The Fairbridge Pathfinder Project Evaluation Report

The Fairbridge YSDF Pathfinder Project:
Evaluation report
Charities Evaluation Services

March 2011
Contents
1. Executive summary .............................................................................................. 1

1.1 Fairbridge's YSDF plans and achievements ................................................ 1
1.2 Main findings ............................................................................................... 2
2. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 5
2.1 YSDF Project aims and objectives............................................................... 5
2.2 Project management and Integrated Support .............................................. 6
2.3 Evaluation performance measures .............................................................. 7
2.4 Data collection for the evaluation ................................................................. 7
SECTION A: FUNDED CHANGES TO STAFFING AND SERVICES ............................ 9

3. Success in recruiting and deploying additional staff ......................................... 9
3.1 Summary ..................................................................................................... 9
3.2 Discussion and analysis .............................................................................. 9
3.3 The model Fairbridge team.........................................................................10
4. Increase in numbers of young people engaged ................................................13
4.1 Summary ....................................................................................................13
4.2 Discussion and analysis .............................................................................13
5. Increasing levels of engagement ........................................................................17
5.1 Summary ....................................................................................................17
6. Improving outcomes for young people ..............................................................20
6.1 Summary ....................................................................................................20
6.2 Discussion and analysis outcomes for young people ...............................20
6.3 Accreditation of Fairbridge's activities and courses for young people .........24
SECTION B: ORGANISATIONAL CAPACITY BUILDING............................................27

7. Influence on the youth sector .............................................................................27
7.1 Summary ....................................................................................................27
7.2 Growth in the training business ..................................................................27
7.3 Policy and campaigns.................................................................................29
8. Improved monitoring and evaluation systems ..................................................32
8.1 Summary ....................................................................................................32
9. Greater management capacity at local level ......................................................34
9.1 Summary ....................................................................................................34
9.3 Learning and conclusions ...........................................................................36
SECTION C: SUSTAINABILITY....................................................................................37
10. Financial sustainability........................................................................................37
10.1 Summary ....................................................................................................37
10.2 Discussion and analysis: sources of income ...............................................37
10.3 Learning and conclusions ...........................................................................40
11. Learning for Sustainability ..................................................................................42
11.1 Strategy ......................................................................................................42
11.3 Impact of YSDF on Fairbridge services ......................................................45
11.4 Future Innovation .......................................................................................46
11.5 Keeping the Fairbridge ethos......................................................................47
Appendices ..................................................................................................................49
Appendix 1: Summary quality of experience and outcomes ...............................49
Appendix 2: Rationale for team size of 12 at Fairbridge .....................................50
Appendix 3: Extracts from evaluation and research findings 2008-2010.............51
Appendix 4: Case studies...................................................................................52
Appendix 5: Topic Guides ..................................................................................58
CES/Fairbridge YSDF Pathfinder Project: Report 29.03.11
The Fairbridge YSDF Pathfinder Project: evaluation report
1. Executive summary
1.1 Fairbridge's YSDF plans and achievements
Since 2008, Fairbridge has significantly built its capacity to deliver positive outcomes for
young people in England with the aid of an investment by government through the Youth
Sector Development Fund (YSDF). The YSDF Project has injected 3,798,050 into
Fairbridge England over three years from 2008-2011. Charities Evaluation Services
undertook an evaluation of the Fairbridge YSDF Pathfinder Project.
During 2008-10 Fairbridge has managed the capacity-building process very effectively.
They have achieved well against planned activities and results of the YSDF Pathfinder
Project. Their achievements are summarised in the table below:
What was planned What Fairbridge has achieved

The funding from YSDF was Fairbridge has recruited and deployed
intended to increase Fairbridges appropriate additional staff into the eleven
local delivery team staff by roughly English teams in a planned way that has
Input
60% (from 83 to 132) responded well to the labour market and

funding pressures

This would enable Fairbridge to Fairbridge has maintained its volume of
increase the numbers of young provision for young people, more of whom
people (age 13-19) engaging with came to Fairbridge with multiple needs.
Output
the Fairbridge programme in 11

locations by 36%
(from 1370 to 1870 per annum)

Fairbridge was to do this while Fairbridge has significantly increased the
maintaining a consistently high percentage of young people receiving a
Outcome
quality experience for those young high-quality experience and achieving

people, and the same rate of positive positive outcomes through the Fairbridge
outcomes for them programme

In the longer term, it was planned Fairbridge has made positive progress in
that the funding would build building its organisational capacity to sustain
Fairbridge's capacity to sustain the the larger scale of operation and its
higher level of operation, and grow increased effectiveness beyond the YSDF
beyond it. funding. Progress was initially limited, but
gained momentum in years 2 and 3.
Impact
This would in turn increase the

number of quality services available Fairbridge has complemented the YSDF
to young people in England developments with other funding, notably
from the Private Equity Foundation, and with
other capacity building measures through
merger with The Prince's Trust.
-1-
1.2 Main findings

Throughput and quality
Rather than increasing the numbers of young people accessing its programmes and
keeping quality and outcomes constant, Fairbridge effectively did the reverse. This
unexpected change came about because Fairbridge found in 2008-09 that increasing
throughput corresponded with unsatisfactory quality. In response to this, Fairbridge
maintained overall throughput of young people at the same level an initial slight
increase was then followed by a reduction - while all measures of engagement and
outcomes for young people showed significant improvement.
The additional staff resource made possible by YSDF has therefore enabled a significant
qualitative improvement in the service provided for young people across the 11 English
teams - a very positive result, if not exactly what was originally planned. Compared with
three years ago, a significantly greater proportion of young people who start the
Fairbridge Access programme now go on to achieve positive outcomes. They are more
likely to engage with Fairbridge for longer and conclude their engagement in a purposeful
way.
The Fairbridge model team and approach

The YSDF Project set out to explore a model team of 12 delivery staff plus management
and partnership development workers, which Fairbridge believed was optimal for young
people's engagement and outcomes, for networking and influence in the local areas, and
for sustainability. The experience of the three years was that significant benefits did flow
from the larger teams, but that sustaining them proved to be more achievable in only
some locations, where numbers of young people with needs are more concentrated and
where public agencies supporting them have the budget.
There was considerable learning about team roles, and the model team remains an
important idea for Fairbridge going forward - although there is now more of an emphasis
on a minimum team size/composition. This will be the basis for the planned new team in
northern England.
During the three years, Fairbridge staff put together an Operations Framework to guide
practice, and to set out the limits of what Fairbridge will and will not do. Some flexibility
has been introduced to that Framework and further review is planned as Fairbridge move
into new 'markets' - young people who face the same challenges, but with new public
agencies and funding arrangements.
Young people's needs

The levels and intensity of young people's presenting needs increased during the three
years of YSDF funding. 90% of starters had multiple needs in 2010-11, up from 78% in
2007-08.
Managing change
Progress in 2008-09 consisted of recruitment of additional delivery team staff, and an
increased throughput of young people. More significant change broke through in the
second half of the three years as quality and outcomes for young people improved. At the
same time, Fairbridge capacity was increased through improved management
information systems, stronger and more focused management at many levels and a more
targeted approach to fundraising and income generation.
-2-
While professionalising the organisation in a number of ways, it was important to maintain

the culture that delivers for young people. Local teams and managers were encouraged
to be autonomous in how they grew the service, while being held firmly to account
against certain measures of performance.
Funding and income generation

The additional local and national capacity provided in large part by the YSDF investment
has enabled Fairbridge to maintain a concerted drive for placements purchased by public
agencies, as well as increased fundraising and PR activity. However, economic
conditions since the financial crisis of 2008 have meant that uncertainty in the funding
environment has been and continues to be a major issue. First corporate sponsorship
and now public sector commissioning have been extremely challenging. To date
Fairbridge has had some success in re-building corporate support, and it achieved over
95% of its fundraising and income generation targets in the first two years of YSDF; in the
current year 2010-11, Fairbridge is on track to achieve its financial targets.
This is, in the circumstances, an enormous achievement. Fairbridge's drive to shore up

and recover its sources of funds and income through relatively extreme economic
'weather' is evidence of its responsiveness and resilience, even if it is currently uncertain
as to whether Fairbridge will be able to sustain beyond 2010-11 the full scale of the
growth enabled by the YSDF. In that context Fairbridge has renegotiated some aspects
of its YSDF targets, with the agreement of the Department for Education (DfE) to
increase the focus of YSDF resources in 2010-11 on income generation capacity rather
than on service delivery.
With hindsight, it might have been better to build fundraising capacity before increasing
frontline staffing. One senior manager agreed:
If we had known that the economy and public finance crisis was coming we would
have put more effort into building up our fundraising people and systems first -
rather than scaling up the front-line.
Strategy for growth

Fairbridge has evidenced through the YSDF Project a strong drive to realise its vision for
a properly resourced national network of services to enable disadvantaged young people
to take control of their lives.
In 2007-08 the YSDF investment enabled Fairbridge to action the growth and
development plans they had drawn up, alongside funding from the Private Equity
Foundation and others.
Fairbridge's ambitious strategy has been completed by its merger with The Prince's Trust
announced in January 2011, with plans for a new centre in Yorkshire and Humberside.
-3-
-4-
2. Introduction
young people in England with the aid of an investment by government through the Youth
Fairbridge England over three years from 2008-2011. Fairbridge entered the YSDF first
round as a Pathfinder project.
The funding primarily enabled Fairbridge to increase the size of its local delivery teams to
an ideal level of 12 front-line staff (a total of 49 additional staff across 11 English teams),
and to recruit eight central support staff. Over the three years, as YSDF funding tapered
down, it was expected that Fairbridge would grow its own funding and income to sustain
the larger teams and improved outcomes for young people beyond the three years of
YSDF funding.
The capacity building enabled by the YSDF funding formed part of an overall Fairbridge
growth strategy. Although in the years 2008-11 the YSDF investment was by far the
largest received by Fairbridge, they received other investments of funds during that time
to build their capacity and progress their development. Most notably Fairbridge
established a partnership with the Private Equity Foundation which focused on improving
local fundraising capacity in the Scottish and Welsh Fairbridge teams and enabled the
delivery teams in those countries to grow on a similar scale to those in England.
This report
Charities Evaluation Services (CES), the largest provider of evaluation and quality
support in the not-for-profit sector, was contracted to evaluate Fairbridge's capacity
building process and to check that positive outcomes for young people keep pace with
the growth in scale of their service.
This report provides a final assessment of Fairbridge's effectiveness in using the YSDF
investment to December 31st 2010, through the monitoring and evaluation framework
established by Fairbridge and CES in 2008.
It has not been possible in this evaluation to always indicate exactly which developments
were enabled by the YSDF funding but wherever possible this will be done. In some
respects, the evaluation inevitably looks at the development of Fairbridge UK as a whole
during the three years from April 2008.
2.1 YSDF Project aims and objectives

The overall purpose of the YSDF is to promote and support growth and build capacity
within Civil Society Organisations who deliver effective services and activities for young
people in England, particularly the most disadvantaged.1 The programme offered both
significant funding and business support.
In awarding Fairbridge YSDF funding, the Department for Education (DfE) enabled
Fairbridge to test their theory that increasing all their service teams in England to an
optimum of 12 staff would enable them to consistently deliver a high volume of desirable
outcomes for young people. Fairbridge also argued that the higher level of operation
would be sustainable without on-going DfE support beyond 2010-11, as a result of
Fairbridge winning more commissions and increasing local and national fundraising.
1
Ecotecs website (the Youth Sector Development Fund Managing Body): http://ysdf.ecotec.com/
-5-
The purpose of the funding to Fairbridge can be expressed by the following theory of
change:
The funding from YSDF was intended to increase
Input
Fairbridges (front-line) team staff by roughly 60%
(from 83 to 132)

This would enable Fairbridge to increase the numbers of
Output
young people (age 13-19) engaging with the Fairbridge
programme in 11 locations by 36%
(from 1370 to 1870 per annum)

Fairbridge was to do this while maintaining a
come
Out-
consistently high quality experience for those young
people, and the same rate of positive outcomes for them

In the longer term, it was planned that the funding would
build Fairbridge's capacity to sustain the higher level of
Impact
operation, and grow beyond it.
This would in turn increase the number of quality
services available to young people in England
The planned increases in team size were not just about numbers of staff. Fairbridge
applied to the DfE for YSDF funding as a way to test out an optimum team model with a
specific mix of roles and skills, to create a blueprint for further expansion of Fairbridge
services to other locations in the UK.
Other Project goals agreed with the DfE by Fairbridge included accrediting its
programmes for young people and increasing its influence on the youth sector through
training other agencies' staff in the Fairbridge approach.
Fairbridge also set itself a number of organisational capacity building objectives, in

pursuit of which the YSDF funded eight management and fundraising posts at head
office, in addition to the extra front-line staff.
2.2 Project management and Integrated Support

Fairbridge appointed a YSDF Project Manager to oversee all its aspects and to ensure
communication around the whole of Fairbridge England. She published a half-yearly
newsletter pulling together news and issues from around the teams.
Steering group meetings were held quarterly involving senior managers and CES. The
agenda covered matters such as financial sustainability, recruitment, measures of quality,
team performance and outcomes for young people. A risk register was established and
up-dated regularly. Case studies were sent to the DfE along with monitoring reports, and
Fairbridge and CES attended meetings of all Pathfinder projects with officials, and with
the National Evaluation contractor GHK.
Fairbridge took part in the Integrated Support programme offered to YSDF organisations
by Ecotec, the managing body. An important benefit from the programme was the input
provided by the social enterprise Prime Timers to Fairbridge Training, to update and
expand their market research and marketing strategy. Prime Timers produced a
-6-
marketing report that proved valuable, for example, in understanding the schools sectors'
training needs and also on how to demonstrate the relevance of Fairbridge Training's
courses to other professionals outside the narrow youth sector.
Other aspects of the Integrated Support programme were less useful to Fairbridge.
2.3 Evaluation performance measures

The evaluation has tracked progress towards all the above goals. These fall broadly into
three groups, which will shape this evaluation report:
A. Directly funded increases to staffing and the volume and quality of services
The YSDF Project directly increased staffing in order to increase in volume of high quality
services delivered to young people. Throughout the Project Fairbridge has generated
information to demonstrate how it delivered on the specific commitments it made to DfE
in securing the YSDF funding:
success in recruiting and deploying appropriate additional staff
increase in numbers of young people engaged
success rates in delivering positive experiences and outcomes for young people
accreditation of Fairbridge's training for young people.
B. Organisational capacity building

The YSDF investment was also intended to enable Fairbridge to build its organisational
capacity. The degree to which Fairbridge has increased its capacity has been assessed
through evidence of:
Increased influence on the youth sector through delivering training to other
agencies' staff, and through policy and campaigns work.
Improved monitoring and evaluation systems.
Greater management capacity.
C. Sustainability
The increased capacity was to sustain the growth enabled by YSDF and to develop
beyond it, and this has been measured through evidence of:
financial sustainability
learning about the capacity building process.
2.4 Data collection for the evaluation

CES worked with Fairbridge at the beginning of the Project to agree monitoring systems
to capture data for the evaluation and for Fairbridges own management purposes. The
flow of information was both qualitative and quantitative in nature and built on Fairbridge's
existing monitoring and evaluation processes. There was a considerable and profitable
investment by Fairbridge in monitoring and evaluation during the life of the Project, as
chapter 8 explains.
Regular data collection by Fairbridge through the life of the Project

The following Fairbridge systems have been drawn on for this evaluation:
Team-based monitoring information on numbers of staff, numbers of young people,
and measures of quality experience and outcomes.
Operations managers twice yearly reports on the process of capacity building.
-7-
Feedback sought from all training courses.

Case studies of young people that are produced regularly.
An annual survey of young people who have been on the Fairbridge programme.
An annual survey of referral agents - such as schools and Youth Offending Teams.
Fairbridge also shared the following with CES:

Management monitoring information at team, regional and national levels.
The Annual Monitoring Return which provides an integrated digest of Fairbridge
statistics.
The annual Fairbridge National Insight Report.
Internal newsletters.
The evidence (data and commentary) has been prepared by Fairbridge routinely over the
three years of the Project. It has been submitted annually to CES at the end of each year
for the first two years of the Project, and after the third quarter in the final year.
Information has also been collected by CES through reflection and discussion at Project
steering group meetings.
Primary data collection by CES

The final phase of the evaluation primarily sought to assess how well Fairbridge had built
its capacity to sustain its growth. Where possible CES also sought to gather views on the
future replication of the team model in new locations.
In the last quarter of 2010-11, CES directly gathered the views of the following people:
delivery team managers and workers in two locations - North Manchester (Bury)
and Solent (Southampton)
regional and team managers
senior management
national stakeholders in the training, policy, funding and monitoring and evaluation
fields
local stakeholders - principally referral agencies in Bury and Solent.
Semi-structured interviews2 were carried out, which addressed a range of issues with
Fairbridge staff and managers, such as:
the overall process of capacity-building
risks and difficulties and how they were dealt with,
successes, unexpected aspects and key learning,
any reflections on what might have been done differently.
External stakeholders provided their impressions of:

Fairbridge's effectiveness and quality in service delivery
its influence on local and national policy
its effectiveness in collaborative working
the quality of its leadership.
2 Topic guides for the interviews are attached in Appendix 5
-8-
SECTION A: FUNDED CHANGES TO STAFFING AND SERVICES

3. Success in recruiting and deploying additional staff
3.1 Summary
Fairbridge has recruited and deployed appropriate additional staff into the eleven English
teams. They have worked towards the goal of 12 delivery staff per team in a planned way
that has responded well to the labour market and funding pressures. For six months in
2010-11 they achieved a team staffing complement of over 120 out of the maximum 132.
In June 2010, all 11 teams had between 10 and 12 staff in post.
Fairbridge has continued to clarify and refine the model team size and composition and
now has greater confidence in its viability and effectiveness. As well as an effective
complement of workers offering a wide range of experiences for young people, each
team now has the capacity to reach out to referral agencies, influence local planning and
decision-making, and raise funds locally.
Cuts in public sector budgets however make the outlook for team size uncertain in 2011-
12 and 2012-13. As of January 2011, there are 8-10 vacant front-line posts in delivery
teams, and some senior managers expect average team sizes to reduce over time until
commissioning income is more secure.
3.2 Discussion and analysis

At the start of the Project only one team (in Manchester) was operating at the optimum
size of 12 delivery staff. Bringing in new front-line staff to build the other 10 teams up to
that optimum was planned to take place in phases over the whole three years, because
of the people, time and money costs required to recruit, induct and absorb significant
numbers.
Fairbridge made a quick start. Allowing for the normal fluctuations in staff numbers month
by month they filled 23 of the additional 49 posts during year 1. Existing posts were
separately monitored to show that they too were being filled as vacancies arose.
Recruitment continued at a slightly slower rate through year 2, so that by spring 2010,
seven of the 11 English teams were fully staffed - ahead of the Project target of six. By
May 2010, 44 of the planned 49 front-line staff had been recruited. Due to concerns about
sustainable staffing levels in the current climate, the revised targets agreed with DfE
mean that only eight of the 11 teams will be at full strength by March 2011.
As anticipated, in year 1 Fairbridge was dealing with the time and costs absorbed by
significant levels of recruitment and induction. They also faced unexpected challenges
due to:
difficulties in recruitment in London and the South and at the higher skill levels
the higher equipment, resources and accommodation demands of a larger team
delivering more programme days.
Managers adapted by:

staggering recruitment across each year
altering the format of interview and recruitment procedures
giving existing staff opportunities to step up into new roles.
-9-
After the rapid recruitment in year 1, teams generally did not recruit as many staff as
originally planned in year 2. This was partly due to YSDF budget constraints (teams were
spending more for staff salaries and overheads than originally planned) and also due to
the economic climate (teams generally wanted to be cautious with recruiting and
increasing expenditure in order to ensure overall financial sustainability).
Looking back on the recruitment process, the Team Manager in North Manchester said:
The challenge was to recruit the right staff - some newly appointed staff did not
stay the course and the turnover created pressures. A good feature has been the
training for staff - it was really popular and well-regarded.
Her team members added:
New staff can sometimes find it hard to adapt - they look at us and think it all just
happens, but the way we work is very structured and we have clear guidelines on
how we do things.
The benefits of larger teams

Stakeholders have noted that the positives of larger teams include a wider range of skills,
better geographical profile and a wider range of services. In September 2009 for
example, the Bristol Team Manager wrote:
Benefits ... include the broadening of the skill base within the team, both in terms
of creativity and the breadth of understanding of youth work. This in turn has lead
to a broadening of the range of programmes.
For the team in North Manchester, the larger team size meant they had the capacity to
deal with 'the geographical stretch'. They work with a crescent of five local authorities
around the perimeter of the city, which involves a challenging number of working
relationships and a lot of travel.
External perspectives on the benefits of the larger teams are exemplified by the
comments of an Education Welfare Officer who refers children to the North Manchester
team:
Young people like the wider mix of activities. There is more now for girls and
young women - for example, running the Girls Group makes activities accessible
for a Muslim girl I referred, and the Sexual Health Group provides a valuable
service for young women.3
With more staff, Fairbridge can have a presence where the young people are:
they go into schools and Pupil Referral Units (PRUs) to attend case meetings
(Children in Need meetings) and this provides a real support for the young people
and the schools.
3.3 The model Fairbridge team

An important part of the YSDF Project has been that of the testing and refining the model
Fairbridge team.4
Based on experience in Manchester before the Project, the ideal local team was found to
have 12 delivery staff. The experience of Fairbridge since the YSDF funding has
confirmed this. They have found that the optimum team is not so large that young people
cannot easily know and be known by everyone, but large enough to cover absences and
3 Due to the increase in female staff as a result of YSDF recruitment, female young people
engaging with the North Manchester team rose from 18% of total to 30%.
4 For a full rationale for a team size of 12 at Fairbridge see Appendix 2.
- 10 -
vacancies, to enable the team to bid for larger statutory contracts, and to offer a wide
range of activities to the young people.
Equally important was getting the right mix of different roles in the team to ensure an
effective and sustainable unit. Learning from the last three years has shown the ideal
team to have the following staff:
Team manager - increasingly outward facing, to engage with local decision-makers,
for greater influence and sustainability.
Operations manager - responsible for running a high quality programme and
managing the front-line workers.
Two partnership posts: the Partnership Development Officer and Partnership
Development Assistant, both responsible for local PR and fundraising. The assistant
posts took on the growing administrative burden of monitoring information for funders
and commissioners, so that the more senior post could engage directly with events,
fundraising and media work5.
Four Outreach and Development Workers (ODWs) - responsible for making first
contact with young people, and for one-to-one work with the young person right
through to a well-planned and agreed exit point.
Eight Development Tutors (DTs) - responsible for activities and training.
One Administrator.
Fairbridge has also found that ODWs and DTs should collectively offer different levels of
experience, and a mix of skills and special interests to engage best with young people.
Significant management time at all levels has gone into testing the 'Fairbridge model
team' and adapting it based on experience and monitoring. During the three years of
YSDF funding, this included:
A report on recruitment and retention of DTs in 2009.
A review of the ODW role in 2010, followed by an organisation-wide group to
implement planned changes.
Staff recruitment analysis.
Fairbridge has acted decisively on the findings of such reviews. For example, the ODW
review reinforced the need for teams to allocate staff time to planned exits, ensuring that
young people conclude their time well with Fairbridge and leave in a positive and
negotiated way. This is now built into the job description of the ODW and a new measure
has been introduced to monitor the number and percentage of 'agreed exits'.
In December 2010, Fairbridge's Operations Director said:

We have invested in reviewing and strengthening the team model - clarifying roles
and responsibilities. At the start only two teams had two managers in their team -
operations managers and team managers - now 11 teams are set up like that.
Fairbridge managers have also focused thoughtfully on the challenge of recruiting staff
with certain levels of qualifications in the job market around the country. On occasions
team managers have found that it is better to recruit new staff at a lower level who they
believe fit well with the team and would work well within the Fairbridge model and most
importantly engage well with the client group, rather than workers with the necessary
skills, but lacking that fit. The slower recruitment pace in year 2 has also allowed teams
more time within the Project lifespan to up-skill staff that may have been under-recruited
in terms of skills and qualifications.
5
Partnership Development Assistant posts in 10 English teams were supported by Private Equity
Foundation (PEF) as part of their investment in Fairbridge. One post was funded by YSDF.
- 11 -
What were the consequences of establishing Fairbridge model teams across

England?
The evidence in chapters 5, 6 and 7 below will show how the larger teams with the right
mix of roles had a number of positive results. In brief the benefits are reported as:
levels of engagement and outcomes for young people rose steadily
teams became more sustainable through local influence, fund-raising and income
generation
workers tested, clarified and strengthened the Fairbridge approach to working with
disadvantaged young people.
As the manager of the North Manchester team said:

The main advantage of our larger team is that we have developed holistically -
better commissioning relationships, more focused team roles, more activities that
engage young people, better monitoring and evaluation.
- 12 -
4. Increase in numbers of young people engaged

4.1 Summary
Annual numbers of young people starting the Fairbridge Access course in England
declined after an increase in 2008-09. This is not what was envisaged in the initial plan.
However during the period of funding, Fairbridge exceeded starter number targets given
in the YSDF application.
Fairbridge did not target 'easier-to-recruit' client groups, who might be pre-disposed to
achieving good results with Fairbridge. The levels and intensity of young people's
presenting needs were actually higher during the three years of YSDF funding - around
90% of starters had multiple needs.
The planned onward growth in throughput beyond the Project in the years 2011-12 and
2012-13 may prove to be unattainable because of reduced public sector commissioning.

Commitments given by Fairbridge in their application to the YSDF entailed a 20%
increase in the throughput of young people over the three years, from a base of 1370 per
year. Figure 1 below shows the planned and actual growth in the numbers of young
people who started the Fairbridge Access course ('starters') and the numbers who
completed the Access course ('completers').
In 2007-08 before the start of the YSDF Project, 1711 young people started with
Fairbridge. In year 1 of the Project (2008-09), the number of 13-19 year old starters grew
to 1774, an increase of 63 young people (3.7%). This exceeded the YSDF Project target
of 1400 by over 370. In year 2 of the Project, the number of starters fell to 1614, though
still well in excess of the Project target of 1550.
The year 3 (2010-11) starters target was reduced from 1650 to 1450. This was agreed
with the DfE, linked to the slightly reduced targets for team size because of the current
financial climate. After nine months (to 31st December 2010), 1150 young people had
started the Access course - a full-year estimate of 1533 is provided in the chart below to
provide ease of comparison.
In the application for YSDF funding, it was predicted that annual 'starter' numbers would
further grow to 1870 in 2011-12 and beyond. At the time of writing in the fourth quarter of
2010-11, some public agencies are already freezing placements in anticipation of budget
cuts. Fairbridge is seeking referrals from other agencies and initiatives, but there is
uncertainty about future starter numbers.
From a base of 81.5% in 2007-08, the percentage of starters completing the Access
course rose to over 85% in year 1, and it remained over 84% for the rest of the period.
- 13 -
2000
1900
1800
1700
1600
starter target numbers
1500
access starters
1400
access completers
1300
1200
1100
1000
2007-08 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011
Figure 1: Access starters (targets and actual) and completers 2007 to 2011
Why did numbers of starters fall after 2008-09?

After significant growth in year 1, year 2 starter numbers fell 9%. Predicted year 3 starter
numbers look slightly lower again, although not as low as the reduced targets negotiated
with DfE.
There is evidence of two contributory factors:

1. The number of starters was tightly controlled in year 2 because Fairbridge
managers in head office as well as locally decided to focus teams on the quality
of experience and outcomes for young people, rather than on starter throughput.
This is described in more detail in chapter 5.
2. Local public sector bodies were changing the way they referred young people,
and some were already reining in their commissioning budgets tightly as their
financial outlook darkened - see chapter 10. Also Fairbridge was changing its
charging policies which altered demand levels.
The Solent Team Manager said that:
The team know it's not just about bums on seats. We have steadily built up better
referrals and longer term commissioning relationships, which is good for us and
good for the young person in lots of ways. In the three years, local agencies have
gone from grant-giving to commissioning. Experienced front-line managers in the
public sector are the commissioners and quality of service is now built in.
Characteristics of starters
Young people entering the Fairbridge Access course come from a wide variety of
backgrounds. The vast majority of young people are referred through agencies such as
schools or Youth Offending Teams. Self-referral numbers have remained fairly constant
over the past three years at around 10%.
- 14 -
Whatever their referral route, these young people are facing a number of significant
challenges in their lives. The 2009 Fairbridge Social Return on Investment Study
reported:
The term 'NEET' was insufficient to describe the young people who come to
Fairbridge. They have a level of need which is significantly greater than young
people who fall into the NEET cohort as defined by the Department of Children
Schools and Families6.
Fairbridge set a target that a minimum of 60% of Access starters should have three or
more presenting needs. A 2008-09 study7 found 36 presenting needs in Fairbridge young
people. The 10 most common were, in descending order:
1. Low self esteem 6. History of drug misuse

2. Low key skills 7. Aggressive behaviour
3. Literacy help required 8. Learning disability
4. Numeracy help required 9. Offending behaviour
5. History of alcoholism 10. Temporary mental health issue.
The percentage of young people starting the Fairbridge Access programme in England
with three or more presenting needs has remained almost constant at or just below 90%
over the three years in question. This exceeds the 78% of the 2007-08 cohort who faced
this high level of challenge, as well as the commitment given to YSDF of 60%. Of those
young people starting in Merseyside, Manchester, Teesside and Tyneside in 2010-11,
virtually all (98% or higher) had three presenting needs.
100
90
80
percentage of starters
70
with 3+ presenting
60
needs
50
40 target percentage -
30 60%
20
10
0
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Figure 2: What proportion of Access starters had 3+ presenting needs?
An Education Welfare Officer based at a Pupil Referral Unit in North Manchester said that
she refers children who are not able to handle school at all, and young people coming
into the area with a long history of school exclusion. She also refers young people who
are new migrants with no English, who often arrive traumatised by what they left behind
or by the journey to the UK. She added that Fairbridge's profile is high - kids know about
Fairbridge and want to come. The schools know about it and value the referrals they are
funded to make.
6 In the UK NEET stands for 16-24 year olds "Not in Education, Employment, or Training".
7 594 young people in 4 Scottish Fairbridge centres
- 15 -
In Southampton a worker in the Early Intervention in Psychosis team in the Adult Mental
Health Service has referred up to 40 young people in a year, including for example a
young man who was being treated as an in-patient. She said:
When things were very difficult, Fairbridge was the only positive thing in his life.
The team were very accommodating - they never bat an eye in terms of young
people's needs - it's just 'how can we help?'
Changes to the profile of young people

The profile of Fairbridge's users changes with changes in commissioning policy by
referral agencies. For example, in Southampton, in 2007-08 schools could refer under
16s at a heavily subsidised low cost, and therefore referral numbers were high, but
somewhat unplanned. When schools were given a fixed number of places by their local
authority as part of a centralised agreement with Fairbridge, they reduced the average
age at which they refer from 15-16 to 13-14 years of age. Their thinking was that they
would refer early in order to gain maximum benefit from their limited number of places -
the benefits for 13 year olds are felt in the school for up to three years instead of just a
couple of terms.
However, further changes are afoot - some local authorities are delegating their
commissioning budget down to schools, without ring-fencing. Fairbridge workers will
again have to persuade individual schools that they should use their hard-pressed budget
to place young people with them.
ODWs are allowed to 'sell' the Fairbridge service direct to young people, but most self-
referrals come through contacts - with friends or family members. Fairbridge receives
some funding to allow for 'un-funded' self-referrals - which is particularly useful for young
people over 18. New possibilities opening up are that some young people will have their
own 'personalised care' budget which they could use to buy an Access course and other
activities at Fairbridge.
- 16 -
5. Increasing levels of engagement

5.1 Summary
Fairbridge has significantly exceeded its YSDF goal of maintaining engagement levels for
young people. Engagement has increased year on year, particularly since starter
throughput was controlled in year 2. Each year has seen a rise in the proportion of
starters who complete the Access course, achieve 100 hours of training, and/or receive
five hours of one-to-one support.
A new measure of 'negotiated exit' has been introduced which reinforces the picture of
young people emerging from their time with Fairbridge in a better place than they started.
Please note that in many of the tables and charts in this section, the data for the year
2010-2011 is based on nine months to 31/12/10 only - and is therefore less reliable for
drawing conclusions.

Engagement levels
Fairbridge has increased the quality of its work with young people during the period of
YSDF funding. More young people complete courses and engage better with staff while
attending Fairbridge:
The percentage of young people who completed the Access course rose from 81% in
2007-08 to around 85% for the three years of the YSDF initiative.
The percentage of starters going beyond 100 hours of engagement rose from 26% in
2007-08 and 2008-09 to 31% in 2009-10. Information received for the first nine
months to 31st December 2010 indicates this figure remains around 31%.
The percentage of completers spending five hours or more one-to-one with a member
of staff rose steeply from 8% to 25% in 2009-10, and looks to rise further this year to
30% based on nine months figures to 31st December 2010.
The percentage of young people exiting Fairbridge in a negotiated and positive way
was identified as 50% in year 2, and provisionally as rising to 68% in year 3, to 31st
December 2010. This was a new measure piloted in year 1.
The chart overleaf shows trends in the percentage of young people engaging well with
the Fairbridge Access and other programmes.
Engagement measures in more detail

100 hours engagement
The number of young people who complete a full 100 hours with Fairbridge is one
measure of young people's engagement with the programme. A hundred hours will
include the Access course plus further 'follow-on' activity and contact beyond it. Based on
experience, Fairbridge believes that this is the most effective package to deliver to a
young person.
When a young person completes the 100 hours, it shows that they have not left the
course 'early' because of poor motivation, low satisfaction or other priorities. It also shows
they have not simply walked out the door at the end of Access course. This implies that
the Fairbridge team have engaged to a satisfactory degree with this young person. Of
course, many go beyond the 100 hours to complete further courses and activities which
Fairbridge offers.
- 17 -
100
80 2007/08
2008/09
60 2009/10
2010/11
40
20
0
completers young people young people young people young people
engaging achieving receiving 5 negotiating
beyond 100+ hours hours 1:1 exits
access course
Figure 3: Trends in engagement measures 2007-2011
Five hours one-to-one support

A second measure of engagement is the number of young people who complete five
hours of one-to-one support with a Fairbridge worker. This is held to mean that a young
person has built an effective relationship with their case-worker. Evidence from young
people has caused Fairbridge to believe that this is one of the most significant factors in
helping the young person bring about changes in their life.
Negotiated exits
During the course of the YSDF Project, the number and percentage of young people with
a 'negotiated exit' has been developed and put in place as an important measure of
engagement.
Exiting the programme in a negotiated manner takes place when the young person and
staff are in agreement that they are able to cope independently without the need for
continued regular engagement with Fairbridge. Exit may initially be led by staff when for
example they feel it is time for a young person to move on, or by the young person, when
they feel ready to go it alone, or have other priorities. The negotiated exit includes
support mechanisms should the young person feel the need to return.
How was engagement improved?

The improved levels of engagement achieved with young people through the YSDF-
funded larger teams were the result of actions by management and staff at all levels.
There is good evidence that from 2009 onwards, senior management created a stronger
culture of monitoring and evaluation across all the teams with the express aim of
improving levels of engagement and outcomes for young people. The performance of
each team on all the measures listed above, and on outcomes achieved by the young
people received attention at all executive meetings.
The new monitoring systems required technical innovation and also needed to be
explained persuasively to local managers and staff. This seems to have been achieved,
with buy-in at all levels.
- 18 -
North Manchester team members said that senior management's messages in 2009
about improving quality were well received, and chimed well with what they had decided
themselves. They said they have gone through a 'real learning curve' in tracking every
young person's engagement and progress throughout their time with the team. They also
said that they feel very strongly now that everyone in the team has a role in change.
Team members have a much greater ownership of the service and how it works. One
reported we communicate better internally and externally, and we know young people's
needs more clearly.
This drive by management and the response of staff was commented on by internal and
external stakeholders (see chapter 8). And although, as one team said at interview, the
YSDF impact on good practice was a 'slow burner', involving gradual positive change
over the three years, there are concrete examples that show changes in practice inspired
by the drive for better engagement with the young people, and made possible by the
larger team size:
The Solent team reduced its 'worker to client ratio' from 1:4 to 1:3 for under 16s,
so that workers could give more time to building strong relationships with each
young person.
The North Manchester team, like many others, developed the ODW role, to focus
better on the 1:1 work with young people and support them right through their time
with the team. With a larger staff team and a managed number of access starters,
the case load of ODWs reduced which improved the quality of relationships they
built with young people.
The increased range of courses (some now accredited) on offer to young people
after completing the Access programme lengthened the time they are in contact
with teams and workers.
Teams set out to become more attractive to young people. One Team Manager
said:
We now have a great mix of skills in our Development Tutor team - outdoor of
course, but also arts and theatre, and team sports. It fits what our young people
are interested in, and they can continue those newer activities locally.
Improving engagement was not just about numbers and types of posts. At the same time
as introducing a wider range of activities and other flexibility into the offer for young
people, Fairbridge was determined to maintain the essence of its approach. A group of
workers and managers from across Fairbridge UK drew up an Operational Framework -
the 'bible' of what Fairbridge does and how it does it. They have continued to meet to
ensure that good practice is coherently and consistently applied across all programmes.
There were in addition external pressures for change. Public agency commissioners have
over the three years moved their focus towards funding outcomes not places, and this
has added to the drive for improved engagement leading to better outcomes.
- 19 -
6. Improving outcomes for young people

6.1 Summary
Fairbridge has significantly exceeded its YSDF goal of maintaining the level of outcomes
achieved for young people.
The numbers of young people achieving at least one positive outcome rose and then
remained high over the first two years of the YSDF Project. The percentage of completers
achieving an outcome rose significantly from 44% before the YSDF investment to 59% in
2009-10, and looks set to rise this year 2010-11 to over 70% if results to December 31st
continue.
There is some evidence that around 90% of young people continue to make or sustain
progress for at least the first nine months after completing their engagement with
Fairbridge.
Case studies and young peoples self assessments provide further evidence that the
Fairbridge programme has a significant and positive effect on their self-confidence and
their lives. Referral agencies are very positive about the changes they observe in the
young people they place with Fairbridge.
A growing number of young people benefit further from their time at Fairbridge by gaining
recognised qualifications, following the introduction of accreditation systems and skills by
ASDAN during the period of the YSDF Project.
There is as yet no research which enables comparison with the effectiveness of other
agencies' programmes for similar young people of this age group. Please note that in
many of the tables and charts in this section, the data for the year 2010-11 is based on
nine months to 31/12/10 only - and is therefore less reliable for drawing conclusions.
6.2 Discussion and analysis outcomes for young people

Numbers of outcomes achieved
As a result of the YSDF funding, more young people at Fairbridge achieved positive
outcomes in their lives. Positive outcomes are achieved both during and after the young
person's contact with Fairbridge.
Fairbridge monitor hard outcomes for young people, for example achieving a
qualification or moving into work. The percentage of young people completing the Access
programme who went on to achieve at least one positive hard outcome rose year on year
through the period in question, from 44% in 2007-08 to 59% in 2009-10, to 72% in the
first three quarters of 2010-11, which can be seen in the table below.
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

to 31/12/10
Number of starters 1711 1774 1614 1150
Number of completers 1395 1515 1370 976
Number of young people achieving 1+ outcome 617 818 811 703
% completers achieving 1+ outcome 44% 54% 59% 72%
Table 1: Outcome data for young people completing the Access course
- 20 -
These positive hard outcomes are distinguished by Fairbridge from positive progress.8
For example, while a young person registering with the Job Centre is a positive
achievement, it is part of a process of moving towards the outcome of employment. Such
positive progress made by young people during their time at Fairbridge is recorded but
not reported for the purpose of service monitoring.
Figure 4 below shows the progress made by each year's starter cohort:
100%
90%
80%
starters who do not
70% complete
60%
completers with no
50%
recorded outcome
40%
30% completers achieving
20% 1+ outcome
10%
0%
2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11
Figure 4: What happens to the intake? Starters, completers and outcomes 2007-2011 (only
nine months data for 2010-11)
Appendix 4 gives a selection of six case studies that illustrate the benefits of the YSDF
funding in achieving outcomes through:
Widening the range of activities and courses: case studies 1 (Alec), 2 (Selah), 5
(Ciaron) and 6 (Samii)
Lengthening the period of engagement with the young person: case study 4 (Adi)
Increasing access to one-to-one sessions with staff: case study 3 (Kerry).
The nature of outcomes achieved

Fairbridge achieves a wide range of outcomes for its young people, including hard
outcomes like getting a job or going back to school, and soft outcomes like personal and
social skills.
Hard outcomes
The Fairbridge National Insight report for 2009-10 reports that the three most common
hard outcomes, each achieved by about 25% of all young people at Fairbridge, are
concerned with education or training.
The table below describes the outcomes achieved by young people of all ages, UK wide,9
from a total of 2301 young people who completed the Access course in 2009-10.
Positive outcome achieved number of % of
8 This is similar to intermediate or interim outcomes.

9 this information is not available for English teams only.
- 21 -
young completers
people 10
Engaged or re-engaged with education or training 632 28%
Improved their school performance (U16 only) 279 23%
Achieved a qualification or award 535 23%
Engaged with wider support services 260 11%
Reduced their substance misuse 183 8%
Moved into employment 114 5%
Improved their housing situation 75 3%
Took part in voluntary work 64 2%
Table 2: Outcomes achieved by young people, Fairbridge National Insight Report 2009-10
Personal and social skills

In order to assess their personal development over the course of their time with
Fairbridge, all young people are asked to complete a self assessment tool at three set
points throughout their time on the Fairbridge programme, plus a personal record of skills
development.
The Fairbridge National Insight Report for 2009-10 recorded that for all UK teams, young
peoples average self assessment ratings in personal and social skills rose from 70% at
the start of the Access course, to 76% at the completion of 100 hours engagement, and
to 83% at their exit from Fairbridge - an average increase in personal and social skills
ratings of 13%. A positive trend which of course could be explained in a number of ways
but which reflects the Fairbridge hypothesis that more positive subjective feelings
presage positive changes in the young people's lives.
Young people's self-assessments a new measure of self-reported progress

A new questionnaire for young people has been developed by Fairbridge in consultation
with staff and young people themselves. It has also been developed with an eye to
national targets for young people, so that questions include, for example, whether the
programme has helped them reduce alcohol or drug intake, or return to/remain in
education, training or employment.11
The form was piloted in summer 2010, and was rolled out across all teams in November
2010, to be repeated annually thereafter.
Overall the responses appear strongly favourable about the young people's time with
Fairbridge. The chart below is based on the responses of 397 young people across all 15
Fairbridge UK teams. Two points are necessary to consider when viewing it:
1. These are self-reported benefits that may exaggerate the positives and may not
give any indication of longer term benefits.
2. The various issues such as communication or IT skills are not identified as needs
for all young people. For example, according to a pilot survey, 20% of young
people did not have an issue with their communication skills, and 40% had no
issue with IT skills. The responses are therefore only for those young people for
whom that issue is an identified need.
10 These figures are outcomes achieved by the 09/10 cohort of Access completers WITHIN the financial year
11 Also known as their NEET status: Not in Education, Employment or Training
- 22 -
Since being at Fairbridge I have got better at

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 5: Percentage of young people making improvements where there was an identified
need (%)
Are the changes sustained?

There is evidence that changes are sustained, at least up to nine months after the
completion of the Access course.
Three months after every young person has exited from the Fairbridge programme, they
are contacted to check on continued progress and to see whether their outcome(s) are
sustained, dropped or completed. In addition to the three-month post-exit update, teams
at ideal team size are required to track a sample of 10% of Access completers, both
under 16 and 16+, at 3, 6, 9, 12, 18 and 24 month intervals for two years from the date of
their last day of the Access course.
The following table shows the positive progress (defined as sustaining or achieving more
outcomes) reported by those young people who were reached at 3, 6 and 9 months after
completing the Access course:
Follow-on interval Percentage of young people making positive progress

@ 3 months post Access 92%
Table 3: Long term tracking results (for sample of young people tracked across three
Fairbridge teams 09/10 cohort only)
These figures should be treated with considerable caution when applied to the whole
group of Fairbridge completers. They probably overstate the longer term benefits as
those young people who remain contactable are likely to be more stable.
- 23 -
Do referral agencies see improvements in young people?

Fairbridge undertook its first national survey of referral agencies in November 2010,
receiving answers from 51 agencies. The response to this survey is dealt with in more
detail in section 7.3 below. Of relevance here are those agencies' views on the
effectiveness of Fairbridge's work with young people. These agency staff, such as
teachers, mental health workers, or employment advisers, are working closely with the
young people and are well placed to observe changes in them. They were asked to
indicate whether they agreed that the Fairbridge programme had been effective in
bringing about certain changes. The response was overwhelmingly positive - virtually
everybody agreed that Fairbridge had brought about positive changes for young people.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20% Strongly agree
10%
0% slightly agree
slightly disagree
Strongly disagree
Figure 6: Referral agencies views about the Fairbridge programme's effectiveness in

bringing about positive change (%).
For example, a Connexions manager in North Manchester described the young people
she referred to Fairbridge as experiencing barriers to employment and training. In her
view the benefits of their accessing Fairbridge included gaining communication skills,
learning to manage their time better and being valued for who they are.
6.3 Accreditation of Fairbridge's activities and courses for young people

The YSDF funding was also intended to enable more young people to gain accredited
qualifications from their engagement with Fairbridge. The Fairbridge Access course is
fully accredited, as are five or six of the specialised courses. Most Fairbridge centres
have engaged well with this process.
To set up and deliver this accreditation, Fairbridge involved ASDAN, an educational

charity that has been established for 30 years. ASDAN has developed ways to show how
key skills are developed through youth programmes, including developing 'measures' for
non-formal education. ASDAN helped Fairbridge show how they help young people build
their portfolio of skills and qualifications to help them access education, training or work
or simply to further build their confidence and sense of achievement.
- 24 -
ASDAN have worked with 8 out of the 11 Fairbridge centres in England, and have
delivered many training courses for Fairbridge staff on how to accredit different non-
formal educational activities. Twenty courses were held during the calendar year 2010 -
the busiest year to date - for between 10 and 15 Fairbridge staff each course.
Individual centres now map their activities against the qualification frameworks. Some
teams have five or six accredited courses up and running, with high uptake and
completion rates. Accredited courses include Employability, Personal & Social
Development, and many short courses, such as Expressive Arts, Active Citizenship and
Sex & Relationships.
The Fairbridge Access course is now fully accredited, so that each completer gains three
credits towards a recognised qualification. Some staff would like to accredit it on its own
as a qualification.
The value of accreditation for Fairbridge courses was confirmed by other agency workers.
A Connexions manager and a local commissioning manager in North Manchester both
said that for young people with nothing much on their educational record at age 16+, the
ASDAN qualifications are a well recognised step towards NVQs, and help when they
apply for jobs or training. Another referral professional mentioned the case of one young
person who went from a sports ASDAN course with Fairbridge to sports coaching and an
apprenticeship in that field.
An Education Welfare Officer said:

The Pupil Referral Unit (PRU) refer a number of young people and they
understand all about ASDAN, so Fairbridge helps them build up a portfolio
together with the young people. Young people love their certificates!
The process of introducing accreditation

The process was slow to start. The first ASDAN coordinator did not have a good
relationship with Fairbridge, as they felt he was not delivering information and support as
wanted. ASDAN's view is that Fairbridge were not initially clear about what they needed
by way of monitoring and information. Since early 2010 both Fairbridge and ASDAN
report good progress.
The Fairbridge local teams have been largely positive in their response to accreditation.
Only one team rejected engagement with ASDAN because they were already accrediting
courses through OCN, another provider. When trained, workers could see the benefits for
individual young people to build their qualification portfolio, and there was no problem
persuading them of the benefits of accreditation. Fairbridge's YSDF Project Manager did
not demand that centres must use ASDAN's approach. Rightly, in ASDAN's view, it was
sold to them on its merits.
Solent Operations Manager said that the YSDF Project kick-started accreditation, and
they have embraced it up to the point of seeking other awards with e.g. Sports Leaders
UK. Initially there was some reluctance because, for example, it seemed a struggle to fit
accreditation with those young people who had high levels of need.
North Manchester team members said that accrediting the Access Course had proved
easy - there was no need to change what they did. Since starting to accredit courses they
had found more qualifications to meet young people's needs - such as Money
Management. One commented:
It's a lot of work initially so you wouldn't do it lightly and it stretched our skills, but
once its embedded it's OK - and it matches well with schools' agenda. In the last
- 25 -
six months everyone has got on board. We have had to change staff routines a bit
to allow time for them to record things for ASDAN.
- 26 -
SECTION B: ORGANISATIONAL CAPACITY BUILDING
7. Influence on the youth sector

7.1 Summary
Increasing Fairbridge training provision to other organisations was a commitment made in
the application for YSDF funding, as a measure of demonstrating increased influence in
the youth sector. In addition, Fairbridge has sought to increase its influence through
policy and campaigns work as part of building its overall capacity.
Fairbridge, through its training company, has significantly exceeded its YSDF targets for
increasing the training days and numbers of delegates. It has built its business effectively
in new locations and beyond the youth sector, to the financial benefit of the Fairbridge
charity and to the practical benefit of those workers in other organisations who have
learned how to use Fairbridge's expertise in their own work. Delegate feedback has been
positive, including post-training follow-up.
There is also evidence that Fairbridge has grown its influence on the youth sector and
related decision-makers by becoming more effective in its campaigns and policy work,
both nationally and locally.
7.2 Growth in the training business

Fairbridge Training is a trading company within the Fairbridge charity. The YSDF Project
required Pathfinder organisations to develop the wider 'Youth Sector' as well as
themselves. Fairbridge committed to doing this by growing their training business, to
transfer good practice and skills, based on the Fairbridge approach, to greater numbers
of workers in other agencies. This was to increase their influence on the sector and
generate greater revenues for the charity, as surpluses generated by Fairbridge Training
are taken into the charity. Fairbridge Training benefitted from the marketing expertise of a
private sector expert, provided through the social enterprise Prime Timers, as part of the
YSDF Integrated Support programme.
Fairbridge Training exceeded its delivery targets for years 2008-09 and 2009-10. In the
first year, the target was 18 day courses: 26 were delivered. In 2009-10, the target of 44
days was exceed as 51 days were delivered. For 2010-11, the target of 46 day courses
included for the first time 'closed' courses that are provided to one employer or sector,
such as the police service. By the end of December 2010, 39 course days had been
delivered and the year target looks set to be exceeded. The target number of delegates
was also exceeded in each year, as shown in the chart overleaf.
Fairbridge reports a challenging first half to the year 2010-11 as local authorities brace
themselves for cuts and control discretionary expenditure like staff training in advance.
Fairbridge Training is adapting to market conditions through price promotions and
incentives, and scaling back numbers of open courses to ensure reasonable delegate
numbers. Training managers are also carrying out market research to understand the
new environment.
Fairbridge Training contributed 103,661 to the charitys income in 2008-09 and

114,689 in 2009-10. 72,926 had been generated by December 31st 2010, and
- 27 -
Fairbridge Training is still optimistic about reaching over 110,000 by the end of this
financial year.
500
450
400
350
300
250 target
200 actual
150
100
50
0
2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Figure 7: Fairbridge Training: Number of training delegates 2008-2011 (2010-11 figures are
to 31/12/10)
Expanding client reach

In previous years, it was deemed easier for Fairbridge to attract delegates from local
authorities close to an existing Fairbridge team. Fairbridge Training expanded its market
in year 2, 2009-10, by delivering courses in new locations such as in Inverness, Sheffield,
and Belfast, whilst continuing to work in the cities where Fairbridge has teams. This
expands the reach of the Fairbridge brand and expands the market of Fairbridge
Training.
Fairbridge Training has also broadened its client reach this year 2010-11, working with
the police, fire services, sports organisations, the outdoor industry and housing charities,
as well as continuing to work with the youth sector. They believe this will provide greater
sustainability in the current challenging business environment.
New products and services

Fairbridge Training has introduced a number of new products this year 2010-11:
1. They developed a Knife Crime Toolkit and programme which they delivered first for
the Northumbrian police. They have since used this product elsewhere and have
developed a similar product for the Scottish Executive.
2. They have a contract to develop a toolkit for the Food Standards Agency, around
embedding food and health in current youth work practice.
3. They delivered a four day Reality Therapy course, although the take-up for this was
poor and it is unlikely they will run this again.
Fairbridge Training has also started the process of accrediting its four key days of
Working More Effectively with Young People. They are now an OCN recognised centre
and in 2011 will have all four days accredited and ready for delivery.
- 28 -
Fairbridge Training has now taken on the training for all Fairbridge staff. They deliver
three days of training each year to each of the teams and the crew of the training ship
Spirit of Fairbridge.
Delegate satisfaction and influence on their practice

Fairbridge reports that feedback from training courses has been very positive. Analysis of
delegate feedback shows that in year 1:
99% of delegates felt their training aims were fully met or exceeded their expectations
97% of delegates felt the training was fully relevant to their role or exceeded
expectations.
In year 2:
97% delegates felt their training aims were fully met or exceeded expectations
92% delegates felt the training was fully relevant to their role or exceeded
expectations.
There is some evidence that the outcomes of the training were sustained for at least two
months. Two months after training sessions, a sample of delegates were asked further
questions and a number were able to say how they had used the training and changed
their practice in some way. Each delegate is likely to work with a number of young people
each year, and potentially thousands of young people could benefit indirectly from the
training. However, few delegates when asked were able to track any specific effects of
the training through to differences in the young people they were working with.
7.3 Policy and campaigns

Part of Fairbridge's mission has been to use its knowledge of what works for
disadvantaged young people to influence national policy in related fields, such as youth
justice, mental health, employment and training, benefits and health. There is good
evidence that Fairbridge has influence and credibility at both national and local level.
The development of the local teams through YSDF has made a real difference to local
influence.
National influence
The view from inside Fairbridge is that it has always been an organisation that 'punched
above its weight' in policy terms, but its Directors believe that the organisation has been
especially effective in the past three years, and has become more established in the field.
One Director reported that government advisers and ministers now approach us - instead
of having to knock on their door.
Two external views reflect this. The Centre for Social Justice commented that 'people
think Fairbridge is bigger than it is'. The Private Equity Foundation echoed this:
Four years ago Fairbridge were hardly known outside a narrow sector, and our
impression is that their profile has built up significantly - with media, funders,
infrastructure bodies - though they still need to do more.
Fairbridge's Manager of Parliamentary Affairs believes they have a solution-focused

profile that is attractive to politicians. Working with what he calls 'sustained NEETs' -
young people who are not in employment, education or training for prolonged periods of
time - Fairbridge is addressing issues of interest to politicians at many levels. Fairbridge
knows how to reach those young people and how to help them turn their lives around.
- 29 -
During the last three years as a result of the YSDF input, he believes that at Fairbridge
we have improved our quality, we have better evidence of what we achieve and we
understand ourselves more.
When the change of government was anticipated in 2009, Fairbridge were aware of the
risks of being too close to the outgoing governing party. One external interviewee
commented that Fairbridge's CEO is not ingratiating or too party-focused he just wants
to talk to whoever can help the Fairbridge mission. The Parliamentary Affairs Manager
argues that Fairbridge has brought the high policy profile it had with the Labour
government to the current Coalition government.
Fairbridge argue that this stronger policy profile has lead to a number of other
developments:
There has been close engagement between Fairbridge and government on a
number of issues, for example changes in the commissioning framework, and the
development of proposals for a National Citizen Service where Fairbridge has
ensured the proposals fit the needs of excluded young people.
Fairbridge's first ever parliamentary event took place in 2010.
Fairbridge has a much wider network of active contacts among MPs and ministers
in a range of departments.
Fairbridge has led a sector-wide response to the Education Select Committee's
Review of Youth Services, and they have a seat on the All Party Parliamentary
Group on Youth Affairs.
The focus for government policy is changing but the Private Equity Foundation, for
example, believes Fairbridge can adapt their message:
The focus on 'developing young people' may now be less high up the
government's agenda, but Fairbridge seem able to flex their programme towards a
range of different public policy objectives for young people.
That Fairbridges influence stretches from frontline work with young people to contact with
ministers gives them credibility with policy advisers and campaigners in the youth and
social justice field. The Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) think tank valued in particular
Fairbridge's bringing young people to events to speak for themselves - to enliven debate
and to give a sense of reality. CSJ reflected that:
Fairbridge have not lost their grass-roots perspective and when we carried out our
Review of Youth Justice (to be published 2011), we needed to hear the voice of
young people and find opinions on the ground to guide our thinking.
CSJ also found Fairbridge's local team managers very knowledgeable and persuasive
about what works in crime prevention, and working with young people at risk or involved
in crime. This is an issue that is high on the Coalition government's agenda, with its plans
for a rehabilitation revolution in offender management.
Local influence
An important element of the YSDF expansion of local teams to twelve staff is that the
Team Managers and Partnership Development Officers now devote more time to outward
facing work, not just 'selling places' but also engaging with local decision-makers, such as
local authority Members and Directors, MPs, police, head teachers and Chambers of
Commerce. Consequently, local influence has grown. Fairbridge makes an active
contribution to the local youth sector, and their views are given weight when, for example,
local priorities are being set - such as in the local Youth Plans, and Youth Crime Action
Plans.
- 30 -
Local influence is built on Fairbridge's good reputation as a service provider. The National
Referral Agency Survey 2010 revealed that workers in local agencies have a high regard
for Fairbridge. Out of 51 respondents, 38 rated the quality of Fairbridge's work as
excellent, and 12 as good; 39 viewed their working relationship with Fairbridge as
excellent, and 11 viewed it as good; 48 thought the Fairbridge programme is needed in
their local community. This high regard for Fairbridge has been the foundation of
influence and policy engagement locally.
The head of commissioning for young people for Bury Council said Fairbridge's high
quality of service for young people, combined with good feedback to statutory workers,
had generated great respect from the local authority. Fairbridge in North Manchester
were invited to help develop the Children and Young Peoples Third Sector Forum, and
have become representatives of that Forum on the Bury Children's Trust. He saw his
authority's relationship with Fairbridge as being a 'proper partnership', and reported that
senior directors have discussed Fairbridge's role in very positive terms.
The North Manchester Team Manager said:

We are seen as strong youth providers because we reach the young people
others find hard to reach. We can engage them, and therefore we have a big part
to play at all the strategic level meetings. We are at the heart of consultation on
policies and new developments, and the voices of our young people get heard -
we are often asked to enable young people's participation in consultation
exercises. We are a key part of the Integrated Young People's Service in this
area.
In Southampton, the Fairbridge team contributed to developments in the use of the

Common Assessment Framework (CAF) in 2010. They have been voluntary sector
representatives on the Locality Operational Sub-Groups, which assess the completed
CAFs and recommend care plans. Fairbridge has also played an important role, again as
a voluntary sector representative, on the CAF strategic group, which monitors the
implementation and effectiveness of the CAF process across the city. Through this and
other means they have built a good reputation and effective working relationships with
public agencies and other voluntary providers. At the moment local structures and
planning for children and young people are in flux, but commissioners and providers were
due to meet in March/April 2011.
In a virtuous circle, local engagement then builds projects and commissioning

agreements that enable more young people to attend Fairbridge, and sustain the service.
Corporate engagement has a local dimension too. For example, in 2009 the North
Manchester Team Manager, Partnership Development Officer and Assistant worked on
corporate links to establish a local committee, and they have arranged work placements
for young people with a local engineering firm. The Solent team manager has also
involved young people in linking up with Pizza Express and News International locally - in
concert with head office fundraising staff.
- 31 -
8. Improved monitoring and evaluation systems

8.1 Summary
The YSDF Project period has seen Fairbridge invest heavily in improving their monitoring
and evaluation. Fairbridge carried out major upgrades to their monitoring and evaluation
systems and tools in an impressive programme of actions, to:
improve understanding about how young people respond to their programme
monitor team effectiveness in increasing engagement and outcomes
explore new approaches to understanding the value of Fairbridge's programmes.
This investment is significant evidence that the organisation has built its capacity
effectively during the past few years. Fairbridge is a leader in the not-for-profit sector in its
commitment to organisational learning through monitoring and evaluation.

Monitoring and evaluation is built into the work of Fairbridge at many levels, and the
information gathered is used for many valuable purposes, notably to:
deliver the best for young people
use people and resources efficiently and effectively
continuously learn and improve.
Significantly improving monitoring and evaluation has been a major part of the capacity
building process that Fairbridge have carried forward during the period of the YSDF
Project. In year 1 they:
Introduced tools to assess the development of personal and social skills in the young
people.
Piloted and established a tracking system to find out whether or not hard positive
outcomes are sustained after young people have moved on.
Developed a system for measuring soft outcomes after extensive consultation.
Provided all Fairbridge teams with full training and guidance in the use of the new
evaluation system prior to its implementation from April 1st 2009.
Fairbridge learned that teams would fully embrace the evaluation system, despite the
additional workload, once they understood the importance of it in a wider context and the
benefits it would have for the young people, their team and Fairbridge as an organisation.
In year 2 Fairbridge:
Developed and piloted new feedback questionnaires amongst young people.
Developed and piloted feedback questionnaires for referral agencies.
Developed a Fairbridge Evaluation Toolkit for use with partners.
Commissioned and published the research report Back from the Brink: How
Fairbridge Transforms the Lives of Disadvantaged Young People.12
Commissioned the study Fairbridge and Social Return on Investment Analysis,
published November 2009.
Developed and put into place information systems so that the senior management
team now receives regular reports containing data that shows clearly the relative
12 Barry Knight, Centris, July 2009. The research pulls together the findings of three independent evaluative studies
conducted on Fairbridge over a ten year period, based on data gathered on some 3,200 young people. It synthesised all
that Fairbridge have learnt about their work with young people to date using the systems created to gather data for
evaluation purposes.
- 32 -
performance of each team. The Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) enable managers
to use a balanced scorecard approach to manage the quantity and quality of the
organisations services.
As noted in chapter 5, the KPIs have been a very significant tool in driving both value for
money and more consistent high quality programmes for young people. PEF felt that the
Fairbridge senior management acted strongly in focusing on individual centres'
performance through KPI statistics. The information initially showed, for example, that
some smaller teams were outperforming some larger teams on certain measures. The
PEF representative reported that by internally publishing these league tables Fairbridge
sought to make any problem everyone's problem. Senior management now has the
evidence to be direct with individual managers on expectations.
Further development of monitoring and evaluation

In the first half of the YSDF Project, much attention was paid to the development of long-
term follow-up systems to monitor young people's progress after intervention
programmes. Measuring Impact and Long Term Tracking in Youth Development Work
was developed as a toolkit and training course by Fairbridge Training.
Some progress was also made within Fairbridge, as described in chapter 6 above, in
developing tracking systems to follow-up young people and also agency workers who
have been on Fairbridge training courses. It will be important to see this difficult work
through to understand how benefits change over time.
- 33 -
9. Greater management capacity at local level

9.1 Summary
There is evidence that throughout the YSDF Project Fairbridge has supported the
development of regional and team managers to meet the challenges of growth, and that
managers have risen to the challenge. Interviews with local referral agencies evidenced
their view that Fairbridge local teams are well run.
Developing two management roles within teams to provide a balance of outward and
inward focus has been successful, in increasing commissions and income generation,
increasing local influence and in raising service effectiveness for young people. Local
managers have been encouraged to be autonomous but are held to account for their
achievements. This approach applies to other team members. Front-line staff have taken
on management roles - ODWs for example in many teams run the contracts under which
they secure referrals, rather than that being a separate management function.

For regional and team managers, significantly increasing team size - even doubling it in
some cases - has presented a number of challenges. To be sustainable at the optimum
size and composition and to deliver a higher quality service, local management has had
to raise its game. A range of approaches were used to achieve this.
The main challenges for managers

Reflecting on the challenges that expansion of the team had brought over the past three
years, team members in North Manchester said that it had mostly been about 'the human
element' - changes in relationships and team dynamic as they grew larger, and the
processes needed to integrate some of the new recruits. One commented:
We started a mentoring scheme for new DTs and ODWs as they came in with
different levels of skills. Also better supervision and appraisal arrangements were
brought in over 2008-09.
The 2009 review of the way Outreach Development Workers (ODWs) function was in
many ways an examination of the way different teams were managed. The review
highlighted the relative attention given by ODWs to different aspects of the programme,
from the recruitment of young people, to their development and progress through the
Fairbridge programme, and to their exit (moving on). Recommendations were made on
how to re-balance their focus and how team roles might interact better.
Some teams had to move premises to accommodate the larger team, its increased
activities and changed requirements. Relocations also took place to improve the service's
profile in an area and to reflect Fairbridge's vision of offering young people a high quality
experience. This was the case in North Manchester for example.
The whole drive to increase engagement and outcomes for young people described in
Chapters 5 and 6 was a major challenge to local management capacity.
Regional managers meetings

Meetings of Team Managers from around England provided a very useful support and
information resource. They discussed funding, practice issues, and the working
relationship with head office, as well as talking through the merger during the last quarter
of 2010. One manager spoke of the value of the managers' residential meetings where
they work through major issues.
- 34 -
Fairbridge provided evidence of local management development through a short six-

monthly report from team managers meetings.
In year 1, the reported challenges included:

The time taken to get new staff fully functional, and to train existing staff up, for
example to develop the non outdoor staff as competent outdoor activity assistants.
One area manager explained that:
Kent now has a nearly full staff team and the challenge is to grow and
induct all the new staff members to meet the expectation of their various
roles. This is quite a task as most of the team are new in post (including
the Operations Manager and the Team Manager) and are learning their
role. However, this is being viewed by the team as an opportunity to
grow and develop together.
The pace of growing teams to size was an issue - sometimes too fast, sometimes not
fast enough.
When new members of staff did not make the grade it represented a huge loss of time
and money.
Poor responses to recruitment campaigns at some times and in some areas.
Work patterns changed in the delivery of an extended programme. Increased
pressure on staff to develop and deliver new programmes lead to frustrations at
times. One manager reported:
In the last six months, the correlations between increased targets and the need to
have sufficient follow-on courses to enable young people to achieve 100 hours of
follow-on have meant that some staff have struggled.
Increased throughput has led to pressure on the space within local team buildings.
In year 2, 2009-10, team managers continued to face many of the challenges raised by
having a larger team and working to a high level of expectation with greater numbers of
young people. However, there was evidence of increased stability in year two from the
March 2010 report from the northern managers, in spite of the continued pace of change.
Changing the management culture

Several local managers reported being given more autonomy over the course of the
YSDF Project, and at the same time greater accountability was demanded of them. One
Team Manager said that he had now more authority to adapt his programme and the
deployment of his team. He is at the same time directly held to account for results, for
example outcomes for young people, financial sustainability and staff satisfaction. SMT,
he said, had asked for a greater voice on a range of topics from Team Managers and
members of their teams.
This manager reported also trying to strike the same new balance between autonomy
and accountability in those he line-managed. For example ODWs now manage the
contracts with referral agencies, and all staff are expected to 'have a take on young
people and their needs - and to speak up'.
Another Team Manager agreed that the balance between autonomy and accountability
had been struck well. Not that this was always easy, he reflected, for example, when cuts
are needed Team Managers have to decide how to make them.
Support for local managers has been effective, according to those interviewed. Key head
office managers have a good background in the work and understand the pressures,
local managers said.
- 35 -
9.3 Learning and conclusions

Many of Fairbridge's achievements in the YSDF Project detailed in previous chapters
reflect well on local managers, indicating that efforts to build local management capacity
were effective.
The main elements of capacity building that brought about positive change were:
1. Engaging managers and staff at all levels to persuade them of the need for
change and getting them on board.
2. Creating a new management culture where roles and responsibilities are
delegated clearly - giving autonomy and demanding accountability.
3. Providing support and training for all managers and staff.
4. Networking managers and practitioners across the organisation to provide routes
of communication other than the line of management.
5. Focusing on quality, through improved monitoring and evaluation systems.
Whatever the challenges, Fairbridge local managers clearly rose to them. All the local
stakeholders interviewed in North Manchester and Solent said that the Fairbridge team
was well run.
- 36 -
SECTION C: SUSTAINABILITY
10. Financial sustainability

10.1 Summary
A key aspect of the capacity building process has been for Fairbridge both centrally and
locally to secure sufficient funds to sustain the higher level of staffing and activity initiated
through the YSDF investment. However, the first two years of the YSDF Project have
been two of the most difficult for charities in living memory. In 2008-09 the first wave of
the credit crunch crisis hit corporate giving, and the stock market fall reduced the
spending power of many Trusts.
Improvements to Fairbridge's funding and supporter database made in 2009 have made
a real difference to fundraising effectiveness. In spite of the difficult economic
circumstances, Fairbridge UK grew its overall income year on year from 2007-08 to 2009-
10 and hopes to maintain its position this year 2010-11. Each year Fairbridge set itself
challenging growth targets and fell short by less than 5%. It performed well across a
number of funding sectors. Statutory funding has been its biggest source, raising over
2.5 million in 2009-10 (YSDF excluded), though it is likely to be the least predictable
source for the coming years.
However, it was probably necessary for Fairbridge to raise its annual income by 1m - in
the region of 15-20% - over the three years to fully secure the additional scale of
operation enabled by YSDF. In fact a growth of only approximately 200,000 (3-4%) has
been achieved. Some of the additional posts will have to be left vacant until further
funding is secured.
10.2 Discussion and analysis: sources of income

Fairbridge planned to be able to sustain its new scale of operation by increased funding
from a range of sources, as the YSDF funding tapered and ended. Most sources had a
local and a national component. For example, local trusts support individual Fairbridge
teams, while larger national trusts support the organisation as a whole.
Table 4 below shows Fairbridge's performance against targets for all sources of funds for
the three years of YSDF funding, as well as figures from 2007-08 as a baseline. The
figures for this year 2010-11 show income received up to the 5th January 2011, apart
from the Trading Company income line which shows the anticipated income for the full
year.
Trusts and foundations

Funding from trusts and foundations recovered well in 2009-10, following a drive to
consistently make more approaches and applications. Through the third sector as a
whole, awards by trusts and foundations are likely to have fallen over that time, so
Fairbridge must have secured a larger share.
- 37 -
Source Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual

07/08 08/09 08/09 09/10 09/10 10/11 10/1113
Trusts and
1,240,827 1,258,848 1,078,499 1,164,474 1,324,238 1,200,000 999,339
Foundations
Corporate 962,536 1,446,621 1,111,430 808,097 1,031,617 950,000 1,155,866
National
956,102 1,355,987 606,000 399,872 264,208 350,000 366,523
lottery
Statutory 14 2,240,671 1,762,910 2,369,756 2,943,359 2,552,098 2,700,000 2,348,077
Events
52,120 95,899 56,404 64,302 11,864 60,000
Income 7,741
Individuals
532,366 450,000 764,701 900,000 813,515 1,000,000 648,838
(inc. gift aid)
Trading
0 102,169 157,729 123,716 114,689 140,000 120,00015
company
Rental
73,595 48,710 71,281 30,000 105,440 50,171 65,344
income
Totals 6,058,217 6,521,144 6,215,800 6,433,820 6,217,669 6,450,171 5,711,728
Variance -305,344 -216,151
-4.68% -3.36%
Table 4: Financial sustainability targets and performance 2007-11 (figures for 2010-2011 are
9 months only)
The chart below shows graphically the performance of Fairbridge's major funding sources
over four years - though as stated above the position for 2010-11 is provisional, based on
figures as of December 31st 2010.
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
2007-2008
1,500,000
2008-2009
2009-2010
1,000,000
2010-2011
500,000
0
Trusts & Corporate Statutory Individuals Lottery
Foundations
Figure 8: Fairbridge UK trends in principal funding sources 2007-2011 in s (figures for

2010-2011 are nine months only)
13 Data only available for period 01/04/10 to 31/12/10 - three months more income is expected
14
Does not include YSDF grant
15
Trading company figures not available for 2010-11 until end of financial year. Expected donation of c.
120k
- 38 -
Corporate
Funding from business in a range of different ways has been the major success of the
past three years. Targets were revised down for 2009-10 to reflect fears about the impact
of the recession, but results showed only a small dip, and then have recovered strongly to
resume the upward trend. There have been some very productive major sponsorships
with Pizza Express, News International and the Guardian Newspaper Group.
National Lottery
The Lottery has not been as good a source of funds for Fairbridge during the last three
years as had been expected. The Big Lottery Fund changed its priorities in 2009 and this
significantly reduced the available programmes that Fairbridge could bid for. Targets
were revised downwards to reflect this, although the year 2010-2011 shows some sign of
recovery.
Statutory
Statutory funding exceeded its target by 35% in 2008-09, and stayed strong to provide
just over 40% of the total funding in 2009-10. Additional team capacity enabled Fairbridge
to maintain a concerted drive for new commissions and repeat business from referral
agencies such as schools and Connexions. Commissions for year 3 already secured at
the end of year 2 have meant that this current year Fairbridge has some confidence in
achieving its statutory income target.
Local public agencies started to control their commissioning budget in 2009-10, which
perhaps explains why even at its peak during the YSDF Project, Fairbridge's ambitions
for statutory income were not realised. Income was some 400,000 below target in 2009-
10 and throughput numbers started to decline. In the current year, some agencies are
now freezing expenditure, including funding already committed, and there are serious
concerns about 2011-12 for Fairbridge, as for many charities delivering services for public
bodies. It is looking to diversify its sources of public sector funding, moving into new
sectors such as health.
Individuals
Funding from individuals helped fill some of the shortfall left by trusts and corporates in
2008-09, and it grew further in 2009-10. This year's picture is not complete but is looking
good as of January 2011.
Other sources of income

Events: Much of what was identified as events funding up to 2009-10 has been
reattributed to individuals and companies, which explains the reduction.
Trading Company: Trading had a difficult year in 2009-10 but is expected to maintain its
contribution this year. It consists mostly of income from Fairbridge Training.
Rental income: Rental income rose in 2009-10 though this year's performance is
uncertain at time of writing.
Local fundraising and income generation by teams

Increasing local team size and diversifying roles was one of the key elements of the
YSDF investment by Fairbridge. As well as increasing and improving the offer to young
- 39 -
people the larger teams were expected to gain new contracts and bring in new funds from
events, and from local businesses, trusts and foundations.
The three years of YSDF funding saw public agencies move much further to
commissioning. This led to better funding relationships, but also required better systems
and more staff time to make bids and handle the heavier administrative requirements of
the new approach. Local funding relationships were complex and dynamic during the
three years, as public policy changed, for example, around the Integrated Youth Support
Services agenda, Learning and Skills Councils, and Children's Trusts. At the same time
teams are still doing fundraising basics, for example organising fundraising events in local
shopping centres.
Team members in North Manchester said that from their perspective having two
Partnership Development posts in the team had been very important in sustaining the
team's income, and in communicating Fairbridge around the area.
Team managers reported that their new higher financial targets were achievable, once
team size had increased though YSDF funding. The wider range of follow-on activities
and higher profile increased opportunities for securing funding and made Fairbridge
teams more attractive to potential donors, they said. For example, in 2009 one manager
wrote:
The additional financial targets that need to be reached will be achievable with the
continued development of the team at a strategic level. The manager and
Partnership Development Officer already aim to over-achieve on this year's
budget, in order to ensure that the staff increase remains a sustainable option.
Team managers noticed that referrals - and therefore funding - from public agencies were
falling slightly in 2009-10, even though team size was growing. The reductions were, they
felt, due to agencies refining their commissioning practice but also starting to tighten their
belts in anticipation of future cuts. At the same time Charitable Trusts were saying that
their levels of income and therefore levels of potential grants had been affected, and
fundraising events were struggling to gain significant sponsorship. Despite this,
determined local fundraising and income generation played its part in keeping overall
income steady during the first two years of the YSDF Project.
At the time of writing, Fairbridge team managers and public agencies were all waiting for
the details of commissioning budgets for 2011-12 to be announced. One Operations
Manager said that as of March 2011, commissioning budgets could conceivably fall by
half and the number of referrals reduce by 25%.
10.3 Learning and conclusions

Despite the difficulties and setbacks, there is evidence of dynamic and responsive
fundraising and income generation at Fairbridge. For example, Fairbridge has risen to the
challenge of the changing commissioning environment. As well as seeking to deliver
against a wider range of public policy issues, it is now also looking at how it can bid for
larger contracts in partnership with other charities or even commercial bodies.
The timing and scale of change in fundraising capacity

Some respondents noted that, with hindsight, it might have been better to build
fundraising capacity before increasing frontline staffing. This important bit of learning for
Fairbridge is conceded by senior managers, one of whom said:
- 40 -
If we had known that the economy and public finance crisis was coming we would
have put more effort into building up our fundraising people and systems first -
rather than scaling up the front-line.
One external interviewee considered that over-reliance on public sector commissions has
left Fairbridge too exposed to the cuts in public finances. However, it is inevitable that
disadvantaged young people will be referred to Fairbridge by public agencies that are
responsible for them in some way. Local managers reported successful efforts to shape
and adapt to the changes in local funding and commissioning practice, and reliance on
income from those sources has been balanced by strong growth in income from
corporates, trusts and individual donors in 2010-11.
Fairbridge has also learned just how many posts at national and local level it takes to
sustain higher levels of income, especially in difficult economic conditions. In the last year
of the programme they re-negotiated with DfE the allocation of YSDF monies to allow
them to employ even more fund-raisers and leave some service delivery posts vacant.
The fundraising team has grown in size and there are now more progression
opportunities in the team, in order to keep good people longer. Recruitment of higher-
level fundraising staff has, however, proved difficult.
The future
It has required focus and resourcefulness for Fairbridge to raise more money each year
since 2008, at a time that all charities have struggled to maintain income. As of early
2011, Fairbridge is not too concerned about its medium to long-term sustainability,
though they believe that cash flow over the coming six months is likely to be challenging,
and grants are currently being sought to address that.
Uncertainty in the funding environment - both corporate sponsorship and local authority
commissioning - continues to be a major factor. It is currently hard to predict whether
Fairbridge will be able to sustain beyond 2010-11 the full scale of the growth enabled by
the YSDF.
Merging with an organisation with the status and supporter-profile of The Prince's Trust
may well change the game in relation to funding from trusts, corporates and individuals,
but the battle for public sector funding will remain a major challenge for the Fairbridge
teams.
New Fairbridge teams

Fairbridge's CEO confirmed that the YSDF-funded capacity building on its own had not
provided the necessary platform for establishing additional service bases in new locations
around the country. He commented:
Taking our service model into a new city, and building up enough income over two
or three years to support a model team would have been too challenging in the
current financial climate.
The merger has however provided funds for an immediate expansion. A new base is now
planned in the Yorkshire and Humberside region.
- 41 -
11. Learning for Sustainability

Previous sections in this report have evidenced that Fairbridge has built most of the
additional capacity envisaged in its application to the YSDF in a well-planned and
managed way. It has largely achieved its targets for additional staff and numbers of
young people, and exceeded them in the rates of outcomes achieved by the young
people. What of the future?
In narrow financial terms, Fairbridge would not be able to sustain the same YSDF-funded
staffing and service levels unaided into 2011-12, given the public sector funding
limitations. It has raised its annual income by only 200k out of the 1 million needed, in
spite of great efforts to increase fundraising and income generation activity. Further
expansion into new locations was beyond reach. One interviewee was sceptical too about
Fairbridges increased resilience. He felt that Fairbridge in 2010 was still not big enough
to be fully insulated against environmental shocks.
However, a number of other considerations have a bearing on Fairbridge's ability to

sustain its growth beyond the end of the YSDF Project. They are outlined below, along
with the views of Fairbridge senior managers and external stakeholders. Overall there is
a strong case to be made that Fairbridge will sustain its higher level of operation beyond
the YSDF Project, symbolised by the promise of a new centre in the Yorkshire and
Humberside region.
11.1 Strategy
Fairbridge has placed itself well strategically to sustain its increased capacity, in a range
of ways.
The merger
The most important development in respect of Fairbridge's future capacity is its merger
with The Prince's Trust, announced in January 2011. In 2010, Fairbridge recognised the
potential value of a merger with the right partner agency to secure the current scale of
Fairbridge and to provide the best platform for further expansion. They identified The
Prince's Trust as their ideal partner and approached them, leading to positive and
ultimately fruitful talks.
Fairbridges CEO judged that merger offered the best route to the scale necessary for
expansion and influence, and the merger with The Prince's Trust will ensure that, post
YSDF, Fairbridge has the ability to sustain the capacity it has built.
Although the full ramifications of this merger are as yet unknown, the early signs are that
the local Fairbridge teams will continue under that name. The merger should allow for the
development of new services based on the Fairbridge approach, and to expand into other
cities and regions, as noted above.
Long-term planning
Sustainability, it could therefore be concluded, has been primarily achieved by strategic
thinking and planning, and there is substantial evidence that the merger is only the latest
chapter in Fairbridge's ambitious growth and development strategy. In 2007-08 the YSDF
investment enabled Fairbridge to action the growth and development plans they had
drawn up. One of the Fairbridge Directors explained that for us the YSDF funding has not
been just a project but a central part of our development as an organisation.
- 42 -
Fairbridge's National Strategy 2009-2014 reflected the YSDF Pathfinder ambitions, as

follows:
continued expansion of numbers of centres
commitment to maintaining the established quality and standards
ensuring the right national and regional infrastructure
creating a business development capacity.
In this National Strategy, the Fairbridge CEO wrote:

We know that Fairbridge works, and we feel that we have earned the right to
work with many more young people who are currently unable to access our
services. Our challenge as an organisation for the next five years is to grow our
services, without compromising the quality and personality that makes them
successful.
Building a strong broad funding base

As well as developing by means of the YSDF funding, Fairbridge has engaged with other
funders, in particular the Private Equity Foundation (PEF) over the past three years. PEF
has an investment approach to building the capacity of non-profits, and commits to long-
term relationships. They share Fairbridge's focus on disadvantaged young people and
use their funds to help organisations develop their capacity.
PEF was already considering making a significant investment with Fairbridge when YSDF
became available. PEF consequently looked to support complementary developments
not covered by YSDF. They ensured that Fairbridge centres in Wales and Scotland grew
alongside those in England, and also invested in Fairbridge's income generation capacity,
its fundraising database, and the SROI pilot report.
Partnership working
Several external interviewees commented that Fairbridge is good at strategic
partnerships with other organisations. Fairbridge has good links with the National Council
for Voluntary Youth Services for example, and coordinated a sector-wide response to the
Education Select Committee's Review of Youth Services.
Locally, Team Managers and other team members are proactively involved in a range of
Partnerships and Forums, as outlined above in section 7.3. The head of commissioning
for Bury Council said that Fairbridge is very good at networking, and collaborative
working, commenting that they understand how to work with other providers and put
together joint packages which are attractive to us as commissioners.
11.2 Fairbridge staff

The qualities of the people who work for Fairbridge are an essential element of its
sustainability.
Leadership
A major influence on effective capacity building is the way an organisation is led.
Internally and externally the view was that strong leadership at Fairbridge has been a
significant factor in reaching its current position. Comments included:
Fairbridge is very clear from top leadership downwards on who they work with,
what the needs are, what the Fairbridge model can do and how to get there.
- 43 -
CEO is very strong. For example, when the recession hit, we stressed to the
organisations we fund that they should avoid over optimism, finger-crossing etc,
and be decisive early, to lower expectations in some ways. This message was not
needed at Fairbridge because the CEO was there already.
Fairbridge leadership is decisive and believes 100% in what Fairbridge does - and
communicates that well.
There is evidence that local teams are well lead too. For example, the Bury Council
Commissioning Manager said that:
Fairbridge are the easiest young people's organisation to work with - better than
the bigger national organisations. They communicate well and deal with problems
in advance. They share ideas and can really help me as a service commissioner. I
have great trust and confidence in them.'
A responsive work-force
Reflecting back on the three years, senior managers said that YSDF funding has been a
powerful catalyst for change in Fairbridge. Its pace and scale has forced managers and
staff at all levels to think through how they work with young people, although, as might be
expected, change driven from the top of the organisation can cause stresses and strains.
Interviewees were agreed that practitioners, who have over the years built the Fairbridge
approach, continue to influence its evolution through innovative practice. Until the last few
years, managers were mostly drawn from the field, and were former face-to-face workers
with young people. This created a certain management culture, which has now changed
somewhat in response to the need to be more business-minded and more dynamic to
drive the organisation to the next level, as set out in the YSDF Project and other plans.
The challenge has been to introduce a newer management approach without losing the
strengths of being a practice-lead organisation.
As mentioned in chapter 9, local management capacity has been strengthened and the
central capacity of the organisation such as in finance, fundraising, quality and monitoring
and evaluation has also been developed over the past three years. Systems are stronger
according to interviewees.
ASDAN suggested that Fairbridge could have been more demanding and specific in their
requirements during the YSDF Project. This might suggest that future large initiatives
may need more focused project management. However another external perspective
contradicted this. PEF thought that they did not need to get involved in Fairbridge's
growth plans as they were working well and project management was effective.
An excellent employer
There is good evidence that Fairbridge values and supports its staff, which is a strong
indicator of sustained growth for the future.
In 2010, Fairbridge entered the Sunday Times top 100 Companies. The Sunday Times
website, dated March 2010, said:
Fairbridge staff, who work in 15 centres in some of the most deprived areas of
the UK, believe that their employer makes a positive difference to the world.
An 89% positive score ranks the organisation third on this point. Work is an
important part of their lives (82%) and people feel proud to work for the
organisation (86%).From day one, employees are made to feel they are an
important part of the charity's work, with a five-day residential course for new
joiners. A top 10 score of 81% shows they rate Fairbridge highly for
- 44 -
supporting their personal growth. They feel they can make a difference at
work (80%) and report that their jobs are stimulating (79%).
These are remarkable statistics that provide evidence that Fairbridge has a positively
motivated workforce. The EFQM Excellence Model, an internationally respected
framework for achieving sustainable excellence in organisations, emphasises that
Excellent organisations value their people and create a culture of empowerment for the
balanced achievement of organisational and personal goals.16
11.3 Impact of YSDF on Fairbridge services

Learning the lessons of the YSDF Project will be most important to sustain Fairbridge and
for their management of service delivery teams post-merger with The Prince's Trust. The
key lessons concern the future of the 'model team' concept, and the balance of quality
and throughput achievable by teams, given the uncertainties of funding and
commissioning, and of what teams will be expected to deliver.
The service model

Some interviewees felt that the real strength of Fairbridge in 2011 is the fact that its
service delivery model is now very stable and well grounded in research and evidence.
They believe the model is much more robust now, even if the team sizes have to adjust
back a bit from the full 12 which they mostly attained in 2010. Chapters 3 and 8 of this
report confirm that view.
The main learning about the ideal team has been that Fairbridge needs to look beyond a
'one size fits all' approach and be more flexible. Some teams will have the funding and
commissioning to operate at 12 frontline staff or even one or two more if local conditions
demand it. Other teams will operate with fewer staff, for example where need is not so
concentrated in one area, or where local authorities and other public agencies do not
prioritise young people.
Maximum team size will continue to be constrained by the importance of maintaining

close relationships with all the young people. Minimum team sizes will be shaped by the
need to have enough capacity to engage with a sufficient range of agencies and
initiatives in any area and the need to offer a range of skills and personalities to young
people. So Fairbridge retains its view of an optimum team in terms of size and
composition, but operational decisions are going to focus more on minimum team size in
future.
The merged charity has plans to open a new Fairbridge base in the Yorkshire and
Humberside region. This will be the first team to start up backed by all the learning
acquired through the YSDF Project about the best team size and composition. Managers
have said that the learning from YSDF will be deployed to bring that team up to capacity
in stages, recognising that the cost of a 'unit of service' will be higher initially in the
development phase.
Quality and throughput

Rather than increasing the numbers of young people accessing its programmes and
keeping quality constant, Fairbridge effectively did the reverse during the YSDF Project,
by means of focused performance management. Throughput of young people stayed
about the same, while all measures of engagement and outcomes for young people show
16 'Succeeding through People' one of the EFQM 'Fundamental Concepts of Excellence'; copyright EFQM 2008
- 45 -
a significant improvement. The additional staff resource therefore has been shown to
have enabled a significant qualitative improvement in the service provided for young
people.
Is it possible, now that service quality has been raised to a more desirable level by the
optimum team, to increase the numbers of young people each team could bring through
their programme? Or, are teams now at capacity in terms of throughput at the new higher
quality of service?
Fairbridge managers argued that, now that the team model and way of working has
become more robust, teams will have the capacity to maintain both quality and
throughput in the new testing environment - increasing the numbers of young people
served if staffing allows, or maintaining quality if staffing levels reduce.
The challenge to deliver an ever more effective service for young people remains. Around
60% of young people now achieve at least one outcome, and 85% of young people
starting the Access course will complete it. These are good results. However, although
results improved significantly throughout the period of YSDF Project, only around 35% of
'completers' go on to engage for 100+ hours with Fairbridge, and only 30% of completers
have a good number of hours one-to-one with staff. Fairbridge management accept that
these results offer room for further improvement.
11.4 Future Innovation

The future will demand innovation by the Fairbridge service bases. The needs of young
people may change - or at least the ways in which public policy views those needs may
change - and Fairbridge teams will be required to respond. Some changes are already in
view.
New markets
Innovation within the service model from 2010-11 onwards will be concerned with finding
new applications for the model. This may include new groups of excluded and NEET
young people and new markets - commissions from new agencies who are looking to
address the needs of disadvantaged young people. One Fairbridge senior manager
explained that we have diversified our model of delivery in that we can now apply it in
more circumstances. And we have a wider range of follow-on courses, including core
skills such as literacy.
New service users

The nature of Fairbridge users may be affected by a number of issues in future:
1. The merger may bring new perspectives on which young people Fairbridge can
best serve.
2. Self-referrals may become increasingly common if referral agencies have a lower
budget.
3. New sources of public commissioning may bring new client groups or pressures to
deliver other outcomes than those Fairbridge currently offers.
4. Payment by results, such as for reducing re-offending rates, may challenge
Fairbridge teams in the not-too-distant future.
If the characteristics of starters change, will Fairbridge continue to deliver high levels of
engagement with them and positive outcomes for them?
- 46 -
Operations Managers reported that the Operational Framework, which has been
invaluable in guiding good practice in all teams, has recently been made more flexible.
The length of Access courses can now be varied, and teams can apply to the Operations
Managers group to deliver a programme outside the norms in the Framework. However,
there is still a strong consensus on what Fairbridge does and what it should not do.
Compelling a young person to attend Fairbridge - through a court order for example -
would go against their ethos, but Fairbridge could become an optional element in an
order. There are live debates on such issues within Fairbridge.
The potential for volunteers

The future may see innovation in deploying volunteers. Two of Fairbridge's senior
managers commented that Fairbridge probably 'missed a trick' by not building up capacity
to involve/deploy volunteers with the young people. This might have given greater
sustainability in the current situation but could still be vital in the future.
11.5 Keeping the Fairbridge ethos

Intense periods of organisational change, such as that initiated by the YSDF in
Fairbridge, can threaten the culture and the passion that drives successful charities.
Mergers can also threaten this. Sustaining the effectiveness of the Fairbridge model and
brand will require that the ethos remains strong.
So far, at any rate, Fairbridge has retained enough of its ethos and culture, according to
interviewees. One external interviewee said:
Fairbridge has strengthened its managers and raised their game - a key thing for
sustainability. But the organisation still supports practitioners to deliver what they
believe is needed for the young people. There are more systems now but
Fairbridge has not been stood on its head.
A local Operations Manager said:

Fairbridge has not lost its soul, though finance is 'at the helm'. The gatekeepers
are the teams. Fairbridge - so far - has listened to the teams and the Operations
Managers. Our strong approach keeps Fairbridge stable even when we start to
explore new sectors. We can be flexible around our core programme.
Bury team members agreed that the growth and change over the past three years has
not watered down the strong Fairbridge culture, explaining that it's boosted us, and
everyone's passion is still strong and still there.
- 47 -
- 48 -
Appendices
Appendix 1: Summary quality of experience and outcomes
The table below pulls together the main measures outlined above to provide an at-a-
glance picture of the performance by the teams based in England from the start of the
YSDF Project.
Line Pre- Year Year Year Year

YSDF 1 2 3 4
2007- to 31/12/10
08
1. Baseline throughput (pre-project 07/08) 1370? 1370 1370 1370 1370
(numbers of starters entering Access)
2. Target increase in throughput (planned 30 180 280 500
numbers ADDITIONAL starters)
3. Target increase in throughput (planned % 2.2% 13.1% 20.4% 36.5%
ADDITIONAL starters)
4. Target number starters 1400 1550 (1650)1450* (1870)
5. Actual numbers of starters 1711 1774 1614 1150
6. Completers 1395 1515 1370 976
7. Variance actual against target numbers +374 +64
8. No. of starters with 3+ presenting needs 1331 1578 1446 1034
9. % starters with 3+ presenting needs (target is 78 89% 89.6% 90%
60% of those who start)
10. Number of young people achieving 100hrs 360 399 430 355
11. % completers achieving 100hrs 26% 26% 31% 36%
12. No. of young people receiving 5 hrs support 113 246 336 293
13. % completers receiving 5 hrs support 8% 16% 25% 30%
14. No. of young people achieving 1+ outcome 617 818 811 703
15. % completers achieving 1+ outcome - 44% 54% 59% 72%
16. Number of exits 1780 1804 1780 666
17. Number of young people with negotiated exits 2 63 879 450
18. % young people with negotiated exits 3% 50% 7%
19. Target number of teams at full team size by 3 6 9*
the end of the year
20. Actual number of teams at full team size by 1 4 7 9
the end of the year
Table 5: Throughput and achievements through the YSDF Project and beyond
13-19 year olds, in England
Notes
Line 5 creates the base figure for all the percentages in the following lines (e.g. line 8 will be
line 7 number / line 5 number %
Nos. of young people achieving 1+ outcome are shown cumulatively as they may achieve an
outcome in a different year from that in which they accessed the programme
Full team size defined as 11 or 12 in post at end of year.
Revised targets for 2010-11 marked with an asterisk *.
- 49 -
Appendix 2: Rationale for team size of 12 at Fairbridge17

Fairbridge was committed to review and identify an ideal team size of frontline or
delivery staff (DTs and ODWs) in its teams as part of its National Strategy in 2005. After
discussion and review, the decision was subsequently taken by the SMT to increase
frontline delivery staff in teams to an ideal team size of 12. The rationale for this number
is below:
Each Fairbridge team has a target to work with 200 young people each year, with each
young person receiving a minimum of 100 training hours and 5 one to one support
hours. It was agreed that a delivery team of 12 was best placed to allow teams to achieve
this consistently, regardless of routine unforeseeable staff absences caused by sickness,
vacant posts etc.
More specifically, the team size of 12 was thought to also improve Fairbridges provision
in the following areas:
To enable staff to properly plan and prepare for courses to ensure that the quality of
delivery is of a high standard
To improve the level of support that young people receive through reviews, action
planning, and other 1:1 sessions
To increase the level of Follow On provision to enable the majority of Access
completers to participate in a minimum of 100 training hours (Access hours + Follow
On hours)
To maintain course and client records appropriately
The team size of 12 was also important from a funding perspective as it was thought that
it would:
Enable teams to take on larger statutory contracts, which would otherwise be too
demanding for them. This was particularly important in terms of allowing Fairbridge to
compete effectively given the devolution of funding to local level and the increased
emphasising on commissioning of services.
Enable teams to run a wider range of activities, which Fairbridge has found tends to
be more attractive to private sector donors.
Equally, it was felt that in the first instance the size of the team should be not more than
12 because:
Relationships with staff were key as regards outcomes for young people, and if the
team size was not more than 12 it was easier for the young person to know all staff by
name/have a relationship with individual members of staff, and relationships between
staff and young people could be developed quickly.
Many Fairbridge teams have a finite capacity in terms of workspace and more than
12 staff might be difficult to accommodate without moving into larger premises.
17 Fairbridge paper developed 2008-09
- 50 -
Appendix 3: Extracts from evaluation and research findings 2008-2010

The 2009 Social Return on Investment (SROI) Study was funded by the Private Equity
Foundation. Key findings, based on what the report calls 'conservative estimates' include:
Fairbridge interventions overall generate social value beyond full cost recovery
'The term 'NEET' was insufficient (to describe young people stakeholders) as the
young people who come to Fairbridge have a level of need which is significantly
greater than young people who fall into the NEET cohort as defined by the DCSF.'
'1 spent on over 16s at Fairbridge returns 2.40 in benefit. 0.86 (36%) of the
benefits are immediate, the remaining 1.55 occur in the future. 0.35 of the
benefits accrue to the state.'
The majority of this value accrues to the young person. This consists of improved
motivation, aspiration and health, which translate into improved future earnings
potential
The state gets value from Fairbridge in the short and long term, through savings
on health, crime and exclusion, and money generated via tax and National
Insurance. However, immediate monetary return to the state is not a suitable
measure to capture Fairbridge social value.
The Back from the Brink study confirmed that Fairbridge is successful in increasing
personal and social skills among the majority of the young people it works with. In turn,
gains in personal and social skills increase the likelihood of getting a job, becoming a
volunteer, or taking up educational opportunities.
The study also revealed that the young people's progress is not straightforward. After an
initial significant improvement, a common feature is a very significant dip in progress after
four to six months. At that point young people often feel worse than they did in the
beginning. However, after that, they pick up again and finish much higher than they had
started. It seems that this dip is an essential part of the development process, and that
young people need to experience something of a crisis in themselves before they can
make progress. It appears to take more than a year for the full benefits of Fairbridge to
show through.
The Fairbridge National Insight Report 2009-10

Every young person who starts at Fairbridge is entitled to an induction phase, which can
last as long as required until they feel ready to take part in the Access Course. In 2010,
across the UK, all ages, the National Insight Report revealed that the length of time
provided was as follows:
% of 2679
One-to-one induction time Individuals Access starters
Starters with 0 induction time 425 16%
Starters with 0.5 hours induction time 52 2%
Starters with 1 or 1.5 hours induction time 1125 42%
Starters with 2 or 2.5 hours induction time 591 22%
Starters with 3 hours or more induction time 486 18%
Table 6: One-to-one induction time, Fairbridge National Insight Report 2009-10
- 51 -
Appendix 4 - Case studies

Alec, 16 (London)
I got referred by my school as I was in trouble all the time - rude, aggressive and violent
sometimes to the teachers. When they first said I had to go to Fairbridge I said "hell no, I
wont know anyone".
Fairbridge wasnt like school though we were active all the time and not kept in rooms. I
was pretty shaky when I went first went on Access but we did things like rock climbing,
team building activities and different sports.
I started coming two days a week and my results at school began improving. I did loads
of new stuff conservation, museum visits, even dancing. Can Cook, Will Cook was
good before I couldnt cook for myself and now I can make a four-course meal! I also
did Smoke It, Know It looking at drugs and the effect they can have on you. I used to
smoke weed a lot and I realised Im not untouchable and could get in serious trouble for
drugs.
I dont smoke weed at all anymore. Its really hard as its everywhere. Before I could
never be bothered to do anything but now Im more active and see a future. Its difficult
growing up round here. To go to college, to do well is seen as a negative thing. Where I
live you have only one route drugs and violence. The only other way is to isolate
yourself or else youll go down.
I recently went on Spirit. I was really angry at first but then I started seeing it as an
opportunity to make some changes. You have to work as a team on that boat if you
dont cooperate then it will sink, kind of like the decisions you make in life.
The main things Ive been working on are my patience and communication skills. Before I
came to Fairbridge I never used to talk properly I used to swear all the time and saw
everything as a big joke. Now I have a lot more respect for people. Things arent perfect
and I can still be a bit fighty, but my patience has definitely improved.
At Fairbridge you get to meet people like you especially the staff. Ive had help to write
my application and you can have a laugh while still learning stuff theres a lot of
encouragement.
Ive recently started a part-time college course in Childcare. Ive also been doing the
Cadets and since being at Fairbridge my level of commitment has really gone up. Ive
even just got through the first round into the Marines.
If there was no Fairbridge to pick me up when I was at school prison wouldve been my
future. I was playing with guns and knives, stealing cars, running from the police.
- 52 -
Fairbridge is place for kids to go who are having problems on the street you can
evaluate your life away from all the negativity and you can make real positive changes.
Selah, 19 (London)
I started at Fairbridge about six months ago. I heard about it from my sister. Id just come
out of jail everyones all fired up for destruction when they get out but I knew I needed
to get me something positive.
I left school with all my GCSEs and was going to go to college but then that summer I
couldnt find a job and needed money...I started dealing drugs to get by. I got 10 months
inside.
I was kind of hesitant about the Access but it was good to meet new people who wanted
to be involved in something positive too. Even going camping was me out of my comfort
zone. You had time out to think in Wales - time to think about making changes for the
better. I feel more confident after Access it was good to engage with people, talk to
them about stuff.
Ive been doing a Street Art course weve been looking at different artists around Old
Street, going to exhibitions and stuff. We even did some of our own artwork pieces that
represented us - it was kind of therapeutic.
I also went to the City to hear from employees about their background and how they got
their jobs some of them were like us and it showed me that it is possible to rise above
all the badness.
Fairbridge has helped me look at what my options are college courses and
employment. Ive recently started a full-time Business apprenticeship with time in college
and time in businesses around Hackney. I really feel things are starting to go the right
way for me now.
- 53 -
Kerry, 17 (Teeside)
Nigel Haynes Award Winner Kerry Budd
I have been coming to Fairbridge for about a year now and I feel they have helped me
change my life around. Before I came to Fairbridge I was getting into lots of trouble at
school and causing pain to my family and friends because of my actions. I was on the
verge of getting kicked out of school. I didnt care because I had a really bad attitude
problem, it was like what I say goes and if it didnt go that way I would kick off and cause
more trouble.
I was referred to counseling to try and see if I would talk to someone about why I was
acting the way I was and that helped a little but then when something went wrong I would
go back to my old ways. From there I was referred to Fairbridge. When I started
Fairbridge my attitude stunk, I would look at everyone as if I had just wiped them off the
bottom of my shoe. I spoke to everyone really rude as if I was the most important person
going. When I started to get to know the staff and the young people more and started
trusting them, I could see a change in myself. I was starting to communicate with people
appropriately and became friendlier to talk to, I also conquered some of my fears like
heights. I got involved with everything I could because thanks to staff and talking one to
one with my Outreach and Development Worker I knew I had to change the way I was
going and things could only get better if I tried. I got involved with rock scrambling, rock
climbing, abseiling, canoeing and a really important course for me; it was called Bridging
the Past.
I was doing so well at Fairbridge and was using the things I learnt in my personal life also.
But then I had a major downfall, I was living in foster care at this time and had just had
news that my grandad passed away. This made my life flip upside down I began
snapping at people again and not wanting to talk to anyone just to get on with things.
Then when I had a one to one with my Outreach Worker I realised that it was not
anyones fault at Fairbridge that my grandad passed away and I started to pull myself
together again.
While on the Bridging the Past course everyone was telling me how much they were
proud of me and how much I had come on from the girl they first met. I felt so proud of
myself and couldnt wait for my next challenge.
On 3rd July 08 I had the opportunity of a life time, something that I would never thought
would happen to me, I got asked to go onto Spirit. I was so happy I couldnt keep the
smile off my face. I had worked so hard at Fairbridge and at home I just couldnt say no. I
- 54 -
learnt so much while I was there; how to hoist sails and communicate with people and
deal with problems in such a small space. It was an experience of a life time and
something that I will never forget. I met so many lovely people while I was there and I
would definitely encourage anyone who is asked to go to grab the opportunity with both
hands.
Thanks to Fairbridge I have had so many opportunities to do things that I never imagined
doing and they have helped me to turn my life around as I now have a goal in life, I
couldnt be more grateful.
Adi, 18 (Fairbridge North Manchester)
Before I started with Fairbridge I was having a really hard time in school due to bullying. I
felt very lonely and scared especially at home as my mums boyfriend tended to take his
frustrations out on me.
When I started Fairbridge I was very nervous and didnt know what to expect. Fairbridge
staff were great, they made me feel safe, secure, supported and happy. They took time
out to listen to me and helped me build up my skills and recognise my qualities through
activities. This had a really positive effect on my self esteem and confidence.
Four years on I am still accessing the Bolton programmes run by Fairbridge alongside
studying a BTEC National Diploma in Public Services.
I really do feel that if Fairbridge has not supported me I would not be in the position I am
in now, able to realise my potential and a brighter future.
I have met so many people at Fairbridge, including friends and staff, and Id like to say a
big thank you to Fairbridge.
- 55 -
Ciaron, 17 (Fairbridge North Manchester)
Before I came to Fairbridge I was not going to school as I was chucked out for fighting. I
hadnt been at school for a year and was feeling crap because I was on drugs a lot of the
time.
When I first came to Fairbridge I was really nervous because I hate meeting new people.
As soon as I got to know people I started changing. I gave up drugs, stopped drinking
and stopped getting into trouble.
I have enjoyed everything I have done at Fairbridge and experiencing all the opportunities
to do new things. I have enjoyed rock-climbing and going to the Kent music studio the
most. While I was at the music studio I learnt how to play bass guitar and made a really
good friend too.
I have got lots of certificates from Fairbridge which makes me feel proud.
I start training for the army in a few weeks and I am joining to be a pilot. I cant wait to do
this but never thought a few years ago that I could achieve this. Fairbridge has changed
my life in so many ways and they ask for nothing back except respect.
Sammi, 18 (Fairbridge North Manchester)
Ive been coming to Fairbridge for 3 months. I left school in June 2007 and I started
college but I didnt really enjoy it and I dropped out. After that I sat around just doing
nothing with my life, just sitting about with my friends. I wasnt very happy and so I
thought I needed a change. I didnt plan on doing Fairbridge, I wasnt sure what I wanted
to do.
Before I did the Access course I didnt think I was going to do much with my life. I didnt
think I was good at many things, I had low self-esteem. And then when I went on the
Access and I saw that I could achieve it just built my confidence. Being away on Access
gave me time to think and sort out my head and realise hat I wanted in life. And I
definitely have changed.
- 56 -
Fairbridge courses are really good because you learn more things about yourself,
because theyre quite challenging and you push your comfort zones and everything. And
the staff are really friendly and encouraging. I think whats great is that most of them are
on our level so they can understand us.
I was really pleased with working on a film for the Fairbridge Film & Animation Awards. It
was a really good opportunity. It was a week long project. On the Monday we discussed
ideas and then on the Tuesday a film crew came in and Nikki Sanderson, whos an
actress off Coronation Street and now Heartbeat, she came in to give advice on acting
skills and everything. In April well be going to watch it on the big BFI IMAX screen in
London and itll be like a red carpet event, so everyones really excited about that.
Since Ive been with Fairbridge, its made me realise that so many doors have opened for
me and that I have got a future; as long as I put the effort in theres nothing stopping me
at all.
Fairbridge have given me a bit of a kick and Im now putting in an application form with an
agency called Platform 2, which is where you get to go abroad for 10 weeks to do some
voluntary work hopefully Peru, thats where Im going for!
Fairbridge has also helped me realise that I want to work in youth work. If I get the
chance to go away in May with Platform 2, when I come back I hope to get an evening
job and do as much voluntary work in the day times to get the experience. In September
Id like to go to college to study youth work and take it from there.
- 57 -
Appendix 5 - Topic Guides

Topic guide for interview stage with Fairbridge team managers & staff
This stage in the evaluation is to gather information about how Fairbridge scaled up, and
built capacity. CES wants to feedback to Fairbridge the learning, as well as say if possible
- for DFE audience - to what extent Fairbridge have taken advantage of the opportunities
provided by YSDF.
What has the YSDF funding done for FAIRBRIDGE? In the past 30 months what
have been the key issues, challenges and benefits you saw as the
team/organisation grew?
Looking at your team's stats over the past three years, discuss changes in
throughput, quality and outcomes.
Has the premise of the YSDF bid been established in your eyes? - that growing
teams to an optimal size and composition anchors quality and sustainability for
Fairbridge? How/why does the team now work better?
What have been the challenges for you in building the team up - e.g. recruitment,
changing roles, communication? How well have you been supported to grow the
team, and develop new ways of working?
What have been the benefits in building the team up - e.g. wider range of skills,
more roles in team, more external contacts/networks?
In what ways if at all has the growth over the past three years increased
Fairbridge's influence in the local 'youth sector', or on local policy?
Balance between self-referrals and commissioned? What is the story of

Fairbridge's delivery to public sector these three years?
ASDAN - numbers of awards and benefits to young people?
How has the YSDF investment changed Fairbridge - eg its strategy? Its
management style and culture? Its approach to monitoring and evaluation? Its
marketing and fund-raising?
If you were starting out on the capacity-building project again, what would you
have done differently?
- 58 -
Topic guide for interview stage with Fairbridge senior managers
This stage in the evaluation is to gather information about how Fairbridge scaled up, and
built capacity. CES wants to feedback to Fairbridge the learning, as well as say if possible
- for DFE audience - to what extent Fairbridge have taken advantage of the opportunities
provided by YSDF.
What has the YSDF funding done for FAIRBRIDGE? In the past 30 months what
have been the key issues, challenges and benefits you saw as the
team/organisation grew?
Has the premise of the YSDF bid been established in your eyes? - that moving all
teams to an optimal size and composition anchors quality and sustainability for
Fairbridge?
How have you built the organisations' people and systems to accommodate and
sustain the larger scale?
How has the YSDF investment changed Fairbridge - its strategy? Its management
style and capacity? Its approach to monitoring and evaluation? Its marketing and
fund-raising?
Fairbridge's influence in the 'youth sector', or on national policy?
What are your plans to increase the number of centres in England, building on
what you can now say about the optimum team size and composition? How is that
going?
If you were starting out on the capacity-building project again, what would you
have done differently?
- 59 -
Topic guide for interview stage with Fairbridge partners in North Manchester and
Solent
young people in England with the aid of an investment by Government through the Youth
Fairbridge England over 3 years from 2008-2011.
The planned impact was to:

increase delivery team staffing by roughly 60% (from 83 to 132)
increase the numbers of young people (age 13-19) engaging with the Fairbridge
programme in 11 locations by 36% (from 1370 to 1870 per annum)
maintain a consistently high quality experience for those young people, and the
same rate of positive outcomes for them.
build Fairbridge's capacity to sustain the higher level of operation, and grow
beyond it.
Charities Evaluation Services has been contracted by Fairbridge to evaluate the impact of
the programme. This stage in the evaluation is to gather information about how other
agencies have viewed any changes as Fairbridge has scaled up, and built capacity from
2008-2011.
What has been your involvement with Fairbridge over the past three years?
Any facts and figures?
What is Fairbridge's profile now in the area? Has that changed at all in the last
three years?
How has the YSDF investment over the last three years changed Fairbridge - eg
its service, its capacity, its approach? What if anything have you noticed?
ASDAN - made any difference?
Does the larger team size make a difference for you or the young people you refer
there?
Fairbridge's influence in the local 'youth sector', or on local or regional policy?
Are Fairbridge good at building local partnerships with other organisations?
Are they well managed locally now?
- 60 -
- 61 -

The Fairbridge Pathfinder Project Evaluation Report

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

The Fairbridge Pathfinder Project Evaluation Report

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

The Fairbridge YSDF Pathfinder Project:

Charities Evaluation Services

1. Executive summary .............................................................................................. 1

SECTION A: FUNDED CHANGES TO STAFFING AND SERVICES ............................ 9

SECTION B: ORGANISATIONAL CAPACITY BUILDING............................................27

The Fairbridge YSDF Pathfinder Project: evaluation report

What was planned What Fairbridge has achieved

60% (from 83 to 132) responded well to the labour market and

the Fairbridge programme in 11

quality experience for those young high-quality experience and achieving

This would in turn increase the

1.2 Main findings

The Fairbridge model team and approach

Young people's needs

While professionalising the organisation in a number of ways, it was important to maintain

Funding and income generation

This is, in the circumstances, an enormous achievement. Fairbridge's drive to shore up

Strategy for growth

2.1 YSDF Project aims and objectives

The funding from YSDF was intended to increase

Fairbridge also set itself a number of organisational capacity building objectives, in

2.2 Project management and Integrated Support

2.3 Evaluation performance measures

B. Organisational capacity building

2.4 Data collection for the evaluation

Regular data collection by Fairbridge through the life of the Project

Feedback sought from all training courses.

Fairbridge also shared the following with CES:

Primary data collection by CES

External stakeholders provided their impressions of:

2 Topic guides for the interviews are attached in Appendix 5

SECTION A: FUNDED CHANGES TO STAFFING AND SERVICES

3.2 Discussion and analysis

Managers adapted by:

The benefits of larger teams

3.3 The model Fairbridge team

In December 2010, Fairbridge's Operations Director said:

What were the consequences of establishing Fairbridge model teams across

As the manager of the North Manchester team said:

4. Increase in numbers of young people engaged

4.2 Discussion and analysis

Why did numbers of starters fall after 2008-09?

There is evidence of two contributory factors:

1. Low self esteem 6. History of drug misuse

Figure 2: What proportion of Access starters had 3+ presenting needs?

Changes to the profile of young people

5. Increasing levels of engagement

5.2 Discussion and analysis

Engagement measures in more detail

Figure 3: Trends in engagement measures 2007-2011

Five hours one-to-one support

How was engagement improved?

6. Improving outcomes for young people

6.2 Discussion and analysis outcomes for young people

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

The nature of outcomes achieved

Positive outcome achieved number of % of

8 This is similar to intermediate or interim outcomes.

Personal and social skills

Young people's self-assessments a new measure of self-reported progress

Since being at Fairbridge I have got better at

Are the changes sustained?

Follow-on interval Percentage of young people making positive progress

Do referral agencies see improvements in young people?