Evaluating Integrated Responses to Educational Disadvantage (2000)

*SL_ DISADVANTAGEEDUCATIONALBarry Cullen C«Self

ContentsFOREWORDBackgroundForeword 1Introduction 51: Executive Summary 72: Background and Programme Outline 103: The Four Networks: Background and Progress 1 3Drogheda Youth Education Network (DYEN) 1 3Killinarden Education Network (KEN) 19Tralee Education Network (TEN) 23Network for Educational Support Tuam Area (NESTA) 29The Combat Poverty Agency is a state agency working for the prevention and elimination of poverty andsocial exclusion. Its function is to research the causes and extent of poverty in lreland,to raise publicawareness on the issue, to provide independent expertise and advice to policy makers on how to tacklepoverty and, finally, to support innovative community development and anti-poverty projects.Educational disadvantage has been a priority issue for the Combat Poverty Agency for a number of years andhas been addressed by the Agency in successive strategic plans. This interest in educational disadvantage hasevolved from growing concern nationally with the issue of early school-leaving and mounting evidence of therelationship between educational attainment and poverty.In 1994 the Agency administered a fund from the Department of Social Welfare to support and evaluate 14localised actions aimed at tackling early school-leaving.4: Overview of Inter-Networking Activity in the Programme 335: Lessons from the Programme 376: Conclusion 43Appendix 1 Evaluation Process 47The Combat Poverty Agency drew a number of conclusions from its work in administering this fund. Inparticular, it concluded that once-off, dispersed actions have little effect on educational issues. Similarly, itconcluded that integrated responses that: a) involve community groups working in conjunction with schoolsand other local bodies and b) incorporate community development principles, have greater potential todevelop an effective means of tackling educational disadvantage.Consequently, the Demonstration Programme on Educational Disadvantage was established in 1996. Inkeeping with the brief of the Combat Poverty Agency, the dual aims of the programme were as follows:* Establishing and supporting locally-based networks to develop integrated responses to educationaldisadvantage;* Developing structures that have the capacity to influence policy at national level, drawing from thelocal experience.The programme has involved three strands:* A local structure in which four networks are supported to develop programmes of work to tackleeducational disadvantage that have been identified, designed and delivered by their constituentmembers;* A policy strand in which lessons from the programme experience are disseminated through meetings,seminars, workshops and policy papers to contribute to the development of policy and practice;* An evaluation strand which was undertaken by the Children's Research Centre of Trinity College,Dublin.This evaluation report is the product of the evaluation strand highlighted above. Its purpose is to present anassessment of the impact and effectiveness of the Demonstration Programme in terms of tackling educationaldisadvantage at local levels. The report is accompanied by five papers which highlight key policy issuespertaining to educational disadvantage and integrated responses, and also the experience of theDemonstration Programme in addressing these issues.O

ContextEducational disadvantage and, in particular, early school leaving are issues that have grown in significance innational policy arenas in Ireland in recent years. Through key policy initiatives and documents, successiveIrish governments have demonstrated a commitment to reducing and preventing educational disadvantage:* The National Anti-Poverty Strategy (NAPS 1997) represents a major policy initiative by the State to placethe needs of the poor and socially excluded at the top of the national agenda in government policydevelopment and action. NAPS identifies addressing educational disadvantage as one of its fivestrategic aims and promotes the development of integrated, area-based responses to address theproblem of early school leaving.* The Government programme to tackle educational disadvantage, The New Deal. A Plan for EducationalOpportunity (1999) is a landmark policy initiative designed to counteract educational disadvantage,involving the expenditure of an additional £180m over three years, through a comprehensive range ofmeasures across all levels of the education system.The National Development Plan 2000 - 2006 (1999) sets out a national strategy to sustain and developIreland's economic and social development. It emphasises the promotion of social inclusion as acentral objective, and commits substantial national resources to strategies that promote education andservice integration to meet the needs of those areas and groups experiencing poverty and socialexclusion throughout the country.The Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (2000), the national agreement between the governmentand social partners, emphasises the case for increased priority of social inclusion measures in publicspending. It emphasises the value of life-long learning and sets objectives that target the reduction ofeducational disadvantage from early childhood to adult education.A substantial number of initiatives have been developed throughout the 1990s to address the problem ofeducational disadvantage in Ireland. The position of the Department of Education and Science, throughoutthe years, has primarily been to target additional resources to where problems of inequality and disadvantageexist and, in particular, to target schools located in areas of considerable socio-economic disadvantage.Examples of resource-based responses to educational disadvantage, within the formal education system,include, among others:the designation of schools as disadvantaged;* the Early Start Programme;Consequently, a substantial number of integrated initiatives have been established bythe Department of Education and Science and other agencies, including:the Home School Community Liaison Scheme of the Department of Education and Science;the Department of Education and Science 8-15 year old Early School Leavers Initiative;* the Department of Education and Science Stay in School Retention Programme;* the Combat Poverty Agency Demonstration Programme on Educational Disadvantage;the Programme for Peace and Reconciliation Educational Disadvantage Initiative;* initiatives organised through the work of the Area-Based Partnership companies.Each of these programmes has endeavoured to draw together a variety of formal and non-formal educationalinterests involved in the education and welfare of young people for the purpose of developing locallyappropriate integrated strategies.Since 1996, the Combat Poverty Agency Demonstration Programme on Educational Disadvantage hasdeveloped integrated responses through the support of local networks in four areas around the country'.Membership of networks typically includes, among others, representatives of schools, parents, trainingcentres, youth and community services, area-based Partnership companies, statutory services and specialinterest groups.The experience of the Demonstration Programme on Educational Disadvantage has shown that there is a keyrole for local networks in stimulating and developing integrated responses to educational disadvantage. Thenetworks have facilitated and co-ordinated personnel from a variety of formal and informal educationalsectors to come together to research, plan and develop collaborative actions. They have facilitated theirconstituent members to enhance their understanding of the nature and causes of educational disadvantageand enabled them to break down the isolation they felt in addressing educational disadvantage, prior to thedevelopment of the Demonstration Programme.Above all, the networks have developed strategic approaches to tackling educational disadvantage in theirrespective areas by ensuring the equal participation of all key interests' and by acting as a catalyst forinformation sharing, shared analysis of issues/problems/priorities and collaborative action, based on thatshared analysis.Evaluation Process & Reportthe Breaking the Cycle Initiative;the Teacher Counsellor/Support Teacher Scheme.Increasingly, there has been a recognition of the multi-dimensional nature of educational disadvantage,acknowledging that educational disadvantage is rooted in the complex interaction of factors at home, inschool and in the community. This enhanced understanding of the problem has identified the need toaddress educational disadvantage through the development of integrated approaches involving the home,school and community.The evaluation of the Demonstration Programme was both evaluative and formative in nature. Regularperiodic interaction between the programme evaluation team, the local networks and the Combat PovertyAgency assisted participants in the programme to reflect on their work, as it developed and to become cleareron the desired direction of that work. Participation in programme discussions, seminars and with individualnetworks also provided the evaluation team with opportunities to become familiar with, and contribute todeveloping understanding of issues and concerns, as they arose within the programme. In particular, theprogramme evaluation team provided important guidance to each of the networks in the development oftheir respective processes to monitor and evaluate their work, at a local level.Drogheda Youth Educational Network, Drogheda, Co. Louth; Killmarden Education Network, Killinarden, Tallaqht, Dublin 24, Network (orEducation Support Tuam Area, Tuam, Co. Galway, Tralee Education Network, Tralee, Co KerryEspecially those who might otherwise not have a voice, e.g. parents( Evaluating Integrated Responses

The evaluation report describes the programme background and its development. It includes cleardescriptions of the ways of working which each network developed and which characterise the programmeas a whole. The report draws a number of lessons from the programme's experience. These lessons includethe value of giving time to the establishment of each local network - including time identifying all thepossible participants, identifying and agreeing priority needs to be addressed and developing structures andmanagement capacity to develop responses to the needs identified. The report also identifies the importanceof including parents from the beginning and designing the networks around their inclusion. Ideas from theprogramme in the report focus on the value of using a community development approach, on the value ofusing an inter-agency approach and on the central importance of the participation of school personnel - bothsenior personnel and teachers.INTRODUCTIONIn November, 1995, the Combat Poverty Agency obtained sanction to operate the DemonstrationProgramme on Educational Disadvantage. Under this programme, four local network groups, based inDrogheda (Co. Louth), Killinarden (Co. Dublin), Tralee (Co. Kerry) and Tuam (Co. Calway), received fundingto develop an integrated, co-ordinated response to the problem of educational disadvantage within theirareas.The programme's more detailed aims were:The report also emphasises the important role undertaken by the network co-ordinator in each of the fourprogramme networks. It stresses the value of the co-ordinator's role in creating the conditions for new waysof collaborative working to develop, in developing and sustaining effective inter-agency relationships, and instimulating and supporting new initiatives to tackle educational disadvantage which respond to particularneeds identified locally. The report notes, however, the absence of clear guidelines regarding qualificationsand skills appropriate for a network co-ordinator and recommends that this is an area requiring attention inthe future.* The establishment and support of locally based networks whose role was to develop an integratedresponse to the problem of educational disadvantage within their areas. By so doing, they would givedisadvantaged children/young people opportunities to progress and transfer between the formal andinformal education systems according to their needs and to maximise their participation in and benefitfrom these systems.* The development of structures capable of influencing policy at national level, drawing from the localexperience.Widespread concern in the policy area of educational disadvantage and interest in integrated responses, atpresent, makes this a particularly timely publication. The ideas and lessons drawn from the experience ofthe programme will be of interest to those working at local level - to schools, community and voluntaryorganisations, parents and statutory agencies - with responsibility for tackling educational disadvantage.The policy commitments and range of initiatives highlighted here, which focus on educational disadvantage,provide a context for attention to be given to the experience of the Demonstration Programme.It was not the Agency's intention in this programme that there would be very clear outcomes for cohorts ofyoung people at risk of or experiencing educational disadvantage. Rather it has been the programme'sexperience of drawing together the very broad range of players with responsibility for addressing educationaldisadvantage, at local level, which provides lessons for more effective local collaboration in the longer term.AcknowledgementsThe Combat Poverty Agency would like to acknowledge the work of Barry Cullen, the author of this report,and that of his colleagues at the Children's Research Centre. Similarly, the Agency thanks all those whoseinput influenced the production of the evaluation report, in particular members of the four networks, theprogramme's Evaluation Advisory Committee and personnel from the Agency.The Agency would also like to wish all of these individuals every success in the future, especially in theircontinuing efforts to address educational disadvantage.Under the programme, the four networks received core funding up to a maximum of £30,000 per annum forthree years, to run from September 1996 to September 1999. The programme was later extended toDecember 2000.The Children's Research Centre in Trinity College Dublin was commissioned to provide an evaluationconsultancy to the programme. This consultancy started in October 1997 and lasted to ]anuary 2000. Anadvisory group jointly set up by Combat Poverty Agency and the Children's Research Centre helped theevaluation. The evaluation included a programme review and the compilation of five separate papers on keyissues pertaining to the programme. (For further details of the evaluation process, see Appendix 1. Theresearch papers are published separately under the title: Policy Aspects of Educational Disadvantage.The central purpose of the programme review was to assess the impact and effectiveness of the programmein terms of tackling educational disadvantage at local level. Particular attention was paid to the impactof network structures and programme objectives. The review was structured so that it could inform theongoing development of the programme. Feedback reports were given to each network and networkswere helped to develop their own self-evaluation and to use other resources to help them plan and review.Between October 1997 and January 1998, up to 25 network members were interviewed and gave data onnetwork origins, aims and early development. This helped to inform the evaluation process. A draft evaluationreport was completed in December 1999 and was followed by a series of feedback workshops with networksand with the Combat Poverty Agency to expand on the report's contents. This document is the final reporton the programme review.Combat Poverty AgencyOctober 2000Summary of ContentsThis report discusses the general background, progress and outcomes of the Demonstration Programme.It outlines the general evaluation approach and issues that have arisen in conducting the evaluation. Itsummarises programme priorities and progress in each of the four networks and it also discusses widerpolicy issues that have arisen in the development of networks to date. The report has a number of sections.Section 1 is an Executive Summary. Section 2 provides an outline and background to the setting up of theprogramme. Section 3 describes the early progress and later development of each network. Section 4provides an overview of inter-networking activity in the programme. Section 5 outlines the lessons to bedrawn from the programme. Finally, the report is concluded in Section 6. An appendix describes theevaluation process and methodology in detail.Five papers written as part of the overall evaluation process arepublished separately under the title: Po//cy Aspects of Educational Disadvantages.

SECTION 1EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe Demonstration Programme on Educational Disadvantage was set up initially for three years,1996 - 1999, by the Combat Poverty Agency. Under this programme, four local network groups,based in Drogheda (Co. Louth), Killinarden (Co. Dublin), Tralee (Co. Kerry) and Tuam (Co. Galway),were funded following a widely publicised competitive process. The aims of the networks were todevelop integrated, co-ordinated responses to the problems of educational disadvantage within theirareas and to contribute to influencing policy in relation to these issues. Following an interim evaluationreport on the programme in 1998, it was decided to extend the programme to the end of 2000.The main background to setting up the Demonstration Programme was growing concern with theissue of early school-leaving and mounting evidence of the relationship between educationalattainment and poverty. The Combat Poverty Agency started to develop a strategy for dealing witheducational disadvantage issues during the early 1990s. Subsequently, the Demonstration Programmebecame the main component of this strategy. Research, creating public awareness on educationaldisadvantage, and the development of a poverty awareness programme for school curricula were othercomponents of the programme.* At the time, a growing number of government initiatives focused on integrating local communityefforts to tackle pervasive social problems. These initiatives concerned long-term unemployment, localdrug problems, childcare matters and local and community development. The development of a localpartnership structure was an important organisational dimension to these initiatives. They broughttogether the main statutory and voluntary interests dealing with specific issues, alongside communitybodies and other persons directly affected by the issues. The Demonstration Programme adopted thismodel and was structured to support local network groups dealing with educational issues in the fourareas.* The Demonstration Programme emphasised the value of achieving more effective home-schoolcommunitylinkages and in particular of promoting and developing the roles of non-school communitybodies and parents in tackling children's educational needs. This approach was based on an analysisthat recognised that educational disadvantage grew out of a "discontinuity between the school andthe non-school experiences of disadvantaged children" 3 and that interventions needed to go beyond"conventional schooling".* Support for integrated approaches is evident across the literature spanning theory, policy and practice.The five papers written as part of the Demonstration Programme Policy Aspects of EducationalDisadvantages, discussed the theoretical and practical arguments for adopting an integrated approach* The Combat Poverty Agency supported the Demonstration Programme in the context of its widerstrategy to promote community development as an anti-poverty measure. Its model of communitydevelopment is one of supporting self-organised groups to take direct responsibility to initiateappropriate actions in response to local problems. Empowerment and participation are importantconcepts in this work. The Demonstration Programme was envisaged as a community developmentmeasure. Although the programme brought together personnel and bodies from other sectors, it wasbasically oriented towards promoting community development in tackling educational disadvantage.' Education and Poverty; Eliminating Disadvantage in the Primary School Years A Discussion Paper by: the Education Commission ofThe Conference of Major Religious SuperiorsEvaluating Integrated Responses( Evaluating Integrated Responses

The programme was initially slow to develop in all but one of the four network areas. At the outset,each of the network groups was enthusiastic. However, it took some time for them to form a structure,recruit co-ordinators and agree a set of coherent aims and objectives. It also took time to negotiateand develop relationships across different sectors, especially as these were not always used to dealingwith each other in a co-ordinated way. As relationships developed and network structures emerged,the work of the networks gained momentum. Network groups undertook management training andalso participated in self-evaluation sessions, awareness-building and training in specific educational,organisational and management issues. By 1998, all the networks had established themselves ascoherent inter-agency bodies dealing with educational disadvantage issues within their respectiveThe main activities of the networks involved bringing together the key organisations and individualsconcerned with educational disadvantage and supporting this network through exchange ofinformation, contacts, ideas around good practice and other developments. The networks co-ordinatedinter-agency meetings and fora around specific issues such as literacy, Travellers' education and schoolabsenteeism. They promoted the formation of specific interest groups around local educational issues.They spread information about the networks and other local education groups through newsletters,posters and leaflets. The networks organised seminars and support meetings with parents' bodies,teachers' groups, youth groups and other interested parties in the network area on topics such as earlyschool-leaving, integration concepts, absenteeism and transition programmes.The networks also provided advice, guidance and practical supports to activities that interveneddirectly with early school-leaving or other specific educationally disadvantaged target groups and thathad important integrative dimensions. Such interventions included: 8-15 Early School-Leavers'Initiative, after-school projects, transition programmes, committees for tackling absenteeism, familyliteracy programmes and parent visitor/peer support programmes. Other interventions includedlobbying on local educational issues, awareness campaigns on education/poverty issues andcontributing to training modules that informed teachers on working in educationally disadvantagedareas.While the main focus for the Demonstration Programme was the work of the four networks, it had apolicy dimension also. This included a research and evaluation strand, the hosting of policy seminars,various activities focused on bringing network personnel together to reflect on policy matters, anddrawing from programme outcomes in compiling internal Agency statements and educationdocuments. Networking among the four groups in the programme also took place.The four participating networks contributed immensely to the programme evaluation. They alsoregularly came together for joint inter-network meetings. In conjunction with the Combat PovertyAgency, the networks organised annual conferences on the programme to which were invitedpart,c,pants ,n other relevant programmes. They also worked alongside the Agency in hosting policyseminars and other policy-related activities.The Demonstration Programme did not specifically target young people for educational interventions -rather the networks supported the emergence of such interventions from the community or theirown members. Although young people were not immediate network users or beneficiaries, it wasdecided to incorporate young people's views and experiences into overall programme evaluationand documentation. In the course of evaluating the programme, therefore, it was decided toundertake a small research study on the experiences of young people who had experiencedschooling difficulties. The networks facilitated this study through putting evaluators in contactwith early school-leavers or at-risk persons.related issues such as absenteeism, transitions and early school-leaving. By focusing around theseissues, networks gained momentum and real opportunities to identify problems. This focus alsoprovided opportunities for school, community interests and parents to meet to offer their analyses,plan joint actions and develop a shared vision. Aims and objectives developed by partnerships aroundcompulsory schooling years may lead, in time, to actions and initiatives in other areas such as adulteducation, pre-school learning and so forth.At times, relationships between agencies across the various sectors concerned with educationaldisadvantage were difficult and it took a lot of conviction for personnel and their agencies to formsuccessful collaborations. In doing this, the effort taken to understand the perspective of differentpeople working in this area, to acknowledge where other personnel were coming from and to learnfrom and to respect their contribution every bit as much as one's own were of key importance.Parental involvement was a key issue throughout the programme. Initially, this was particularly difficultto grasp in a meaningful manner. At both network and Agency levels, there was constant dialogueabout improving strategies and actions for securing greater parental engagement. A number ofimportant developments at both local network and inter-network levels emerged and these added tothe momentum around parental involvement.The absence of local educational structures in a system of education that is highly centralised can makeit particularly difficult for schools and teachers to engage in networking bodies that involve non-schoolpersonnel. Clearer incentives for involving school personnel in such network developments arerequired. Also, the involvement of the Department of Education and Science in planning anddeveloping such ventures is essential. The most likely area for developing local integrated responses toeducational disadvantage, with departmental involvement, arises in the proposed education welfareservice. Although proposals for developing this service indicate that local co-ordinating activity willinvolve case management of only child welfare issues, in practice such case co-ordination shouldrequire the development of effective inter-agency structures, dealing with other issues also. A proposalin relation to such a development is contained in a paper on the programme (see paper 4: PolicyAspects of Educational Disadvantage, Discussion Papers).The role of co-ordinators in developing educational networks is pivotal. Appropriate training andqualifications for co-ordinating practitioners are needed. This topic might be best addressed throughthird-level colleges. In-service training should also be looked at. Co-ordinators were an important linkbetween different sectors, creating opportunities for collaboration, while continuing to network;creating new ideas for collaboration while mediating ideas and proposals between different sectors;and making new contacts and connections, as appropriate.The experience of the networks illustrates the value and importance of local seminars, workshops andconferences for generating home-school-community partnerships. These served to generate ideas,enthusiasm and support for networking activities and also helped to focus efforts on particular localissues.The networks valued the role of the Combat Poverty Agency in providing ongoing advice, supportand technical assistance on this programme. The networks also valued highly opportunities forinter-networking, for meeting with each other and for sharing ideas with personnel from otherprogrammes. There was a strong sense overall of being part of a wider programme while, atthe same time, practical supports in relation to management, organisation, funding andevaluation issues were constantly available.The work of the networks illustrates the potential of bringing partnerships together around educationaldisadvantage issues. This is particularly so if the groups are focused on compulsory schooling years andEvaluating Integrated ResponsesI( Evaluating Integrated Responses

SECTION 2BACKGROUND AND PROGRAMME OUTLINEEarly school-leaving can be understood as young people leaving school before the legal school-leaving ageand/or leaving school without formal, or with limited, qualifications.Concern with early school-leaving as a social and political issue emerged during the 1980s, mainly as a resultof the fall in the number of unskilled and semi-skilled manual jobs available for those who left formaleducation early or relatively unqualified. This concern became focused on the issue of youth unemploymentand in areas, particularly urban areas, where participation in post-compulsory schooling was low and theyouth populations was high, the issue was seen as a social, community problem.The numbers of young people at risk of early school-leaving are also cause for concern. The 1997 School-Leavers' Report estimated that, out of almost 70,000 second-level school-leavers, 2,200 young people leftwith no qualification 4 . A further 10,000 students left school with only limited qualification, i.e. with no morethan five passes in their Leaving Certificate. The report had no estimate for the number of children who didnot transfer from primary to secondary levels.Initially, official responses to the problem of early school-leaving were mainly channelled through programmesprovided by community/voluntary agencies with the help of government and European Union (EU) funds. Ata national level, a youth employment levy was introduced and a government Social Guarantee made acommitment to provide early school-leavers with places on school-work transition programmes in the form ofpre-vocational training, formal skills training and work experience. This official response viewed early schoolleavingas a loss of human capital, and it focused on post-education interventions.Human CapitalThe education as human capital approach emphasises the role of education in dealing with skills shortages andchanging technological needs. This reflects a trend of governments to perceive their investment in educationas an investment in the national stock of human capital thereby increasing competitiveness within globalmarkets. Improvements in education, brought about through school-retention and better literacy abilities,increases productivity within knowledge-driven international markets. This approach continues to influencepolicy and is currently evident in the Irish government's National Development Plan, 2000 - 2006 s .Integrative ResponsesAs early school-leaving emerged as a social problem, alternative analyses to those simply based on loss ofhuman capital and economic efficiency developed. The integrative approach defines early school-leaving asreflecting multiple levels of detachment from the social, economic and cultural mainstream. This analysis isconsistent with social inclusion policies that have become common in both EU and national programmes.Social inclusion policies emphasise the need for stronger associative relationships directly linking people tomainstream economic, social, cultural and educational structures. Ideas around "participations", "integration"and "empowerment" are underlined in such policies. The Demonstration Programme is based on thisparticular analysis.Development of ProgrammeDuring the early-to mid-1990s, the Combat Poverty Agency had been to the fore among government bodiesin promoting social inclusion policies. The Agency became increasingly aware of the research evidence linkingpoverty with long-term unemployment and linking educational differences with labour market differentials. 6Amid growing concerns about the rising numbers of unqualified school-leavers, the Agency involved itselfwith the issue of educational disadvantage. However, by the mid-1990s, the Agency had not yet launchedany significant, meaningful research or practical actions on educational disadvantage. In 1995, an importantreview of policy measures for tackling educational disadvantage was initiated in conjunction with theDepartment of Education 7 .In 1994, the Agency had been requested by the Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare to setup and administer a department fund for tackling early school-leaving. While the Agency was cautious aboutbecoming involved with funding educational actions - which might be considered a legal function of theDepartment of Education and Science - it believed that the fund might help it to assess the type and numberof practical initiatives already taking place and to improve its own capacity on the issue. The Agency decidedto use the fund as a once-off, time-limited grants scheme to support and evaluate 14 localised actions aimedat tackling early school-leaving.An advisory group drawn from representatives from national youth organisations, the Department ofEducation and Science, Youthreach and the Economic and Social Research Institute helped the Agency toassess the fund's evaluation and to develop proposals for a follow-up programme. The group concluded thatonce-off, dispersed actions had very little effect on educational issues, generally. There was growing frustrationamong those schools and youth and community organisations that had already initiated and developed pilotactions but could see no evidence of these being adapted nationally.The Combat Poverty Agency had been involved with other pilot programmes where scaling-up had beenachieved, particularly the Community Development Programme and the Local Development Programme. TheAgency was conscious of the critical role played by community development approaches in both theseprogrammes and other similar programmes with which it was involved. It was committed to ensuring thatany new programme it sponsored would have a community development focus also. The Agency envisagedthat, through an integrated approach, community groups could develop a more effective role in tacklingeducational disadvantage, in conjunction with schools and other local bodies.Community Development FocusIn its overall approach, the Combat Poverty Agency adopted a community development perspective todeveloping responses to educational disadvantage. It recognised that the central arena for planning,developing and taking action need not be either school-based or school-determined. The Agency emphasisedthat the causes of educational disadvantage lay in the "discontinuity between the school and the non-schoolexperiences of disadvantaged children" and that interventions needed to go beyond "conventionalschooling". 8 The approach emphasised the value of achieving more effective home-school-communitylinkages where each is assigned equality of status. These linkages could develop either in or outside schoolsettings and they could focus on any (or many) of a number of issues, interventions or development ofrelationships.To facilitate an appropriate integrated response, in the context of the Demonstration Programme, the Agencyadvocated basing this on local networks that would consist "of all relevant parties engaged in educationprovision, broadly defined, in the area". Such networks typically would consist of:•Collins, C. Williams. |. (1998). The 1997 Annual School-Leavers' Report: Results of the School-Leaven'Surveys, 1995-1997,Dublin: Department of Enterprise Trade and Employment. Department of Education and Science, and ESRI.Government of Ireland (2000). Ireland Notional Development Plan, 2000-2006, Dublin: The Stationery Office.Evaluating Integrated Responses Jm>'Breen, R. (1991), Education, Employment and Training in the Youth Labour Market, Dublin: Economic and Social Research InstituteKellaghan, T, Weir, S., 6'hUallachain, Morgan, M (1995), Educational Disadvantage in Irelond, Dublin. Department ol Education, CombatPoverty Agency and the Educational Research Centre." See footnote 3( Evaluating Integrated Responses ^^TT^

* schools, both primary and secondary;* education/training initiatives;* youth services/community-based youth projects;* Childcare/family support services;* juvenile liaison and probation and welfare services;special educational interests, e.g. Travellers, people with disabilities.In setting up the Demonstration Programme, the Agency emphasised integration as a key policy tool fortackling educational disadvantage. The programme brochure stated:SECTION 3The Four Networks: Background and ProgressDrogheda Youth Education Network, Co. Louth (DYEN)Background"The programme is underpinned by an understanding of educational disadvantage which recognises themulti-dimensional nature of the problem and the consequent need for an integrated, multi-sectoral response toaddress it."...The 'demonstration' aspect of the programme will consist of the modelling of a co-ordinating process andstructure in a limited number of areas (three or four) where there is a real possibility of achieving concreteresults in order to draw out the policy and practice lessons and to disseminate these to a wide audience ofboth policy-makers and practitioners" (italics added).Recruitment of NetworksDuring April/May 1996, the Agency circulated the brochure in which it outlined its ideas. The brochureindicated that successful applicant groups - which needed to be based in the catchment areas of existinglocal development partnerships - would develop a network structure that would build on the knowledgeskills and expertise of its different members. It would draw on this expertise to assess the local experience ofeducat,onal disadvantage and develop a workplan for three years. The type of eligible activities anticipated forthis workplan included:actions that support and consolidate the networking structures and process'awareness-raising programmes on the issue of educational disadvantage with staff of participatingpartners to the network;structured training programmes/exchanges between agencies;provision of funding to less well-resourced partners to enable their participation.Thirty-four groups applied to be included in the programme. Four groups were finally selected by the end ofJune 1997. These were:Drogheda is a port town on the east coast, 30 miles north of Dublin, and is the second town in Co. Louth. Itlies on the main Dublin-Belfast route and has a population of over 24,000. More than half the population areaged 30 years and younger. The majority are under 20 years. Drogheda town and its hinterlands have beendesignated as an area of disadvantage under the Local Development Programme. A number of communityand voluntary services have been formed to address issues of social disadvantage particularly as these relate toyoung people. These groups have since participated in the development of the education network'.In 1995, some of these groups had come together already to form a Youth Affairs Forum to examine howcloser working relationships and linkages could contribute more effectively to tackling the issue of local earlyschool-leaving. Before this forum was formed, local linkages in working with early school-leavers were limitedand the forum was widely welcomed as an opportunity to overcome these deficiencies. The local youthservice, Drogheda Youth Development, provided the main direction and focus to the forum. During theperiod 1995/1996, the forum generated a sense of expectation but limited resources and the lack of adedicated co-ordinator hampered its overall progress.The application for inclusion in the Demonstration Programme on Educational Disadvantage was submittedby Drogheda Partnership, the youth service, youth training centres, the health board and the home-schoolcommunityco-ordinator. These were already linked together through the work of the Forum.AimsThe Combat Poverty Agency's programme was seen as an opportunity to overcome the difficulties ofinsufficient resources and lack of a co-ordinator and to strengthen the commitment of participantorganisations to further co-ordination and networking.StructureDrogheda Youth Education Network, Co. Louth;Killinarden Education Network, Tallaght, Co. Dublin;Tralee Education Network, Co. Kerry;Network for Educational Support Tuam Area, Co. Galway.In the first stages of setting up this programme, networks were provided with technical assistance::::~r pmn9 three - yearact,onp,ans - inrecruiting a «-*-. - * «**Following its inclusion in the Demonstration Programme, the Youth Affairs Forum formed a core group that,in time, evolved to become known as Drogheda Youth Education Network or DYEN. The core group recruiteda co-ordinator and established a limited company.As initial difficulties with defining structures and roles were resolved, an agreed structure was devised. Thenetwork's main structure is that of a support group that also functions as an executive. It draws membersfrom schools, home-school-community liaison co-ordinators, youth services, probation and welfare services,health board, partnership board, childcare services and parents' bodies. This support group expandeddramatically through 1998-99. The involvement of school and teaching personnel was particularly significant.The network now is linked effectively into seven of the town's 1 3 primary schools and three of the four postprimaryschools. Although the network has attracted good schools support, some constraints arise becausedepartmental rules have prevented teachers from being released to attend seminars and meetings.Profile information for each of the networks is drawn from their action plans.Evaluating Integrated Responses( Evaluating Integrated Responses

ActivityA lot of effort was expended in the beginning on establishing a legal entity and clarifying member roles. Thisprocess caused quite a deal of frustration and tension. Network members were discontented by what theysaw as a distraction from the more important work of creating effective linkages between schools andstatutory and community personnel, and of bringing parents into the network.The co-ordinator developed a comprehensive action plan that outlined the key activities and objectives thatwould be undertaken. However, by mid-1997, he resigned from his position to take up a new post. Thiscreated a major void in the network until a successor was appointed the following December.Despite these difficulties, network members started 1998 with a generally positive outlook. A networkstructure and a new co-ordinator were in place and there was a good deal of optimism that the followingperiod would provide an opportunity to focus on core issues.As a result of the initial difficulties in sorting out structures and organisational detail, there was a clearconsensus that DYEN in 1998/1999 should focus primarily on practical actions that could demonstrate thevalue of networking. By so doing, it could then encourage the development of appropriate structures.The network is involved also in facilitating discussions on targeting issues and on promoting ways of bringingparents more closely into programme management and development.The network was also involved in providing technical assistance to one of the programmes in its applicationfor the 8-15 Early School-Leavers Initiative (ESLI) funding. Although the funding application did not succeed,the proposal did receive support through the ADM/CPA Programme for Peace and Reconciliation. Thenetwork's involvement helped raise its profile and demonstrated that local groups could access resourceswhen they combined their talents and energies in a collaborative process."The network has raised issues and carried through on them. It has supported educators in differentcontexts, such as funding applications, developing links with the community and integration. Thenetwork is developing the capacities of the schools and is rated well among the educators as a\ result" (Co-ordinator: interview).In addition to the above programmes, the network is involved in bringing other existing services together toimprove co-ordination of early school-leaver programmes and is also developing a networking forum forlinking the new psychology service for primary schools in the town to existing resource and special needsteachers.Having decided to focus on practical network activity, DYEN concentrated on supporting seven separateeducational programmes. These were:* Northside Schools ProjectThis project provides in-school counselling and educational support across three schools on the town'snorthside. It is funded through the ADM/CPA Programme for Peace and Reconciliation.* Traveller Education and Training CommitteeThis committee brings together Travellers, resource teachers, workers with Travellers and other workersto deal broadly with Traveller issues, in particular education issues. Issues concerning school attendanceand the lack of Traveller children transferring to secondary school are discussed in a general way with aview to piloting specific programmes for supporting school-retention among Traveller children.Befriender's ProgrammeThis programme is focused on providing counselling and personal support to young people. There is aneed for the programme to become more linked in with schools for information, advice and referralpurposes. It is operated by the North-Eastern Health Board.* Educational SupportThis is an in-schools educational support project that provides intense social and personal support totargeted children in a primary school.* Home-School forumTeachers from a single school have developed a forum with parents around a single set of students totry to enhance their educational potential and opportunities.* Targeted After School ProjectThe project is funded by the ADM/CPA Programme for Peace and Reconciliation and through a localconsortium that is supported by Drogheda Partnership of which the network is a member. The role ofthe network in the consortium is to provide a forum for the various consortium groups to cometogether for mutual learning.* LifestartThis is an early years programme and the network co-ordinator is a member of its management group.The current work programme is quite focused. "Only one or two issues are tackled at a time". A largedatabase has been drawn up of teachers, interested parents and various social service, youth, developmentand voluntary bodies. A regular newsletter has been produced and circulated. This newsletter provides basicinformation on network and other education-related activities.RoleThe overall role of the network in the seven programmes is to work closely with personnel and withmanagement committees in developing wider community involvement, and to promote effective linkagesbetween and within programmes.LessonsA number of lessons can be drawn from the experience of the network. In its efforts to develop a supportstructure in the early days, the network was quite conscious that network members were struggling with theconcept of integration."People are not always reflective and tend to be more goal oriented, especially in schools. There maybe an implicit understanding of integration. Such terms are used both as jargon and aspirations forthe purposes of funding.This does not mean people have a real understanding of it" (Co-ordinatorinterview).Also of importance was a maturing within the network and a growing recognition that the network needed tobe focused on making small achievements as a way of building a larger agenda in the long term."Organising practical actions help to tie the DYEN together. There is sharing of information so aseveryone who participates feels they are benefiting. This has been particularly important for schoolsas they have to gam clear benefits to make it worth their while to participate."(Co-ordinator: interview)"Structured networks need one person or organisation with a cl< • ei i way of working todrive the network along ... The DYEN has been more informal and looser This ad hoc nature agroups to pm as the process continued. It is more bottom up... The structure evolved anas it went along, allowing new groups to pm. The institutions already existed They were not put intomaEvaluating Integrated ResponsesfEvaluating Integrated Responses

a position of having to commit to monthly meetings or voting rights. It has been a consensusapproach...The network is only one part of members' work. It brings added value but it will notchange the world. The informality of membership is positive.There is a good atmosphere and peoplev can contribute at different times." (Co-ordinator interview)Achievement Profile - What Worked WellOrganising a Conference on School Transition IssuesIn line with the Network's commitment to concentrate on one or two issues at a time, it decided to act onthe issue of school transitions. This issue was emphasised primarily for strategic reasons. It was felt that thetransition issue was likely to integrate a wide group and bring education personnel into the process. Therewas a strong perception among network members that some students had real difficulties with transition.Alongside a poverty dimension, there were also concerns about the effects of rural-urban change and theimpact of particular parenting styles (for example, children who were over-protected or who lacked ageappropriate social skills or who for various reasons lacked sufficient preparation). It was felt that this range oftransition difficulties would help keep a wider group of people together around the issue.There was also a practical reason for this prioritisation. Materials and other resources were available. Transitionactions had been held elsewhere and a structure based on other templates and tailored to conditions inDrogheda was needed. It was decided that the action on transition issues would have three separateelements:The seminar also helped identify other critical issues: school transport, bullying, and problems of transferringfrom a rural to an urban environment. This, in turn, led to setting up specific working groups around some ofthese issues.Better communication between some key players in the education field and better awareness of what causesproblems for children during transition years arose out of the seminar. Furthermore, a better understanding ofthe range of circumstances and issues concerning transition was also developed:"While the focus of the seminar was on the transfer from primary to post-primary school a verystrong point... was that we need to broaden our understanding of transfer/transition. There are manysignificant points of transfer for children and young people within the education system...The samebasic principles apply at all the different transfer stages. Thus, there is a need to address this issueat a very early stage in the educational cycle and at each subsequent transfer point, particularly forchildren coming from a disadvantaged background" (Co-ordinator: interview).The transition issue also provided opportunities to raise other practical questions, such as: 'why should certainchildren be expected to make a transition from primary to secondary when their transition into school in thefirst instance was never successful?' This question arose particularly in relation to some Traveller children. Ithelped provide an opportunity to look at educational disadvantage issues from a broader perspective andconsider the need to bring nursery and child welfare personnel into the frame. The network's participation inother programmes that are trying to generate ideas around school-Traveller relationships provides a forum fordeveloping these issues further.basic data on transfer policies would be collected through questionnaires and focus group discussions;a seminar on the issue would be held;appropriate follow-up actions would take placeThe key element in this action was a transition seminar held in March 1999. Over 60 people from Droghedaand its wider catchment area attended, including schools, other educational agencies, health, social serviceand legal agencies, and parents.The aims of the seminar were:to explore primary to post-primary transfer issues;to explore the impact of transition on students, particularly those who were disadvantaged;to hear presentations about work done in other areas; and,to provide a forum for schools, agencies, community'and other personnel to discuss the prospects offurther planned actions.The seminar was structured around an input from a Youthstart programme that focused specifically ontrans.t.on ,ssues and a number of workshops that considered specific practical ideas and strategies forimproving students' transfers.The network compiled a report on the seminar and its follow-up self-evaluation session focused on the next«age. It was decided to collect further information from parents of children who were changing schools ando hold focus groups for young people. As issues concerning rural transport and transition from rural primaryto urban secondary were raised a so, it was decirieri tr, f^rm . •r , t ... , . ^aecided to form a working group on transportation issues.Further, a specific transition proqramme was nUnnoH in „ . .was planned ,n con|unction w,th the northside schools project.This transition action provided an important focus tn mo noh.,„ L J ._ ,t0 the netw °rk and helped it to move from simply raisingand discussing issues to actions that seemed capable of brinninn *« A-U«-a P doie or bringing the different network players toqetheryaround specific practical matters. Orqanisina the seminar,-,,9 9 thC Seminar qave,. * r . ,everv member of the network a role in makingthe practical arrangements.yEvaluating Integrated ResponsesJ( Evaluating Integrated Responses

Killinarden Educational Network, Tallaght, Dublin (KEN)BackgroundKillinarden Education Network (KEN) is located in an area of West Tallaght in South County Dublin. Killinardenconsists primarily of local authority housing and was built in the late 1970s/early 1980s. Approximately 7,000people live in the area. Almost half of the population are aged less than 20 years. It is located within apartnership company catchment area under the Local Development Programme. The area has high rates ofunemployment, deprivation and low educational attainment.When notice of the Combat Poverty Programme was issued, local organisations, in particular the TallaghtYouth Service, Tallaght Partnership Company and the Killinarden Community School, decided to make a jointsubmission.AimsOriginally the programme was seen as an opportunity for each organisation to fulfil its own goals but with thesame general target group in mind. A lot of innovative work concerning young people and education wastaking place in the area and the lack of linkages between these needed to be more effectively tackled. TheDemonstration Programme was seen as providing this opportunity.StructureBecause of the youth service's prior direct involvement with young people in Killinarden, it was agreed that itshould become a lead organisational structure for the network, with a steering committee made up of it andother network members. The steering committee was subsequently expanded to include more parents andmeeting times were changed to suit parental participation.ActivityDuring its first phase, Killinarden Education Network's steering committee got a consultant to undertake astudy of the area and to compile an action plan on behalf of the network. The research involved discussionswith local people, organisations and groups to identify issues concerning educational disadvantage and tomake recommendations around objectives and actions. This action plan was presented to local people at apublic meeting in May. It emphasised the need to:* develop at a local level a common understanding of educational disadvantage;* identify, implement and support suitable local interventions; and,* formulate policy proposals based on these experiences.Overall, there was slow progress in developing the network until a co-ordinator was appointed in September1997. Thereafter, progress improved and key local educational players were included quite quickly.In the three months after it appointed a co-ordinator, the network arranged meetings with localschool/parents' groups, members of residents'/tenants' associations and with community groups, both toinform them about the network and to promote their involvement. Membership of the network expanded toinclude representatives from parents, primary and post-primary schools, youth training, youth service, thepartnership company and community, voluntary and religious leaders.Some committee training took place but overall the committee focused on 'learning by doing' and engagedin ongoing self-evaluation. Although self-evaluation was quite complex, it helped the steering group to workthrough issues and to understand the reality of what it takes to get things going. Understanding the potentialof KEN's co-ordinating role, as distinct from managing interventions, was a significant learning stage.( Evaluating Integrated ResponsesO

A particular effort was made to bring parents on board. When the steering committee was set up initially, itwas seen as unbalanced as there were few parents compared to professionals. The committee expanded toinclude more parents. Meetings were changed from daytime to night to facilitate parental participation. Theinvolvement of more parents brought fresh enthusiasm, contributed to greater morale and promoted a senseof openness.The success of an application for the 8-15 Early School-Leavers Initiative (ESLI) also provided a focus forgenerating more lobbying momentum within the network. KEN became recognised as an important structurefor facilitating the co-ordination of such activities. In particular, it was seen as helpful for groups in accessingfunding and other supports. It organised an information poster on voluntary youth and sports groups thatwas distributed widely in the community. School principals and other key local figures collaborated with KENin highlighting the area's educational needs and bringing these to the attention of the Department and theMinister for Education.Lobbying also provided a focus for promoting the development of a school attendance committee. Highlevels of absenteeism had caused widespread concern and a committee was drawn together to giveleadership to whatever interventions might result. The committee drew together representatives from theschools, Youthreach, Garda Sfochana, health board and KEN. It developed a set of guiding principles and anoutline modus operandi. The publication of the Education Welfare Bill 1999 has helped provide a context forthe committee's work but there is a strong sense that a specific agency is needed to deal with this problem(see below, Lessons). KEN hopes that, in the long-term, when issues of confidentiality and case managementprotocols are adequately resolved, case conferencing for early school-leavers will take place.The network initiated a family literacy programme. This was a 10-week programme organised with thesupport of KEN in a single school. It took place in a family room at times that suited parents dropping theirchildren off to school. The programme made a lot of use of home-based materials and developed parents' useof these. Sessions involving children also followed at a later stage. The main involvement of the network wasto play a supportive and funding role.KEN's involvement gave an opportunity to evaluate the programme's impact. To avoid stigma, theprogramme had been offered on a general basis in the school. Those who joined, however, were already quiteactive and engaged in educational support work with their children. Some parents who had been targetedhad dropped out. Through the network's supportive role, the issue of more effective targeting for futureprogrammes was raised. Without its involvement, such programmes might have been repeated withoutreflection or analysis.On a separate level, KEN collaborated with St. Patrick's College for teacher training in developing an electivecourse on the topic: Teaching in an Area of Social and Economic Disadvantage. It also helped to organisepoverty awareness in-service training with 20 teachers in local schools in conjunction with the CurriculumDevelopment Unit and The Combat Poverty Agency.RoleKEN has adopted a role around generating ideas, initiating discussions and consultations, buildingrelationships and fostering a sense of responsibility for management among other partners: schools, parentsand community bodies. However, it does not manage projects itself.While waiting for enactment of the Education Welfare Bill 1999, the committee is focusing on informationsharing and lobbying.Lessonsdraw more organisations into the network. KEN's success in securing the project for the area demonstratedthe potential of its work methods, i.e. concentrating on generating the ideas, bringing the players together,making the application, supporting the relationships but leaving implementation to a separate group thatemerged from KEN's preliminary preparations.The network's activity on school absenteeism gave it a strong sense that a specific agency was needed to dealwith this problem and that the schools, whether on their own or working together or with communityagencies, lacked both the mandate and the capacity to have any real effect.KEN's involvement in the family literacy programme showed how the network's development model couldhelp improve existing local educational interventions. In the absence of KEN as an integrative supportmechanism, such programmes might easily be repeated without much analysis or evaluation. KEN'sinvolvement helped to ensure that broader community perspectives would inform future programmes.Achievement Profile - What Worked WellSupporting Parental Involvement Through Peer Support and Home VisitingThe network's main activities during 1998-1999 concerned its promotion of parental involvement, whether inrelation to involving parents in network structures or in specific programmes. In promoting parentalinvolvement, the network was anxious to move it away from traditional roles in fundraising or in helping inthe classroom. It set about developing programmes with a particular focus on parental involvement.Following a series of self-evaluation workshops on this topic, it decided to prioritise a practical interventionaimed at overcoming parental fears about engaging with schools. One way of doing this would be tocombine home visiting with peer support. In putting together a plan, KEN members were always conscious ofparents' fears of the education system and of professional people in particular. Some form of parent-to-parentpeer support was seen as essential to enable other parents to become more involved in the education of theirchildren in a non-threatening way.( J'There is a fear of professionals and a desire among parents not to have them calling to the door.Peer support was considered more acceptable." (Home-school

"We wanted it not to be seen that we were choosing. We didn't want to target, I suppose, becausewe wanted an openness about it... So from all the schools in the area we had one reply... It was anintimidating experience for them. None of them replied because they were not ready to buy into it.some said they got the letter but they were not quite sure really. I think it is a process as well ofactually applying." (Home-school-community co-ordinator: interview)It was decided that a more targeted recruitment drive was needed and the home-school-community liaisonco-ordinators became directly involved in assisting this process. This targeting helped get the parents onboard straight away. Having a home-school-community co-ordinator within the school with whom parentscould identify and ask questions of helped tremendously with the project's overall acceptance. Thirty-twoparents started the training and 26 completed. Feedback from the training was positive: "It was veryenjoyable." "We wanted it for longer."Tralee Education Network, Co. Kerry (TEN)BackgroundTralee town is located on the south-west coast, in Co. Kerry. Traditionally, it was a rural market town and hasa population of over 25,000 of whom 40 per cent are aged 25 years or younger. The town and its hinterlandshad been included in the Local Development Programme. Within the local Partnership's catchment area, therewere pockets of disadvantage, with high levels of unemployment and educational disadvantage, most notablythrough early school-leaving, within the town's local authority estates and the depopulated rural hinterlands.Before participation in the Demonstration Programme, there had been an Early School-Leavers' Committee.This had commissioned a report to examine the extent and nature of early school-leaving and to makerecommendations regarding ways of addressing the needs of this target group 10 .v"It gave us more confidence that there was no fear of going and knocking on somebody's door. Itwas that this can be done and it can be done nicely and if you are just a bit more aware ofdifferent cultures, different lifestyles and sort of not to be critical, and you are there to do your bitand so get on with it. You are not there to look at their house or to see how clean their children are.Of course, if you did see anything that you thought was a bit strange you could mention it to thehome school liaison and she would pick up from there." (Parent visitor: interview)The first round of the programme focused on the transfer of pupils from infants' school to primary. Parentswere asked if they wanted a visit first and had the opportunity to refuse it. The visit provided information onthe new school and what the children were likely to encounter. The information varied from school rules andpolicies to uniform. Visits lasted from 30 minutes to an hour and a half. The time spent depended on thepersonality of the visitor."A typical visitYou knock on the door. Say hello! Introduce yourself.They have got a note saying thata visitor will be calling and they are given a time. I got a great response. I actually went on my firstvisit to a girl in her pyjamas giving her baby her breakfast and the other little one was runningaround. We were giving colouring books and crayons as an icebreaker and I must say a greatresponse I had everywhere - even from ones that had kids that had already gone through theschool. They were surprised that there was so much going on now compared to when the otherswere going to school." (Parent visitor: interview.)The focus of the visits was to help allay fears, to address the difficulties that children with particular needsmight face and to act as a stepping-stone between parents and the school.AimsThe Demonstration Programme was seen as an opportunity to implement an integrated response topreventing early school-leaving and to broaden the scope of the Committee's work into other issuesconcerning educational disadvantage.StructureThe Early School-Leavers' Committee consisted of representatives from the vocational education committee,probation service, FAS, youth training centres, Partnership Company, education centre, youth service, preschoolplaygroups, and Traveller development groups. After the network started to function effectively, schoolpersonnel were involved in the network's issue-based groups but were absent at network steering committeelevel (see below, Activity). This situation changed through 1998-1999, however.ActionsIn the first few months, the network established a steering committee, made up of representatives of the keyagencies involved in initiating the network, and recruited a co-ordinator. It also engaged an independentfacilitator to support the steering committee's development through its early stages. The facilitator organiseda series of workshops and team-building exercises designed to develop a shared mission and action plan forthe network. These exercises were particularly important in developing trust and building relationships withinthe network. TEN succeeded during its early stages in getting most of the key players, such as VEC, youth andprobation services, engaged in the network.^The mam aim is the link - the link between parents out there (in the community), parents here (inthe school) and the school. (It is) just to have somebody to approach. (The link) is to make it moreaccessible for the parents to go into the school.The hds think nothing of it (But), you would besurprised the amount of parents who just leave their children to the school gate and feet 7 wont goin.lt,s almost as if they feel that it is the children's domain and (they) shouldn't be involved butnow it is not just the children, the parents can be involved also." (Parent visitor: interview)It is hoped that the programme will encourage parents to attend school meetings. There was no negativefeedback from the v,s,tors. Parents implemented the programme. It was considered part of the officialstructure because of the involvement of the home-school-community co-ordinators but it was seen as deprofessionalised.An unforeseen benefit of the Droarammo h*< h QO „ ,,,,,,„ , „ rK , „ programme has been that the parent visitors see themselves aspart of KEN (and one has |oined its steerinq qrouo) It is envi^nori th*t n.y y.uup,. it is envisaged that the service will be expanded furtherboth in terms of numbers and focus.TEN adopted a primary role of supporting inter-agency groups, groups that were either already in placebefore TEN was set up or new inter-agency structures formed for specific purposes. These inter-agency groupswere collectively referred to as Issue-Based Networks. Such networks could be described as either interventionnetworks or discussion networks.The Issue-Based Networks included:* Co-ordination of Interventions;* Inter-Agency Forum on Traveller Education;* Literacy Network.' Moriarty, A. (1996), School's Out - Listening and Responding to the Needs ot Early School-leavers in Tralee.Tralee: Tralee Early School-Leavers' Committee.( Evaluating Integrated Responseso

Co-ordination of InterventionsThe Co-ordination of Interventions is an issue-based network concerned with case conferencing, case coordinationand practice support. Co-ordination of Interventions involves a range of school/work transitionprogrammes for young people of 16 to 20 years, such as Youthreach, Transforum Alley, Community TrainingWorkshop, Youth Cafe, junior Secondary Education and a Mentor Programme. It is funded as part of anational programme for tracking early school-leavers (16 to 20 years), funded through the European Unionand organised by the youth service. The functions of the Co-ordination of Interventions are to promotecomplementarity and to avoid duplication between the different youth-training services.The focus of co-ordination is on education, training and employment issues only. There is no engagementwith welfare, counselling, health or other related issues. Co-ordinating activity relates to referral, profilingqualifications and skills, supporting progression to different agencies, supporting links to employers or socialwelfare payments and tracking. In some respects, Co-ordination of Interventions has the co-ordinating featuresof a Local Employment Service (LES) except that the emphasis is on young people in transition.Through the co-ordinating mechanisms, there is an opportunity also to identify and reflect on common issuesarising in youth training and to collaborate in having these raised. Such issues include health, welfare andcounselling matters in a general sense. Although it is managed by the youth service, Co-ordination ofInterventions emerged as one of the first issue-based networks supported by TEN.Inter-Agency Forum on Traveller EducationThe Inter-Agency Forum on Traveller Education is a discussion network. It was set up specifically to look at thetransition from primary to post-primary school and how it might directly affect Travellers. There is particularconcern about a high dropout rate among Traveller children at second level. The forum brings togetherTravellers, teachers, youth workers and other personnel concerned with the issue. The forum provides anopportunity to delve deeper into why Traveller children have such high levels of drop-out from second leveland this leads into a discussion of how they might be experiencing educational problems at a much earlierstage. The problems may have been manifested first at infant primary or earlier. The role of positive ornegative reinforcement with infant children and their parents is discussed as a key part of the discussion oftrans,t,on difficulties between primary and secondary levels. Essentially, the forum functions in this way -sharing information, exploring new ideas and getting more insight into the issue in question. The Forumprovides members with opportunities to share, explore and work together on new ideas. The forum is notspecially action-oriented. It is not a 'doing machine' but a discussion device for bringing people togetherand probing deeply into common problems.Literacy Networkto he ex L ch e a r nn y ^ ^ ^ °" a ^b to *e Forum on Traveller Education. It provides opportunitiest0 SU PP° rtoen ie Uo n °7 T ? . ^ *** ^ ""* 3PPr ° aCheS ^mbers Ond^uals andagencies) to initiate new actions and develoDments TFM r,fforc "„ i,-^ tl. . . . . , "ciupments. I bN otters ° kind of forum where there is an exchanae of"What has most benefited me about Tralee Education Network is that I am not the only person inTralee facing these problems. On my own I cannot address them but now I am part of a literacynetwork which has started to develop ... Many of us have the same problems and together we cansupport each other and have a stronger, more creditable voice. Already we have looked ataccreditation and the different aspects of it. We have looked at how best to complement work fromagency to agency and the skills development of the young person as they progress through they various services."' 1The Co-ordination of Interventions, the Inter-agency Forum on Traveller Education and the Literacy Networkwere all set up at an early stage of TEN's development or existed before its formation. This reflected thedominance of school-youth transition programme activities that spanned both settled and Travellerpopulations during TEN'S earlier days.Much of TEN's activities were focused on adding value to such programmes and services. This could involveorganising public seminars to focus on specific youth training issues. The exercise would showcase existinginnovative programmes, thus helping to create a momentum for their support. Similarly, by bringing the extrasupports of a funded network together around existing inter-agency programmes, TEN added moredynamism to collaborative effort, thus providing a focus for policy discussion and further fundingdevelopments.The network also produced a periodic newsletter both to inform and to help to generate an interest in widerissues. Two seminars organised by TEN in its first year contributed especially to this policy-focused dimension.The first of these, Early School-Leavers, was organised to coincide with the launch of the report on the researchsponsored by the network's founding Early School-Leavers' Committee". The second seminar, EducationalDisadvantage is the Issue ... Is Integration the Answer?", aimed to inform the network about the concept ofintegration and to provide an exploratory discussion forum for people who had an interest in applying theconcept to their work in Tralee. This seminar included a mix of inputs from speakers who worked at bothnational (policy) and local (practice) levels.School personnel, who had been less active at steering committee level in the early stages, were drawn inmore during 1998 and 1999. The co-ordinator became more proactive in meeting school personnel, forminglinkages and engaging with principals and teachers with a view to bringing them more directly into the workof the network. The focus of these new efforts was less on wider public and policy issues and more on makingregular contact with school personnel on everyday matters and, through this, building up informal contactsand linkages. Through this approach, a closer collaboration with school personnel developed.This collaboration has been most evident in the development of area-based after-school projects as anintervention to support primary-secondary transitions. This development is also a good example of how adiscussion network on primary-secondary transitions could both emerge from and effectively link into arelated intervention. The intervention originated from an action-research project on the education andtraining needs of young people that was sponsored by Partnership Tra Li and undertaken by TraleeCommunity Development Project (CDP). The action research found that children at primary-secondarytransition age wanted after-school study and supports but they wanted these in their own communitylocations and not in the schools.Another member highlighted the benefits of the literacy network:As a literacy tutor I do not have a curriculum nnH i h, 0 . , ,LU " lculum an

"These young people... ranging from 12 to 16... said they didn't want a study support in their ownschool, or they didn't want it in other centres.They wanted it in their own community so that, whenthey came home from school, they could have something to eat and then go up to a communitycentre where the service would be provided. Also, they associated very much with identity in theirown community, something to be happening there... Some of them were experiencing difficulty inschool and they felt that there was nothing (for them) and that their own communitywasn'tresponding to (this). Now they could say, 'there is a support project happening in my communityV it is helping me'." (After-schools committee member: interview)IAs a result of this action-research, an after-schools homework support project was set up in three communitylocations. The project linked formal learning support with fun and recreational activities. It had the support ofvolunteer teachers and volunteer mentors from Tralee Institute of Technology. The response was communitybasedwith the Community Development Programme playing the leading role. It led the research, identifiedthe need and built indigenous support through the children and their parents. Meetings with parents wereheld in community centres.The role of TEN, particularly through the primary-secondary transitions forum, was to help in rnoving theideas forward. This involved bringing key players and facilitating them to plan and separate out key rolesand responsibilities. TEN's involvement in bringing the relevant schools on board was particularly important.The schools had an important role in targeting and recruiting young people with greatest needs. Theirinvolvement with this project directly introduced the schools to the benefits of inter-agency work andled to them becoming more directly engaged in further discussions about primary-secondary schooltransition supports."They (school personnel) were saying before they didn't know what Partnership Tra Li, Tralee CDP orTEN could offer them. Because of this inter-agency approach, they now see something like the studyresource as an extra resource for them... The schools are becoming very much open to us and ourideas and the follow-on to that has been work done around the idea of transition from primary\ post-primary... and that has been inter-agency as well." (After-schools committee member: interview)RoleAs a number of inter-agency, collaborative processes on educational issues already existed, it was decided thatthe network's main objective would be to provide overall co-ordination to inter-agency groups involved withissues such as early school-leaving, literacy, Travellers' education and study support. It would initiate groupswhere appropriate and develop supports and resources to help them in their activities and progress.With the issue-based networks, TEN's primary role was in supporting the groups. It was not a partner indelivering the funded aspects of programmes like the Co-ordination of Interventions. Rather, its role was tofacilitate in keeping the network together and support members in generating new ideas. The implementerswere Tralee Youth Service and various other youth training and employment services. TEN's role as facilitatorwas helped by the fact that it was not a partner in providing services.LessonsAlthough TEN succeeded early in getting most of the key agencies involved in the network, there was someconcern that it might have concentrated too much and too early on the bigger picture, without puttingsufficient effort into getting schools involved.toandAchievement Profile - What Worked WellDeveloping a Partnership for the Leaving Certificate AppliedTEN supported and facilitated the development of a Leaving Certificate Applied that is now operated by wayof a partnership agreement between Kerry Education Services (county VEC) and Kerry Diocesan Youth Service(KDYS). This was designed as a progression route for youth participants in training-employment programmes.It is a unique Leaving Certificate Applied in that it is structured around a Youthreach programme.The issue of needing a valid certification programme that would complement existing training had arisenthrough the Co-ordination of Interventions and the respective concerns of youth training providers. When KESgot sanction for another Youthreach programme, the question arose as to whom this should be contractedand for what purposes. KES had the deciding role in awarding Youthreach contracts. One option would havebeen to simply increase the number of Youthreach places by awarding an additional Youthreach contract toeither an existing or new provider. However, given previous work already undertaken in linking Youthreachwith the Junior Certificate, there were many suggestions that a new Youthreach be firmly tied to a formalprocess for qualification.Leaving Certificate Applied OptionAt the time, the Leaving Certificate Applied was being developed and it was suggested that the programmebe structured around this process and not the Junior Certificate as before. It was considered that a LeavingCertificate link had the potential to provide an even more satisfactory progression route for youngparticipants. One of the main reasons for this was that the learning programme in the Leaving CertificateApplied closely reflected the overall ethos and approach of Youthreach providers.At this stage, TEN was drawn into the process and it assumed a facilitative role in bringing together a WorkingGroup for New Youthreach Places (WGNYP) to agree a proposal to be put to KES. This process drew in themain services and agencies working in the field of youth work, youth training and employment support. Itinvolved a lot of research, information meetings, needs assessment and exploring different programme typesand possibilities.There was a lot of support for taking the option of Leaving Certificate Applied, mainly because it providedmore progression for existing Youthreach graduates into either employment or further education and trainingsuch as Post-Leaving Certificate (PLC) or mainstream FAS. Furthermore, a progression route was consideredmore necessary than the option of simply increasing the overall number of similar Youthreach places. Finally,the actual learning programme provided a unique opportunity to incorporate the methodologies ofYouthreach and other youth-based education and training into a formally accredited system. Thisconsideration was particularly important as it potentially helped affirm the previous contribution of youthservices in developing learning programmes for young people.The Leaving Certificate Applied as envisaged (and later provided) underlined the importance of social,physical and creative development alongside academic development. It valued young people's personal andsocial development and their participation in decision-making in relation to programme content, evaluationand development. It included mechanisms for linking participants into work in the local economy and otherexperiences and it ensured that each participant had a formal, structured system for gaining access toindividual contact, support and counselling, as needed.•We were too excited about the whole thing and maybe too challenging as well because we wereJso full of that political role that we had and I think that we probably offended some people." (TENnetwork member: interview)A related difficulty was that many existing network members and issue-based networks were themselvesengaged in linking with schools and there was a concern that the main network should not duplicate or getin the way of such activities.Facilitation and Added ValueThe existence of TEN provided a unique dynamic for generating new ideas on how the 25 Youthreach placesfor Tralee should be allocated. The new allocation had the potential to either create competition betweenagencies for the places or a dynamic whereby they could be used to build on what was already there. Thelatter course was followed and TEN played a significant facilitative role.Evaluating Integrated Responseso

In bringing the key players together, TEN succeeded in both advocating and facilitating better added valuefor agencies in Tralee in their efforts to tackle educational disadvantage. By adopting this collaborativeapproach, local organisations inspired confidence in the overall process. At the level of KES, this confidenceenabled it to wholeheartedly support the partnership process and put its weight behind securing the LeavingCertificate Applied within the context of Youthreach. At the level of direct service provision, the absence oforganisational competitiveness gave young participants confidence that a genuine attempt was being madeto value and accredit their involvement with alternative training and education.A review/evaluation workshop conducted one year into the programme was positive in its conclusions aboutthe programme's value and in particular about how participation in it could create progression routes tofurther post-Leaving Certificate qualifications. It was also enthusiastic about how the programme could begiven a higher profile among young people and be made attractive as a recruitment source for localemployers. The review included staff, participants and steering group representatives.Network for Education Support Tuam Area (NESTA)BackgroundTuam is a rural town in north Galway with a population of over 5,000. Over 30 per cent of the population areaged 1 7 years or younger. The town has unique socio-demographic characteristics: the proportion ofTravellers in the local population is over 14 times higher than the national average. The town has a relativelyhigh proportion of lone-parent households. Pockets of the community experience high rates ofunemployment, particularly in the rural hinterlands. Within the town, community-based projects have beenestablished to address the needs of excluded groups. The area is included in the Local DevelopmentProgramme.Before the Demonstration Programme, a number of informal, unstructured linkages existed between someservice providers to address educational issues concerning disadvantaged young people. Participants includedthe home-school-liaison co-ordinator, regional and local youth services and the Travellers DevelopmentGroup. Through applying to the Demonstration Programme, other groups, such as a primary school, healthboard, youth training centre and community development project, were also brought on board. During thenetwork's early stages, a working group was formed to develop an action plan and to recruit a co-ordinator.Although two recruitment processes failed, the network decided to continue to complete an action plan.AimsThe programme was seen as an opportunity to strengthen the linkages and to bring other schoolsand organisations into the process.It was decided that the network's main aim would be to bring together organisations and individualswith a stakehold interest in education in order to co-ordinate and integrate their efforts to improvethe participation and outcomes of the most marginalised groups.StructureWith the completion of its action plan, the working group held a further series of meetings to promote thenetwork and to develop a management team. Although attendance at these meetings varied, a core group of10-11 attended these sessions and out of this group a management team was formed. The managementteam tried to recruit a co-ordinator and also searched for suitable premises. However, by the end of 1997, thenetwork continued to lack a formal structure.The failure to recruit a co-ordinator a second time around delayed the network's development and raised anumber of issues concerning its overall cohesion and strength of management purpose. As a result, it wasdecided to engage in some management training and this continued into 1998. In April 1998, a co-ordinatorwas appointed.Because of its emphasis on building awareness and information exchange, the network developed a loosemembership structure, with a view to making this more formal in time. The structures included a centralmanagement group and various satellite working groups. The key members were schools (five secondary andthree primary, two of which were designated disadvantaged). The primary schools, through a principal,resource teachers, visiting teacher for Travellers and home-school-community liaison co-ordinator, becamepart of the network at an early stage. However, secondary school involvement was less comprehensive. Atfirst, contact with secondary schools was through a single representative acting on behalf of lour out of thefive schools. Gradually, a mechanism was put in place whereby each of the secondary schools had a linkperson to the network. Other network members included Youthreach, Aware, adult education training centre,after-school support projects, health board childcare worker and psychologist, Tuam Resource Centre (CDP),the education co-ordinator of the local development company and parent representatives.Targeted parental involvement to date has included membership of the management group, development ofEvaluating Integrated ResponsesJEvaluating Integrated Responses«3

a Transition Parents Working Group and the organisation of a primary school/Traveller parents' forum.The network has a consistent management group of 14 who meet monthly. Although morale is quite good,the group continues to struggle with trying to match understanding of needs to a set of appropriate actions.The network's working group structure has been more successful at translating ideas into specific actions.Working groups include: Second-Level Resource Class Project, Second-Level Link Teachers and PrimaryParents' Forum. The management group has regular self-evaluation sessions with an independent, externalresource person. Although the co-ordinator attends inter-network meetings and discussions, attendance byother network members has been weak because of other commitments.ActivityAlthough the network started with enthusiasm and with the advantage of having had some prior networkingexperience, it was hampered in its first 18 months by not having a co-ordinator to advance its aims anddevelop its structures. Despite these difficulties there was strong motivation and interest among members ofthe management team. Their personal beliefs in what the network could mean and achieve, together with adecision to have some management training, helped sustain the interest of others and the network continuedto have a positive outlook as it faced into 1998.The process of compiling an action plan involved a series of consultations with service providers in the townthrough seminars and workshops that explored issues of local concern. This process was also used to informthese services about the network and its potential objectives. Generally, information was disseminatedthrough formal and informal meetings and listings in the local resource directory.A number of working groups were set up and these helped develop specific actions. These working groupsincluded:* Second-Level Resource Class Project;* Second-Level Link Teachers and,* Primary Parents' Forum.A transitions programme was set up to support parents and children at fifth- and sixth- class and first-yearlevels. The programme originated from an unsuccessful application for the 8-15 Early School-Leavers' Initiative(ESLI) and it was decided to keep the momentum going. The 8-15 ESLI proposal worked well in providing ahook for prospective schools and partners to come together, to start networking and to establish thenecessary relationships.idea that targeting children without stigmatising them and providing them with social and personal supportscan help improve their progress through the school system.The network played a significant role in developing this resource class. Originally, the idea was that it mightbe set up as a separate, segregated class. This approach was abandoned and network members advised ontargeting prospective children and on how to avoid making judgements about prospective members of theresource class. There was a strong view that segregated initiatives had failed badly in the past. The networkalso advised on criteria to use for targeting, on introducing the idea of a resource class and on how to involvethe students in positively opting to join the programme. This optional dimension to the programme isregarded as a feature of its achievement.The network also supported a second-level targeted support project that is operated through a collaborativeeffort involving the youth service, Adolescent Support Project, a health board childcare worker, health boardpsychologist and schools. The Adolescent Support Project is modelled on the health boards' programme,Neighbourhood Youth Project. This provides intensive social, personal and counselling supports to targetedteenagers considered to be exceptionally vulnerable in the community.In addition to these, the network has developed a community schools resource bank. It is involved inimplementing a Copping-On programme and it is having exploratory discussions also about implementing aLeaving Certificate Applied through Youthreach. The initial data for a tracking system for one cohort ofprimary school-leavers has been collected and a system is being developed for further collection.RoleThe primary role of the network is to co-ordinate the linkages between the different schools and betweenschools and other services. For example, this involves linking primary and secondary schools for the purposeof developing a transitions programme or linking youth services, health board services and schools to developa primary and second-level targeted support project. In the transition programme, the role of the network isone of co-ordination, making the linkages possible, organising the meetings, encouraging key players to meetagain and making information about other, similar, initiatives available as appropriate.LessonsDifficulties in recruiting a co-ordinator in the early stages delayed progress on clarifying aims and structures.The NESTA management group identified the transition issue as an important priority for the area. Theprimary schools in particular recognised activity on this issue as an opportunity to provide general informationand as a way of sharing ideas around children with special education needs. The use of the Okay Let's Co packmade it easier to focus and prioritise the issue, making it more manageable' 4 .At primary level, a working group was established. This comprised youth services representatives, sixth classteachers, the home-school liaison co-ordinator and the visiting teacher for Travellers. A school-based transitionprogramme for all sixth class students was established. Links to second-level schools and parents wereplanned also.A resource class at second level was set up in one of the schools to support first-year students. Initial numberswere small but, as the year progressed, students attending the programme gave good feedback, encouragingmore of their peers to join in. This resource class is essentially an educational support project based on the"Okay Lets Co is a pr.mary.to second-level transition programme developed by Deis na G ailli mh„ c,'" Galway city. "~ Y Ueu n " Ca " lmhe ' •" EU-funded early school-leavers' initiativeThe proposal for the 8-15 Early School-Leavers' Initiative helped to provide a focus around which prospectiveschools and partners could come together and start to form a functioning partnership.It is envisaged that further targeted interventions involving parents will develop from interventions targetingyoung people.Achievement Profile - What Worked WellPrimary Parents' ForumThe Primary Parents' Forum brings together Traveller parents and school personnel to discuss and clarifyeducation issues affecting Traveller children. The transfer of Traveller children from primary to secondary levelswas a particular concern in convening this forum. Tuam has a relatively good rate of transfer between primaryand secondary school for Traveller children. To continue supporting this level of transfer, additional learningsupport resources were needed at second level, as well as more effective engagement with parents.For some years, school personnel had wanted to develop a forum for parents to provide a focus forEvaluating Integrated ResponsesJ( Evaluating Integrated Responses

developing and using these supports but two particular sensitivities inhibited progress. The first was areluctance to convene an educational forum for Travellers only in case this might affect the schools' longstandingpolicy of supporting integration. Schools did not want to give any impression of segregating parentsor children. The second issue was that many settled Travellers had been reluctant in the past to have theirchildren identified as Travellers, even though it was believed they needed to be targeted to help themparticipate in the forum.The impetus for developing the Forum came about almost by accident. The information that a networkmanagement meeting had been cancelled did not reach all members in time to stop them turning up asplanned. Rather than disperse, they held an impromptu discussion on educational issues concerningTravellers. At this discussion, the various sensitivities about convening a forum were discussed. It was agreedthat further discussion would be held with a view to establishing some mechanism for improvingcommunication between schools and Traveller parents on their children's education. These discussions werebroadened through a planning group that included representatives from the Travelling community, homeschool-communityliaison, primary school principal, visiting teacher for Travellers and learning supportteachers. It was decided to pilot a forum by involving parents of children from a single primary school and byusing a Travellers' Resource Centre - rather than a school - as a venue.In planning and preparing for this meeting, there was a great deal of sensitivity in inviting parents. Invitationswere issued personally with additional encouragement given to parents who did not normally attend parentteachermeetings. The focus was positive and emphasised that parents might have questions they wished toask. The invitation included a short list of such questions. In delivering the invitations, the planning groupstressed that there would be a focus on helping parents and teachers to identify ways of removing the barriersto progress in education that existed for Travellers.The meeting was held four weeks later during school hours. Fifteen of 35 families contacted attended, five ofwhom had not previously attended parent-teacher meetings. Creche facilities and refreshments wereprovided. The structure was informal with small groups allowing greater participation. It provided space forteachers and parents to reflect on what children found easy or hard in the school and to propose ideas onhow each might better support children's education. Parents raised issues of homework, school tour fees,remedial issues and integration with children from the settled community. The meeting was regarded as verysuccessful. Parents were very positive on the day and asked that the process be continued. Further informalpersonal feedback also emerged after the meeting.The planning group conducted a review. This provided a focus for identifying issues raised by parents thatschools could respond to and for deciding on strategies for moving forward on other matters. A follow-upmeeting focused on issues concerning children's transition to second level and what might be done to helpthis. Some of these issues were later discussed in detail and arrangements for continuing with the forum havebeen made.The Primary Parents' Forum is an example of a development that some of the key players in Travellerchildren's education saw as badly needed. It was not happening because the sensitivities involved inhibitedthe necessary actions. The involvement of the network provided a resource and space for careful planning andreview that allowed the forum get started, providing it with a safe foundation for further development.SECTION 4OVERVIEW OF INTER-NETWORKING ACTIVITY IN THE PROGRAMMEIn addition to the development of networks at local levels, the overall programme was developed andsupported by Combat Poverty Agency in other ways. These developments and supports were of two types:developing wider contacts and linkages to support the programme's policy dimension;facilitating inter-networking opportunities, e.g., through seminars, annual conferences and jointplanning meetings.Developing Wider Contacts and LinkagesGiven the Agency's belief that the programme needed to have a policy dimension from its outset, it set aboutensuring that linkages between the programme and relevant policy-oriented bodies be developed. There weretwo aspects to these linkages:* linking the work of the Demonstration Programme to existing Agency activity;* linking the programme to other external developments.In the first of these, the Agency involved network personnel in a number of internal discussions about itswork. In particular, network personnel were involved in contributing to the Agency's Child Poverty PublicAwareness Programme and its in-schools Poverty Awareness Programme being undertaken in conjunctionwith the Curriculum Development Unit.Regarding external developments, the Agency linked up with Area Development Management (ADM) and theProgramme for Peace and Reconciliation's Educational Disadvantage Initiative to publish a set of case studiesof models for tackling educational disadvantage at local, community levels. It also raised issues relevant to thework of the Demonstration Programme with various bodies. In this way, the Demonstration Programmehelped inform the Agency's contacts with bodies such as:* European Social Fund (ESF) Evaluation unit;* Oireachtas Committee on Educational Disadvantage;* Department of Education and Science officials;* Department of Health and Children officials;* National Parents Council;* Conference of Religious of Ireland;* Aontas, etc.Facilitating Inter-Networking OpportunitiesAt the start of the programme, the Combat Poverty Agency was concerned that network personnel wouldhave opportunities to attend seminars and conferences and form effective linkages with other groups as wellas among themselves. Network personnel took part in external education conferences such as, AreaDevelopment Management conference on educational disadvantage initiatives and National Youth Council ofIreland conference on the Education Welfare Bill. Delegates from the networks, along with Agency personnel,also attended the International Community Education Association conference.Other inter-networking opportunities arose through three Demonstration Programme conferences on thethemes:* models of integration;* parental involvement and local education structures;* the Programme's annual conferences.fEvaluating Integrated Responsesm>

Planning Group MeetingsBy far the most important inter-networking activities - from the perspective of participating networkpersonnel - were the quarterly Planning Croup meetings held in conjunction with The Combat PovertyAgency. Initially, these meetings followed a prepared agenda and structure set by the Agency but, gradually,as the programme developed, network personnel became more directly engaged in their planning andpreparation. Meetings were usually held over a two-day period in a hotel in Limerick.Difficulties that AroseAt the start, network personnel experienced considerable frustration with the focus of the meetings whichmade it difficult to make sense of their usefulness. The problems related to a number of factors:* Language;* Agenda;* Information Exchange;* Timing.LanguageLanguage and the use of jargon was an important issue. This issue arose not just in relation to inter-networkmeetings but it also raised questions across a whole range of network and programme activities. One of thewider difficulties was the need to cater for different audiences, as in, say, local or national seminars. In thecontext of the inter-network meetings, a difficulty with language concerned its pace and the effort it took tokeep up with what was going on - within each of the networks but also within The Combat Poverty Agency.AgendaAnother problem was the seemingly preset nature of the meetings. There seemed to be a set programme andthis posed difficulties, particularly at the outset. Especially, it seemed that a planned training component wascoming too soon for people to make sense or use of it. It is important to acknowledge that, once thesedifficulties were aired, The Agency was relatively quick in making changes and, indeed, it seemed to have feltsome relief that the initiative was passing to the networks themselves.The Agency did have a sense, from its other programmes, that the inter-network programme it was proposingand supporting was relevant, if ambitious. Perhaps, demands in such other programmes were moredeveloped or there was a longer run-in. One of the difficulties about the Demonstration Programme is that ithas such a short lifespan, especially for something that is so unique. In contrast, programmes such as theCommunity Development Programme emerged out of the ashes of other initiatives and developments wheremany of the demands in relation to inter-networking, training, information exchange and so forth had alreadybeen well formed and articulated.In a rather perverse way, one might argue that, in the Demonstration Programme, the preset nature of theoriginal meetings and the reaction of networks gave them the drive and energy to seek to do thingsdifferently, which they did. For its part, the Agency succeeded in sharing responsibilities in this process andencouraged the networks to take on more leading roles in planning.Information Exchangewider-than local level. This aspect of the inter-network meetings improved greatly. Although the informationexchange seemed laborious, it served a real practical purpose of updating networks on how matters hadprogressed since the last encounter and providing a mechanism to ask questions about progress. This type ofexchange would not have happened through exchanging written notes and summaries.TimingWhile networks were having difficulty grappling with the inter-networking agenda, they still recognised theneed for it. The question of timing was difficult, however. The training was needed but it was hard to predictexactly when it would be needed and it was also difficult to plan for each of the networks needing the sametraining at the same time. In many respects, their needs during start-up were much more for support andperhaps training in supporting each other by trying to get a better basic understanding of what each of theothers was doing. Training of a more formal, planned type involving modules agreed across the networks wasprobably best left to a later stage in the process.Achievement Profile - What Worked WellThe social dimension to the inter-networking meetings was considered very important. It was important in itsown right in the sense that social interaction helped fill in the space and the time and allowed people to copewith the formalities of a meeting. However, there were two other dimensions that were also important. Firstly,it provided a mechanism whereby professional workers and parents could engage in and develop informalrelationships. Secondly, this shared informality made it easier for personnel from the different networks to linkup together and negotiate specific joint actions. It also helped give substance to the idea of a nationalprogramme. Knowing the people involved and knowing the contribution they could or could not make madeit easier to understand that the programme was bigger than what was simply taking place at a local level. Thesocial dimension provided the opportunity to share practice ideas in a meaningful way and a quote from onecontributor illustrates this:"/ was very, very struck by the knock-on effect of good networking... the fact that (people fromDrogheda) have been down to Tuam talking to the parents there; that (members) of the homevisitors scheme in Kjllinarden have been up to Drogheda to talk to a group there. Lessons from theground were being transported around the country and I think that this... wouldn't happen unless wewere having these events. Essentially these (inter-network meetings) are absolutely essential and wego back (to our own projects) with brilliant encouragement as well."Parental Involvement ConferenceThe parental involvement conference was an excellent example of identifying an issue in the course of theinter-network meetings and running with it in a manner that had the support and ownership of the wholeprogramme. There was a lot of learning and the learning was bottom-up, it was shared and it was lasting. Alot of people got a lot out of the conference, especially parents, but also youth workers, teachers and so on.This is not to say that the process was easy; it was difficult. But, unlike previous occasions when peoplegrappled with issues from a policy perspective and did not seem to make much progress, the parentalinvolvement conference was carefully planned with a lot of meetings and consultation within the networks,especially Killinarden and Drogheda. It was conducted in a manner that was very much in the control of thegroups themselves. It was also very creative and left a very positive taste in its aftermath.«3A third problem at an early stage concerned the absence of information exchange of a type that allowed foran exploration of common issues. Meetings did not seem to be leading to the development of a supportframework for dealing with these matters in greater depth rather than simply generating a network at aThe issue had been around for a considerable time before the conference itself was organised. Questions ofparental involvement were raised consistently at inter-network meetings: how to get parents more involved;who to target, all parents or educationally disadvantaged parents? However, while the issue was gettingraised, no further progress was being made. Making a decision to organise the conference was a watershed. Itmarked a shift away from being frustrated with a situation where issues were being discussed but there wasC Evaluating Integrated Responses

no progress either directly with the issues or in terms of convincing network members of their importance.There was no need to convince people of the need for parental involvement. Its importance was obvious toall. But the way in which the conference was organised gave network members who attended a sense ofrenewal and determination to run further with the issue within their individual networks.SECTION 5LESSONS FROM THE PROGRAMMEEight primary lessons can be drawn from the programme to date. They concern:* Time;* Aims and Objectives;* Parental Involvement;* Teacher/School involvement;* Incentives to Participate;* Role of Co-ordinator;* Public Seminars;* Inter-Networking Activities.TimeThe first lesson concerns the amount of time it takes to get started. The four networks were informed of theirselection before September 1996. The period from September 1996 to December 1996 was set aside fornetworks to get started: to prepare action plans and to devise structures for developing the networks. It wasenvisaged that by early 1997 each of the networks would have a co-ordinator in place and would beengaging in a programme of networking activities.In reality, it was not until April 1998 that all four co-ordinators were in place. In three of the four networks,initial development work was quite slow and some local people expressed reservations, wondering whetherthe process was "all talk and no action".In the programme's original shape, the period September 1998 to June 1999 was the only full year that theprogramme would have operated with all four co-ordinators in place. Clearly, the process of networkformation is quite slow and in many respects it is a distinctly different process than that of designing andinitiating specific interventions with targeted children. Given that in each network area a partnership processhad already been in train (through the Local Development Programme), it is realistic to assume that networksof this type and complexity require at least a two-year start-up, or more. The Combat Poverty Agency'sdecision in 1998 to extend the programme for a further year, until the end of 2000, gave participatingnetworks much-needed space for more effective programme planning and development. Also arising fromthis slow start-up, it may be useful to review the time-span of future, similar programmes.Why Start-Up Was SlowThe start-up process was slow for a variety of reasons. Given the impact this had subsequently on programmedevelopment, it is important to say why here. It takes time to identify and build an appropriate networkconstituency - this is not necessarily the same in each network area. In developing a network it is importantto identify and give all potential members a chance to declare their interest in being part of networkformation. There is no single formula for doing this. The process involves getting in touch with formal andinformal education providers but there are tremendous variations among these in terms of type, structure andtarget groups. They also vary in terms of their engagement with educational disadvantage as an issue, theirfamiliarity with networking processes and their experience of being involved in managing new ventures.The initiators of these processes were generally cautious and tried to ensure that no potential members wereleft out or if they did it was not through lack of information or failure to communicate it. A process like thiswill not succeed in bringing all potential members together but it is critical that every effort be made toensure that all potential members are informed of the process and have the opportunity to be part of it.Developing a network among agencies and personnel that operate within a single discipline or sector wouldfEvaluating Integrated Responseso

take a lot of time. In the case of this programme, however, the focus was on developing a networkacross disciplines and sectors. This is even more complex and time-consuming. Basic questions suchas when a network should meet, or how meetings should be structured and organised, were not easilyor speedily resolved.Second, the networking process is slow because there is a need to acquire information about needs and toassess resource and service capabilities. Collecting this information is slow and painstaking. Although eachnetwork is located in a partnership area and has access to some basic information about local needs, thisinformation lacks micro-level analysis. One network, before applying to be part of the programme, hadalready undertaken a research project on early-school leaving and this research was helpful in getting thenetwork off to an early start. In another area it was decided to commission a very detailed study ofeducational disadvantage as a key element of initiating the network. This study was well researched andwritten up and yielded insightful information on the local experience of educational disadvantage. However, italso contributed to some frustration. Some network participants felt that, almost 12 months into the process,all that had been achieved was that the research report had confirmed what they already knew.Third, the networking process is slow because of the need to develop network structures and managementcapacities. Although a lot of network participants are themselves part of other structures that would haveprovided opportunities to develop project management skills, such skills needed further refinement to enablethem to manage collaborative relationships. The issue of finding an appropriate structure within the networksfor facilitating and developing collaborative relationships has been very time-consuming. The amount of timetaken - especially in two networks - to discuss and set up a structure has been frustrating and contributed toa perception that little or no progress was being made. One network participant commented:"... most of the time was spent on setting up structures. People came on board because we wereinterested but then we got caught up in the structures and processes of the company. We are notV really using the skills we brought here originally" (Network member: interview)It is sometimes difficult to explain how this issue of structure could demand so much energy in a pilot,demonstration programme. Certainly, in developing their structures, many network participants were lookingbeyond the lifetime of the programme itself and trying to project a structure that would have some capacityto survive the programme. Other network participants, however, felt that such preoccupation with structureshould wait until networks were clearer about their role and function in the long term. In the meantime, itwas felt that problems of educational disadvantage were so acute there was a need to respond througheffective interventions. Furthermore, argued some, the preoccupation with structure prevented networks fromengaging and building linkages with other agencies and services.The perceived limited action during the first year of some networks' operation is attributed to this over-focuson structure. However, network co-ordinators emphasise the importance of taking time to put down solidroots for developing a coherent structure even though this may cause some local frustration at the lack ofevident progress. One co-ordinator said that, before the network was formed, many school-based initiativesfor tackling educational disadvantage were in place, but these were operating in isolation, with littleco-ordination or opportunity to put these initiatives onto a sounder footing. The formation of the networkprovided more focus and coherence, thus providing their backers with an opportunity to become morestrategic with respect to their long-term plans.A function of the network in this context is to build a comprehensive structure around both existingand new relevant projects. In the long term, this structure becomes capable of mobilising school andcommunity efforts to secure greater educational resources for the area so that the issues of educationaldisadvantage can be focused on and tackled more systematically and existing and new practicalinterventions are not left isolated.was a slow process. A more general explanation concerns the effort it takes for under-resourced communities- and for the groups who work alongside them - to become organised and to develop capacity. This is animportant issue for disadvantaged communities. Capacity-building and the development of social capital areimportant dimensions to developing inter-agency programmes of this type. They are even more importantwith respect to an educational system that is highly centralised in its organisation and administration. Theexperience of other programmes in the area of local development and employment service is instructive and alead-in of two to three years is not only anticipated but actually planned and budgeted for.The accumulation of capital, of whatever type, requires investment. Human capital theory holds thatdifferences in national economic output can be explained, in part, by investment in human capital,particularly by investment in education and in on-the-job training. The value of the investment is that itincreases future output by more than its initial costs. Early investment in building social capital, without muchevidence of desired outcomes in the short term, will be necessary if ways and means of linking marginalisedfamilies (and their coming generations) more closely to educational provision and future economic output areto emerge.Aims and ObjectivesThe second lesson arising in this programme concerns aims and objectives. Although networks started withrelatively broad objectives it soon became evident that these needed more precise refining and focus. There isno doubt that educational disadvantage needs to be tackled at a number of levels: pre-school, school, afterschool,post-school, lifelong learning and so forth. Indeed, actions designed to tackle the problem at all levelstogether have an inherent capacity to be integrative, particularly as they are trying to have impact on anumber of family and community systems together. However, the benefits of such actions may be so longterm that they may lack the immediacy needed to bring together the relevant educational interests whoseefforts need to be co-ordinated more effectively. A clearer focus is needed. Some might argue that this focusshould be pre-school; others will argue that it should be adult education. However, one universal dimensionto everybody's education is compulsory schooling years.Compulsory schooling years provide a real opportunity to identify problems in home-school-communityrelations at an early stage and to make effective interventions at this stage. Initiatives in relation tocompulsory schooling years provided better and more immediate opportunities for inter-agency collaborationthan in other areas, in the experience of the Demonstration Programme. New initiatives focused ondeveloping integration might best focus on compulsory school years and use this focus as leverage fordeveloping other post- and pre-school initiatives. The proposed education welfare service may provide acontext for initiating an inter-agency structure for dealing with issues concerning compulsory schooling years.This could be expanded later to deal with other issues.Parental InvolvementParental involvement in wider programme development requires dedicated effort at targeting, buildingrelationships, having an outreach dimension and involving parents themselves as mentors and peer supportsin the community. Clearly, the involvement of parents needs to be evident at both programme andmanagement levels. It is sometimes said that parents are not involved at management levels because they arenot yet ready. Perhaps this reflects more that existing structures are not yet ready for parents. When this typeof resistance to parental involvement exists at the early stages of a programme it will likely persist. Parentalinvolvement in management would need to be built in from the outset. Arranging this involvement mightrequire special capacity-building at an early stage".The three factors above provide specific explanations as to why the formation of networks in this programme• For more discussion of parental .nvolvement see Paper 3: Parental Involvement in Integrated Semc«( Evaluating Integrated Responses

Teacher and School InvolvementTeacher involvement may require departmental approval at a central level. The Demonstration Programmewas not a departmental programme nor was the Department of Education and Science a key partner. Yetactions taken or not by the department had an important bearing on Demonstration Programmedevelopments and indirectly affected whether or not teachers and schools could participate. For this reason itis important that future programmes should have the Department's direct involvement. However, it may bebest to decentralise such involvement through local mediating structures. Provided resources allow it andprovided local schools are agreed, teacher participation in out-of-school activities should not require centralDepartmental approval.Incentives to ParticipateIncentives should be created for teachers and schools to participate in local structures. As matters stand,opting out may be relatively easy. For this reason schools that become engaged with the local co-ordinatingstructures should be rewarded through additional funding - channelled through local structures.The pending development of an education welfare service, along with an expansion in the schools psychologyservice - both of which are focused on compulsory schooling years - should provide new incentives forengaging teachers and schools, particularly in those areas where absenteeism and early school-leaving arealready problems. These issues and related preventive activities and measures could readily become the focusof local structures and thereby encourage schools and teachers to become meaningfully engaged.Role of Co-ordinatorsEffective co-ordinators are critical to bringing about more meaningful integration. Most network personnel areagreed on this. The role of co-ordinators in these networks is quite pivotal in relation to resolving issues ofnetwork formation, the development of structures and the development of programmes. The development ofall four networks progressed very rapidly after a co-ordinator was recruited and in place.Yet, interestingly, the amount of time it took to recruit co-ordinators itself indicates the lack of certainty aboutco-ordinators' roles. These issues raise the question of what is the appropriate stage for appointing coordinators?There is no easy answer. At the start of developing a network, it is important that networkparticipants should own the process and that they reach a point where they are confident about the task ofrecruiting a co-ordinator. They should know the type of co-ordinator they want and should be able to give aneffective mandate to a recruitment committee. However, getting a network to this stage of development isvery time consuming and this process itself may require the attention of a person who is dedicated exclusivelyto this task. There may be a role for an interim co-ordinator or consultant engaged exclusively for thepurposes of initiating the network and getting it to the stage where it is ready to recruit. The value of aninterim co-ordinator is that it would free individual network participants from being seen as having tooleading a role in network formation. It would also give network participants a chance to clarify theirexpectations of a co-ordinator.It is evident from the work of the networks to date that co-ordinators are relied on quite an amount. Theirrole in relation to management groups differs considerably from that of their counterparts in, say, acommunity project or a community programme. There, co-ordinators often support project personnel inacquiring and developing local, indigenous leadership. In the networks, the role is much more complex. Anumber of network participants have cited "communication skills" as a key attribute of successful coordinators.The co-ordinator has to become the link between different sectors and create space andopportunities for collaboration and co-operation around different ideas. The co-ordinator communicates andmediates ideas and proposals between different members, making sense of areas of overlap and differenceand making connections where otherwise these may not be apparent.The exceptional role of the co-ordinator is particularly evident in relation to developing external relationships.Networks are focused mainly on developing internal relationships, co-operation and integration. For networkparticipants that are focused on developing these relationships, developing external links is an extracommitment. It is difficult for them to focus on developing external network relationships as well as existingwork. This role tends to be filled by the co-ordinators. Although a wider number of network participantsattend and contribute to inter-network meetings, the co-ordinators have tended to represent the networks inmeetings with The Combat Poverty Agency, the Children's Research Centre and other external bodies.The importance of co-ordinator roles is not unique to this programme and issues concerning the appropriaterange of skills and experiences that effective co-ordinators can bring to inter-agency initiatives have arisenelsewhere. These should be explored and considered further in the context of this particular programme. Itraises the issue as to whether there is a specific form of co-ordinator practice and whether formal training insuch practice needs to be provided. A key question is, what are the appropriate qualifications and skills of anetwork or programme co-ordinator? As outlined above, the role of co-ordinators in networks is pivotal,particularly in facilitating network formation, in developing structures and relationships and in co-ordinatinginter-agency activities.The idea of developing a work practice for co-ordinators is beginning to emerge. Yet, there is no school of coordinators.While co-ordination roles are emerging across a whole range of disciplines and services (childcare,community, youth, health, education, drugs, training and employment) there is no accredited coursededicated specifically to training co-ordinators. For all intents and purposes, such training is provided on anin-service basis by co-ordinators' respective agencies.There is an irony here. Community, health and education co-ordinators who acquire new knowledge and skillssolely from within the confines of their own agency or professions may become even more entrenched withrespect to other professions or services. Personnel need to learn the language, culture, ethos and workmethods of their colleagues from other disciplines and agencies. This provides them with a basis for nurturingcross-discipline, cross-institutional relationships that are crucial for overcoming organisational and professionalresistance and inertia. Developing mutual respect among the different disciplines and sectors is slow. Animportant starting point for developing integrated systems is that those who operate out of one disciplinerecognise the validity, potential and limitations of each of the others, as well as of their own.Clearly, good communication skills are important for co-ordinators engaged in building and negotiatingcross-institutional relationships. Good communication is facilitated by knowledge of different practice systems,knowledge of local culture, and an awareness of the influence that one's own background and ideas can bringto the development of relationships. To develop these skills requires new forms of professional training andstaff development. There is a role for education and training institutions here particularly as there are now somany co-ordinating positions across a range of disciplines. Appropriate diploma courses in community,education and human service co-ordination could be provided through one of the universities. Indeed, somemodules on co-ordination could be provided in undergraduate courses on a joint basis where institutionsalready have courses in social work, education, psychology and so forth.This discussion about co-ordinators raises the question as to whether co-ordinating positions should be filledby any particular discipline. The answer surely is 'no'.Public SeminarsAlongside professional training there is also a need for practice workshops and seminars that would provideopportunities for information exchange, the development of communication strategies and the formation ofcross-community alliances. This underlines the seventh lesson arising from the Demonstration Programme,that public seminars have an important role in generating and consolidating support for home-schoolcommunitypartnerships. Networks in the programme made effective use of public seminars as a way ofC Evaluating Integrated Responseso

giving public airing to core ideas, generating support and enthusiasm for networking ideas and programmesand supporting the efforts of those interested in taking these further with practical proposals. Such seminarshave focused on both broad issues - such as educational disadvantage itself - and more specific ideas such asthe Leaving Certificate Applied and the school attendance issue. Seminars have been both public - with broadinvitations at both local and national levels - and private, whereby a targeted group of people are broughttogether to flag and discuss an issue and to assess the likelihood of generating further momentum.Overall, seminars represented an ideal mechanism for networks to announce themselves and seek anddiscover useful ways for moving forward on collaborative projects. This was not simply a public relationsfunction but more a tool for developing integrative practice. It benefited greatly from using newsletters andother media to give expression to networking ideas.Inter-Networking ActivitiesThe importance of inter-networking activities and the role of The Combat Poverty Agency in bringing thesetogether and in supporting the programme's research and evaluation components is a further and final lessonof the Demonstration Programme. In a situation where the local dimension to educational disadvantage lackssupport through local structures, the introduction of new integration initiatives might easily flounder withoutadequate technical assistance and support. The Demonstration Programme had relatively good back-up andtechnical support from The Combat Poverty Agency. In particular, the Agency played a key role in supportingthe networks through the early stages of formation. Through this stage, the Agency reassured networks thatthe ultimate assessment of their progress would not hinge on high-quantity output. Agency personnelunderstood from previous experiences, especially with community development projects, that initiatives ofthis nature required the building of understanding, trust and respect between key players and that thisinevitably took time. Any future programme would need to be able to draw similarly from a support agency.Perhaps a support agency would need to be brought together for these specific purposes its structurereflecting the home-school-community dimensions of local partnerships. Clearly, the support agency shouldnot be an educational body, a social service body or a community development body, but it should have thecapacity to bring these elements together in supporting educational partnerships.SECTION 6CONCLUSIONIn the Combat Poverty Agency Demonstration Programme on Educational Disadvantage personnel from avariety of formal and informal educational sectors came together in new local structures to research, plan anddevelop co-ordinated, integrated responses to educational disadvantage. The Combat Poverty Agencystructured the programme to resource its co-ordination, networking and integration functions. By adoptingthis approach to tackling educational disadvantage the Agency chose what one evaluation report of anintegration initiative in the United States described as "the path of most resistance"' 6 .Services integration across different sectors is an extremely complex process and is rendered even moredifficult when, at institutional levels, there are contrasting expectations about what can be achieved throughintegrative activities. At the same levels, these expectations can come to mean either resource rationalisationor systemic reforms, depending on current political demands and policy environments. Integration may evenmean simply that everything continues as it was, but is described differently.Given these variable scenarios it is unlikely that one would find practitioners and policy-makers who did notsupport the need for change and for more collaborative effort. Lately, concepts such as collaboration, coordinationand integration have valuable currency in policy discourse. However, if real support for theseconcepts requires genuine change on the part of policy-makers and practitioners, then real support is likely tobe more qualified. Practitioner change requires some evidence of practitioner benefit. At a professional level, italso requires some indication that the changes being sought have measurable benefits for the consumers,clients, and recipients of their services. Teachers need to see the tangible benefits for teachers, their studentsand their students' parents. Policy-makers will be concerned to ensure that change does not make mattersworse or less efficient. Such caution helps explain why the integration responses in the report referred toabove were described as "the path of most resistance" - their benefits to policy makers, individualpractitioners and the people with whom they work are not always apparent, nor is it evident that other,wider, benefits could not have been achieved in other ways. In this context, it is relatively easy to understandwhy efforts for change might sometimes be resisted even while, in many other instances, they are promotedand supported.Central SupportThe four networks in the Demonstration Programme experienced both support and resistance in their effortsto come together to research, plan and develop co-ordinated, integrated responses to educationaldisadvantage. At a central level, the Combat Poverty Agency, despite the rather sparse resources available,played an important role in holding the effort together as a programme. In addition to providing ongoingsupport and back-up to individual networks, the Agency provided a flexible structure for promoting policyissues and for developing inter-network activities. At this inter-network level, network participants availed oftraining and also had good opportunities to share experiences, discuss common issues, and to find ways ofjointly moving forward on key ideas. This inter-networking also provided a solid basis for network personnelto experience support and affirmation from their peers.The Combat Poverty Agency linked the networks into other relevant community and network developmentswith which it is involved, thus providing networks with an even broader support base. In turn, the Agencyregularly drew upon the networks' work in reports, submissions and other activities concerning social policy ingeneral and educational disadvantage in particular." Annie E. Casey Foundation (1995): The Path ol Most Resistance. Reflects on Lessons Learned from New futures, Balt.more: AuthorEvaluating Integrated ResponsesEvaluating Integrated Responses

Overall, there was a very strong sense of the programme being part of Combat Poverty Agency and of itbeing jointly owned with the networks. In turn, the Programme has helped shape the Agency's own thinkingin relation to educational disadvantage and provided it with a foundation and a practice-based soundingchamber to test out and explore ideas about relevant policy proposals and other suggestions.Local SupportAt a local level the networks, in different ways, were supported by key agencies in their respectivecommunities. Generally, they successfully consolidated their role as a supportive educational structure forbodies that were already engaged in inter-agency activities, including youth services, training services,vocational education committees, and local partnerships. Some of these bodies had already accumulatednetwork experiences. They valued its potential and were not threatened by the idea that their inter-agencyactivities might be assisted in their co-ordination by a new body.Although the engagement of schools in a comprehensive manner in the activities of networks was initiallyslow, a significant number of leading school personnel became sufficiently involved to boost the process.Existing community and school-based parental networks proved particularly important in assisting networks tobuild confidence in their processes and methods. Altogether, the networks drew from some very reliablecommunity and school supports in achieving a position of start-up and in being able to promote aprogramme of activities.WeaknessHowever, while the programme is structured to facilitate these relationships, it lacks the capacity tosignificantly resource inter-agency actions that result. This is a weakness. Ideally this programme would havebenefited from being able to bring in funding for a second-stage intervention such as the Department ofEducation and Sciences' 8-15 Early School-Leavers Initiative or funding from a private source or foundation.Such funding could have helped to keep the inter-agency momentum going within an associated structureconcerned directly with a specific intervention, working alongside the network.Inter-agency relationships are so difficult to initiate there should be some mechanism for rewarding thoseschools and local agencies that invest in their origination and development.Sustaining RelationshipsClearly, local personnel and agencies who got involved with the four networks had a strong commitment todeveloping collaborative relationships and placed a high value on the potential long-term impact of suchrelationships. An underlying assumption here is that energies expended on developing these relationshipsduring the programme's initial time-span will contribute greatly to sustaining practical interventions in thelong term. This may or may not be the case.The above achievement is particularly remarkable given that it took place in the context of an educationsystem that lacks a coherent local reference. The Irish education system is exceptionally centralised in itsorganisation and administration. For local education providers, deference to the judgement of a centraldepartment is a habit as well as an administrative requirement. The absence of local structures, despite awide-ranging debate during the early 1990s, reflects not just a change in politics and policy, but the lack ofconvincing demand amnnn nrro/iHorc iu ^. ,unyc in (juimcs and policy, but the lac aconvincing demand among providers. In the context of this programme, it is rather easy to understandsomeschools' reluctance to become involved in the networking process.The benefits of such networking are not sufficiently apparent within a system where both internal andexternal demands and expectations are heavily influenced by examination results and schools' academicperformance. The line of least resistance, for parents, teachers and schools' management, is to focus onachieving optimum results and to tackle educational disadvantage through improving standards, withoutdealing with the underlying causes. The difficulty with this approach is that it is repeated year in and yearout - with limited significant results - while the problems simply get worse.The Demonstration Programme took a different approach to addressing educational disadvantage. In thisapproach, the focus on achievement was not suspended, but was placed in a different context. This contextsuggested that, if underlying issues were not addressed from within a multi-disciplinary framework, problemsrelating to under-achievement, absenteeism and early school-leaving would continue and get worse.DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMME - STRENGTH AND WEAKNESSThe networks promised very little - in terms of resources - to prospective participants other than theopportunity to develop collaborative relationships that may, but may not necessarily, lead to more focusedefforts to tackle these problems. This could be perceived as both a strength and a weakness in theprogramme.StrengthThe programme has a developmental dimension in the sense that it promotes new inter-agency relationships.This is one of the programme's strengths. The development of inter-agency relationships is perceived asconstructive in its own right and at times this has happened organically, irrespective of funding incentives.Evaluating Integrated Responses )One sure way of sustaining the relationships would be a promise that departmental commitments to socialinclusion would be underlined by an integrative component. Such commitments would best be spelled out inrelevant future programmes under the Department of Education and Science.Into the FutureThe role and involvement of The Combat Poverty Agency through the Demonstration Programme is clearlyone of supporting an experiment, of developing a pilot for use by mainstream education.If the issues that have emerged and developed through the Demonstration Programme are to have any widerimpact on tackling educational disadvantage, their greatest influence needs to be on the nature and structureof departmental programmes.This suggests that the Department of Education and Science may draw lessons from this review with a view toinfluencing the structure of prospective integrated initiatives it might develop. Clearly, these lessons may alsobe drawn from a wider range of prospective programme planners and designers.As matters stand there is no current published plan by the Department of Education and Science to developsuch initiatives, within the context of compulsory school years. In the Department's most recent policycommitments" to educational disadvantage, the sole reference to local co-ordinating mechanisms for primaryand secondary schooling concerns the education welfare service as proposed in the Education Welfare Bill Act2000.The proposed new education welfare service could potentially provide an important, meaningful structure forintegrating services to children at risk at local levels, within the context of co-ordinated case managementsystems.However, as yet, such proposals hold no promise for integrating local efforts to raise wider issues and to tacklesystemic reform. Such efforts would require a complementary structure to that of co-ordinated casemanagement. The possibilities of integrating both tasks into a single structure could be considered also'Department of Education and Science (1999): The New Deal - A Plan lor Educa„anal Opportunity, Dublin. Stationery Ofta Ireland( Evaluating Integrated Responses

Broadly, the local integration project is at an early stage of development in Ireland. Community health andsocial services - that have had local and regional structures in place for decades - are still struggling withdeveloping appropriate programmes to give meaningful expression to concepts such as participation andcommunity involvement. Education is a late, if still somewhat resistant, participant in the local integrationproject.APPENDIXEvaluation Process and ProceduresAs a universal service, however, education potentially offers the prospect of real effect provided the project oflocal integration is enthusiastically embraced and that those who give leadership to it take account of whathas already been achieved.The Demonstration Programme is one of a number of pilot ventures that have sought to test and developlocal integration. It offers many useful lessons as to how such initiatives could develop. Proponents of reformin education would do well to take full account of at least some of these.In November 1995, the Combat Poverty Agency obtained sanction to operate the Demonstration Programmon Educational Disadvantage. Under this programme four local network groups based in Drogheda (Co.Louth), Killinarden (Co. Dublin), Tralee (Co. Kerry) and Tuam (Co. Galway) receive funding to develop anintegrated, co-ordinated response to the problem of educational disadvantage within their areas.The Children's Research Centre, Trinity College Dublin, was commissioned to provide an evaluationconsultancy to the programme. This consultancy started in October 1997 and lasted to January 2000. Theevaluation was assisted by an advisory group jointly set up by Combat Poverty Agency and Children'sResearch Centre. The evaluation included a programme review and the compilation of five separate papers onkey issues pertaining to the programme. The central purpose of the programme review was to assess theimpact and effectiveness of the programme in terms of tackling educational disadvantage at local levels withparticular attention to the impact of network structures and programme objectives.The review was structured as a formative evaluation so that it could inform the ongoing development of theprogramme. It had a number of components. In addition to collecting information on the progress of theprogramme, the evaluation provided network participants with feedback information to assist them in theirown reflections and review.During the period October 1997 and January 1998, a set of qualitative data was collected through semistructuredinterviews with up to 25 key programme informants across the networks. Additional informationwas obtained from Combat Poverty Agency personnel during July 1998. This exercise provided a store ofinformation on network origins, initial aims and objectives, early stages of development, progress (or lack of)to date and factors influencing same. A brief (three-to four-page) feedback report was made available to eachnetwork and a verbal feedback was undertaken with groups of representatives from each network. A moredetailed feedback to wider groups of network representatives was also undertaken.Overview of Network ProgressThe early feedback report provided to each network following the first data collection, from October 1997 toJanuary 1998 (see p. 5, Introduction) found that individual network aims tended to be very broadly defined.Proposed activities were quite numerous and varied and they risked lacking focus. It was suggested throughthe reports that networks prioritise their aims.Redefining GoalsA goals attainment instrument was used to help network steering committees review and refocus their originalaims and objectives. Rather than having numerous broad goals, the networks were helped to concentrate ona smaller number of core aims that they considered realistically achievable within the programme's timeframe.The need for prioritisation was widely discussed within the networks and between February and |une 1998 agreat deal of network effort went into refining goal statements to bring them into line with what networksthought was realistically achievable within the timeframe.Following this refinement, aims and activities across the four networks were broadly as follows:* Networking/Integration;* Intervention;* Management Support and Self-Evaluation;O* Research and Evaluation.

Networking/IntegrationThe primary aim was to develop a co-ordinated/integrated network of individuals (parents, teachers, youngpeople) and agencies (schools, youth organisations, social organisations, partnerships, parents' bodies, etc.)that were concerned with issues of educational disadvantage and early school-leaving.The main network objectives were to support exchange of information, contacts, ideas around good practiceand other developments. In practice, these included various combinations of the following:* Co-ordinating inter-agency meetings and fora around specific issues, such as literacy, Travellers'education, absenteeism, etc.;* Helping in the formation of specific interest groups to deal with local education issues;* Compiling newsletters, posters and leaflets about the networks and other local groups concerned witheducational issues;* Organising seminars and support meetings with parents' bodies, teachers' groups, youth groups andother interested parties in the network area on topics such as early school-leaving, integrationconcepts, absenteeism, transition programmes, etc.Networking between the four programme participants also took place. The four networks regularlycame together for joint inter-network meetings. In conjunction with Combat Poverty Agency, thenetworks organised an annual conference on the programme to which participants in other relevantprogrammes were invited.InterventionThe second main aim of the networks was to provide advice and practical supports in setting up new orcontinuing with existing programmes that intervened directly with early school-leaving or other educationallydisadvantaged target groups. These programmes would have important integrative dimensions. Interventionsthat were supported included:it involved setting up an appropriate structure to work within an existing entity. Network groups undertookmanagement training and took responsibility for organising recruitment. Management groups alsoparticipated in self-evaluation sessions, awareness building and training in specific educational, organisationaland management issues as they arose.Research and EvaluationA fourth aim was to contribute to the programme's research and evaluation strand as organised by TheChildren's Research Centre. This involved contributing to the programme's external evaluation and helpingevaluators meet early school-leavers or at-risk persons and other key network informants.Assessing ProgressFollowing the refinement of priorities and proposed actions, networks were helped in developing appropriatemeasures of goals attainment. By the end of November 1998, the networks had completed each of thesemeasures. They used the measures to guide their own assessments of individual network progress.A data collection exercise was repeated at a later stage in the Programme's development, May-june 1999,with a smaller number of network informants. Together with ongoing discussions and meetings withprogramme personnel (two to three field visits to each location), this qualitative information formedthe main data used in the programme review. Full documentation relating to the programme hasalso been made available.A draft programme evaluation report was completed in December 1999. Following this, a series of feedbackworkshops was held with networks and with Combat Poverty Agency to further explain and elaborate on thereport's contents.The final report on the programme review is contained in this document.Applications for 8-15 Early School Leavers' Initiative (Department of Education and Science), one ofwhich was successful;* Setting up after-school projects;Setting up transition programmes;* Setting up committees for tackling absenteeism;* Setting up family literacy programmes;* Setting up parent visitor/peer support programme.Interventions included lobbying campaigns, e.g. meeting representatives of the Department of Education andScience or the media, and through organising public events. Such activities were focused on drawingattention to the area's educational needs, for example, the need for new pre-school facilities, a full-timeschools psychological service or a full-time speech and language service.Individual networks also took part in other interventions aimed at improving, indirectly, the delivery ofservices and programmes to the educationally disadvantaged. These included helping the provision of trainingfor teachers as part of the Curriculum Development Unit/Combat Poverty Agency Poverty AwarenessProgramme and helping to design a training module on working in a disadvantaged area for a teachertraining college.Management Support and Self-EvaluationThe third aim was to develop a structure and management group for each „ ,directs and support. In three of the networks, this involved sethnn * ^ ^ ^ ^involved setting up separate legal entities. In the fourth,•,«3

Evaluating Integrated Responses )

Combat Poverty AgencyBridgewater CentreConyngham RoadIslandbridgeDublin 8Tel: 01 6706746Fax: 01 6706760email: info@cpa.ieWebsite: www.cpa.ieAn Ghniomhaireacht doChomhrac na Bochtainelonad BridgewaterBothar ConynghamDroichead na hlnseBaile Atha Cliath 8Teil: 01 6706746facs: 01 6706760Riomhphost: info@cpa.ieLathair Lionra: www.cpa.ie