Publication - Research and analysis
An Evaluation of the Personal Development Partnership
This report reviews the management and outcomes from the Personal Development Partnership programme.
Appendix 3: Criteria for Success Assessment
This Appendix reviews the criteria for success as at 23rd November 2012. This revisits different stakeholder's criteria for success for PDP from the start of the project to assess the extent to which they have been achieved.
Criteria for Success: (A) in relation to Young People
| Common Core Criteria | Criteria Met: Yes, No Partial | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Numbers of young people being referred to PDP | YES (Yes) YES | Referrals have increased from one six month period to another at each Hub and the project overall Over 500 yp now from a variety of sources and a notable number of self-referrals |
| Completing partner courses | YES (Yes) YES | Just over half of young people have completed a partner course Has improved since then |
| Positive Journeys (more than one partner) | PARTIAL (Partial) YES | 35 (12%) young people have been on a PDP Partner Journey By end Sept 2012 an additional 40 yp have been on positive journeys |
| Reaching positive destinations | PARTIAL (Partial) YES | 31 (11%) have reached a positive destination Within this, 12 (4%) Scottish Power Power Skills course Jan 2012) Latest figures show substantial increase with over 70 additional yp reaching positive destinations |
| Access to the PDP | YES/PARTIAL (Yes/Partial) YES/PARTIAL | For the project as a whole but in one Hub referral agents have noted a difficulty: this may be related to the overall case-load Yes for the project overall but the one Hub mentioned before, has had to pull-back temporarily but they have been sign posting to other services and contact is not lost |
| Independence of the PDP | PARTIAL/NO (Partial) YES | Improving but still identified with partner agency that hosts Now majority of people talk about PDP instead of constantly referring to host organisation |
(B) The Partnership Level
| (B) The Partnership LevelCommon Core Criteria | Criteria Met: Yes, No Partial | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Learning re PDP Partner Organisations | YES (Yes) YES | The development of the project has required partners to share detailed information on each other's strategic and operational levels. The final interviews demonstrate this and the new 'management' structure is evidence of 'learning into practice' |
| Learning re Own Organisation | YES (Partial) YES/PARTIAL | Eg doing presentations at UK senior management level; the development of new courses to meet gaps in PDP provision It's been a reality check to experience what can really be achieved within national structures and how national structures impinge on developments such as PDP. There will always be natural limits on how far things can go |
| Establishing Partnership Working | YES/PARTIAL (Partial/No) YES | Yes within PDP; Partial re external agencies: partnership working with the local authorities varies from Hub to Hub; partnership working with Business is just starting Within PDP this has strengthened through the new structures; there is now a wider use of external agencies like Cashback partners and others to provide additional opportunities for young people (30 yp thus far) |
| Building Relationships with Local Authorities | PARTIAL/YES (Partial/Yes) YES/PARTIAL | Partial re the lack of communication on recent PDP changes did not go down well; yes with development of fourth Hub The Hubs have provided a focus for dealings at a local level and a better sense of who PDP should work with and who to set-aside. But, more needs done re LAs to really embed PDP as critical within local service environments: ie make yourselves useful more widely to the key players in LAs. Establish as part of local pipeline |
| PDA/PDC making the most of the Partnership | PARTIAL (No) YES/PARTIAL | Improving at ground level but there are still areas that require clarity eg case working Joint case working between PDAs and partner staff has improved but should always be monitored especially when staff on either side change. What has helped is the PDAs have a focal point in the Development Manager get more out of the partnership and the partners responding to needs at ground level re courses etc. But, what can be delivered is still contingent on individual partner systems and can be somewhat slow in emerging even if that's deemed fast in these partner systems! |
| Operational: setting up and working | PARTIAL (Partial) YES/PARTIAL | Slow to react to the need for changes in the operating structure; key aspects not pushed eg database The database has been delivered, and working and producing the type of data and depth need to evidence the project. The second updated version is due Jan 2013; The financial reporting and executing side has improved and admin is now available in the Hubs. BUT you still need an overarching and robust information strategy especially on analysis and how you maximise the potential of the information to strengthen your local position. |
| Future Partnership Working | PARTIAL (No) YES | Development Workshops have laid the foundations for partnership working in other arenas The groups - not least on external partnerships - are working and much has progressed in recent months. Seems the learning from SP has been considered. |
(C) Project Level
| Common Core Criteria | Criteria Met: Yes, No Partial | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Establish the Role of the PDA and PDC (Development Manager) | NO/PARTIAL (Partial) YES | The PDC role did not sustain in the face of the development needs of PDP; the role of the PDA has operated slightly differently in each Hub and there is still a need for clarity where it mirrors partners own staff The Development Manager role has been further clarified since January and thus far teething issues sorted between Hub Leads and that role. The admin support now going into the PDAs at each Hub should relieve some of the pressure in the post. |
| Having the right operational set-up | PARTIAL (Partial) YES | As the project grew, the lack of robust information systems began to impact on PDAs and partners alike; some procedures eg assessment lacked coherence across the Hubs; a growing administrative element including responding to evaluation request for information as well as a growing case-load put pressure on the PDAs A lot has changed over this year whereby there are clear Hub structures; now more PDAs in the Hubs and, by use of volunteers, support to the database information input. The appointment of a volunteer administrator in Glasgow will be of considerable benefit to the Development Manager |
| Build Influence at the Frontline | YES (Partial) YES | The PDAs are now being invited to take part in other services case conferences; PDP is working alongside other services (partner and non partner) to close service gaps Interviews and recent reports demonstrate this is happening. People want to work with you and in some areas projects see you as a useful follow-on. |
| Sustainability | NO (Partial) YES/NO | Awaiting funding decisions this year; building useful reputations among other non-partner services; are all the eggs in one basket? YES in that the building bricks are in place now and operational and delivering outcomes. NO because there does not seem to be a fall-back position as far as we can see if your main funder pulls out! |
Contact
Email: Ban Cavanagh
There is a problem
Thanks for your feedback