Annual Monitoring of Youth and Community Work Programmes

Professionally Validated by the National Youth Agency 2012/2013

2

© National Youth Agency, June 2014 The NYA carries out a wide-ranging programme of work on behalf of the Local Government Group to support councils in their work with young people. Eastgate House 19-23 Humberstone Road Leicester LE5 3GJ. Email: nya@nya.org.uk Website: www.nya.org.uk Tel: 0116 242 7350

Section Content

Page

1 Background

3

2 Methodology

5

3 Response rate

6

4 Analysis of data 9 4.1 Fieldwork placements 9 4.2 Recruitment and students numbers 10 4.3 New student intake – gender 11 4.4 New student intake – age 12 4.5 New student intake – ethnicity 13 4.6 New student intake – disability 14 4.7 New student intake – qualifications at entry for undergraduate

programmes 15

4.8 Retention and completion 16 4.9 Attendance 19

4.10 Destination of graduates 20 4.11

4.12 Quality assurance and qualitative evidence View on areas of development, overall progress and challenges to the sector

21 21

5 Moderation visits

22

6 Issues to be addressed by the ETS committee and through validation working groups as a result of the annual monitoring 2010/11

24

Appendix A – Extract from moderation visit guidance: Format and categories for visits

26

Appendix B – Ethnic origin categories 31

3

1.0 Background

This report contains the findings of the annual review of professionally validated programmes 2012/13 pro forma, for both undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. The National Youth Agency’s (NYA) ‘Professional Validation: Guidance and Requirements’ document sets out the Requirements and the Process for the Professional Validation of Higher Education programmes which are recognised by the Joint Negotiating Committee (JNC) as conferring professionally qualified status for Youth Workers in England. The NYA’s Annual Monitoring Process is detailed on pages 21 and 22 of the aforementioned document. Discussions by the Education Training Standards Committee (ETS) around the processes for all aspects of validation concluded that the approach to validations is very robust. The ETS committee concluded that the approach should be protected to ensure that the model of a working group continues to offer a wide range of skills and knowledge to consider all aspects of programmes. This leads to a secure judgement of programmes and development areas and a trust that the programmes validated can operate in accordance with requirements in the period between scheduled validations. The process continues to request statistical data and some qualitative information, captured by an enhanced pro forma. This is now housed online, reducing the need for paper copies to be sent and to allow for automated statistical collation. The data is valuable information which informs this annual monitoring report. The pro forma provides statistical information that may flag concerns to the NYA (drop out levels, poor recruitment, staffing levels etc.) and the NYA contacts programmes to follow up any concerns. NYA operates a moderation process alongside this, visiting three programmes per year, using a stratified sampling process to reflect different localities/regions, types of institution and programmes. The process is managed to ensure programmes only receive one moderation visit every ten years, unless the NYA has cause for concern based on analysis of the statistical data returned. Moderation visits for the annual monitoring process are separate to the required re-validation event, but will not take place immediately before or after a full validation event. The process retains the option of implementing a formal investigative procedure that may result in withdrawal of professionally validated status. Participation in the annual monitoring process is a requirement for the continuing professional validated status of a programme.

The sponsor has the main responsibility for the monitoring and quality assurance of the programme. The NYA monitors programmes in order to retain a view on whether

4

programmes continue to operate in accordance with the requirements of professional validation. The objectives of the annual monitoring are:

to ensure that the programme is operating in accordance with the criteria for professional validation;

to alert the Education and Training Standards (ETS) Committee to overall patterns and trends in education and training.

5

2.0 Methodology

As detailed in the previous section, institutions are required to complete the online ‘NYA Annual Monitoring pro forma for each programme that is validated by the NYA. The following quantitative and qualitative information is required:

data on admission, progression and completion and the demographic profile of student numbers;

data on staffing levels, placements and supervisors;

confirmation of quality assurance within the programme with main strengths and development areas highlighted.

Similarly to the previous year, the ‘Confirmit’ system was used for data collection. Management of the data collection tool was provided by the Local Government Association and management of the monitoring process was provided by NYA. The collection of quantitative data is not perfect. Not all information is recorded for all students in a consistent way across programmes. This means that there are different totals for data on different categories – for example – the gender ratios do not match the recruitment totals. To ensure that analysis is as robust as possible, calculations are based on those who answered a particular question. This has always been the case but is highlighted here in the methodology as some caution is needed, particularly around trends over time. On the whole, percentages are quoted in the report as they are more useful than absolute numbers. The intention is to work with Higher Education Institutes to improve the consistency of data collected across HEI’s for future reporting. Three moderation visits are scheduled to take place around May each year, conducted by an NYA officer/associate. Programmes are provided with guidance of the rationale and expectations for the moderation visits and asked to submit copies of the latest programme review documentation and external examiner reports one week prior to the visit day. This along with the current statistical pro forma allows the officer to consider provision in line with the annual monitoring criteria (as used in the previous analysis of submissions) and highlight lines of enquiry. The agenda and criteria are included for information in appendix A. All visits took place between June and October 2014 for the Annual Monitoring period 2012/13. An overview of the visit findings are contained in section 6 of this report.

6

3.0 Response rate 2012/13

Pro-formas were disseminated to 39 institutions offering 57 programmes, with a request for completed forms to be returned by January 2014. There were some late- and non-respondents for a variety of reasons, which have not been included in this analysis. Programmes closing were not included in the online data submissions (or the analysis described in this report) as they do not fit within the same reporting structure. Figure 1, below, shows the number of HEIs and validated programmes. The number of HEIs has remained static; however, the number of programmes offered in England has increased by 1. Figure 1: Numbers of programmes and HEIs

A total of 50 submissions were received from 37 HEIs, which gives a response rate of 95% of HEI’s and 88% of programmes. In terms of level of programme response rate, 92% of undergraduate programmes responded and 81% of postgraduate programmes. As mentioned previously, many submissions contained incomplete data, however all relevant data provided has been included in the analysis. The nature of the Open University data distorts the overall picture of programmes and as such is excluded from the analysis reported here. From here on, data from 49 programmes has been considered throughout the report.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

HEIs

Number of validatedprogrammes

7

Figure 2, below, shows the number of programmes by qualification. The charts below indicate a slight increase in the number of validated BA (Hons) to 36 programmes. Postgraduate programmes have remained static, which again brings its total this year to 21 programmes. Figure 2: Number of programmes by qualification

Regional analysis of HEIs has been included here to allow a picture to be presented of the location of new students. Continued analysis of this data in future years will allow a monitoring of the impact of programme closures and the market analysis for new programmes considering professional validation. There appears to be a stabalisation of programmes nationally, after last years reductions however London and Eastern regions has shown marked reductionss. The multiple-charts shown in Figure 3 provide an overview of the comparative share of students by region. Despite a decrease of -10%, the London region continues to have the largest share of students with 23% of the national share. Yorkshire and Humberside remains the second largest for three years running, accounting for 21% of the national share. The share of students in the East (1%), North East (4%) and West Midlands (4%) remain the regions with lowest share of students.

05

10152025303540

BA (Hons)

0

5

10

15

20

25

PG cert/ Dip/ MA

8

Figure 3: Percentage share of students by region

Figure 4 below shows the regional breakdown of programmes. This shows a slightly different profile due to the fact that different programmes have different numbers of students on them. Figure 4: Percentage share of programmes by region

0

5

10

15

20

25

9

Consistent with 2011/12 data, Greater London has the highest number of programmes running. Similar to last year, the second highest region is Yorkshire and Humberside, followed by the North West. The Eastern region has the lowest programmes by region. Figures on regions must be treated with caution as some programmes do allow distance learning students that recruit outside their region. In contrast to last year, differences in regional breakdowns have varied. The highest increase was the North West, increasing by 6%. At the lower end, Greater London and Yorkshire and Humberside, both have a -2% decrease.

4.0 Analysis of data 4.1 Fieldwork Placements

The average number of placements and fieldwork supervisors within programmes recorded for the last five years is shown in figure 5, below:

Figure 5: Numbers of placements and supervisors

2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

Placements 45 37 43 45 42 Supervisors 42 36 43 43 38

The average number of placements has dropped for the first time since 2009/10. These figures show that the number of placements has fallen by 3 and the number of supervisors has dropped by 5. The reduction of placements/ supervisors is proportionate to the reduced number of students. Higher Education Institutes have reported challenges in identifying JNC placement supervisors and placements specific to JNC professional formation. Figure 6 (below) shows the average percentage of supervisors with JNC qualifications. Figures have risen by 8% to 74% in the percentage of supervisors who are JNC qualified.

10

Figure 6: Average percentage of supervisors with JNC qualifications

Whilst 100% JNC qualified supervisors is still the aim, some flexibility around this is now incorporated into the system. Some programmes report that they allow students to undertake ‘limited’ optional modules from other departments, but are taught by staff who are ‘appropriately qualified in their particular field […] so they offer a different approach to the students’. This was felt to benefit students by providing a broader learning experience of the sectors work. Such examples noted are from Theology, Education and Law backgrounds. For these reasons, it is therefore important to note that lower reported figures surrounding number of JNC qualified staff may not be a true reflection on the quality of programmes.

For those programmes which have lower numbers of JNC qualified staff, various external lecturers and associates are used. A number of respondents note the use of internal lecturers from different departments, associate lecturers, visiting lecturers and former JNC qualified students. Several Universities indicated payment of JNC mentor in addition to placement supervisor to ensure professional formation from an appropriate JNC worker. This has helped programmes ensure a good level of JNC level input onto programmes.

4.2 Recruitment and student numbers

The target total for student recruitment onto professionally validated programmes was 824 and actual recruitment was 728. As figure 7 below shows, this represents a 6 year low in both target and actual recruitment figures. Despite this, 88% of the percentage target was achieved.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

11

Figure 7: Recruitment to programmes (student numbers)

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Actual 1380 1470 1277 1135 951 825 728

Target 1398 1509 1214 1152 1013 1037 824 % of target achieved 99% 97% 105% 99% 94% 80% 88%

Of these programmes, 27% exceeded their target and 7% met the target. Of the remaining programmes, 66% achieved lower than their targets, only 7% achieved 80% or more of their targets and 10% reached 90% or more of their targets.

Figure 7b shows a comparison between targets for both 2012 and 2013. In comparison to the previous year, these figures represent a slight fall in those who achieved and met targets; however, there is a 3% rise in those achieving more than 90% of targets.

Figure 7b: Percentage differences in target variation

The moderation visits and anecdotal evidence from Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) highlighted challenges for recruitment for HEI’s some included:

Recruitment and retention of experienced practitioners

Employment opportunities within the sector has altered influencing recruitment routes and employment possibilities post qualification

A reduction in services related to public sector cuts

Introduction of tuition fees for Youth Work

4.3 New student intake – gender

The gender profile of new students – shown in Figure 8 below – continues the trend of a higher proportion of female students than male. Similar to previous years, the trend remains consistent, with roughly two-thirds female and one third male.

2011 2012 2013 % difference

Exceeded 33% 28% 27% -1%

Met 18% 11% 7% -4%

90% + Achieved 18% 7% 10% 3%

12

In 2012/13, the proportion of male entrants onto programmes remained very similar to 2011/12, with 33% of new student’s male and 67% female. Of those who completed gender questions, three programmes reversed the gender profile, with an average of 8 male students more. Some programmes have acknowledged the gender imbalance and have expressed their desire to recruit young men. Figure 8: Percentage of new students by gender

4.4 New student intake – age range1

Figure 9 shows the age profile of new entrants to youth work programmes by age group over the last ten years. Compared to last year, average age profiles have decreased and figures are now consistent with the ‘typical’ age profile of youth work programmes. Figures of those aged under 21 years old at the start of study has increased by 9%. In contrast, there has been a decline in those aged above 21 years, with a -1% decline in those aged between 21-24; -5% decrease in those aged between 25-29; -3% decrease in 30-34 year olds and a -1% decrease in those aged 34 and above.

Figure 9: Percentage of new students by age

1 Readers are reminded here that the submission from the Open University (OU) has been excluded from the analysis as the large number of students from one institution with a distinctly different business model skews the overall picture.

13

Further comments on the average age of new students acknowledges the shift In age profiles, as Respondent 1 (2014) states, ‘the student cohort seems to be getting younger - we used to have a much higher proportion of students over 30 and 40’. Others also acknowledge the impact on student fees and financing. As one programme reports, ‘the reduction in the age of new students reflects the national statistics about the effects of increased fees on numbers of mature students’ (Respondent 1, 2014). HEI’s have reported the need to amend first year modules to provide basic youth work theory to reflect the age and experience of the recruited cohort.

4.5 New student intake – ethnicity

Data about ethnicity is collected in accordance with the categories recommended by the Commission for Racial Equality, based on the Census. Information is requested under sixteen categories of ethnic origin which can be summarised into five main groupings. The full list of sixteen categories is included as Appendix B and the data is summarised under the five broad groupings in Figure 10, below. Information on ethnicity was received for 717 new students. With regards to ethnicity there has been very little change from the previous year. The largest category of ‘white2’ increased by 1% this year, accounting for 64% of new students. There was also a slight increase in the third largest category (‘Asian’ or ‘Asian

2 Data for previous years combines ‘White British’ with ‘White Irish’ and ‘White Other’ into one grouping labelled

‘White’. This method of grouping has been maintained for 2013 for reasons of comparability. It could be argued that ‘White British’ as the majority group should be separated from ‘White Irish’ and ‘White Other’ which could be included under ‘Other’ ethnicity.

14

British’) with an increase of 2%. There were slight falls in the second largest category (‘Black or Black British‘) with a -4% decrease. This year, 9 students were identified as ‘other’ (1%) and 2% as ‘unknown’. 0 students were identified as ‘Chinese’. One programme reported an all-White-British female cohort, which is reflective of the data in this report. Figure 10: New student intake by ethnicity

4.6 New student intake – disability

In 2013, 17% of the overall recruited students are identified as having a disability, with those registered as disabled account for 3% of the new student intake. This represents a 5% increase in comparison to 2012 figures. One programme noted that the total number of disabled students may not be accurate as dyslexia assessments for their programme was not finalised before the submission of their data.

15

4.7 New student intake – qualifications at entry for undergraduate programmes There is five years’ data pertaining to qualifications at entry for undergraduate programmes and this is shown in Figure 11, below.

Similar to last year, the trends which are evident in the data for entry level qualifications seem to be commensurate with the shift in demographic profile (described above) towards a much more traditional University student profile and perhaps away from the traditional youth work profile of mature or in-service students. Thus, only 2% of new students have entered with a degree or higher qualification. There have been larger numbers of new students entering with more traditional qualifications at entry: with BTEC or equivalent accounting for 21%, NVQ level 3 accounting for 19% and A-levels accounting for 35% of the new cohort.

Figure 11: Qualifications at entry – undergraduate students (% of new students)

‘FdA/ DipHE’ = Foundation Degree or Diploma in Higher Education

Of the data available for postgraduate levels of entry, 86% entered with a degree or foundation degree. In total 91% entered with a degree, foundation degree or postgraduate degree.

16

4.8 Retention and completion

Figure 12 shows the completion and retention rates over the last five years. Figures for 2012/13 show substantial increases across levels 1, 3 and postgraduate levels. Level 1 has increased by 4%; level 3 by 6%; postgraduate completion rose by 3%. Level 2 decreased by 3% and was the only category that showed a decrease in percentage of students. Some caution is needed when considering these results as some students were not yet due to complete.

Figure 12: Overall percentage of students completing each level

Figure 13, below, shows the percentage completion rates for 2012/13 broken down across all levels and separated for full-time and part-time students. In terms of full time completion rates, the data shows that level 3 had the highest completion rate (87%) and level 1 had the lowest completion rates (77%). In terms of part time, completion rates vary, with level 1 having the highest rate (74%) and postgraduate having the lowest (46%).

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Level 4

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Level 5

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Level 6

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Post Grad

17

Figure 13: Completion levels (%) for full- and part-time pathways

Full Time Part Time Total

Level 4 77% 74% 77%

Level 5 86% 55% 82%

Level 6 87% 56% 83%

all undergrad 84% 61% 78%

post grad 84% 46% 57%

Figure 14, shows the reasons given for non-completion broken down across all levels for full-time students. In regards to level 1 and level 2 students, withdrawal (38% and 33% respectively) account for majority of non-completions. The second most popular reason for non-completion for level 1 is study failure (21%) and level 2 is deferral (27%). For the second year running, popular level 3 reasons for non-completion are study failure (37%) and deferral (32%). Postgraduate programmes also follow similar trends, with deferral as most popular reason for non-completion (40%) and study failure (40%).

What is also evident from Figure 14 is that very few students fail to complete due to field work failure; just a handful of full-time students –mainly at Level 3 (7%) and postgraduate level (0%) of study. This suggests a positive picture with regards to appropriate placements being secured and effective supervision procedures in place. Similar to previous years, the proportion of students withdrawing from programmes peaks in the early years of study and tails off further down the line. The reverse trend is apparent for study failure, peaking for full-time students studying at postgraduate levels.

18

Figure 14: Reasons for non-completion – Full time

Figure 14a: Reasons for non-completion – Part time

Figure 14a shows reasons for non-completion for part-time students. Reasons behind non-completion are consistent across all levels and years of study. Across all levels of part time study, deferral was the most popular reason for non-completion (level1 =

19

48%; level 2= 40%; level 3= 55&; PG= 38%). The second most popular reason was withdrawal (level 1= 30%; level 2= 27%; level 3= 32%; PG= 29%). Qualitative analysis indicates that there are many reasons for why students have not completed the level of study they are enrolled on. Such examples include: student fee increases, lack of awareness in JNC conditions, cut back in the youth sector leading to some feeling apprehensive of the prospects of finding a youth work role, health issues (pregnancy, mental health issues), family commitments/ pressures (caring for members of the family) and concerns about students discriminating (sexism noted in particular). In some instances where students have struggled with the programme, extra measures have been put in place to support them; for example, one programme provided extra tutorial support to a student who gave medical evidence of an issue they were experiencing. Another programme set further conditions to some students, where they had to achieve a higher average throughout the remaining programme to be able to graduate. Others also decided to graduate without JNC status.

The data also revealed that postgraduate students often struggle with difficulties securing funding. Public sector funding cuts, reduced sponsorships from employers have led to a few students withdrawing from the programme, or are now only aiming for a qualification lower than the Master of Arts but with JNC qualifications.

4.9 Attendance Figure 15 shows attendance levels of programmes reaching above and below the 80% attendance target. The lowest percentage of students achieving this is at level 1 full-time (81%) and the strongest attendance being is at postgraduate level (99%). Figures are broadly comparable with those for the previous year and have increased across all levels. The same pattern is apparent for part time students; level one is the lowest (88%) and postgraduate with the highest (98%). Figure 15: Attendance levels

Full time Part time

80% + <80% 80% + <80%

Level 4 81% 19% 88% 12%

Level 5 88% 12% 92% 8%

Level 6 94% 6% 89% 11%

PG 99% 1% 98% 2%

20

4.10 Destination of graduates Information on the destination of graduates is incomplete. For annual monitoring 2012/13, destination information was submitted for 810 leavers, and within this number, ‘not known’ accounted for 16% of responses. The number of ‘not known’ destinations has reversed an upward trend as last year this was at 22% not known.

The conclusions one can draw from the data are also somewhat limited. Figure 16 below shows trends in recorded destinations over the last five years. Students going into statutory youth services continued to decline, whilst the number going into voluntary youth sector roles has increased again. For this year, the data shows the proportion of students going into voluntary sector youth services has increased 7% to 33%, whilst of those going into integrated youth support services declines 4% to 5%. The area that shows a marked increase is students remaining in further education with an increase of 4%, this may be a result of current employment opportunities or access to Higher Education, this will be investigated further over the next year. Figure 16: Recorded destinations

Comments on the destination of students vary. A handful of respondents reported that the students on their programmes had good career prospects. Such comments include: ‘Many of our students secure part time and full time jobs following their placements particularly in the second and third year. This provides them either with a good spring

21

board following graduation or they stay at those organisations after they graduate […]we are very pleased with our high level of employment.’ (Respondent 4, 2013). For part-time students, many are already employed before commencing studying or have secured employment through placements whilst studying. A programme also notes that students are also encouraged to proactively link their placements to areas of specialism which they are better equipped to work in that particular field: ‘as the title 'youth worker' is diminishing and being embedded within other professional titles students therefore looked further afield in relevant knowledge and further development to skill up their knowledge and understand how to 'fit' with organisation's working with young people (Respondent 5, 2013). Other programmes note that the difficulties students are finding in securing employment. As Respondent 6 (2013) states, ‘our students are finding it difficult to secure employment at graduate level. Some are attempting self-employment, some gain part-time work with NCS and one or two have gone to work in shops and buses’.

4.11 Quality Assurance and qualitative evidence

The pro forma asks programmes to confirm whether the main quality assurance processes have been carried out for this annual monitoring period. From the returns, all the programmes state they have completed both academic and field external examiner reports. Positive areas identified include: feedback given to students was of high standard; the quality of the programme was of high standard; learning outcomes were greatly met and that the programme is current and relevant to the times. Examples of areas for development include: give more direction to hourly paid lecturers; moderate work of hourly paid lecturers; use electronic submission; make more explicit links with professional practice outcomes; map student progression and to improve library services for students.

4.12 Views on areas of development, overall progress and challenges to the sector

Programme leaders’ views on areas for development, overall progress of the programme and challenges to the sector during the year was analysed in this report. In terms of area for development, the following was reported:

continued work on student representation at all appropriate levels;

communication with students regarding management issues in placements;

monitor feedback timescales and manage student expectations for marking student work;

review fieldwork strategy for student placement visits and levels of professional support;

to support job applications, interview skills and career profiling, to name a few.

22

The pro forma revealed mixed perceptions on overall progress across programmes over the last year. A handful of programmes remain positive about their progress. Terms such as ‘smooth’, ‘excellent’ and ‘successful’ are used to describe performance. Two courses even state that they have received teaching awards, have good retention rates and consult with a course committee in order to keep their programmes fresh and updated. On the other hand, others paint a more negative picture as concerns about recruitment figures surface. Terms such as ‘difficult times’, ‘struggling’ and ‘disappointing’ have been used to describe recruitment figures. and ‘Two courses report that they are unfortunately closing, but note that even after student protests, morale remains positive. One programme also mentions that they will be reviewing the viability of running the programme in the near future. In views about challenges to the sector, cuts in the sector and employment prospects remain a concern. As Respondent 7 (2013) states, ‘the loss of accounting for the title of the name 'youth work' in the job sector. Practitioners see the name /title being eroded and thus making it appear as youth work does not have a graduate destination linked to employability’. For these reasons, Respondent 7 (2013) argues that ‘youth work’ needs rebranding to attract new cohorts of students. Programmes acknowledge the changes in funding cuts which continue to challenge the youth work profession. The word ‘grim’ was used to describe the sector as it stands currently, as short term contracts are more available than secure long term positions.

5.0 Moderation visits

A sample of three programmes were selected from a short list of programmes in the middle of their validation period. The final selection aimed to cover some regional variation. The methodology is covered in section 2. The visits took place between June and October 2013 and ran smoothly with very positive engagement from the programmes: the requested documents were all provided in advance and representatives for meetings secured successfully. The programmes visited were all found to be operating appropriately and common issues could be identified. EE reports submitted and reviewed as part of the moderation supported this. The section that follows provides a short overview of the performance across the main themes for annual monitoring. Although the moderation visits are for the 2011/12 monitoring cycle, the discussions took place in summer 2013 and as such give a snapshot of likely findings for the coming year. All moderation officers were impressed by the engagement and commitment of students, their recognition of the importance of developing good reflective practice even though most found this challenging in the initial stages. Students were unanimous

23

in recognising and valuing the good support systems from staff to student services in enabling them to complete their studies; often in difficult circumstances. . Students expressed difficulties obtaining appropriate placements but felt where this happened, staff were very supportive in finding placements that were appropriate to ensuring learning outcomes were achieved. Several students expressed difficulties finding a JNC supervisor, but described mechanisms the University put in place to manage this; including third party supervision to ensure youth work was central to the students learning. Overall students demonstrated a commitment to the theory of youth work and were comfortable making links between the theory and their practice. One student illustrated this by describing wanting to introduce young peoples involvement in their end of year assessments as a reflection of empowerment and raising young peoples voice and engagement. Students continue to talk positively about the variety of learning methods although several commented about the assessment of group work and proportion of grade based on others performance. Learning across disciplines with other programmes is increasingly seen as positive where students have the opportunity to reflect on learning with their own programme too through group work or tutorials. This was felt to give students an opportunity to work with practitioners from other disciplines such as early years, social work and teaching as this was broadly reflective of the environments that youth workers could be working in after graduation. One moderated programme described the difficulties of recruitment emerging not only due to youth work cuts in funding but also due to over saturation in Youth Work courses in their area. It was felt that the Education Training Standards Committee who agree the development of new programmes should look carefully at the impact new courses have on existing programmes in the area. Another programme described difficulties recruiting non-traditional learners due to lack of access to level 3 qualifications that where counted as access requirements for their university. In addition to the number of programmes in an area all reported additional challenges this year of recruiting students, linked to student finance arrangements and the changes in the sector. One moderated HEI indicated that they were encouraging students and prospective students to ‘think laterally’ about how Youth Work qualifications are beneficial to a range of job roles where youth work is used but not necessarily described as ‘Youth Work”..

24

HEI’s reported some challenges around retaining students particularly from Year 1 to Year 2. Overall 16% of those not completing their first year of study was due to a transfer to an alternative course, feedback from the Universities indicates that two reasons for changes at their institution was due to the age of entry being 18 years and the challenges of working with their own peer age group on placements in year 1. Also students struggle with being in Youth Work role with those of a similar age range. The other reason being young students with limited experience pre-attendance on a programme and realising that ‘Youth Work is not right for them’. Sector organisations and individuals continue to be positively engaged in the delivery and support of programmes either as visiting lecturers or fieldwork supervisors. There is genuine anxiety in the sector about the access to JNC workers – all three moderated programmes reported a need to maintain the JNC qualification route and access for students to good quality fieldwork supervision and placements. All three reported challenges of maintaining JNC supervision for all placements but had in place mechanisms to underpin this if not available in placement host agency.

6.0 Issues to be addressed by the ETS Committee, and through validation working groups,

as a result of the annual monitoring 2011/12

The concern over the impending reduction of Youth Work programmes has not materialised and there has actually been an increase in number over the last year. However a dominant area for consideration is the importance of maintaining access to JNC qualification for Youth Work. With only 88% achieving target intake for 2011/12 programmes are under increasing pressure to recruit students with academic requirements but not necessarily practice experience. Retention rates particularly for year 1 are a concern with 23% not completing the year, of those withdrawing 16% are transferring onto alternative programmes of learning. Moderation reports indicate this is for a range of reasons including, not wanting to work evenings, not feeling able to work with own age group, behaviour too challenging. These reasons suggest students are applying for the programmes with restricted experience of the profession and or false expectations. There is a clear role for NYA for ETS and NYA to continue to champion for JNC qualifications but to extend this to include better marketing about what Youth Work is and how Youth Workers work with young people. In addition the ETS should continue to explore ways in which they can support and maintain standards and resources for robust professional formation. The professional validation guidelines should emphasis the importance of experience, currently it is recommended at 100 hours prior experience before commencing study, this is currently a recommendation and it should be explored as to whether this is made

25

a compulsory requirement to ensure students understand the profession prior to commencing study. The level of JNC qualified staffing providing supervisors is up overall, but the number of placement opportunities has dropped slightly. This is largely comparable with past year, which is positive bearing in mind the changes to the sector overall in the last year. Universities have adapted well to changes in the sector and have worked hard to maintain their network of placement supervisors despite reductions in placement venues. However a growing area of concern is around the access to JNC placements across the sector, the ETS committee should explore how it can support HEI’s to maintain a good network of fieldwork practice agencies and JNC supervision mechanisms for the sector. This could be undertaken in conjunction with the emerging Institute for Youth Work by developing a network of JNC fieldwork placement supervisors and placement opportunities.

The flexibility within the revised requirements for programmes is pragmatic and welcomed by programmes, and clearly the expectation for 100% JNC qualified supervisors remains the aspiration for all programmes but the flexibility to support individuals through additional mechanisms where this is not possible within the placement setting has been positive. The question about the number of programmes in regions has been raised as a concern in relation to potential over saturation of the market place. The ETS committee should review areas where there is potential for overload and gaps in provision and seek to ensure that current programmes are supported and not squeezed out of the marketplace wherever possible.

The JNC qualification is still valued greatly by youth workers and the increasingly varied organisations and settings in which they work. Local authorities and voluntary sector providers continue to recognise the value of JNC qualifications but are requiring a broad range of qualifications for their Youth Work staff and links between the practice and the qualification. There is a need to clarify the importance of professional training in Youth Work and the maintenance of the Higher Education routes in Youth Work to maintain professional formation but also to ensure access to higher education is maintained particularly where access to lower level qualifications that are used as non-traditional access requirements for HEI’s are difficult to access.

26

Appendix A – Extract from moderation visit guidance:

Format and categories for visits

Requirements prior to the moderation visit The NYA will use the most recent validation report, last year’s annual monitoring feedback and this year’s statistical return as a basis for its lines of exploration. To facilitate and inform the process further programmes must

provide copies of the latest programme review documentation and external examiner reports must be forwarded by email/post 1 week prior to the visit day.

secure 1 or 2 field and staff representatives and 6 students from across the year groups to attend meetings (see schedule below).

provide a suitable space in which the meetings can be carried out.

Schedule for the moderation visit The schedule provided below may be amended to accommodate the meeting groups, as long as the programme leader meetings remain in place at the start and at the end of the day.

10.45am Arrival of NYA officer 11.00am – 11.45am Meeting with Programme Leader 11.45 am – 12.15 pm Meeting with Field Representatives – Employer/Supervisor

12.15 pm – 1.00 pm Meeting with Student Representatives 1.00 pm – 1.30 pm Lunch 1.30 pm – 2.00 pm Meeting with staff representative 2.00 pm – 2.15pm Review period for NYA officer 2.15 pm – 3.00pm Meeting with the Programme Leader

27

Principle Theme 1

Student recruitment, achievement and experience, and the contribution this makes to the profession of youth work

Officers will evaluate:

The institutions targets recruitment aspiration and actual recruitment profile

Student profile on admission, and retention and completion across academic levels

JNC awards achieved and destinations of those qualifying

Student experience of the programme

In making judgements, officers should consider, where applicable, the extent to which higher education programmes:

demonstrate an understanding of the market for their programme

set realistic target recruitment goals and undertake sufficient activity to achieve these goals

demonstrate a rigorous selection criteria that secures appropriate recruitment

demonstrate strong retention and completion across academic levels.

achieve good overall completion rates, which support a strong flow of effectively and appropriately qualified professionals into new and continued employment.

provide for and support students having a voice during their engagement with the programme

encourage students to participate actively in the planning, delivery and evaluation of the programme

use effectively institutional mechanisms to provide for and support students with specific and identified additional needs

28

Principle Theme 2

Issues of curriculum and resources, particularly related to fieldwork, and the impact on programme delivery and professional formation

Officers will evaluate:

the range, spread, quality and management of the curriculum for the programme

how far the curriculum interacts with and meets the needs of youth work, youth workers and local employers

how far the curriculum is supported by an effective programme of fieldwork

the qualifications and experience of core programme staff and others associated with the delivery of the curriculum and assessment of student progress and achievement such that they are competent to undertake the work expected of them

the adequacy, suitability and use of specialist equipment, resources and accommodation.

In making judgements, officers should consider, where applicable, the extent to which:

the curriculum supports students’ academic learning and development and professional formation in Youth Work and includes Youth Work values, principles and ethics;

the curriculum demonstrates the inter-relationship of all elements to ensure that the overall rationale is met and the outcomes secured;

the curriculum is informed by and relates to the National Occupational Standards for

Youth Work, JNC Framework, QAA Academic Subject Benchmarks and DfES Common Core of Skills and Knowledge

the curriculum supports students’ development, both personally and professionally,

to keep abreast of and ensure their work is informed by youth related legislation and social policy

the curriculum has fieldwork elements that are integrated within the overall

programme structure;

provision for fieldwork ensures that students undertake at least two placements, which adhere to the requirements set out under 4.1 Placement Structures on page 41 of the Professional Validation: Guidance and Requirements (2010)

29

fieldwork practice includes face-to-face work with young people aged 13 – 19, constituting no less than 50 per cent of the overall fieldwork practice time;

all fieldwork is supervised by professionally qualified and experienced workers;

the institution has a well-managed system for organising fieldwork practice and

assuring its quality;

assessment tools are used that enable judgement of a student’s progression and performance in respect of professional competence as defined in the document: Professional Validation: Guidance and Requirements (2010)

supervisors are provided with support and training for their roles and, within this, that

assessors and supervisors receive clear guidance on the use of assessment tools for development and judgement of student performance;

arrangements for students in employment-based placements are clearly detailed in

written agreements;

fieldwork opportunities are available in a range of different organisational settings including the voluntary sector;

fieldwork arrangements are monitored, evaluated, reviewed and reported on

annually.

30

Principle Theme 3

Leadership and management of the programme to support continuous development and improvement.

Officers will evaluate:

the approach taken by the institution to oversee the day to day management and development of the programme

how well the institution secures the engagement and involvement of a wide variety of stakeholders in the review, evaluation and development of the programme

the approach taken by the institution to the assure quality of the programme and its outputs.

how well quality assurance arrangements and the collection and interpretation of programme performance indicators contribute to judgements and decisions made about standards and areas for improvement.

In making judgements, officers should consider, where applicable, the extent to which:

the institution demonstrates a dedicated structure and a clear system for strategic and operational management of the programme;

the institution demonstrates formal representation of local employers (voluntary and statutory) and regional groupings in the governance procedures and active involvement of these and other representatives of the field in the development of the programme;

student representation is evident in the governance process.

where applicable, the voice and representation of partners is evident in the

governance process

quality assurance and performance monitoring systems are in place and used to secure improvements in outcomes.

31

Appendix B – Ethnic origin categories

White

British Irish

Any other White background, please write in

Mixed White and Black Caribbean White and Black African

White and Asian Any other Mixed background, please write in

Asian or Asian British

Indian

Pakistani Bangladeshi

Any other Asian background, please write in Black or Black British

Caribbean African

Any other Black background, please write in Chinese or other ethnic group

Chinese Other ethnic group, please write in

32

About the National Youth Agency The National Youth Agency works in partnership with a wide range of public, private and voluntary sector organisations to support and improve services for young people. Our particular focus is on youth work and we believe strongly that by investing in young people’s personal and social development, young people are better able to live more active and fulfilling lives. Working with young people, we advocate for more youth-friendly services and policies. We have four themes: • Developing quality standards in work with young people • Supporting services for young people • Developing the youth workforce • Promoting positive public perceptions of young people. We deliver our work through training and consultancy, campaigning, publishing and online communications. Through our activities we want to ensure that young people have a strong voice and positive influence in our society. National Youth Agency Eastgate House 19-23 Humberstone Road Leicester LE5 3GJ Tel: 0116 242 7350 Email: nya@nya.org.uk Website: www.nya.org.uk

For more information, visit www.nya.org.uk