[Bob22A]

Another great Brown Brain Child. Wonderful suprise suprise . Only £2,500 each as well

£5.9 million Government drive to help cut pregnancies among disadvantaged teenagers failed when numbers actually increased, research has suggested.

The Young People's Development Programme (YPDP) ran in 27 parts of England between 2004 and 2007, based on a similar model in New York and was designed to offer education and support for 13 to 15-year-olds who were deemed at risk of exclusion from school, drug abuse and teenage pregnancy.

A total of 2,371 teenagers took part in the programme to some extent over the three years, at a cost of £2,500 each, but the latest research shows that young women who attended the programme were "significantly" more likely to fall pregnant than those in a comparison group.

A total of 16% of the YPDP group fell pregnant compared with 6% in the other group, which was a youth programme not receiving YPDP funds.

"Young women in the intervention group also more commonly reported early heterosexual experience (58% v 33%) and expectation of teenage parenthood (34% v 24%)," the study said.

This was despite those in the YPDP group receiving education about sex and drugs, being no more sexually active than the other group and some sites distributing free condoms.

The study, published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), also found that young women in the YPDP group were more likely to have not used contraception when they most recently had sex.



However, the researchers said The YPDP was rated highly by most young people staff, parents and other stakeholders.

[gummy mummy]

Are you refering to this

Young People's Development Programme shows how to engage vulnerable young people Evaluation by researchers based at the Social Science Research Unit (SSRU) at the Institute of Education, University of London shows that the three-year Young People's Development Programme pilot to work with disadvantaged young people has reduced the numbers of temporary exclusions, contacts with the police and aspirations to be a teenage parent in participants.

The research also found that young people said the pilot made them more confident, helped them stay out of trouble, increased their ambitions and made them recognise the importance of education.

The Department of Health funded Young People’s Development Programme (YPDP) was implemented through 27 existing youth projects across England by The National Youth Agency and modelled on the American “Youth Development” approach, which worked with disadvantaged young people to ensure good education and health outcomes.

The independent research found that YPDP had succeeded in working with more than 2,000 “at-risk” young people and that the learning gained could inform the direction of targeted youth support in the future.

The projects worked with 13- to 15-year-olds identified as being “at risk” of substance misuse, school exclusion and teenage pregnancy. They provided a programme of arts, sports, training and employment, life skills, mentoring and volunteering activities.

Crucially, they incorporated explicit health promotion, with a focus on sexual health and substance misuse, and help with accessing linked services. The programme was offered over one year for six to 10 hours each week. On average, young people spent 173 hours over 40 weeks with YPDP. This high level of engagement reflected considerable effort on the part of project staff, who built relationships with school and pupil referral units, youth offending teams, social services and education welfare teams. Finding those not in touch with services was especially challenging and outreach activities in shopping centres and on estates where young people met were effective.

YPDP worked flexibly and tailored services to keep young people engaged and maintained regular contact with those not currently attending, to encourage continued participation.

Although YPDP was a significant challenge, staff saw real benefits from working intensively and over the long-term with young people most in need, taking a more structured approach and integrating health promotion.

However, the evaluation findings were not universally positive. In comparison to those attending existing youth services, young women appeared to experience a number of poorer outcomes. Outcomes did begin to improve in the later stages of the programme, so it may be that projects needed more time to adjust to the new ways of working.

To see an improvement in long-term outcomes programmes similar to YPDP may need to start younger, last longer and be more intense. Greater impact might be achieved by integrating “at risk” teenagers within provision for a wider group of young people, preventing possible negative peer influence.

The NYA’s Youth Work for Health (YW4H) team is already using knowledge gained from YPDP to raise the standard of how health issues are tackled within youth work settings. Good Practice Guidelines for Healthy Youth Work are now available (www.nya.org.uk/yw4h). A new resource drawing together all the valuable learning from YPDP, aimed at those working with vulnerable young people, will be available in the autumn.

http://www.nya.org.uk/information/11...leyoungpeople/

[DeadJoe]

Bob22A's missing link:

icnewcastle

More on the study:

BMJ

Note this line:

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of youth development in reducing teenage pregnancy, substance use, and other outcomes.

Clearly, someone is misrepresenting what the study was about. The remit was much wider than 'cutting teen pregnancy'. Furthermore, the people misrepresenting the study are overlooking the very simple fact that in order to discover if the sort of approach suggested by the YPDP is effective, it is necessary to run it and see if it works. So the claim that this money was wasted is (as usual from Bob22A) complete nonsense. We have learnt something valuable, as the full report shows. But then, Bob22A isn't interested in hearing that, is he?

Who else is fed up with people on this forum feeding us half-truths and dumbed down versions of what is going on? I certainly am.

[cosham]

Originally Posted by DeadJoe

Bob22A's missing link:

icnewcastle

More on the study:

BMJ

Note this line:



Clearly, someone is misrepresenting what the study was about. The remit was much wider than 'cutting teen pregnancy'. Furthermore, the people misrepresenting the study are overlooking the very simple fact that in order to discover if the sort of approach suggested by the YPDP is effective, it is necessary to run it and see if it works. So the claim that this money was wasted is (as usual from Bob22A) complete nonsense. We have learnt something valuable, as the full report shows. But then, Bob22A isn't interested in hearing that, is he?

Who else is fed up with people on this forum feeding us half-truths and dumbed down versions of what is going on? I certainly am.

I am in total agreement with you,alas both sides of the political spectrum on these august boards,have too many party spin merchants,posting here.

[jmclaugh]

There is nothing wrong with carrying out a study to see if this sort of intervention works or not. However if this cost nearly £6m to undertake then you have to question the cost effectiveness of carrying it out.

[Mesostim]

Originally Posted by cosham

[/b]


I am in total agreement with you,alas both sides of the political spectrum on these august boards,have too many party spin merchants,posting here.

Like the ones suddenly trying to cover up Cameron's bad judgement in Press Officers?

[cosham]

Originally Posted by Mesostim

Like the ones suddenly trying to cover up Cameron's bad judgement in Press Officers?

Yes because something that happened before the man got the job,and is already a story over a year old is relevant to his current job.

It is only a story if he lied to David Cameron when he was being interviewed for the job.

[Mesostim]

Originally Posted by cosham

Yes because something that happened before the man got the job,and is already a story over a year old is relevant to his current job.

It is only a story if he lied to David Cameron when he was being interviewed for the job.

The man either new the full scale of what was going on or was incompetant in the extreme... either way Cameron's judgement is completely flawed... only a spin doctor could argue otherwise

[cosham]

Originally Posted by Mesostim

The man either new the full scale of what was going on or was incompetant in the extreme... either way Cameron's judgement is completely flawed... only a spin doctor could argue otherwise

Or someone who like David Cameron, believes in giving people a second chance,
Even you will have made mistakes in life, with some exceptions it is wrong to expect people to have to pay for a mistake for the rest of their lives.

[smudges dad]

Bl00dy h3ll!!!

Brown, Prescott and Blunkett are going round getting schoolgirs pregnant. I mean, all these pregnancies are the fault of the government over the past few years, so it's obvious what they're doing!

Seriously, isn't it a great idea to blame the government for trying to do something about the problem, rather than washing their hands of the whole thing? Not everything works, but if a trial fails, then it's obviously the wrong thing to have done.

[Bob22A]

Originally Posted by smudges dad

Bl00dy h3ll!!!

Brown, Prescott and Blunkett are going round getting schoolgirs pregnant. I mean, all these pregnancies are the fault of the government over the past few years, so it's obvious what they're doing!

Seriously, isn't it a great idea to blame the government for trying to do something about the problem, rather than washing their hands of the whole thing? Not everything works, but if a trial fails, then it's obviously the wrong thing to have done.

This though was not a pilot but a full scale scheme costing several million.

[DeadJoe]

Cheap at half the price.

How much do you think it might be costing to deal with the after-effects of the issues YPDP was designed to address at root?

Of course it makes perfect sense to try to address the problems and not just deal with the consequences. What are you thinking?