Panyappi Indigenous Youth Mentoring Program Evaluation

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Panyappi Indigenous Youth Mentoring Program Evaluation Attendance has been variable and with declining attendance meetings became infrequent during 2003. Advisory Group members identified that their role was to: ω ω ω ω offer the Panyappi program support and guidance in program implementation assist with exploring issues and identifying possible solutions provide feedback about program impact and progress facilitate networking and awareness among agencies likely to be involved with the young people and families serviced by Panyappi Advisory Group members believed the group had not functioned optimally due to inconsistent attendance and meetings. For some this was due to managing multiple commitments and difficulty in dedicating time to this role. One member believed that members could be more proactive in contacting Panyappi staff to stay updated, offer support and network: “The Advisory Group need to support the Co-ordinator so that she can take the initiative - she also needs support.” Some reported that the Panyappi Coordinator had contacted them to network and gain opinions on program developments. Others identified that differences in opinion about auspicing arrangements and issues that pre-existed the program had created fractures in the group that prevented constructive conversations and consistent support for Panyappi. They saw this as working against the program and the overall goals it was trying to achieve, and something that needs to be transcended. These issues appear to have led to few meetings during late 2003. Members made comments such as: I think more than enough information has been fed into the group but getting something back has been very disappointing. I think the project has demonstrated now that it doesn’t need an Advisory Gr oup. I would be looking at ways of translating the information to key stakeholders in different ways, through a newsletter or when you have events invite stakeholders rather than sitting around a table. (Advisory group member) So whether there is a lot of worth to having an advisory group now, perhaps not. The program is up and running efficiently and doesn’t need an advisory group anymore. (Advisory group member) I think we need to think about the standard Advisory Group differently. We should separate two functions. Community connections can be done at a more on the ground level rather than with workers in other services. The operational work is best done by the trage i group, like theInner City Triage Group that looks at the practical issues of working with the young people and collaborating on this – who should see them to do what. (Advisory group member) This situation raises questions about what are appropriate and effective support structures for the program and whether an Advisory Group is the option of choice. Trying to achieve and sustain an engaged and effective Advisory Group is a common issue - 54 -
Panyappi Indigenous Youth Mentoring Program Evaluation in pilot programs in human services – it is not unique to Indigenous programs. Despite these issues, there is consistent evidence from Advisory Group members and other evaluation participants that the program is currently well managed, has dealt with many issues related to the earlier life of the program, and has made good progress toward program goals. Most agree that further outcomes could be achieved with more consistent support and committed funding (see below). Auspicing arrangements Any auspicing arrangement must tackle issues such as: infrastructure support, access to resources (shared or independent), communication agreements, role clarification, service philosophy, and levels of collaboration in management and service delivery. Similarities and differences in approaches and values will determine whether mutually supported arrangements are achieved. The questions surrounding the auspicing arrangement were described in “History of Panyappi: Deciding on the auspicing agency” above. In the early stages of Panyappi the program was taken in a more independent direction, which did not fit with MAYT’s hopes as the auspicing body. Together with the issues facing MAYT at that time this may have contributed to some of Panyappi’s teething difficulties. MAYT underwent a transition in staff and management, as well as dealing with crowded office facilities. The situation improved by late 2002, and then further throughout 2003 with their shift to The Parks location. This contributed to more stable support for Panyappi and increased collaboration between MAYT and Panyappi staff, first at the management level and subsequently at a worker level. Throughout 2003, evidence that the auspicing arrangement was effective, as well as appropriate, started to emerge more clearly. The shift to The Parks meant Panyappi had good access to space, cars, phones, computers and other infrastructure. This may have been less visible to Advisory Group members, as there were fewer meetings in 2003 and those that occurred were not well attended, so opinions may be not be based on the current situation. Program funders at the state level felt confident that Panyappi’s location was appropriate, particularly from an infrastructure point of view. Some program collaborators were concerned about access, with Panyappi based at The Parks in the western suburbs while its main brief was the Inner City. Although in an area with a significant Aboriginal community, other areas were named. Not all program collaborators realised that the workers were highly mobile and most mentoring occurs in young people’s homes, schools or communities, not at the Panyappi office. Although some group programs are located in The Parks and Port Adelaide, mentors provide transport for young people to get there. For a couple of evaluation participants, the long-held concern about whether Panyappi is sufficiently community based remains. Their opinions favour a non-government location with an inner city youth service as the auspicing body. Alternatively, if Panyappi continued and expanded they would support Panyappi remaining where it was as an umbrella body, provided it placed outreach workers in Indigenous community agencies across the northern and western suburbs. The core issue that all evaluation participants shared was ensuring that it met the needs of Indigenous young people, whether they frequented the inner city or other suburban locations. - 55 -
Page 1 and 2:
Panyappi Indigenous Youth Mentoring
Page 3 and 4:
© Panyappi Indigenous Youth Mentor
Page 5 and 6:
Beginning the Story… Panyappi Ind
Page 7 and 8: Executive Summary What is Panyappi?
Page 9 and 10: Panyappi Indigenous Youth Mentoring
Page 17 and 18: Program funding Panyappi Indigenous
Page 21 and 22: JUSTICE Strong support from the Cri
Page 29 and 30: ATSIC recently reported: Panyappi I
Page 37 and 38: Evaluation questions Panyappi Indig
Page 57: Panyappi Indigenous Youth Mentoring
Page 71 and 72: Support for mentors Panyappi Indige
Page 75 and 76: Weaving the Threads Together Achiev
Page 77 and 78: ω ω ω Panyappi Indigenous Youth
Page 83 and 84: Recommendations Panyappi Indigenous
Page 85 and 86: Outcome Formative or process Append
show all

Panyappi Indigenous Youth Mentoring Program Evaluation

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?