Client needs for coherent information, advice and guidance services ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

convenor of the IAGP, although there were exceptions (e.g. Jobcentre Plus visits were co-ordinated nationally); • discussions over the local providers to be approached. Often the final list was different from the entries in the original framework. Such differences then had a knock-on effect for other areas, since it was important for fieldwork to achieve a reasonable balance when viewed from a national perspective; • consulting with DfES – and where appropriate – Steering Group members to obtain agreement to changes in the sample frame; • negotiation with individual local providers on the logistics of each visit. Often this resulted in another loop of amendments and consultation, since local providers were not always able to field the profile of advisers and/or clients ideally sought. 209 Overall, the intention was to complete:- • 45 interviews with front-line staff from 30 different IAG provider organisations; • 24 focus groups with a cross-section of clients, including 5 ‘mini focus groups’ with young people with learning difficulties/disabilities; • 17 contacts with individual clients with complex needs who might be unwilling to share their experiences in a group discussion (e.g. people with learning difficulties/disabilities, communication and confidence issues). These would typically be informal discussions on a one-to-one basis or in ad hoc small groups. 210 Details of the sample that was actually achieved, together with a description of participants’ key characteristics, are presented in Chapter III. RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS 211 Separate checklists were drafted for fieldwork with practitioners and with clients. These were revised several times, following consultation with the Steering Group, and in light of practical experience during the pilot phase. 212 The final drafts are added as Appendix B. The items shown in bold are those highlighted by the Steering Group as having a high priority. PILOT VISITS 213 Towards the end of the preparation phase, but prior to undertaking the main fieldwork, three pilot visits were carried out. The purpose of these was:- • to explore the range of issues, relating to coherence, that were relevant to users of IAG services and/or front-line advisers; • to determine the most appropriate questioning techniques to use with clients from a range of target groups. 214 The outline details of the pilot visits are set out in Table 2.1 below. Table 2.1: Pilot visits Date Provider Clients Advisers 5/11/02 Learn and Earn (one-stop-shop) Focus group; n=6 n=1 13/11/02 Openshaw Jobcentre Plus, Manchester Interviews; n=6 n=3 15/11/02 West Suffolk College Focus group; n=10 n=1 Note: ‘n’ indicates number of participants 13
215 Several adaptations were introduced to the methodology, following the pilot visits. For example:- • the topic guides were simplified; • groups of young people with learning difficulties/disabilities were kept small; • the starting point in client discussions was shifted to their experiences of IAG services to date. 216 The key findings on ‘content’ issues have been integrated with the findings from the main research phase. FIXING THE FIELDWORK 217 Local LSCs and IAGPs were approached by DfES to nominate, and secure the agreement of, a range of local IAG providers willing to participate in the research. As noted above, providers were then approached by a member of the research team, who explained the purpose of the research and discussed the most appropriate arrangements for meeting with clients and front-line provider staff. The targeting of clients was determined by both the needs of the data collection framework and the ease with which the provider was able to secure the participation of particular types of client. 218 In practice, fixing fieldwork proved complex and time consuming. In some instances, the difficulties were understandable (e.g. problems with persuading sufficient clients to attend a focus group). In other instances, however, the slowness of response was a source of disappointment, especially since long lead times were built in between initial contacts and target dates for visits; moreover, a budget had been made available to offset any provider hospitality costs and/or client travel costs. Nevertheless, the majority of providers in the final sample expressed willingness to support the research and worked hard to secure the participation of clients. 219 Typically, fieldwork visits included three components:- • an introductory discussion with a management representative to highlight key local issues for exploration; • interview(s) with one or two front-line provider staff; • a focus group (or interviews) with clients. 220 Where possible, one and a half hours was allocated for each client focus group and a minimum of three-quarters of an hour for individual client interviews. Interviews with advisers lasted approximately one hour each. Efforts were made to ensure some flexibility was built in to the visit programme to allow time for extended discussions, as appropriate. 221 The checklists (see paragraph 211) were used to guide discussions with clients and advisers. This ensured that core issues were addressed across all target groups, provider types and geographical areas. However, the focus of the study was on client needs, making it important that clients themselves were able to influence the agenda. Clients were therefore encouraged to talk about the IAG issues that they considered of greatest importance in relation to service coherence; checklists were used flexibly to facilitate this process. SYNTHESIS AND ANALYSIS OF DATA 222 Content analysis of the qualitative data was conducted in 5 stages, as follows:- 14
Page 1 and 2: RESEARCH Client Needs for Coherent
Page 3 and 4: CONTENTS Chapter Page EXECUTIVE SUM
Page 5 and 6: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION 1. T
Page 7 and 8: • many clients said they would ha
Page 9 and 10: development of directories and data
Page 11 and 12: I: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE INTRODUCT
Page 13: II: METHODOLOGY INTRODUCTION 201 Th
Page 17 and 18: III: CLIENTS AND PROVIDERS IN THE S
Page 19 and 20: Services Table 3.2: Breakdown of
Page 21 and 22: Services Table 3.4: Breakdown of cl
Page 23 and 24: 326 Our synthesis and analysis of c
Page 25 and 26: • a student who is part of a grou
Page 27 and 28: 420 In terms of patterns of referra
Page 29 and 30: RECOMMENDATIONS 434 We were not for
Page 31 and 32: targeted at them. This point was ma
Page 33 and 34: providers demonstrated a high level
Page 35 and 36: 536 Many clients do appear to find
Page 37 and 38: service can help them; rather it su
Page 39 and 40: esource management practice; thus s
Page 41 and 42: Transfer of client records 579 The
Page 43 and 44: who graduated several years earlier
Page 45 and 46: exacerbated by media pressure to ge
Page 47 and 48: • In practice, there are often di
Page 49 and 50: 621 Referral to learning providers
Page 51 and 52: was minimal. The main exception was
Page 53 and 54: 649 In some areas, the IAGP itself
Page 55 and 56: combine their visit with other acti
Page 57 and 58: 681 There was a lack of suitable pr
Page 59 and 60: • Some advisers working with the
Page 61 and 62: APPENDIX A KEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
Page 63 and 64: other providers, including a number
Page 65 and 66:
52. Many providers’ staff express
Page 67 and 68:
C. COHERENCE OF IAG SERVICES C.1 Pl
Page 69 and 70:
C.4 Are there links with HE careers
Page 71:
Copies of this publication can be o
show all

Client needs for coherent information, advice and guidance services ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?