose to 23 per cent who were not in full-time education or employment … And 45 per cent of Indigenous teenagers were not studying or working. The Smith Family study … calculates the cost of lost earnings and social security benefits for young people who did not complete Year 12 at $2.6 billion a year.” Clearly, helping young people to find pathways towards well-being, and into meaningful life, learning and work experiences benefits not only them, but the community as well.

The vast majority of POEM projects noted that the issues impacting on young people which impede their ability to achieve in education must be dealt with first; that is, substantial time and energy are devoted early on in the engagement process to helping young people manage all of the ‘other’ issues present in their lives, and to focus on their personal development needs. Utilising this education and youth support model, POEM has proven to be an effective intervention strategy for dealing with the underlying issues that hinder young people’s participation in learning.

Some projects noted that young people in their programmes had been disconnected from mainstream schooling for as long as a decade, while in many others, one to two years appears to have been a common timeframe. Support needs appear to be intensive at first, but taper off over time, and the younger a person is, the longer it can take to re-engage them with mainstream activities.
There is considerable variation in the time taken for disconnected young people to re-engage in positive education, training and employment pathways once they engage in POEMs. Some projects suggested that participants can be ready to move on after 6 months, while for others one to two years and in some cases up to four years may be required. The more disconnected a young person is, and the more issues and risk factors they face, the longer it takes for re-engagement with mainstream education to occur.

Clearly, the POEM projects are having a significant impact on the young people who participate in them. Employment prospects have been improved for many; personal development, communication skills and behaviour management skills are improving; and feelings of hope, confidence and optimism are returning.

But the POEM Pilot appears to be having a broader impact on communities beyond the participants. Many projects have reported substantial shifts in community attitudes towards troubled youth based on the improvements they have seen in POEM participants, and communities have become more supportive of young people in general; this helps to create a ‘culture of care’ for young people who may have otherwise become further marginalised and excluded.

Perhaps more importantly, many projects have reported that as a result of POEM, services for youth have become more ‘joined-up’ in local communities; providers now understand the goals, protocols and operations of each other’s agencies more clearly, and links have been established between many partners, which allow for more seamless and holistic methods of service provision between providers, regardless of whether or not a client engages with POEM. Some providers have noted that POEM has been playing a particularly useful and necessary coordination role for services for youth.

Each project site operates in a unique environment, in which different barriers to achieving engagement, and good educational and other outcomes for young people are experienced. For example rurality and remoteness impacted upon some projects. In such locations, transportation is often a major problem for young people, and projects that were affected offered transportation services for their participants to and from the project, and/or provided them with cab / travel vouchers so that they could attend. In metropolitan locations, barriers were experienced due to issues of ‘confidentiality’ and the sharing of information about participants between agencies. Negotiating through policy issues between different agencies often had to be undertaken in order to provide appropriate and more seamless referrals. Some projects found that in order to overcome these barriers, learning the language and culture of partner agencies was important, as were establishing inter-agency protocols and parameters around information-sharing.

A major difference between rural and metropolitan communities is the level of anonymity young people experience. In smaller rural communities where social networks are strong and the population is stable rather than transient, young people who disengage from mainstream learning environments are often quite visible; this makes locating them less difficult, and there is usually a greater level of support from family and community members for engaging young people in a programme like POEM. The close-knit nature of these communities also allows for greater ease in facilitating and tracking young people through their transitions. In metropolitan areas, disconnected young people may be far less visible, and if they are also detached from their families and other social support networks, locating and supporting them to engage in POEM can be more difficult. Metropolitan POEM providers often utilized community partners, such as youth support services, to locate and engage disconnected young people. There was a suggestion by some providers, however, that those they did manage to engage represented ‘the tip of the iceberg’. Further, the range of youth support services in rural communities may be more limited than in metropolitan areas; conversely, in metropolitan areas, young people may be exposed to a greater number of risk factors, such as neighbourhood violence and crime, than those in rural areas. When trying to establish the reasons for disconnection, it is therefore important to consider the environmental influences operating in any given community, as well as the unique circumstances of each particular young person.

In locations such as Alice Outcomes and Papunya, where the client base was largely Indigenous, culturally specific and gender specific elements were offered in an attempt to ensure that activities were both relevant and culturally appropriate.

Although access to IT was anticipated to be a potential barrier for projects in programme delivery, this was not found to be problematic; most projects provided computers and internet access as an integral facility for young people.

However, many projects experienced a need for intensive support services to help their participants with literacy and numeracy work. Some providers chose to engage specialist staff to assist them, while others provided intensive one-to-one assistance utilising existing staff, or sought help from volunteers. Interestingly, young people often disconnected from mainstream education because they found that lack of support in the school setting from teachers meant that they were falling behind, particularly in the areas of literacy and numeracy.

Throughout the POEM Pilot, partnership arrangements were being developed at all levels of the community and of government. Partners typically included:

• Federal and State agencies;
• Centrelink;
• family and community services;
• Job Network members;
• youth services/centres;
• volunteer service agencies;
• church groups;
• juvenile justice agencies;
• disability and mental health services;
• drug and alcohol services;
• police;
• schools;
• TAFE;
• Universities;
• local government; and
• local businesses.

Partner roles were diverse, covering the provision of education services; the use of premises; the provision of materials and equipment; accommodation for the participants; the provision of moral support; assistance with accessing services, including counselling and mentoring; and making referrals.

In the main, partners came together because of a belief that young people need support in making their transitions to adult life, and those who are disconnected need special support so that they do not “fall through the net”. Despite differences in the level of ‘readiness’ for the POEM projects, and the different approaches that were used to form networks, the evaluation found that there were some core principles that could be used to build an effective community partnership network. These principles are listed below:

• Conduct a needs analysis (issues, needs and gaps) to facilitate planning

• Identify goals

• Create ‘win / win’ partnerships

• Earn the trust of partner agencies

• Ensure partnerships are equitable

• Demonstrate the benefits of increased linkages between service providers

• Recognise boundaries and don’t ‘step on partners toes’

• Nurture partnerships through regular contact and acknowledging expertise

• Make sure expectations are clear

• Be aware that formal partnerships are likely to be more sustainable than informal ones

• Include young people as part of the partnership network – they are great ambassadors for the programme

• Actively seek out partners that can ‘add value’

• Understand the importance of the protocols attached to cultural differences

• Raise community awareness of the plight of disconnected young people

• Link into community events in order to promote the re-engagement of young people

• Identify common community goals

• Establish, foster and grow links to the business community

• Raise the POEM profile through publicity, promotional strategies and by using established networks, thereby increasing the levels of awareness and understanding of the programme

• Market POEM as the core community response to issues of disconnection, in order to attract patronage, support and involvement by community partners

• Find and share common goals

• Clearly document roles and responsibilities

• Make project goals ‘transparent’

• Identify and engage ‘strategic’ people in the programme, not just interested people.

• Build on existing relationships with service agencies based on cross-referrals of participants

• Building on existing relationships – as more partners become involved, it becomes easier to attract new ones.

Although POEM projects tended to use these strategies selectively based on their needs, these general principles tended to recur as common elements. Clearly, different strategies were applied at different times, particularly due to the nature of the action research process. However, when used at critical points, these activities helped the projects to achieve their goal of creating ‘joined up’ services to support young people.

Projects found that community partnerships impacted positively both on the young people participating in POEM programmes, and the community partners who were engaged to support them.

The Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) has endorsed the use of Learning Pathways Plans as a key component in the proposed framework for career and transition services nationally. The use of Learning Pathways Plans in POEM varied amongst the projects from strong reliance on formal documents to no attempt at any individual learning plan at all. Of the 21 projects, around 62% made consistent and meaningful use of an LPP, in one form or another, and approximately 72% (in total) made some effort to implement a formal document, even if only consisting of a single page. A less formal approach was adopted by three or four of the projects, mostly with good success. For the majority of providers, the LPP was seen as a highly useful planning tool allowing young people to focus and re-focus on their goals, aspirations and personal development. Some providers also considered the LPPs to be a useful monitoring tool, reviewing the young person’s progress on a regular basis.

Projects are offering a range of accredited education and training options to POEM participants. The learning programmes that are being made available reflect the aspirations of the participants; their age; their areas of personal interest; their skill levels; their eligibility/ineligibility for enrolment in education or VET courses of study; the knowledge and understanding of flexible learning options of the POEM partners; and the availability of education, training and employment options in particular locations.

The Certificate in General Education for Adults (CGEA) has been the principal framework chosen by POEM providers for the delivery of accredited education and training. At least 50% have used the CGEA. Of these, several providers have also used the Certificate in General Vocational Education (CGVE), the Certificate in Foundation and Vocational Education (FAVE) and/or the NSW Certificate in Adult Foundation Education (CAFE). The level of engagement in these programmes has ranged from Statements of Attainment through to, in some cases, Certificate IV, with the majority of young people working at the Certificate I or Certificate II level.

The Victorian Certificate in Applied Learning (VCAL) emerged as a useful alternative/adjunct in some aspects of the Wellington and Brunswick projects. As a fledgling certificate, VCAL has yet to gain wide acceptance within Victoria alongside the VCE. However, young people were able to return to school under a specifically designed VCAL programme, participate with VCAL students in a community project, and undertake training in hairdressing in a POEM/VCAL partnership. A trial of VCAL in one district previously, had also been particularly successful in increasing the school retention rate in that town.

OTEN and other distance education networks/private providers have been utilized by a number of POEM projects, notably those in rural New South Wales, Queensland, and the Northern Territory. Others have relied on the distance education department of their regional TAFE. Besides the CGEA, students using distance education have been enrolled in a range of accredited senior subjects. Regular school curricula such as HSC, SACE and other State equivalent tertiary entrance units have also been delivered.

Providers with RTO status have chosen to deliver a variety of introductory modules taken from accredited Training Packages. Short courses, delivered by RTOs or through TAFE, have also been popular. Units in Work Readiness, Workplace and Safety, Employment Skills, Occupational Health and Safety, First Aid, Food Handling, Art, Music, Multimedia, and Information Technology are among those frequently relied upon.

While the majority of providers have attempted to incorporate more or better accredited education and training as the project progressed, a few have reduced or modified their accredited education and training programme in favour of non-accredited training where they found the requirements beyond the capacity of their participants, and at least one provider has made no attempt to implement accredited education and training, and this may be due to the significant challenges this community faces on a number of fronts, of which the provision of education and training is only one aspect. Most providers have also relied upon a variety of non-accredited educational programmes, particularly in terms of life skills, employability skills and personal development issues, to support or underpin their project.

Knowledge of the requirements of the AQTF and the flexibility that the VET sector offers in terms of recognition of competencies have clearly made it easier for some projects to offer young people opportunities to engage in a range of accredited preparatory/foundation programmes available in the VET sector. The absence of this knowledge also created initial difficulties or slower starts for some projects, which did not fully understand the requirement to have their delivery and assessment auspiced.
The development of underpinning literacy and numeracy skills was a strong focus of the learning programmes of most POEM participants. Responses to improving literacy levels included using appropriate and individualised teaching curricula, and utilising appropriate teaching and assessment methods and resources. It was also recognised by project staff that enrolment procedures needed to be flexible enough to accommodate low literacy levels and, in some cases to engage specialist literacy and numeracy education service providers.

Because most students have had such poor prior experiences of learning, some projects used indirect education approaches to delivery; that is, they were engaging young people in activities that participants did not ‘classify’ as learning. Many projects were providing practical, hands on learning experiences for participants, as this was clearly the preferred learning style of many of the young people participating in POEM.

Most projects have achieved a degree of success in re-engaging young people in mainstream activities, although it is a lengthy and complex process, and requires both adequate preparation of the young person before exiting POEM, as well as support before, during and after the point of transition.

While the projects found that tracking was time consuming, they generally pursued a range of avenues to keep in touch with participants once they have moved on. Many young people choose to keep in touch, reflecting the relationships they had built with POEM staff and other participants.

As mentioned, 68.7 percent of young people who exited POEM did so to a planned destination that included 40 percent into mainstream education and training, 18.9 percent into employment including New Apprenticeships and 9.8 percent engaging with another programme to meet their immediate needs, such as CDEP, Job Network, JPET or rehabilitation. The important thing is all these young people continued to be connected, with many remaining in contact with POEM staff.

While 28 percent of participants withdrew from POEM without a clear destination, there is anecdotal evidence from interviews with providers that some participants return to POEM once they have dealt with pressing issues. The supportive environment provided by POEM, and the gains young people make while engaged within it, even for short periods of time, provide an opportunity for them to experience acceptance, and help to build the foundations of a learning pathway. As one provider explained, “it may take a few years for the learning to be ‘activated'.

Return to the top of the page

Action research

Implementation of action research varied from project to project, but included Action Learning Diaries (which were a reporting requirement of DEST), and both formal and informal action research processes. The action research model held universal appeal for pilot projects. In particular, providers felt that the model helped them to:

• revise the delivery of activities when they discovered they were not successful in engaging young people

• look at what had been achieved and how

• identify and change programme elements that needed improving in order to meet the needs of young people

• trial different methods and look at new approaches to servicing their participants

• redirect resources in a more productive way

• acknowledge what was not working without fear of reprisal

• identify and make contributions to ‘best practice’

• provide a mechanism for community members to contribute their expertise

• provide feedback to colleagues

• set new goals and

• set an example for young people about what a learning process can look like.

The essential element that seems to have held appeal for projects is that action research gave them ‘permission’; to explore and experiment, to try and fail, and to revise and improve.

All projects found DEST staff to be supportive, approachable and encouraging during the pilot phase. Providers consistently reported that DEST had enabled them to broaden the scope of their activities, to assist them to have a positive impact in their local communities, and to share their passion for assisting young people.

While the Share Space appeared to have limited appeal, the Action Learning Forums were seen to be wonderful opportunities to meet other providers from around the country, learn from them, and create a national network of like-minded providers who could ‘share the journey’ together.

Although some providers mentioned that they found the reporting requirements for the pilot phase quite arduous and time consuming, particularly those pilot projects running multiple projects, others stated that the reporting requirements motivated them to regularly apply the action research approach, which they found valuable.

Most projects clearly felt that they had been able to demonstrate the value of POEM to their communities during the pilot phase. POEM providers generally saw their projects as being cost-effective, despite the fact that they were relatively resource-intensive. Although data for a cost-benefit analysis for POEM is not available at this time, this sentiment is likely due to the fact that POEM can be viewed as providing a ‘preventive’ service, which therefore reduces the likelihood that young people who participate will end up needing extensive remedial services later in life. Interested readers may wish to peruse the National Crime Prevention report “Pathways to Prevention. Developmental and Early Intervention Approaches to Crime In Australia” (1999) for an analysis of the importance of education, and making smooth transitions, in preventing / reducing adverse outcomes in later life.

In some locations, the POEM project has attracted funding from other sources including State Governments, ensuring a degree of longer-term sustainability. The support of DEST has also helped communities to ‘lever’ funding and in-kind support at the local level. Most projects, however, considered that ongoing funding from the Australian Government would be needed for them to continue to provide a core community focal point for the delivery of education and training to those young people who need the supportive community learning environment.

POEM has proven to be a very positive influence in the lives hundreds of disconnected and vulnerable young people. For the majority of these young people, the key to engagement appears to be the opportunity to get back into education in ways and in settings in which they can cope. The more flexible learning environments support them to succeed, but education is a key attraction. In communities throughout Australia, the establishment of community partnerships, (of organisations and individuals with roles in youth support and education, and a passionate interest in the welfare of young people), has been a crucial factor in getting these parties to work effectively together to engage and support young people in learning. It has also facilitated successful transitions to further education, training and employment. The community partnership model utilized in POEM has had a clear and resounding impact on producing successful outcomes for young people.

Attracting multi-disciplinary staff with the ability to empathise with young people and meet their needs, and the use of participative adult learning principles (including flexible and self-paced delivery methods), are perhaps the single biggest factors to successfully engaging and maintaining the participation of young people. The flexible approaches and individualised learning plans POEM has been able to offer have also helped to retain and encourage young people along their learning pathways. New roles for teachers (as facilitators of learning) and for learners (in choosing and directing their own learning pathway) are being tested through many of the POEM projects.

• Other successful elements of the POEM Pilot include:

• engagement strategies which contribute to the participant gaining a degree of ‘ownership’ of the project. For example, the engagement strategies included team meetings to decide on ‘policy and procedures’; and discipline strategies which involved the young participants adopting a role in peer enforcement of the project’s ‘rules’;

• an appropriate staff blend of education expertise and youth work so that young people’s needs can be supported in both their learning and life experiences;

• the combined delivery of educational services and youth support services, which has been integral to the success of the service;

• dedicated project coordination; and

• curriculum individualised to participants’ needs and skill levels.

The POEM projects have clearly demonstrated success in re-engaging young people in further learning, work and community activities, however the time that it takes to re-engage young people on a learning pathway will vary from participant to participant. Many of the complex issues that POEM participants are dealing with will require ongoing management, and at times, support throughout their lives. Questions have been raised about the potential for some young people to ‘linger’ in the safe and supportive POEM environment. It is not surprising that some young people may find it difficult to move on from an environment where they are experiencing unfamiliar educational success and enjoying the support of caring human beings who are available and committed to their well-being. It is also likely that most young people will know when it is appropriate to move on. It is important, in our view, not to jump to conclusions about the time needed to achieve educational outcomes or to risk destroying one of the important flexibilities of the model. Allowing young people to determine their learning programme, and to complete it in a way that make them feel supported, competent and comfortable, is one of the key elements that has helped to achieve successful outcomes for POEM participants.

The primary target group of the POEM projects is those who are at greatest risk of social exclusion. In most cases, the participants share the characteristics of non-participation, isolation, and a perceived lack of opportunity and choice. In engaging these young people, the projects are working actively to prevent the debilitating effects of social exclusion and at the same time facilitating the development of the social competencies needed to get along with other people; to manage any interpersonal difficulties; refrain from harming themselves and others; and to engage with peers, their families and an increasingly complex world.

The POEM model can be conceptualised as a circuit breaker both in terms of individual lives and in terms of ongoing economic costs to society. It is demonstrating the capacity to break the circuits of educational failure and dysfunctional behaviour for those who have slipped through the holes in the various safety nets provided by families, schools and community service providers.

The POEM projects are also addressing the important national, and indeed international policy objective of lifelong learning. With the advent of the knowledge economy, the population’s embrace of lifelong learning is increasingly critical to the positive progress of our society.

There are also considerable risks and uncertainties associated with the knowledge-based society, as it threatens to bring about greater inequalities and social exclusion. The seeds of inequality start early in life with participation in initial education a key factor. People without basic levels of education face a higher risk of marginalisation. Higher levels of education and continuous learning, when accessible to all, make an important contribution to reducing inequalities and preventing marginalisation.

The importance of providing open and flexible education and training options at the local level in order to bring learning and (potential) learners together is becoming increasingly apparent. Providing and recognising learning that happens in settings such as the workplace and other community and social settings is also critical to engaging as many people as possible on a lifelong learning pathway.

The POEM projects are attempting to re-build an educational foundation for the most disconnected of Australia’s young people as the critical prerequisite for lifelong learning. As our education system evolves in response to the demands of lifelong learning and the emerging theory of prevention science, we could expect our schools to more adequately meet the diverse needs of learners. However, there is always likely to be a small minority for whom the intimacy and independence of the POEM setting is needed.

As POEM was a pilot project, a specific code on Centrelink’s system for POEM participants was not generated; rather, local relationships between Centrelink and POEM providers were encouraged, and groundwork was laid at the beginning of the pilot phase between DEST, FACS and Centrelink to ensure that POEM activity was recognised. However, a number of projects reported difficulties including young people being ‘breached’ and having their benefits suspended. Providers found ways around problems by engaging a key person in Centrelink to help them, but this is clearly not a sustainable option. Further, when the ‘key person’ is busy or absent, problems cannot be solved in a timely way. As most POEM participants and most disconnected young people generally, receive some form of financial support from Centrelink, more permanent ways of addressing these issues need to be found; to date, some POEM projects are still struggling with this barrier, and have found these problems particularly time consuming to address.

As a result of providers reporting difficulties, DEST and Centrelink have implemented a communication strategy with the Centrelink service network which reiterates the status of POEMs as an approved activity in its own right.

Concerns about legal duty of care were raised at the Action Learning Forums. While this concept is frequently used in discussion, all staff were in consensus that it was not possible to find out exactly what this duty of care was, or what was and was not acceptable under duty of care rules.

Working with students under 15 years of age presented some challenges for some projects, particularly those that enrolled their participants in TAFE courses or were closely aligned to TAFE, both in terms of duty of care responsibilities and in terms of their ineligibility to enrol in preparatory VET programmes.

It is our view that the POEM Pilot is strengthening the resilience and building the capacity of a very vulnerable, troubled cohort of young people who, for a range of reasons, have disconnected from important social institutions such as family, schools and communities.

• Its strength lies in the flexible design and delivery of educational programmes, as well as the joined-up nature of their service provision that encompasses educational, health, justice, housing, social security, drug and mental health services. In an ideal world, the ongoing funding of the projects should be a shared responsibility of these central agencies. However, as yet central agencies are only in part joining forces to facilitate these links and the actual working out of these issues is largely left to local service providers who must still deal with:

• the pressures of short term funding of programmes where the focus is often on innovation and pilot programmes rather than the development of longer term sustainable services;

• the pressures of competitive tendering; and

• jurisdictional issues between the Commonwealth and the States.

Despite these concerns, it is clear from the pilot phase that funding from the Commonwealth has provided an opportunity for projects to leverage additional funding and resources from an array of sectors and agencies in support of the young people they serve. A pilot such as POEM is designed to ‘test the water’; to find unique and effective ways to deliver much needed services to groups of young people who desperately need them. It is hoped that as POEM has demonstrated the effectiveness of the community partnership model, and the groundwork has been laid for communities to work towards this form of service delivery, POEM may continue in the future. However, it may also require a continued leadership role from the Commonwealth, at least in the short term, to maintain the momentum and impetus needed to ensure that sustainable partnerships at the local level are achieved.

The increasing focus on prevention science to diminish the risks of mental health problems, substance abuse, violence, suicide, and crime, involves a greater appreciation of the value and necessity of cross-sectoral collaboration, especially between the health, education and community sectors. POEM has a specific educational objective and it cannot be the answer in isolation, however it is clearly making a beneficial contribution towards creating a brighter future for the young people it serves. This is being achieved by enhancing protective factors, (of which improved education levels is an important facet), and by reducing risk factors through facilitating more joined-up services.

The risk and protective factors model of Catalano and Hawkins (outlined in the Underlying Causes section of this report) provides a useful guide for directing future interventions towards communities where levels of risk are high and levels of protection are low. This will demand new funding models, however this is not seen as an immediate strategy that will sustain the Partnership Outreach Education Model for disconnected youth beyond the life of the projects.

The evaluation team believes the POEM projects have in the main been highly successful, with the support of community partners, in re-engaging disconnected young people in education, enhancing social and life skills, and in preparing them for positive post POEM pathways. We believe that there will always be a role for the very flexible programmes and more intimate settings of POEM in meeting the needs of the most severely disconnected young people. Accordingly, the provision of ongoing funding for POEM-like models is supported; but we also envisage a more comprehensive coverage of the nation by the POEM model, based on partnerships in funding and recognition of areas of greater need.

The POEM projects are providing learning opportunities that enable disconnected young people to gain recognised qualifications in alternative, youth-friendly settings. A proportion of what the POEM projects do falls within traditional areas of VET/TAFE delivery, such as foundation courses, bridging and access programmes, and literacy and numeracy programmes. However POEM also provides a fresh approach to delivery, and enhances outcomes by giving young people opportunities to develop life skills and social skills.

We believe that, as a society, we will never achieve the participation targets that have been set by the Commonwealth, and the States and Territories (and certainly not universal participation in Year 12 or equivalent), unless there is a continuum of provision that includes the POEM model for those who learn and grow best in supportive community-based learning environments. Clearly, too, the POEM model has demonstrated the effectiveness of community partnerships in providing appropriate services to young people at the local level. POEM has managed to harness significant resources, goodwill and collaboration between networks of local providers, and has helped to build capacity at the local level. If provision is made for the POEM projects to continue with this work, over time it is likely that greater local ownership of the initiative will develop, as stakeholders continue to reap mutual benefits and find more formal and permanent ways to link their services to each other, as well as to expand their networks. Given the range of partners and stakeholders from the Australian and State Governments and community sector, any continuing or future application of the POEM model will need to give consideration to the badging of the POEM name.

For further information:

• POEM Projects
• connections@dest.gov.au