Panyappi Indigenous Youth Mentoring Program Evaluation

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Panyappi Indigenous Youth Mentoring Program Evaluation All program collaborators indicated their support for Panyappi being located with and run by Aboriginal people in an Aboriginal agency. For some the location had limited impact as most contact was through phone, email or mentors visiting the agency with the young person. It was important “knowing the people work there with similar beliefs, attitudes and goals.” A comparison was made with the FAYS general mentoring pool: I am not sure what that would be worth. Whether those sorts of mentors would be able to engage these kids. I think the fact that it is an Aboriginal service for Aboriginal people, with the other stuff being more mainstream I don’t think it would be so effective, or the people I’m referring would be as open to their assistance as they are to Panyappi. (Program collaborator) While acknowledging the rocky journey Panyappi travelled to its current point, a MAYT staff member reported that: I think the reason why Panyappi can be so successful is it’s co-location. It’s auspicing under something like MAYT where you’ve got the support network, the career pathways and you’ve got training and all of the things that young mentors are going to need to learn and know so they can work credibly alongside [other workers involved with the young person and family]. (Program collaborators) MAYT staff identified the importance of having Panyappi at an Aboriginal agency that was sufficiently resourced and committed to culturally appropriate practice and working in partnership with mainstream agencies: “It’s about head sets and infrastructure too. We can always wriggle the infrastructure to fit another desk in but it’s hard to wriggle people’s brains to get another thought in or a different track” (Program collaborators). Panyappi mentors were mostly supportive of the co-location although they hoped that Panyappi could be more independent if it continued and expanded, as this would help distinguish it from MAYT and build its profile: It’s been a good location for the program and MAYT has been really supportive of Panyappi. I think we might have run into a brick wall if MAYT wasn’t here in terms of understanding what we are on about. I know with some of the programs that MAYT do we combine and bring all our clients in together. (Panyappi staff) MAYT believed their existing history of managing mentoring programs was valuable. FAYS fund this mentoring capacity as part of the larger pool of mainstream mentoring funds. It has been inadequate funding, ~ $33K/year which is less than one full-time position, but with a broad scope to provide mentoring for any young person involved in the juvenile justice system. Although Panyappi has a different focus, they have placed the casual mentor pool under Panyappi’s management to provide a consistent training, support, policy and practice environment for all Indigenous youth mentoring. The main concern that Panyappi faced in 2003 was developing effective partnerships with MAYT youth workers so the different roles of youth workers and mentors were - 56 -
Panyappi Indigenous Youth Mentoring Program Evaluation understood and they could collaborate effectively. This proved more challenging than working with the MAYT family workers. Progress has been made in this area, e.g. “we know more and have more of an understanding [of what mentoring involves].” MAYT youth workers reported they were committed to building closer working relationships with mentors, and Panyappi mentors indicated they were keen to work in buddy systems with youth workers to strengthen collaboration and contribute to on-site training. MAYT Management has lead the way for collaboration, as it includes the Panyappi Coordinator in MAYT Management meetings, planning and decision-making processes. MAYT is aware that they also gain from the auspicing arrangement. MAYT Management reported that: Panyappi also offers MAYT support. It is another avenue at looking at different programming and ideas for the kids. There may be different ways of working together. They take the pressure off some of the main staff because they can do what the youth worker’s can’t do in relation to their time. (Program collaborators) Funding partnerships Panyappi staff reported that the program gained strong support from the Crime Prevention Unit, State Attorney General’s Department. The Senior Project Officer assigned to supporting Panyappi was the key link with the Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department. As the local level of the Department of Human Services, Panyappi staff perceived that MAYT offered high level support in terms of the in-kind resources and direct funding they contributed, and their consistent advocacy for funding support at a central level. Questions were raised about the level of support and leadership provided by the central office of DHS throughout the program’s history. A few people reported that the minimal support and interest for Panyappi’s work, and its vision for how that could be enhanced and expanded, has had a detrimental and constraining effect on program recognition and development in DHS. Program monies were shifted without consent, responses to budget queries were slow, and considerable work was required to get accurate budget figures and recover monies. Information was not passed on to senior management levels so they could fully appreciate what Panyappi offered. This was also seen as stepping away from responsibility when Panyappi is often involved with young people who are part of the Department’s core business through Family and Youth Services. For example, a person who is independent of Panyappi and MAYT staff commented: If we had more support from DHS we would have had a better platform to really raise the profile of Panyappi through DHS and through that, better advocate on behalf of young Indigenous kids invol ved in the program and [have] more people knowing and being aware of the program and where it’s trying to head. Program collaborators, particularly those in community-based agencies that often depend upon project grants to survive, were particularly frustrated with Panyappi’s short-term funding situation. They viewed this short-term approach as disrespectful; it allows something to get started but then fails to support it to become sustainable, rather than using a “capacity building” model where the funding body plays an active role - 57 -
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 59: 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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?