The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

National Review of Assessment: Identification of the Learning and Support Needs of Young People

Chapter 5: Issues and Recommendations

Key Issues

The following key issues were identified from the surveys conducted with FE colleges and careers service companies, and from the field exercise case studies. These case studies involved interviews with young people, with representatives of training providers and voluntary organisations, the Disablement Employment Adviser and representatives of the local careers office and the local college. This chapter also includes issues arising from contacts at national level with voluntary organisations, from a consultation at a meeting with STAG, from discussions with the Enterprise Network and from links to Connexions Services and the DfES in England. The research team's varied expertise has also obviously contributed to this analysis of key issues. These point to gaps in provision and to areas where practice or policy developments require to be considered.

Key Issue 1: The purpose, use and context of assessment

The Beattie Committee members were very clear about the purpose of assessment, which they defined as ( see Chapter 1):

'To identify the type and level of learning and support needs, the abilities and the aspirations of the young person; to communicate assessment to the appropriate provider(s); and to draw up an action plan and set goals.'

The evidence from the current research suggests, nevertheless, that there are different perceptions of the purpose of assessment, and that certain complicating factors ensure that different agencies give greater or less emphasis to particular aspects of the assessment process. For example, practitioners appeared to be in agreement that assessment should involve identifying an individual's strengths and weaknesses, and identifying support needs. However, the ways in which this agreement was reflected in practice varied considerably.

Descriptions of definitions of assessment

It became clear that, in practice, "assessment" meant different things to different people. Sometimes this was due to the particular ethos or perspective of the organisation; sometimes there were different orientations within the same organisation (and this could vary by locality or by types of post or level of responsibility); in other situations the approach varied depending on the perspective of the individual in post. This meant that approaches to the identification of learning and support needs could change as individuals changed post. This was particularly noticeable with respect to LEC responsibilities. The research team consulted with the enterprise networks, although LECs were not directly part of the fieldwork. However, their influence on assessment was very noticeable, most specifically with respect to the identification of learning and support needs for young people entering Skillseekers programmes.

Analysis of the data suggested that there were numerous answers to the question: 'What is assessment for?' Is it to assess:

• individual clients (and their strengths and weaknesses) across the continuum of the entire cohort
• the needs of those individual clients who might require support
• the needs of individual clients against available provision
• the needs of individual clients so that funding might be released to design or set up appropriate provision
• the needs of individual clients so that trends in client group needs could be identified and addressed through policy, practice and funding developments
• client groups receiving specific provision so that the "value added" by the provision could be identified, thereby continuing, increasing or diverting funding to organisations or to particular tasks or approaches. (This also would allow managers in an organisation to monitor the quality of work done with clients and to design training and development for staff.)
• the individual's progress (or "distance travelled") so that the client can observe and be encouraged by this, and so that those working with the client can consider the effectiveness of the strategies in use for this individual?

These are not discrete categories, and there may be several purposes of assessment for individual practitioners, managers and organisations. But it was an issue that many recognised and some different perspectives are reflected in the following quotations taken from interviews:

'It's a key issue. What is assessment for? Is it against the young person's needs or against provision or against funding?' (Training provider)

'There's no point in doing assessment if there's no provision to meet the need assessed.' (DEA)

'There is a reluctance to use skills assessment if it cannot be followed up with some form of positive intervention.' (Voluntary Agency)

Perspectives on assessment can depend on the overall client group of the organisation. Careers service companies (CSCs) are expected to offer services to the whole cohort, some of whom may have identifiable learning and support needs (but the majority of whom will not). Colleges are in a similar situation, with a very broad band of clients. In contrast to other organisations surveyed in this research, both CSCs and colleges were more likely to think about assessment of need as being on a continuum (although the extent to which this happened varied between companies and colleges). They were also more likely to seek screening mechanisms so that more detailed identification of learning and support needs could be targeted on particular categories of client or student.

On the other hand, training providers delivering supported Skillseekers programmes, voluntary organisations and Disablement Employment Advisers (DEAs) by and large only dealt with individuals with already recognised needs. The main concern in these agencies was to have accurate and detailed assessments of what those (sometimes very complex) needs were.

Priorities in assessment

Some agencies attached importance to particular features of assessment not emphasised by others. For example, the review function of assessment to measure progress was not always clearly in evidence. Also, most organisations that provided support for young people (in addition to assessing the need for such support) were more focused on pre-entry and early assessment rather than pre-exit assessment. This was perhaps inevitable, as pre-entry and early assessment had to be done effectively in order to ensure they offered places only to individuals whose needs could be met. The organisation also had to be able to organise appropriate initial and continuing provision for the client. When it became appropriate or necessary for the client to move to other provision, the assessment of continuing needs was less relevant to the organisation, although highly relevant to the client. There was also a difficulty in that the organisation might not be clear about the next stage for the client (or the new context of assessment), and how best to "translate" or record existing assessment information.

Language and levels of assessment

Some of the differences in approach and attitude were the result of differences in interpretation in what was meant by "assessment". This issue emerged in early stages of the research and resulted in a working definition which was applied first to the interviews with CSC respondents. This has been discussed in Chapter 3, but for the benefit of readers whose main interest is this chapter, the definition is repeated here.

The advisory group suggested that a number of organisations in the field were sensitive about the term assessment (with its connotations of pass/fail and bad experiences for some of the client group). Instead, a more accurate (and possibly more acceptable) definition would be "the identification of learning and support needs". However, in using this terminology in early stages of the research it became clear that it appeared to imply a deficit model, with identification being focused on difficulties rather than on a balanced view taking account also of strengths. Use of the terminology also raised issues about levels of identification of assessment.

The research team therefore proposed a tentative rewording of the definition which was subsequently incorporated into the interview schedules and which was used as briefing for interviewees. This description was, on the whole, thought to be uncontroversial. The wording involved defining the stages of identification of learning and support needs as:

• recognition of need, without necessarily being clear about the nature or level of the need. Much referral activity is the result of this, for example, a careers adviser recognising that a client has difficulty in filling in an application form;
• assessment of current skills, attitudes and need, and level of support required. In the example described, a basic skills assessment of literacy might be used;
• comparison of the results of assessment with actual provision. In the same example, the results of the literacy test might be compared with the provision of a range of training providers to see which was most suitable for the client;
• use of assessment evidence to lead to provision of support or to development of existing support to meet need or to advocate for new support mechanisms or provision. Where provision was available, evidence from a literacy assessment, for example, could be used to endorse the application of the client to supported training or to use as part of a case to develop supportive literacy provision for a client group.

Where one organisation questioned the accuracy of the assessments of another organisation, this was sometimes because it had received information that recognised a need rather than assessed it (using the definition above). Sometimes an assessment of need would not have been possible in the time available to the organisation referring a client; sometimes, as will be noted in the following paragraphs, the context in which the organisation operated meant that certain needs would inevitably be neither recognised nor assessed. For example, money or drug issues might not emerge until a young person's pattern of behaviour could be observed or confidence in the assessor gained over a period of time.

Assessment in its context

We have referred above to the context in which assessment was done. Context was a general issue. For example:

• careers advisers recognised that school assessments were often limited to what could be assessed within an educational context;
• training providers sometimes thought that careers advisers' assessments were not entirely relevant to the work context, or were more detailed than required for training plans, or (in contrast) provided insufficient detail of needs;
• colleges assessed needs and strengths as observed within the college; and so on.

Perhaps there are two key points to be made about this issue. Firstly, advisors, trainers and educationalists assess need within their own context, but do not always take account of the young person's context. One example of this came from a voluntary organisation:

'If clients have been brought up or have been living in a residential care situation, then they have to behave in certain ways to get attention. We have to take an assessment of outrageous behaviour with a pinch of salt.'

What could be assessed as extreme behaviour from young people who had experienced residential care could also be seen as "coping behaviour" for young people who only got attention when their behaviour was noticed.

Another example came from a young person to whom the researcher had shown the assessment document completed by the training provider, following an initial review of needs after a two-week induction for supported Skillseekers:

'I don't think that's right. They're saying I recognise that I have "difficulties in a group situation" but it was the same people that I hadn't got on with at school that were there (in the training provider's premises) . They said I "didn't engage with the group," but I was fed up and trying to keep clear of them.'

This young person had signed this summary assessment document at the time of the review.

In Chapter 3 we highlighted another example of the importance of understanding the young person's context. CSC staff might tend to assess non-attendance at a careers office pre-arranged interview (especially if the young person had apparently agreed to come) as equating with lack of motivation or commitment. This might not be accurate for some young people. There was evidence that CSC staff were not alone in making this judgement: training provider and Employment Services staff were also inclined to judge motivation on the basis on attendance or non-attendance.

There is a second perspective on the issue of context. While those involved in assessing young people's needs in one context may find it frustrating that colleagues operating in a different context do not produce assessments wholly relevant to them, this is perhaps inevitable and needs to be understood rather than to be the cause of frustration. There is also a more general question about the transferability of behaviours and skills into different contexts. An example of this might be a young person whose behaviour in school is continually challenging to authority, but who shows initiative and commitment in a work experience placement and in subsequent entry into the labour market. Perhaps the best that can be said is: 'Here is the assessment of the evidence available to date, gathered from our perspective, and from which an initial assessment of need in your context could be made.' The "receiving" organisation needs to accept this assessment in this spirit, in the knowledge that it, too, will need to make a similar statement when the young person moves on.

There are obvious qualifications to this general position. Assessment that appears lazy or insensitive, that does not gather the full range of evidence available, or is clearly based on highly subjective or value-ridden experiences must be challenged. But where assessment is sensitive, careful, comprehensive and has professional objectivity, such statements should be treated with understanding and respect. Much of this will develop with improved integrated working across agencies and organisations.

The relationship between assessment and provision

The use of complex assessment schedules associated with the release of funding for individuals or groups could alter the focus of assessment. Interviewees described the tension between the use of recording and monitoring for audit purposes and for truly client-led assessment. The link between assessment and provision was sometimes very close, particularly for training providers, voluntary agencies and those endorsing needs for supported Skillseekers or recording needs within schools.

It was interesting to observe in one area where there was no supported work-based Skillseekers that there was also very little structured formal identification of learning or support needs by either the CSC or other agencies. Which is chicken, and which is egg? Does assessment practice develop in response to the requirement to produce evidence for access to provision? Or does a decision to develop provision result from structured identification of learning and support needs?

Reflection on these questions, and on the experiences described by our respondents, invites the question: 'How easy is it to equate professional opinion with assessment?' Can a statement that says, 'This is my (or our) professional opinion' be put against the necessity for proof of client need by a funding organisation? This can be possible, but depends on a respect for the profession and its professional expertise and for the person or persons in post. Such building of credibility can be achieved, but often needs to be rebuilt whenever individual responsibilities in the funding organisation change unless the respect for the specific professional expertise is built in at the level of the organisation. Identifications of need that can provide evidence from other sources (such as "objective" measures) may make professional opinion carry more weight. Even so, evidence emerged from the research to suggest that structured independent assessment, using a range of strategies, might still have difficulty in releasing the necessary funding for clients in some situations.

The practice of assessment

Agencies went about assessment in widely different ways. Sometimes this was a response to different clients and their circumstances but quite different practices were found in similar settings. In general, practitioners seemed to prefer an approach to assessment which used a combination of methods, typically involving one-to-one interviews, reports, team meetings and observation in learning and work situations. Standardised tests were not widely used, except in certain specific situations. For example, the use of screening tests in basic skills appeared to be increasingly used in the FE context, and careers advisors used interest guides, now typically in computerised formats. Those organisations which were primarily referral agencies rather than providers (for example CSCs and the Employment Service) inevitably had less time and opportunity to use observation of behaviour as a form of assessment and therefore were most focused on interviews, and on synthesising and interpreting evidence from elsewhere.

Some practitioners were of the view that young people could experience commercially produced tests as intimidating. This might be the result of lack of knowledge amongst practitioners of the newer assessment approaches, which emphasise the need to "involve" the client in the assessment process; a commercially produced tool need not require a formal approach. Young people themselves welcomed informal assessments with the opportunity to add more formal assessments if necessary. They did not want to be pressed too hard, or for "words to be put in their mouths." They felt that some assessments were very subjective and as a result not always accurate, for example, questioning how it is possible to measure self-confidence.

Assessment of "hard" skills was likely to be more structured than that of "soft" skills across most organisations. Assessments of literacy and numeracy were the most likely tools to be purchased. However, FE colleges were very likely to have devised their own literacy and numeracy assessments. Core skills assessments were more likely to be locally devised, if they existed at all beyond educational assessments as part of Higher Still.

It was clear that many young people who had to deal with family breakdown, drugs and alcohol issues, relationship problems etc. appeared to be able to maintain a relatively stable life without becoming homeless, being unemployed or offending. A characteristic that appeared to differentiate these young people from those whose lifestyles had become chaotic was that they appeared to have relatively strong support from a social network which might include family or friends. Perhaps a crucial way to identify support needs early is to look at the support systems that are already in place for young people, perhaps through techniques similar to the Guidance Mapping Exercise (noted in Chapter 3 as an example of good practice). Appropriate preventive measures may, therefore, include helping the young person to develop such a network.

An issue that concerned many practitioners, was the practice of repetition of assessments. This might occur when one agency sought information for different purposes, for example, for assessment of needs, application for funding etc. It could also occur when one agency was unaware that an assessment had been carried out by another agency, or where information was not passed on. It seemed that young people with the most severe difficulties or problems were more likely to be assessed repeatedly. This could lead to boredom and dissatisfaction with the assessment process, and could affect confidence in a course or work placement. However, repetition of assessment could also be valuable, if this was done to monitor progression, and provided the client was fully involved in the process.

'The numeracy test in college was repeated at the **** Centre but this was helpful as you could see where you had improved.' (young person)

However, practitioners also questioned the suitability of tools being used. We identified a large number of locally-customised tools, derived from different instruments and packages, or entirely created in-house. We were able to view a number of these from a range of organisations except from STN providers where commercial sensitivities may well be an issue.

There appeared to be an atmosphere of continual improvement, or dissatisfaction with current tools. An unfortunate consequence was constant change, which led to confusion and lack of standardisation. Duplication of effort resulted as agencies and projects questioned the value and relevance of previous "home-grown" assessments by other organisations and preferred to conduct their own. This contributed to the repetition of assessments, apparently resulting in young people becoming less interested and less engaged in productive involvement with the services and the assessment process.

Synthesisers of assessment information

There was considerable interest in developing assessment approaches and individual workers and organisations were investigating assessment measures produced from different perspectives and contexts. But there appeared to be few possible models of "synthesisers" of assessment information. These are ways of drawing together and recording the range of assessment evidence on an individual client in a composite way that made sense to young people, to those helping the individual and to those in other organisations receiving a profile on the young person's learning and support needs. In Chapter 4 some examples of what was available were illustrated. These included the Support Needs Matrix from the Scottish Executive, the APIR from Connexions and the Bridges Project measures, approaches into which much time and careful thought had been invested.

However, many practitioners were seeking a simpler way to pull together assessment information and there appeared to be none available.

Issues relating to small/remote communities

There were some difficulties that might possibly be more apparent in small communities. It seemed that CSC respondents from island and rural communities were more concerned than those elsewhere about the impact of assessment strategies on guidance relationships and on the community. There was also some anxiety about exchange of written information.

'We can get assessment information, or be alerted to needs, just through social contacts in the area.'

'Certain assessment information is just assumed. Issues to do with the lack of confidence, inability to communicate and lack of ability to handle an adult environment are typical of young people who enter Initial Training, so it almost goes without being said. I would be against making such assessment information explicit as it would destroy rapport; any particular information given is on the phone for the training provider without the young person's knowledge or involvement. '

'Assessment is particularly difficult. It's difficult to be completely objective when you are in a small community, especially when you rely on informal networks. There are too many connections and interconnections between people. Maybe you need objective assessment to counteract that?'

The last quotation suggests a particular value in the sensitive use of a more objective assessment tool in this situation. Another difficulty was the labelling of young people within a small community.

'In a small community, an "assessment" may have already been made of the young person by the community (especially if they've been involved in offending or drugs) and this will affect progress, especially if they get another chance and blow it. Sometimes the only way forward is for young people to move out of their home area.'

Key Issue 1: Recommendations

1. A common definition of assessment is needed and this should be discussed and fleshed out by local partnerships. In particular, increased understanding of the importance of organisational and individual context within assessment is required.
2. Agencies and organisations require advice and support in relation to the assessment of "soft" skills. A clear common definition of what is meant by "soft" skills would be helpful.
3. High professional standards, an ethical approach and careful management are essential to assessment, particularly when there is a close relationship between the provision of evidence of client progress and continuing or new funding.
4. There are positive reasons for considering the use of appropriate assessment tools as part of a 1:1 interview. These may be commercially-produced measures, or locally designed techniques or approaches which are tried and tested and are respected by colleagues in other agencies. Benefits might include greater objectivity, increased credibility for the assessment process by funders and more client ownership of the process (if used appropriately).
5. There are particular reasons why those conducting assessments in small communities might find value in incorporating commercially-produced or well-respected tools into a guidance-based assessment.
6. There is the need to develop a simple approach to synthesising assessment information for individual clients.

Key Issue 2: Young people's understanding of and participation in the assessment process

The Beattie Committee members were very clear that there should be ' greater participation and ownership by the young person.' (Paragraph 7.16)

The fieldwork for this research suggested that agencies had been making genuine efforts to involve clients in their assessments, for example, helping them to understand assessment statements and learning plans, and to sign that they had read and understood reports.

Involvement of young people in assessments

However, the involvement of young people in their own assessments varied according to a variety of factors, such as the availability of assessment tools which were specifically designed to facilitate the client's participation, or the nature of the support required. Young people interviewed for the research not surprisingly differed in their understanding of the purpose of assessment and reported different degrees of involvement in the assessment process. For example, young people in social work agency projects sometimes felt that assessments had little to do with employability issues. They found it difficult to see the relationship between lifestyle matters (such as drug use, homelessness and caring skills) and employability.

Young people commonly told the research team that they experienced greater satisfaction with the assessment process where they understood the purpose and use of the information derived. In their view, practitioners did not always explain this clearly. Some of the benefits of well delivered assessments from a young person's perspective can be seen from the following quotations from interviews with young clients.

'Assessment's helped me to learn more about my strengths and weaknesses.'

'I am more relaxed about starting to develop my skills at an easy level. It's better than trying for exams that are too difficult. I like working my way up through different levels.'

'I quite liked doing exercises more than once because it builds up your self-confidence to go back to something familiar. It seemed easier the second time as well!'

'I liked meeting up with my key worker because it makes you feel good that someone is able to remember all the good things that you've done. I don't know that I'd like it so much if I hadn't been doing so well, though.'

'The staff here are brilliant! It's good to know that you can trust them with your life story.'

The last quotation highlights a matter of great concern to the young people, i.e. the quality of relationships with teachers, advisers etc. Prolonged contact with named workers was seen by young people as more beneficial than a series of different contacts:

'In (previous training provision) you didn't know who was gonnae be giving you your review, there was loads of different ones. But here it's always (name of personal supervisor) that does it an you can trust him cos he's seen you start and had to deal with the daft things you've done an he knows that you're coming on but if it's someone different they just give you another row cos they don't know you've improved an you crack up about it.'

Being involved in the process was also critical. Asked what was particularly valuable about a specific project, young people typically said that the opportunity to contribute to assessment and review procedures was beneficial. Being consulted and involved, and being able to contribute, helped to build self-esteem. It was clear that the more time and effort that had gone into explaining and negotiating the purpose of the assessments, the more enjoyment and positive recognition of value was expressed by young people. Although young people liked to be able to contribute to the assessment process, they also recognised that this was not always possible, particularly where they were not in a frame of mind to participate effectively.

The involvement of clients was sometimes thought to be dependent upon their age and stage of maturity. Some training providers reported that Special Training Needs (STN) clients often lacked maturity, and as a result, were less able to play a full part in assessment processes or benefit from the help that might result. Clearly it is a challenging task to engage less mature young people in assessment activities, some of which may appear to give them negative or discouraging results.

Assessment was not always a positive experience for the young people. One described the process of assessment, based on observation, like 'feeling that Big Brother was watching you all the time,' although he did concede that this was ' probably in your own interests.'

Unstructured assessment processes seemed to be more widely used than very formal and recognised tools. There was evidence that informal assessment was not always recognised as such by participants so their involvement may be limited. What is the value of unobtrusive assessment? Some training providers rated this very highly, but these observational assessments were rarely standardised such that different assessors were interpreting the same behaviour in the same way. The involvement of the young person is critical, and some of the observational assessments need to be made more explicit in order to achieve progress:

'It wasn't till they talked it over with me that I realised that I wasn't as clued up as I thought I was… then I knew when they were there that they were trying to get me to be a bit more positive about things and I knew they were keeping an eye on me to give me advice.' (Young person in supported training)

'You can talk to people (about social problems) - if they deny it, it doesn't matter if you've assessed it or not, you'll only solve these problems when people will admit it.' (Training provider -New Deal and supported Skillseekers)

The young people expressed their views about the importance of ownership of, and involvement in, the process of assessment.

'I don't remember this (when shown an earlier assessment by a training provider) . It was written by (the assessor) and it was definitely his view of you! It was read out to you like someone else was in control and I just ended up signing it…It was just them talking. They've written it as if it was me talking. It says 'I am considering going to college and studying something to do with the….'That's not true, I just said it because I thought it would sound good and they gave me no time to think about anything else.'

This young person recommended that assessment should pick up more on the positive qualities of the individual, and that it should be done more regularly, 'so that you got used to it and got confident so you could get involved.'

A legitimate question is: 'Who owns the information?' This emerged as a key issue in our discussions and is one that will become increasingly important when the transition documents recommended by the Beattie Committee are introduced. The general view of our respondents was that young people themselves should own information about their assessments. However, experience suggests that this is problematic territory. As part of the research, we tracked the transfer and use of assessment information across the range of organisations with which our case study young people had been involved. This proved to be difficult. Whilst each young person had given written consent for the researchers to access the information (under strict confidentiality) nonetheless several organisations were reluctant to provide such access. Apparently agencies believed that the ownership of information rested with them and not with the client. And yet understandably agencies have good reasons to be cautious in seeking to maintain clients' confidentiality.

'There have been issues of confidentiality, which have been difficult to resolve when clients do not wish certain information to be passed on to their parent e.g. very personal matters.' (Training provider)

'It is surprising how open most clients are, given the often traumatic nature of their life stories. I feel that events surrounding access to support for many of these individuals has led to a desensitisation of their circumstances in some instances, partly because of the number of times they have been asked to repeat highly personal events to numerous different workers. Clients become fed up with these processes, and it is a challenge to turn this disillusionment into a positive frame of mind. (Voluntary agency)

The interviews with young people suggest that they have very strong feelings about personal data and how it is being used. In particular, they worry about the kinds of information that might be passed between agencies and, crucially, the way in which this might be used. There were clear differences in perceptions on access to assessment and other data. Organisations emphasised to the research team that young people knew they could access their files, but this was not an expectation shared by the majority of young people who spoke to members of the research team.

'Ah doan think ye can, can ye? Look at your own files?'

Despite their concerns, young people accept that information should be passed on and are irritated if important details have to be provided repeatedly to successive agencies.

'I've got a heart condition and it's good that that gets told to people.'

The research, however, confirmed that agencies are concerned about their responsibilities in respect of maintaining client confidentiality. For example, young people described how they were involved in discussing their assessments, and most agencies have procedures whereby clients read, comment on and sign their own assessment reports. However, different agencies had different approaches to confidentiality and the transfer of private information, and some agencies worried about whether others could be trusted to deal with sensitive information efficiently and ethically.

We heard of the use of "word of mouth" methods (typically telephone calls) to pass on information, apparently to avoid subsequent challenges from clients or others which might result due to rights of access to personal records and files.

'A phone call tells you something more than what's on paper. They have a vague feeling but don't want to put it down on paper in case it's challenged.' (Training provider)

Discussions with staff in projects run by voluntary organisations highlighted the problem of "honest disclosure". It appears that young people gain a perception that particular kinds of problems may be unacceptable to an agency or project. For this reason, they may be disposed to act cautiously when participating in the assessment process and hold back information which could be vital to planning support arrangements but which the young people believe could prejudice their chances of gaining a place on the programme. In some cases their perception was accurate, particularly with respect to the impact of acknowledged drug use on access to housing (especially where this might affect the other residents in a shared flat).

In relation to the experience of assessment, young people emphasised the importance for them of understanding its purpose.

'Assessment hasn't helped me get a job. That's all I'm looking for.'

'As long as you know the reason why you're being asked to complete different assessments, it's OK. I hate it when you're just asked to fill in a work sheet. It's much better when you recognise the purpose of doing something.'

Some assessments were more interesting for the young people than others. Some commercially produced tools were memorable and enjoyable for young people, being seen as an easy and speedy way of expressing things that were difficult to explain.

As we have noted in Chapter 3, there was evidence that some young people saw the assessment process as part of a matching process and geared their responses accordingly. They did this when dealing with a range of agencies. It depended on a general perception of the entry requirements for the particular provision in which they were interested:

'If young people say to each other, 'They'll no take ye if ye've got too many problems' then it's likely they'll edit what they tell you. Or if they know that it's a barrier to something, like getting supported accommodation, if you're taking drugs, they'll not say. It's only when you get to know them, or their friend or partner tells you, that you'll find out. And that may be some way down the road.' (Voluntary agency)

This is in many ways very sensible coping behaviour by young people, but it does indicate another limitation in the identification of learning and support needs, especially at the initial assessment stage. Failure to understand this can lead to a provider organisation (with longer term contacts with a young person) doubting the accuracy of a referral agency's initial assessment.

A related issue is that the initial identification of learning and support needs is often expected to provide a baseline measure of a young person's situation before entering provision in order that the impact and effectiveness of the provision can be measured. However, young people may not initially wish to disclose needs, partly because they think these needs may exclude them, and partly from a natural wish for privacy. And some young people may have needs that they do not recognise or do not wish to acknowledge. These may only emerge as they spend time in appropriate provision.

'As far as I can remember, there weren't many things I thought I needed at the beginning, but I know now that I'm trying to live independently that I needed cooking skills, to know about tidiness and how to shop. I thought everyone knew how to shop, but I clearly didn't! My action plans changed quite a lot as the weeks and months have gone on.'

'Ah've no needed help wi money, ah can spend it fine! At least, that's what she (key worker in voluntary organisation) says. Actually, she's right, ah don't know where it goes, it's just as well she's there.'

A comparison of initial action plans with subsequent ones can therefore make it seem as if young people's needs have in fact increased rather than decreased during their time in the support programme. Using the concept of "distance travelled", some young people may appear to have gone backwards. Alternative explanations are that subsequent assessments have uncovered more complex needs, or that young people had come to recognise needs which only became clear when skills were tested in a new context.

It is important to understand this when designing provision and when working directly with young people. But where there is a direct link between an organisation showing evidence of "distance travelled" and the continuation of its funding, the identification of learning and support needs and the objective measurement of young people's progress are critical. Funding bodies need to understand the realities of working with such young people, and providers of support need to manage carefully the quality control aspects of progress measures .

Several CSC respondents made the important point that being able to identify the client's progress accurately and clearly was essential for the development of confidence and personal effectiveness. The measurement of "distance travelled" was thought to require considerable development.

'Distance travelled is not recorded or measured. It's just assumed from the outcome.'

One respondent also noted that those tools which relied only on a client's perception were a limited measure of progress, since it was very much a snapshot of the client's state of mind at a particular point. Instead such tools should be used in conjunction with professional observation of behaviour in a range of contexts, drawn together into an integrated assessment.

Key Issue 2: Recommendations

1. From the perspective of young people, being consulted, involved and able to contribute to assessment is critical. A relationship with an assessor which was based on this, and which ensured maximum understanding of the processes and purposes of assessment, is key to a young client's positive view of assessment. Professional practice, organisational development and continuous professional development should be directed towards this.
2. There needs to be common agreement about the young person's ownership of any transition document.

Key Issue 3: Multi-agency involvement and networking

Issues and resources in multi-agency working

There were several projects, and many plans, for enhanced joint working and in most cases a general willingness and enthusiasm for this to happen. A recurrent theme in the research was the desire for improved collaboration between agencies. For example, FE college staff said that the quality of information about prospective students was high - leading to more effective planning - where there were good links with schools. Inconsistency was also evident, with colleges able to maintain good contact with some schools but not with others. Multi-agency integrated working in the interests of clients was also very much in the minds of CSC respondents. Two key points were made which are discussed in more detail later in this section:

• The limited resources of social work departments and psychological services were likely to hold developments back.
• Although links with the Employment Service had improved as a result of New Deal work, its staff still remained on the fringes of multi-agency work, and the ability of staff to respond to local initiatives appeared to be very much constrained by policy and practice decisions made centrally.

In some of our discussions the possibility was raised of the use of an extended case conference model (with the client firmly placed at the centre of the process). This model might serve the needs of a range of clients and provide a vehicle for updating a transition document. Such a model would require to be able to operate on a cross-sectoral basis.

Several interviewees recommended having better structures for assessment, with common proformas to recognise needs, protocols, and agreements on exchange of assessment information. It was widely felt that these would be one of the positive outcomes of "inclusiveness" projects.

A key problem was the lack of common assessment tools for use across agencies. The example of an integrated approach to drug assessment was identified as a possible model for how a common assessment tool with protocols on exchange of information and confidentiality across services might work. The common assessment form had been designed so that in the future it could be easily transferred on to computer-based systems.

There was a generally shared view that, if it was possible to find one, a common assessment tool might be adopted in order to encourage sharing of assessment information and to have a clearer idea of the client's progress. This would also have the practical benefit of allowing training and development costs to be shared.

The communication of assessment information between agencies is often problematic. The range of agencies involved in assessing, planning and providing for the needs of young people can cause difficulties. This can be due to different professional cultures, different organisational practices, ineffective networking, inadequate referral arrangements or because of the use of widely different, or incompatible, assessment protocols. Typically, interviewees spoke of the need for closer links between agencies involved in referral and a consistency of approach, particularly in relation to the transfer of information. In particular, there was little evidence at this stage of agencies working together in a planned and consistent way to develop the employability skills and employment prospects of young people.

Links with Employment Service staff were thought to need development in most areas. Formal and informal links to the Disablement Employment Adviser (DEA) were in need of development, and contacts with New Deal personal advisers varied greatly across CSCs. Sharing of assessment information was occasional rather than frequent, and few CSC respondents were aware of the assessment tool called "The Client Progress Kit", in use with New Deal clients. Both CSCs and training providers suggested from their knowledge of the use of the Client Progress Kit that there were inconsistencies in how it was used or the extent to which the client was involved in the process. Evidence from Employment Service respondents tended to confirm this view. Some interviewees from a range of perspectives suggested that Employment Service staff should be more involved at the pre-exit stage from FE courses and also with supported Skillseekers programmes.

There were particular difficulties in obtaining information on the 18+ age group from previous agencies when embarking on "adult training", such as New Deal provision. This was especially apparent in information flow between careers companies and personal advisers within the Employment Service.

There were a number of levers for positive change. Case management issues might result in a much closer relationship over New Deal referrals, and pilots of New Deal for the Disabled projects might mean a movement towards a more integrated service with more emphasis on clients accessing work placements. These developments will require closer links with other agencies.

'There is no mechanism for review from other agencies, although occasionally relevant agencies e.g. social work or voluntary agencies may be invited to participate in discussions about the next steps.' (Training provider)

There appeared to be a lack of consistency in relationships with voluntary agencies in different localities. For example, in one area, the careers service felt that it provided information to relevant agencies and actively practised referral, but was unconvinced that information and referrals happened consistently in the opposite direction. In another area, voluntary agencies were unhappy that there was little contact with the CSC except in the handover of particular clients. There were also some examples of very good links between voluntary agencies and the local CSC, based on local projects. Central and local links with voluntary agencies were considered to be important aspects for development from all perspectives of those involved in this research.

CSC interviewees also recognised a need for closer working practices between schools and other organisations. For example, many felt that while there was clearly work going on in most areas to develop links with behavioural and learning support staff in schools, this was an area needing still further attention. Also, CSCs in most areas suggested that the involvement of social work staff in FNAs was not as regular as it needed to be, and this issue was also raised from an FE perspective. Resources were thought to be a key reason, but written reports would have been welcome in place of actual attendance. In some areas a social worker was present in only a minority of cases.

'There's the lack of a social worker or a report in 75-80% of FNAs. Sometimes it's essential. The reason given for the lack of a person is resources and for the lack of a report, confidentiality.'

A shortage of educational psychologists was also felt to be an important issue, and concern was expressed at the likely impact of the extension of the age range of their client group on their ability to fulfil existing commitments.

'There has to be a basic entitlement agreed so that the minimum assessment is always there.'

There were clear resource issues for both these services, and this will be referred to again in the final section of this chapter.

Computerised systems

The technological advances in recording assessment data are recognised as being likely to have significant impact on the way client information can be stored and used. This highlights a number of issues connected with information flow, confidentiality and inter-agency working.

At the time of the research it seemed that most statutory and voluntary agencies were operating dual systems of paper-based and computerised record keeping. Different organisations in different geographical areas were at various stages of transfer between paper and computer files with the aim being (in CSCs in particular) that most records would eventually be stored on computer.

Some assessment data, however, was more likely to be stored on paper for a variety of reasons. This could be because a particular tool had generated specific client profiles (e.g. FEATS) or because of the continued use of traditional methods to discuss and agree next steps based on paper notes or completion of specific questionnaires or booklets. Some assessment processes included scores for different measures of ability or need. It was thought to be unlikely that raw scores would be transcribed on to computerised files, as they might not be meaningful to all users. Rather, a summary or synopsis of results and findings would be more likely to be recorded. This raised the issue of where and how detailed assessment data may be stored.

The issue of how reports could be transferred between agencies was, and is, very sensitive. Varying forms of information flow protocols were in place and were constantly being reviewed. Technology brought another facet to the mechanics of how information could be transferred. For this to happen, systems required to be compatible.

Written records were often passed between agencies. These included school reports and training and development agreements. These were most often stored in paper files while notes of contact might be stored on computer. In order for practitioners to provide clients with the best service, information from both sources would be required. Access to dual systems was also an issue to be addressed.

All records, whether paper-based or computer based, are subject to the Data Protection Act 1998 and European Human Rights legislation, which give clients rights of access to all personal information. Paper-based information can be more sensitive than the type of information stored on computer, although no information of a truly confidential nature should be recorded without the permission of the client. As one practitioner commented:

'This should not be an excuse to record the most sensitive information on paper and have a more public profile on a computer.'

Staff must be fully trained in all aspects of administering assessment tools and how findings should be recorded, in order to comply with legislation and still serve the best interests of clients. This point also applies to the transfer of information between agencies.

The role of parents and families

Many of those involved in this research recognised the key role that effective parents could play for their children. For young people with recorded needs, and those in special education, parents were thought to play a key role in recognising, assessing and meeting needs, although their potential was still thought to be rather under-utilised. But few of our CSC respondents mentioned the role that parents could play in identifying the needs of the broader group of young people to Careers Service staff. There was considerable evidence of parents at parents' evenings in school referring their children for careers advice, but parents were thought to be reluctant to identify social, emotional and behavioural needs to others.

One example of parental involvement came from a training provider who had previously had a high level of specialist CSC involvement in ongoing assessment and review of the learning and support needs of young people engaged in the special training provision. When resources to the CSC were withdrawn, and this support could no longer be given, the parents of a number of the young people appeared to take on aspects of this role (though in a more limited way). For young people with unhelpful or inadequate family support this would be more difficult. Perhaps one of the reasons why more involvement of parents did not happen was the difficulty in doing this while respecting the rights of the young adult.

Gaps in multi-agency recognition and assessment of the learning and support needs of specific client groups

The research highlighted difficulties related to the nature or situation of specific client groups, which underline the importance of good collaborative working. For example, young people who were in residential schools outwith their home area, who had been referred by the social work department and whose needs were not, therefore, recorded were problematic to identify and posed difficulties in gathering appropriate assessment information. Similar difficulties were faced by young people involved in alternatives to exclusion projects or being educated through the home tutor service.

'We have to identify needs at an early stage, some young people slip through the net, for example those with home teaching because of severe medical needs. They don't appear, and there's no recording of needs. Hopefully better tracking in inclusiveness will help.'

There were also difficulties in the transfer of responsibility and of records. There were some examples of local council departments being reluctant to accept a transfer of responsibility, for example, for looked-after children who had left their home area when leaving care. Similar issues arose for school leavers who had a record of need opened while at school. There was considerable confusion apparent from CSC respondents' descriptions of local practice in keeping a record of needs open. In some areas the record of needs was closed when the young person left school. Some kept the record of need open if the young person went to FE (until age 19). Others closed the record of need although school leavers had gone to college, but did maintain an informal review of future needs. In the case of young people (usually from remote communities) who moved away from home to FE, it was almost automatic that the record of need would close and assessment information would not transfer to the college at which the young person was a student.

Another group of young people whose needs were also less likely to be identified were young people already in the labour market. These might be young people who had apparently been able to enter work (even through a series of part-time or temporary contracts), or were able to enter, but not keep work, for any length of time. This was particularly the case in areas with relatively buoyant local labour markets or with high seasonal demands for workers.

'The reality is that unemployed 16-18 year olds are very small in number (in the area). The huge majority are in FE, training or work and the effect of this is that young people who do have drugs and alcohol problems or other problems are often absorbed into the workplace or into training or into FE in the area.'

Should there be a strategy in place to acknowledge the needs of these young people? Or is it enough that they seem to cope in some way with their difficulties? Should identification of need have the effect of imposing a particular set of values on individual behaviour in the interests of the long-term development of these young people? Or should support services only react when a crisis occurs?

Able young people with dyslexia had clear ways of accessing support within universities, once their needs had been assessed; if the same young people attempted to access Modern Apprenticeships, however, support systems were less easy to set up. There was also thought to be both a lack of usable assessments of employability and a lack of support provision for young people in the autistic spectrum and those who were dyspraxic.

There was no clear framework for identifying young people with health issues, assessing the relevance of those issues for future education, training and employment and ensuring support provision was in place. Provision of medical information was neither systematic nor consistent, and CSC respondents appeared confused and anxious about the lack of a framework, and concerned that, without an appropriate medical assessment, they might sometimes act in ways which were not in the best interests of clients.

Key Issue 3: Recommendations

1. Steps should be taken to increase the involvement of staff of the Employment Service in local multi-agency case work and in policy-making at local and Scottish level.
2. Local inclusiveness projects should consider the development of case-conferencing approaches for the assessment of the needs of a broader range of clients than at present. The client's central involvement in this process must be recognised.
3. A common protocol on approaches to assessment and to the transfer of assessment information is required in the interests of clients.
4. Staff must be fully trained in all aspects of administering assessment tools and how findings should be recorded, in order to comply with legislation and still serve the best interests of clients. This point also applies to the transfer of information between agencies.
5. Organisations should consider adopting a common assessment tool (or tools) for the identification of learning and support needs in a locality.
6. Staff should examine ways in which parents and families may be more involved in the identification and assessment of need, particularly for those young people whose needs are not recorded.
7. The identification and assessment of need requires improvement for clients in specific situations. These include:

• Those in residential schools outwith their home area
• Looked-after children who leave their home area when leaving care
• Young people with a record of need who move to an FE college outwith their home area
• Those who are already in the labour market
• Academically able young people with dyslexia entering Modern Apprenticeships
• Young people who are autistic and/or with dyspraxia
• Young people with health issues

Key Issue 4: Policy, planning and structural issues

Better assessments of employability

Many respondents identified the need for both a common definition of employability, and also common tools that would measure it.

'I'd like to see batch assessment of employability skills. It would say 'this young person is capable of…' and this would lead on to verifiable evidence. There's no current base line, and no norm for employability skills.' (CSC)

'The company's very interested in developing employability profiles for young adults. Employers are saying they're not getting good enough school leavers or graduates, but actually they've no idea what they're looking for - obviously some particular "soft" skills. Young people are not clear how to translate or transfer their skills to an employer's situation. You can't assume academically able young people are any better able to do this. An assessment process using employability profiles should enable bright young people to think about themselves more analytically regarding employability - they've not necessarily applied themselves to explaining their skills to others. (CSC)

Recent work on the learning gains that young people got from Education for Work provision in schools ¹⁰suggested that some common agreement on employability skills and their measurement might help to maximise the learning of those skills. This work also indicated that an employability profile might be developed that would help school students to assess employability and link into post-school assessment and development of these skills. The present review of Education for Work might profitably link to the post-school development of assessment of employability.

We have also noted earlier that little use was made of the evidence from Education for Work experiences in the assessment of employability in school students, and we recommend that more should be done to ensure that this happens.

One of the vehicles for recording self-assessment evidence on employability, on progress and on potential needs is the Progress File. The Beattie Committee commended its use, however, the current research suggests that the use of NRA/Progress File by schools and colleges is patchy across the country. There also appears to be considerable variation in its use in pre-entry guidance by FE colleges, and limited use made by employers and placement agencies. The inconsistent use of Progress File may suggest that many teachers, lecturers and parents are sceptical about its value. On the other hand, there was also evidence that some schools and colleges appear to have incorporated Progress File into broader approaches to motivating young people and encouraging them to value achievements in sport and leisure, community service and work experience, as well as formal assessments in coursework and core skills. At present, whether a young person receives encouragement to prepare a presentable Progress File, and whether this will be genuinely used by prospective employers and FE learning support and guidance staff, appears to be very variable.

Guidelines for the use of Progress File suggest that it can be a key way to contribute significantly to self-assessment. However, few of our respondents felt it was in fact doing so. Since Progress File had replaced the National Record of Achievement, the use of such a document use appeared to be decreasing. It was seen as of particular importance to young people with more modest educational attainments, and the main area in which it was continuing to have an impact was in special education:

'It's not in much use in this area, there's a lack of awareness, now worse since Progress File. It could be a really useful self-assessment tool for youngsters with special needs, and it would allow others to assess them, too. It's important because so many from special schools don't achieve national qualifications, and they could feel they haven't achieved anything.'

'Progress File is used as part of the transition programme but is not really linked to measuring personal effectiveness.'

Clearly the possibilities for Progress File to contribute to self-assessment are not being fully exploited.

Resource issues

A common theme was the strain on resources of highly intensive, individualised work.

'Funding overall was strongly identified as a major factor in determining quality and quantity of provision. Some tools are expensive and require a two-day training course. In FE we feel that the time commitment required for full assessment and ongoing monitoring is underestimated by managers.'

'We've (the CSC) really had to give up on using some of these assessment packages… They just take too much time to do, if you're going to use them properly, and there's no point if you're not. It's just that, if you're behind with your school interviews and things like that, it seems like a luxury, and you think that no-one will bother whether you use the test or not, but they will bother if you get behind with VGIs.'

There were particular resource problems for some services:

'We know that social work is really under-resourced, but it doesn't help the assessment process not to have them there (at the FNA).'

'They're so short-staffed in their children's teams with child protection and statutory work that the FNA has to go by the board in priority terms.'

We have referred at a number of points in this report to the pressures on both social work staff (especially those specialising in work with children, where their involvement in Child Protection issues is such a legitimately high priority) and educational psychologists. There is no question that the development of best practice in multi-agency work and identification and assessment of need would benefit in very important ways from the increased involvement of these staff.

Sometimes the timing of assessment meant that resources might appear to be used unnecessarily early:

'For recorded young people, there's supposed to be a trigger where the Educational Psychologist sends a form to the local social work team to do assessment of young people's needs as young adults. This doesn't always happen, or at the right time. It's usually done by home visits and this involves talking to young people and their families and covers independent living, respite care, aids, equipment needs, welfare benefits etc. But it's sometimes done at an early stage, perhaps at age 15 and young people don't leave for 4 or 5 years. So they're re-allocated to a different social worker and given a subsequent assessment at a later date.'

Duplication of assessment (and re-assessment to update information) was also a claim on resources:

'Assessment often starts again in FE and again in supported Skillseekers. However, assessment information may need updated, especially if the young person's coming from a school setting.'

Timing issues were obviously important in how resources were allocated. On the one hand there was clear need for early recognition of learning and support needs so that individuals were identified at an early stage, and organisations were trying to develop ways in which this could be done. Recognition needs to be early: assessment needs to be at the right time. Sometimes an assessment of current needs also took place at the same point:

'We're trying to develop a system whereby we involve careers advisers one year ahead of the earliest leaving date with young people in care.'

Resources are unfortunately finite, and decisions about the best use of staff and time are likely to remain difficult. But it may be the case that the focus of assessment for young clients should differ according to the stage they are at. Both the recognition that a young client has needs and the decision on the best time and method for assessing learning and support needs may need to take account of both personally and externally prompted transitions.

Perhaps something more needs to be said on this. A recent report on the effectiveness of the careers service in Scotland ¹¹ noted that "externally prompted transitions" arise from how the education and training system and the labour market operate. Extrapolating to assessment of need suggests that individuals will move into an externally prompted transition when perhaps a programme of training is due to finish, when a course or job finishes or when they leave a period of custody or ill health. The second type of transition - "personally prompted transitions" - arises from aspects that are personal to each individual and related to their particular stage of career development and also to the wider personal circumstances of their life, for example what is happening at home, or in their relationships. The first is commonly predictable, and interventions such as review of progress and of support needs can be planned. The second is difficult for an organisation to anticipate and perhaps to notice (although this might be a crucial role for a key worker). Each transition point is an occasion when the young client may be open to work effectively with the assessment process.

Most young people will experience a combination of both types of transition and organisations whose aim is to provide support need to be designed to anticipate and respond to both.

We now return to the question of definition: is assessment for all? We have noted that FE colleges and to a certain extent CSCs were aware of the importance of identifying the needs of the whole cohort. There are clearly resource issues tied to any decision about screening large numbers of young people. But the need for this was being examined more carefully in the light of the extension of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to education providers in 2003. Educational providers will need to ensure they have taken all reasonable steps not to discriminate against students, especially with regard to the provision of aids and ancillary support services. At the time of writing there is a code of practice out for consultation.

Lastly, there was a clear gap in the provision of relevant medical information that would allow an assessment of young people's support and learning needs. Practitioners were unclear about how relevant medical information was to be accessed. Systems and protocols were in place in only a few areas (and not operating consistently even in those) and there were considerable levels of anxiety that young people might not be getting the support and advice they needed as a result of inadequate information on the health of individual young clients. We recognise that there are many issues that would need to be resolved (only one of which is resources) and recommend that this is examined at Scottish Executive level and that proposals be brought forward to improve the situation.

Impartiality and accountability

Two issues arose with respect to impartiality and accountability. The first was at organisational level and the second at the level of the individual practitioner.

Firstly, there will be challenges for Careers Scotland as careers services and local enterprise companies become part of one organisation at a local and national level. If alignment and accountability are at a local level, what might happen to the impartiality and independence of a careers adviser's assessment of need when there may be implications for the use of the funds of another part of the organisation? This issue was raised by representatives of a wide range of organisations likely to be involved in local networks working with young people with learning and support needs. Those involved in discussing and agreeing the structure of Careers Scotland at local and national level within Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise must ensure that there are procedures for dealing with conflict of interest. However, not only does this challenge require the structural relationship to be clear, but it does perhaps add more weight to the argument that approaches to assessment must be systematic, based on best professional practice and based on shared assessment information from a range of perspectives, not least the young client's, if it is to have credibility within the organisation.

Secondly, there are likely to be pressures on individual practitioners, particularly key workers, in taking forward the recommendations of assessments of learning and support needs. One obvious example of this is the planned strengthening of corporate authority for looked-after children whereby local authorities will have a continuing responsibility, depending on needs, up to age 19. This is different from the present situation where responsibility could be laid down at age 16. We have already noted the serious difficulties faced by young people leaving care and moving to another local authority area.

The research showed high levels of concern amongst practitioners from all perspectives that both assessment of need, and provision to meet that need, was failing looked-after children. This was despite much hard work by experienced and committed practitioners. The needs of these young people were so complex and deep that many practitioners were at a loss to know how to help.

The legal position on responsibility for vulnerable young people is currently that much provision for them is discretionary, and therefore a lot will depend on costs and resources available, most likely to be from an already over-stretched social work budget. Here again will be a situation where assessment of need may release much needed financial and other support. But who has the responsibility for ensuring this will happen? Is it the responsibility of the key worker to fight for the rights of a young client in this situation? And if so, what happens to professional relationships within a local partnership when the key worker is pushing hard to access funds from another organisation within the partnership?

As key workers begin to develop their advocacy role, they will need to develop skills to do this effectively and positively. In addition to meeting the training needs of individual staff, it will be important to ensure structures are in place to support their work. This includes making sure that:

• protocols are in place across organisations;
• potential tensions have been anticipated and planned for;
• assessment of need is systematic, the approach to it is shared across organisations and its delivery is based on best professional practice.

Training, staff development and support for staff

Throughout this report we have referred to the need for staff development and staff awareness at various points. In the last section of this report, we pull together some of the issues the research has raised with respect to training, staff development and support for staff.

Firstly, there is the need for a forum for the dissemination of good practice in assessment and for the discussion of problems and how they might be addressed. This needs to be in addition to meetings of managers so that the specialist experience of practitioners can be shared and used. In national meetings of both managers and practitioners there would be the opportunity to feed in the best intelligence on the needs of young people and about the effectiveness of assessment approaches to policy-makers and funders. Responses to consultations could also be made. These meetings could be both sectorally based (for example FE staff) but could also be cross-sectoral.

Perhaps of even greater importance are local meetings or training events where practitioners (who might work together or with the same clients) meet to discuss perspectives on assessment, identify the different local contexts for assessment and develop shared expertise and approaches. Locally adapted protocols for handling assessment information, based on national guidelines, could also be developed by managers and practitioners, and some of the difficulties of multi-agency working be anticipated and resolved.

More specifically, particular training needs have been identified as part of the research. These include:

• training and awareness raising on definitions of assessment operating in the locality;
• increased level of awareness of the range of commercially available assessment measures, particularly those focused on "soft" skills. It would also be useful for staff to compare the range of locally produced and thoroughly evaluated approaches to assessment;
• awareness-raising on the assessment tools that might be used as part of a guidance or diagnostic interview;
• training needs with respect to assessing the needs of, and working with, specific client groups such as those with challenging behaviour, profound deafness, dyspraxia;
• successful approaches to working with young people who have left care.

1. Definitions of "employability" need to be discussed and agreed. There needs to be more use of school evidence from Education for Work provision and from core skill achievement in the assessment of employability. Given that Careers Scotland will include both the careers services and education business partnerships, this would seem a possible role for the new organisation, in co-operation with local authorities.
2. A co-ordinated approach to the use of Progress File is required. This document could well be the basis for a profile of employability skills and needs. Schools, further and higher education, relevant statutory and voluntary agencies and employers should be involved in developing a plan for encouraging widespread use of Progress File and effective marketing of its purpose and value.
3. There are major resource issues that may inhibit some developments in the identification of the learning and support needs of young people. While these are likely to be experienced to a certain extent in most organisations involved, they were particularly serious with respect to Social Work and Psychological Services. This was not just a question of money, but also of the availability of trained staff. This needs to be addressed.
4. Organisations were developing strategies for early identification of young people who might have learning and support needs: these strategies should be encouraged. The timing of actual assessments of need will require to take account of both externally and personally prompted transitions.
5. For organisations such as CSCs and FE colleges, assessment of need across the cohort is likely to be an area needing development. The planned extension of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to education providers is likely to encourage an examination of this issue in the FE sector.
6. There is need for specific action to develop procedures and protocols for accessing appropriate medical information on young people's needs. Careers Scotland and the Scottish Executive should initiate discussions with Health Boards and with the Scottish Executive Health Department to seek ways of standardising access to medical assessments relating to likely support needs in education, training and work.
7. Structures need to be in place in Careers Scotland to ensure independent assessment processes for the identification of learning and support needs.
8. Local partnerships need to have structures in place which ensure effective identification of learning and support needs and encourage advocacy for provision to meet these needs both within and outwith the partnership.
9. A central mechanism for disseminating good practice, responding to policy documents and developing training in the identification of the learning and support needs of young people should be established.
10. Locally-focused awareness-raising and training is important to ensure that there is a common understanding of, and respect for, the best assessment practices and approaches of other organisations and colleagues in the area network.

]

« Previous | Contents | Next »