Education Authority Y Box Doc

THE EVIDENCE BASE SO FAR

SECONDARY OUTCOME: • Reduction in incidences of exposure to violence (EXP) (Exposure to Violence Scale and Likelihood of violence and delinquency scale) (see Appendix 1) KNOWLEDGE: 1. Increased understanding of general, specific and personal male gender and behavioural norms 2. Increased understanding of the impact of harmful gender and social norms on mental health and wellbeing 3. Increased understanding of the impact of exposure to violence on mental health and wellbeing VALUES: 1. Reduced adherence to traditional masculine norms 2. Reduced acceptance of the values that endorse violence and aggression 3. Increased endorsement of pro-social values BEHAVIOURS AND SKILLS: 1. Increased capacity to critically reflect thoughts/feeling and behaviours 2. Reduction in exposure to violence 3. Reduction in risk taking and potentially criminal behaviours RECOMMENDED EVALUATION DESIGN Whilst a range of designs are available, and indeed several may be appropriate, it is recommended that a pre-test/post-test design is implemented. This means that the evaluation instrument is completed by participants at baseline (time 1) and then again at end-point (time 2). The purpose of this design is to capture baseline needs, but also to compare any changes that occur in regard to attitudes, beliefs and/or behaviours between the two points. Given that one of the reasons to use this design is to assess ‘distance travelled’, it is important that baseline data is collected as early as possible. For example, if the baseline is completed after several sessions of the intervention, then this may obscure any changes between T1 and T2. It is recommended then that T1 is defined as within the first two sessions. Likewise, T2 (end-point) should come as close to the actual end of the project as possible. Therefore, it is recommended that T2 should be within the final 2 sessions of the intervention. Both baseline and endpoint evaluations should be completed by self-report and it is recommended that participants use an on-line and anonymous platform. For example, platforms such as ‘Jotform’ allow facilitators to design their own survey, provide a link to participants, participants to complete the survey using that link, and the facilitators/evaluators to analyse anonymous data. (Scan QR code at the back for more info)

During the development of this framework, we evaluated it at two levels. At one level, we wanted to understand if practitioners valued the structure that the framework provided. To understand this, we asked those who engaged in the training, a number of process related questions. Across more than 40 youth workers trained, who each had an average of 10 years experience in youth work practice, 97.8% reported satisfaction with the framework. All 45 also reported plans to use the approach in their practice. We also observed statistically significant changes in confidence among this group, with the average score moving from 6.1 to 8.1 on a scale that stretched from 0-10. Qualitative feedback reinforced these data. As one youth worker indicated:

I had a group of young men. This has given me exactly what I needed to reduce their risk

Another commented on the benefit being on the structure that it provided within which to bring their own creatively and tools to organise a response.

We have the tools but this provides structure to work with fellas around violence and being a man

26

27