Periodo 2008 – 2012 Plan de Desarrollo Distrital “Bogotá positiva”

The survey of co-ordinators and managers collected detailed information on the characteristics of learners, perceived changes in learner profile over time and the pathways through which young people came to the centre. Some of this information was based on objective data such as gender, age and prior educational attainment recorded when the learner enrolled in the programme. Other characteristics, such as living in a jobless household or having a mental health difficulty, could be described as reflecting the perceptions of the co-ordinator/manager. However, it became clear from the case-study interviews that co-ordinators/managers had very in-depth knowledge of the histories and family circumstances of learners in their centres. Furthermore, co-ordinator/ manager reports closely match official statistics on characteristics such as the proportion living in jobless households.

A similar gender profile was found across the two Youthreach settings, with slightly more males than females participating in the programme; 58 per cent of those in Youthreach centres and 55 per cent of those in CTCs were male. Males made up the majority of learners in almost three-quarters of centres. However, this overall figure conceals a good deal of variation between centres, with the proportion female varying from none to over three-quarters across centres.

The official age of Youthreach participants is between 15 and 20 years, and CTC centres between 16 and 20 years. Figure 4.1 shows the majority (88 per cent) of participants in the Youthreach programme are aged between 16 and 19. There is a slight variation by centre type, with CTCs more likely to have participants over the age of 19 compared to Youthreach centres. Youthreach centres appear to have a younger age profile, with higher proportions of participants aged 15 and younger. As with gender, there was a good deal of variation between centres in the age profile of learners, with the proportion aged 17 or under varying from none to over three-quarters.

FIGURE 4.1 AGE OF LEARNERS

Source: ESRI survey of Youthreach Co-ordinators and Community Training Centre managers.

The survey asked Youthreach co-ordinators and CTC managers about the highest level of educational attainment among current learners on entry to the programme. Learners in Youthreach centres have lower levels of education on entry to the programme compared to those in CTCs. Thus, just under 30 per cent of Youthreach learners had primary education only while this was the case for 15 per cent of CTC learners. The largest group in both settings was comprised of those with a full Junior Certificate qualification. Only a very small proportion had completed senior cycle qualifications, though this was somewhat more common in

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Age <15 15 16 17 18 19 20 >20 YR CTC

CTC settings (with 10 per cent of learners having the full LCA compared to 2 per cent in Youthreach centres). Young men were more likely than young women to enter the programme with primary education only (28 per cent compared with 20 per cent). The educational profile of learners varied significantly across centres, with some centres having few or no young people with only primary education while in others this group made up a majority of the learner population. The implications of these differences in profile for the qualifications offered under the programme are discussed in Chapter 6.

FIGURE 4.2 HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION ON ENTRY TO THE YOUTHREACH PROGRAMME

Source: ESRI survey of Youthreach Co-ordinators and Community Training Centre managers.

Previous research on the profile of Youthreach participants shows that Youthreach participants have ‘a significant level of difficulty and risk’, with many having experienced multiple adverse events throughout their life (Gordon, 2017). Youthreach co-ordinators and CTC managers were asked to give information about the profile and characteristics of participants currently registered under a specified list of headings. Figure 4.3 shows the average proportion of learners in each of these groups by centre. In interpreting the patterns shown, it is worth noting that learners may fall into more than one group; for example, a young person may have mental health difficulties and be living in a jobless household.

Co-ordinators/managers report a very high prevalence of emotional, psychological or mental health (EPMH) difficulties among the learner population, with around four-in-ten learners having such difficulties. A similarly high proportion of learners are from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds, that is, are living in jobless households. The figures reported by co-ordinators/ managers are in line with the proportion of early school leavers nationally living in jobless households

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Primary JC: 1-4 subjs JC full LC 1-4 subjs LCA: 1st year

LCA full QQI 3/4

modules

Other

%

(see Chapter 2). A very significant minority, around one-in-four, of learners have a learning difficulty. Young people from Traveller backgrounds make up around one- in-six of the learner population. Given that Travellers make up less than one per cent of the Irish population, this is a very high level of representation. A significant proportion, around 14 per cent on average, of learners have had problems with the criminal justice system. Around 8 per cent of learners are lone parents. Young people from a migrant background make up an average of 6 per cent of the learner population across centres. This proportion is lower than their representation in the population as a whole. Given that rates of early school leaving are roughly comparable between Irish and migrant youth (Barrett et al., 2017), this would appear to suggest that migrants are not taking part in the Youthreach programme to the same extent as their Irish peers.

There is some difference in profile between Youthreach and Community Training Centres, although there is a good degree of commonality. The proportion with EPMH, learning difficulties or from Traveller backgrounds is somewhat higher in Youthreach centres. Young people attending CTCs are somewhat more likely to be living in jobless households or to be lone parents. Some variation in the representation of Travellers was evident across ETBs, not surprisingly given the geographical distribution of the Traveller population (see Watson, 2017). There is also significant variation in the extent to which centres have previous offenders among their population across ETBs, with a higher representation in Kerry, Cork, City of Dublin and Louth-Meath.

FIGURE 4.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF LEARNERS IN YOUTHREACH AND COMMUNITY TRAINING

CENTRES

Source: ESRI survey of Youthreach Co-ordinators and Community Training Centre managers.

0 10 20 30 40 50 Physical disability Homeless In care Migrant Lone parent Previous offences Traveller Learning difficulty Jobless household EPMH Mean % YR CTC

Centres with a higher concentration of socio-economic disadvantage tend to have more learners with EPMH and learning difficulties and a history of previous offences. Centres with a higher representation of Traveller young people tended to have a younger profile and a higher proportion of learners with only primary education. Centres were classified into three groups on the basis of the relative representation of socio-economic disadvantage, EPMH and learning difficulties, and Travellers (see also Chapter 1). Using this classification, Youthreach centres were more likely to fall into the high need group (25 per cent compared with 15 per cent of CTCs) while CTCs were more likely to fall into the low need group (37 per cent compared with 20 per cent). The extent to which the concentration of need influences centre provision as well as learner experiences and outcomes is discussed in the remainder of the report.

Youthreach co-ordinators and CTC managers were also asked about their knowledge of participant experiences prior to entering the programme. Negative school experiences prior to entering the Youthreach programme appear to dominate previous experiences among learners. Eighty-seven per cent of co-ordinators/managers reported that more than 40 per cent of current learners had poor school attendance records prior to entry. Four-fifths (82 per cent) reported that more than 40 per cent of learners did not participate or engage with school prior to entering the programme. Furthermore, 65 per cent reported that more than 40 per cent of current participants had behavioural issues prior to entry. These patterns were evident in both Youthreach and Community Training centres.

Other factors also feature, with 44 per cent of centres indicating that more than 40 per cent of participants experienced a lack of family support. Substance misuse either by the young person themselves or a family member was reported for at least a quarter of learners in the majority (three-quarters) of centres. Learners were also highly likely to have experienced some form of trauma (such as a bereavement or serious illness), with over two-thirds of centres reporting this for at least a quarter of learners. Greater variation was found in the reported incidence of anti-social behaviour, with 15 per cent of co-ordinators/managers reporting a high level (40 per cent or more of learners), while this was relatively uncommon (less than 10 per cent of learners) in a similar proportion of centres. These patterns were broadly similar across Youthreach and CTC settings. The exception was in relation to trauma, which had a higher reported incidence in Youthreach centres (45 per cent indicating 40 per cent or more learners had this experience compared with 24 per cent of CTCs).

FIGURE 4.4 PROPORTION OF YOUTHREACH LEARNERS WHO HAD EXPERIENCED SPECIFIC DIFFICULTIES PRIOR TO ENTERING THE PROGRAMME, AS REPORTED BY CO-ORDINATORS/MANAGERS

Source: ESRI survey of Youthreach Co-ordinators and Community Training Centre managers.

As mentioned in Chapter 2, retention rates in Ireland are at an all-time high which means that over the last decade the profile of Youthreach participants is likely to have become more marginalised. In particular, research has suggested possible increases in the prevalence of learning difficulties, special educational needs, mental health issues and social exclusion (NEPS, 2017). The survey sought to explore the views of Youthreach co-ordinators and CTC managers about any perceived changes in the profile of participants on the Youthreach programme. Almost all co-ordinators/managers (96 per cent) reported that the number of participants experiencing EPMH difficulties had increased over the past five years. The majority (61 per cent) also indicated that the prevalence of learning difficulties had increased. A significant proportion, around four-in-ten, of centres reported an increase in the representation of migrants, those living in jobless households, those experiencing homelessness and those in care.

Trends were broadly similar in Youthreach and CTC settings, but those in CTCs were slightly more likely to report an increase in the prevalence of learning difficulties (69 per cent compared with 59 per cent) while Youthreach centres were more likely to report decreasing numbers of Travellers (32 per cent compared with 11 per cent). CTCs were also more likely to report changes, either an increase or a decrease, in the representation of lone parents than Youthreach centres, and were slightly more likely to report an increase in the proportion of ex-offenders.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Anti-social behaviour Trauma Substance misuse (self/family) Lack of family support Behavioural issues School disengagement Poor attendance

FIGURE 4.5 PERCEIVED CHANGES IN LEARNER PROFILE OVER TIME

Source: ESRI survey of Youthreach Co-ordinators and Community Training Centre managers.

Co-ordinators/managers were also asked about the extent to which learners came from the local area, defined for survey purposes as within a five mile radius. Responses indicated that this applied ‘to a great extent’ in over two-thirds (69 per cent) of centres, ‘to some extent’ in 26 per cent of cases, and ‘not at all’ in 5 per cent of centres. Not surprisingly, significant geographical variation was evident in this pattern. Centres in Longford-Westmeath, Laois-Offaly and, to some extent, Donegal were more likely to draw learners from a more dispersed area. In contrast, two areas, DDLETB and Waterford-Wexford, drew all of their learners from within the local area. Centres drawing from the local area were less likely to have a high concentration of learners with only primary education but no other relationship between catchment area and learner profile was apparent.