Evaluation of the 'You First' Programme for Young Parents

4 HOW CAN THE DELIVERY OF THE PROGRAMME BE IMPROVED?

4.1 A description of the structure of You First sessions is provided in section 1.11.

Programme content

4.2 The person-centred nature of You First meant that the content was shaped by the parents. In the main, they were happy with the topics covered because they were able to choose what was included from four predefined areas: health and well-being; finances; stages of development and a personal project (for a full list of topics in each area, please see Appendix 5). Individuals' choices were collated to identify the subjects that were most popular in the group, overall. In general, this did not cause any problems as there tended to be a lot of agreement on which topics parents wanted to cover (both within and across groups). There were some specific instances when parents were not enthusiastic about undertaking certain activities at You First, mainly in the parent and baby sessions. Examples include feeling uncomfortable about singing in front of the group, feeling that their baby did not benefit from the baby massage and not wanting to go out to the park when planned. However, parents did not view these things as significant problems and, overall, were still happy with the content of the programme.

Learning and delivery methods

4.3 The facilitators used a variety of methods to deliver the topics and have revised the way in which topics are delivered throughout the three pilot phases to try to make them as engaging for parents as possible. While parents' favourite topics were determined by individual preferences, two main themes emerged. Firstly, they did not enjoy sessions that involved a great deal of paperwork. Secondly, the most popular sessions were those in which parents had some form of practical input. For instance, in Phase 1 of the programme the baby first aid sessions consisted of a health visitor talking the parents through different healthcare scenarios (e.g. choking, a bump to the head etc.) and what they should do in those situations. While a number of parents found this useful, others were disappointed that there was no practical aspect to the session. In the subsequent phases, facilitators addressed this by inviting staff from St. John's Ambulance Service to deliver the session instead. This gave parents the opportunity to try out CPR and other practical emergency health care skills, which proved to be extremely popular.

4.4 The influence of delivery methods can also be exemplified through the development of the budgeting sessions. These sessions have posed a particular problem for facilitators as it is an area that the parents do not easily engage with. As previously mentioned, parents did not always find devising a budget plan useful and did not tend to follow it. However, they did pick up some of the more practical hints and tips related to budgeting (see section 3.37 for more details). The facilitators have therefore tried to focus on practical ways of delivering budgeting messages. For instance, in one exercise they gave parents a catalogue and a budget of £1,000 to decorate a living room. The facilitators felt that this was beneficial as it was fun for the parents, but also helped them to develop the skills required to follow a predetermined budget. They have also looked to other organisations to source stimulating resources for the budgeting sessions such as Skint!, a money management resource developed by the Scottish Book Trust. Another possibility for improving the budgeting session would be to give parents responsibility over the budget for lunchtimes or, alternatively, a You First group event such as a party or outing. This would benefit parents as it not only moves budgeting messages from the hypothetical to practical, but also involves activities that they will have to budget for as their child gets older.

4.5 Parents generally enjoyed the topics delivered by both the facilitators and external speakers. When an external speaker came to the group they reported that they liked seeing a different face, speaking to someone with expert knowledge and having the opportunity to develop new contacts. While the facilitators were also positive about the input of external contributors, they did have reservations with a small number of the speakers. They felt some did not possess the necessary group work skills to engage with the parents effectively. Although rare, there were also instances of external speakers not following up on offers of assistance or appointments with parents. This suggests that it is beneficial to have other professionals deliver topics to the groups but it is important to ensure that enough guidance is provided to them in advance about what works well in the group and the best way to interact with the parents.

Programme facilitators

4.6 Overall, parents were positive about the facilitators. The characteristics that they valued were that they were friendly, easy to talk to, non-judgemental and knowledgeable. If a parent had a problem, they reported that the facilitators would provide advice and direct them, if necessary, to the correct services. One of the most important aspects for the parents was the consistency of the support they received from the facilitators. This was not only down to the fact that they had the same facilitators every week, but also their sustained interest in parents' lives and availability if parents wanted to talk to them.

4.7 In Phase 1, there had been a feeling among parents that they were being told what to do in certain situations, particularly when it came to feeding their baby. In response, the facilitators made it clear to parents that they would, on occasion, offer them advice but it was their choice whether or not to take it. In Phases 2 and 3, this was not raised as an issue as the facilitators reiterated the message throughout the programme that their advice was optional and took a more sensitive approach to offering guidance.

4.8 Professionals felt that there was no particular professional background that would be best suited to delivering the You First programme and that an individual's culture of working was more important than their particular experience. However, most professionals highlighted that good group work skills were essential and that knowledge of the early years sector and childcare skills would be desirable.

4.9 A member of the You First management felt that as the facilitators work for a voluntary organisation they had a particular emphasis on creating a supportive atmosphere. This helped the parents work things out for themselves rather than prescribing the 'right' way to do something. It also meant that as a non-statutory organisation the parents form a less formal relationship with the facilitators. While parents did not specifically comment on this distinction, as discussed above, they were very positive about their relationships with the facilitators.

Facilitator training

4.10 At the start of the programme there was no formal facilitator training in place. As the programme was newly developed, it was not clear at that stage what training would be required. Therefore, staff were selected on the basis of their skills and experience in working with young people in a group setting and knowledge of the early years sector. Facilitators who joined the You First team once the pilot had commenced shadowed existing facilitators before taking a group. As previously noted, parents spoke positively about facilitators and thought that they had the right knowledge and skills. On occasions where the facilitators wished to incorporate additional content they were not familiar with, they attended any necessary training courses. One such example is the Skint! money management course developed by the Scottish Book Trust.

4.11 Now that the pilot has ended, and You First will continue through funding from the Inspiring Scotland Fund, formal training processes have been put in place. A two day training pack has been developed with the addition of observation of an existing group incorporated where possible.

The best point in their baby's development for parents to attend the programme

4.12 Parents could attend You First if their baby was aged up to one year. Overall, parents were happy with the timing of You First in relation to the age of their baby. Those with younger babies liked having the opportunity to see what they could expect in the future and felt that seeing older babies helped their child 'come along' (as discussed in section 3.3). Those with older babies were able to give advice to the other parents which gave them a sense of confidence in their parenting skills.

4.13 The Health Visitors would have liked there to be a little more flexibility in the age range as they had parents they felt could have benefited from You First but their babies were slightly too old. However, facilitators felt that, in practice, it would be difficult to provide activities suitable for a wider age range in the parent and baby sessions.

Programme structure

4.14 The group part of You First comprised 16 weekly sessions. In Phase 1, several parents suggested that it would be better for You First to run twice a week, perhaps for a fewer number of weeks. They felt that it would allow parents to get to know each other more quickly and that they would better remember what they did in the last session, cutting down on the time spent at the start of the day recapping on what they had learnt previously. Other parents did not agree and felt that, in the initial stages, two sessions per week would feel like too great a commitment. In addition, they thought if they needed to take time off (for example, to go on holiday), they would miss a much greater proportion of the sessions. This was explored further in Phases 2 and 3 and, on balance, parents were happy with the current structure.

4.15 While no problems emerged in relation to the initial home visit, the final home visit seemed to be working less well. Parents did not understand what the purpose of this visit was and many did not remember completing an action plan. In Phase 3, measures were taken to try and increase awareness of the plan; the name was changed to 'Next Steps' to make it sound less formal and a prepared sheet with You First branding was used as opposed to plain paper. However, the parents in Phase 3 seemed no more aware of the 'Next Steps' document than parents in Phases 1 and 2. The main reason for this seems to be that parents perceive the final home visit to mainly involve completing paperwork (a self assessment form, the evaluation questionnaire, the action plan and any remaining paperwork for the Youth Achievement Award). They found this amount of paperwork onerous and had difficulty distinguishing between the different forms they completed.

Session structure

4.16 While some of the parents enjoyed the parent and baby session, others reported that the afternoon felt too long and 'dragged'. Parents also felt that, because their babies were more likely to sleep in the afternoon than the morning, they were not getting the most out of the time that was meant for interacting with their babies. When the evaluation team fed back this emerging finding, the facilitators were aware that some parents felt they were not getting as much as they could from the afternoon sessions and, in discussion with the evaluation team, it was agreed that it would be beneficial to swap the morning and the afternoon sessions in one of the Phase 3 pilots to see what impact this would have. In Phase 3, the parents tended to favour whatever structure was in place in the group that they attended (whether the crèche was in the morning or afternoon) and there was no clear indication of which was better. Facilitators had a stronger opinion on the issue, feeling that the session worked much better with the crèche in the afternoon. While they plan to use this structure in the future where possible, in some venues this would raise some practical issues in terms of the availability of crèche workers as it overlaps with after school clubs at which they also work.

4.17 There were also parents who felt that the day was too long overall. They thought that the day could be shortened by half an hour without a great deal of impact on the programme. However, there were those who felt that this was not the case and that the day passed quickly. Again, facilitators were aware of this and it was decided that, in two of the Phase 3 programmes, the day would be shortened by half an hour to see what difference this would make. Across all Phase 3 programmes, parents tended not to have strong views about the length of the day; they were happy whether they had a longer or shorter day. The facilitators shared this view and had not seen any differences between the groups due to the length of the day. It is clear that the parents in Phase 3 who attended the shorter sessions were happy with the day length. However, those who felt that the day was too long in the previous phases mainly mentioned this issue in relation to the parent and baby sessions. When considering the impact of the shortened day, it must be borne in mind that improvements made to the parent and baby sessions (more outings and activities) may also have influenced perceptions of the length of the day.

4.18 Parents tended to think that the size of their group was good. However, in groups where the number of parents was particularly low, those who attended felt that the sessions suffered as a result. Facilitators felt that in a session led by two facilitators the ideal number of parents was eight or nine and that in a session led by one facilitator the ideal would be five or six.

Programme facilities and equipment

4.19 On the whole, parents were happy with the venues that were provided. However, in certain pilots there were some concerns about the temperature of the venue or whether the room that they spent time in with their children was suitable for babies. Parents generally reported that they found the venues easy to get to. However, in one programme, one parent had difficulty getting to the group without a taxi. The £5 travel expenses provided did not cover the cost and, consequently, the parent could not attend the group. While accessibility has rarely been an issue in the three pilot phases, it must be borne in mind that they have been situated in semi-urban areas and that if the programme runs in more rural areas it may require further consideration.

4.20 In Phase 1, parents felt that it would be useful if You First could provide high chairs for the babies to sit in at lunch time. This was addressed and in Phases 2 and 3 parents were generally satisfied with the equipment/facilities available at lunchtimes. The exception to this was a particular venue that did not allow the You First group to use the kitchen to make their lunch (although they were able to do a session on cooking skills). In this venue there was a cafeteria but the parents felt the food provided was not of a high standard. As a result, the facilitators began to bring in cold food (e.g. sandwiches and baguettes) that the parents could eat in their room in the venue. Parents were satisfied with this solution.

4.21 Again, overall, parents were positive about the crèche facilities. However, there were one or two specific problems in a number of the venues. One issue was the position of the crèche in relation to the room in which the parents were located. When the rooms were close together, the parents could hear their babies crying in the crèche and found it hard to concentrate. The You First team are aware of this issue and, in any future groups, plan to ensure that the crèche is a sufficient distance from the room in which the parents are working. The other problem that arose was parents' concerns that the crèche workers were not fulfilling their duties properly. There were reported instances of babies not being fed when requested and that babies came back from the crèche with soiled nappies. The facilitators addressed this issue by talking to the crèche providers and it was felt that this was successfully resolved. Facilitators used this as an opportunity to try and demonstrate how to resolve a difficult situation. It may be beneficial to take this one step further and allow parents, with proper guidance, to handle the situation themselves.

Support provided to parents between sessions

4.22 The main source of support for parents between sessions was the phone call or text reminder they received from facilitators the evening before their group session. The predominant view was that this was a practical measure for the facilitators to confirm numbers for the group and take lunch requests. However, it was also felt that this contact showed that the facilitators cared about what was happening to the parents outside of the group and that they attended. In addition to the reminders, parents had the facilitators' phone numbers and felt that, if they needed to, they could call them to discuss any problems they were having outside of the group sessions. Although parents didn't tend to contact facilitators between sessions, they appreciated the fact that they could. Whether parents felt that the contact they had with the facilitators between sessions was practical or emotional, the continuity of the contact was viewed positively. Communicating with parents via their mobile phones was successful at You First because all parents had mobile phones. This might not always be the case in future.

4.23 The idea of facilitators expanding the use of text reminders was explored in the follow up parent interviews. There was support for texts reminders of when other groups were running (e.g. Jo Jingles) but less so for text reminders to do things like reading a bedtime story as it was felt that this encroached too far into the parents' personal lives.