The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Chapter Three PSPS in Pathfinders and Non-Pathfinders

3.1 This chapter presents the findings of the evaluation carried out in Pathfinder and non-Pathfinders with reference to the development of PSPS. It covers the first evaluative exercise completed in June 2005, and the second evaluative exercise completed in March 2006. It is concluded that:

• Pathfinders were clearly differentiated from non-Pathfinders in the extent and range of post-school psychological services developed by them
• the services developed in Pathfinders represented a wide range of post-school initiatives directly relevant to the key objectives of the project, such as schemes to enhance transition, the development of new assessment frameworks and provision of staff training
• both in April 2005 and in March 2006 Pathfinders anticipated a much greater development of PSPS in the coming year than non-Pathfinders
• PSPS in non-Pathfinders was very limited, in some case almost non-existent and generally restricted to existing functions in relation to transition from school for young people with additional support needs
• Pathfinders rated their own effectiveness in PSPS service delivery significantly higher than non-Pathfinders
• there were key differences in favour of Pathfinders for involvement in strategic planning
• the gradient of change between April 2005 and March 2006 was significantly higher for Pathfinders than non-Pathfinders in relation to a wide range of PSPS activity
• the differences between Pathfinders and others in relation to PSPS are consistently supported in the data collected from educational psychologists in training regarding their field placements
• new arenas of psychological service delivery require time to develop contextual knowledge, to establish contacts and to explore opportunities, and this has characterised Pathfinder development, particularly in the first year
• the development of PSPS has far-reaching implications for educational psychology as a profession, but Pathfinders and non-Pathfinders alike have embraced these implications and are keen to develop effective post-school services
• the support of the Strategic Officers (separately covered in Chapter 8) has been crucial to the development of PSPS
• the extra resources provided to support Pathfinders have been the key factor in the development of an effective range of post-school services.

Evidence considered

3.2 The assessment of the development of PSPS in Pathfinders and non-Pathfinders has comprised the following strands of evidence:

• questionnaires completed at two time-sampling points by principal educational psychologists and other key staff in all 32 psychological services in Scotland (Annex 2)
• individual follow-up interviews conducted with the principal psychologists and other key staff of all 32 services in May/June 2005 and again in February/March 2006
• a meeting with the psychologists responsible for PSPS in the Tayside cluster in June 2005 and again in March 2006
• a meeting with educational psychologists in training at Dundee University regarding their practice placements
• questionnaires completed by educational psychologists in training at Dundee and Strathclyde Universities
• visits to PSPS Network meetings in October 2004, February 2005, June 2005 and January 2006
• the documentation provided by psychological services regarding their PSPS development.

3.3 The questionnaires were completed in relation to the position of services as at 1 April 2005 and as at 1 March 2006. They covered: basic particulars of staffing, including PSPS staffing; whether services were provided to the post-school sector and how these services were organised; perceptions of the level of service delivery across a wide range of functions; views on the benefits of clustering; current and anticipated development of PSPS; barriers and gaps in delivering services; and views on ideal services and effectiveness. In addition, the second questionnaire included questions on implications of PSPS for the profession of educational psychology in Scotland. Further questions on the support of the Strategic Officers are covered separately in Chapter 8.

3.4 Where the questionnaire data differentiate between the first and the second evaluative exercises the results have been shown separately for April 2005 and for March 2006. In those cases where the first and second questionnaires show no significant difference for any particular question the data from the two questionnaires have been combined.

Staffing for PSPS

3.5 Questionnaire returns from the 12 Pathfinders indicated that the agreed extra 9.6 psychologists for PSPS were all in post as at April 2005, with start dates that ranged from April to November 2004. At March 2006 2 Pathfinders indicated vacancies of 0.5 FTE. In one case the position had not in fact changed since April 2005, but as the service had been unable to find a replacement for the 0.5 FTE allocated to PSPS from existing staffing they now chose to record this as a vacancy. In the other service the 0.5 FTE shortfall represented the total allocation to one sector of a city service. In one other Pathfinder a full-time member of staff who contributed 0.4 FTE to the PSPS team had been on long-term sickness leave for 9 months. This meant that there was effectively a vacancy equivalent to 1.4 FTE in Pathfinder staffing across these 3 services. However, in every case alternative arrangements had been made through allocation of other staff to ensure continuity in PSPS work. In effect, the agreed extra 9.6 FTE psychologists had been fully deployed for PSPS.

3.6 The vacancies noted above should be seen in the wider context of educational psychologist complements and vacancies which is of general significance to all aspects of psychological service delivery. Over a 10 year period, the FTE of educational psychologists has increased from 275 (1995) to 417 (2005) ⁵, an overall increase of 51%. The overall staffing position ⁶ for the duration of the Pathfinder project (2004 - present), is summarised in Table 3.1. The extra 9.6 staff for PSPS are additional to the figures shown.

Table 3.1 Vacancies as at February

3.7 Staffing issues are of considerable importance when new areas of service delivery are being developed. PSPS is an area to which services are committed in principle, and one that is promoted in official reports such as the Beattie and Currie reports. It is not part of the direct statutory functions of services outlined in section 4 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 and its amendments, and when there are staffing shortages the first priority of services is to ensure that these direct duties are met. However, PSPS supports local authorities in fulfilling several of their wider statutory remits, including the new statutory requirements placed upon councils by the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004. A small amount of additional staffing has allowed the profession to develop these roles efficiently in the Pathfinder authorities, and these resources have been crucial to the progress made.

3.8 All Pathfinders provided detailed accounts of how their additional staffing had been allocated to PSPS activity. Ten of the Pathfinders treated PSPS mainly as a specialist rather than a generic area, with key members of staff allocated to this specialism. In the remaining 2 Pathfinders PSPS was based more on a generic service delivery model. In one of these most psychologists were given a time allocation for post-school work, with a smaller number of psychologists acting as PSPS co-ordinators within teams. In the other the main PSPS emphasis was on secondary school transition, with psychologists following through their own cases, but with a service-wide PSPS focus group to set the agenda, share information and monitor activity.

3.9 By contrast, only one non-Pathfinder service made any staffing allocation to PSPS. This was at the level of 0.3 FTE. This factor in itself highlights the key significance of the provision of specific staffing resources to support developments in this area.

Service delivery for PSPS

3.10 The differences between Pathfinders and non-Pathfinders were stark in relation to whether they provided post-school services. All of the 12 Pathfinders were delivering significant levels of specific and targeted PSPS at both time points, and all provided detailed accounts of these services and their development. In sharp contrast, only 12 (60%) of non-Pathfinders gave a positive response to whether they were providing any PSPS at 1 April 2005, rising to 14 (70%) at 1 March 2006.

3.11 Where PSPS was being provided by non-Pathfinders, the extent of provision made also showed stark differences in comparison with Pathfinder services. In many cases such services were minimal. The covering letter from one service very much represented the position of several others:

'Please find attached what euphemistically could be termed a "completed" PSPS questionnaire. Apologies for the paucity of information that it contains. Although we do occasionally become involved with post-school providers it is very much on an ad hoc basis and relatively rare.'

Two non-Pathfinders wrote 'a complete blank for everything' in relation to current and anticipated developments.

3.12 Of the 12 non-Pathfinders who said they provided PSPS at 1 April 2005, 3 referred to ' ad hoc involvement' on an occasional basis. Others stated: 'minimal advice and consultancy', 'primarily it is to follow up young people already known to the service' and 'occasional requests by young adults leaving school'. At 1 March 2006 one of these authorities indicated that it no longer provided PSPS, pointing to a context of significant staffing shortages. At this stage 3 new services provided PSPS, and the services provided by some others had been strengthened, with frequent reference made to links established with the post-school sector to take forward the requirements of the Additional Support for Learning Act. The general theme of ad hoc involvement with individual cases was still apparent in many non-Pathfinder services:

'Only in exceptional cases where there is a clear rationale for follow up say into specialised FE.'

3.13 A small number of non-Pathfinders referred to more structured post-school services. The service which made a time allocation of 0.3 FTE to a senior psychologist for PSPS participated on the Council's multi-agency group for supporting transition planning for vulnerable young people post-16, chaired a sub-group on activities such as integrating post-16 services into a staged assessment and intervention model and was taking PSPS forward in a number of other areas. This service had an interest in and commitment to PSPS but had made a conscious decision not to apply for Pathfinder funding until their post-school services were under way and they were in a position to identify what shape they would wish PSPS to take and how they would deliver it.

3.14 By way of contrast, 3 Pathfinder services had formed a cluster to share planning and contacts regarding PSPS, with an identified member of staff from each service meeting every 2 months. In one of these services linkages had been formed with the local college to prepare an audit of needs. In another a structure for PSPS had been prepared in anticipation of future developments, and there was considerable enthusiasm about taking it forward. In all 3 services the maximisation of staffing for PSPS through collaborative working across authority boundaries was emphasised.

3.15 Figure 3.1 shows the significant differences between Pathfinders and others in answer to the question, 'How would you describe the overall level of post-school psychological service delivery within your service?', using a 5-point rating scale ranging from 'very little to 'very high'. The differences were already highly significant in April 2005, but by March 2006 the overall level of PSPS was rated significantly higher again by Pathfinders than for the previous year. The non-Pathfinder figure had also gone up, but the increase did not reach significance. In April 2005, while one-third of the Pathfinders rated their service delivery as being 'high', with none in the 'very little' category, none of the non-Pathfinders reached the 'high' rating while 11 (55%) of them estimated 'very little'. By March 2006, while the non-Pathfinder figures were very similar to the previous year, more than half the Pathfinders (58%) chose the 'high' rating, and none chose either the 'very little' or the 'little' category.

3.16 Findings on estimated levels of service delivery showed similar consistent differences between Pathfinders and others throughout all categories of question, covering consultation, assessment and intervention, training and development, and action research and project work. The general trend was one in which the extent of the differences increased between the first and second evaluative exercises.

Figure 3.1 Overall level of PSPS delivery (self-estimates of psychological services)

3.17 It was not only in level but also in structure of service delivery that Pathfinders and others differed. In April 2005, when services were asked to rate on the same scale their structured arrangements for services to the post-school sector, such as negotiated service level agreements ( SLAs), only 3 of the 12 Pathfinders put 'very little', while 17 of the 20 non-Pathfinders used this rating. By March 2006 the figures had shown a significant increase for Pathfinders but not for others. At this stage only one Pathfinder used the 'very little' rating, but it was chosen by all but one of the non-Pathfinders. The results are shown in Figure 3.2.

Figure 3.2 Structured arrangements/ SLAs (self-estimates of psychological services)

3.18 Figure 3.2 indicates that while structures such as service level agreements were more in place with Pathfinders, they were still at an early stage of development. This was explored further in follow-up interviews. While a number of SLAs had been established, the consistent response from several Pathfinders was that ' SLAs are not yet appropriate but this will develop later - it is necessary to build the foundations first'. These responses very much mirrored the experience psychological services had of introducing new ways of working to schools a number of years ago, where the idea of a negotiated agreement for a range of services other than standard casework was a novel one (Vassie & Watson, 1990). As one service commented:

'Some post-school providers are still learning how to use us - there is a big job in getting that sector to understand what we are able to offer.'

This position developed considerably from the first to the second evaluative exercise, with Pathfinder services indicating that more services were becoming embedded, and service level agreements becoming more routine.

3.19 Figures 3.3 to 3.5 show the ratings for 'strategic involvement' with reference to the questions on general consultation, strategic planning, and research and project work. Again the differences are highly significant at both time points.

Figure 3.3 'Strategic involvement' 1: general consultation (self-estimates of psychological services)

Figure 3.4 'Strategic involvement' 2: strategic planning (self-estimates of psychological services)

Figure 3.5 'Strategic involvement' 3: research (self-estimates of psychological services)

3.20 When these three strands of strategic involvement - general consultation, strategic planning, and research and project work - are viewed separately the changes in ratings between April 2005 and March 2006 fall short of significance on the whole. The only exception is for the change in non-Pathfinder ratings for general consultation, which showed a significant increase. Two comments may be made here. First, this change is consistent with the questionnaire and follow-up interview data gathered from non-Pathfinders, some of whom had established new links with the post-school sector, particularly in relation to consultation over the Additional Support for Learning Act. It should also be noted that both here and for all other questions it was easier for non-Pathfinders to achieve measurable change because of their low baseline in April 2005. As some Pathfinders were already at or near the top of the available scores, with ratings of 'high' or 'very high', they did not have the same scope for showing improvement.

3.21 When the ratings for strategic involvement are combined for the three questions discussed above, the gradient of change between April 2005 and March 2006 is significant in favour of Pathfinders. That is, the overall level of ratings for this area showed a greater increase for Pathfinders than for others. The results are shown in Figure 3.6.

Figure 3.6 'Strategic involvement': combined scores (self-estimates of psychological services)

3.22 Figure 3.7 shows the pattern of responses for training and development. The differences between Pathfinders and others are apparent, and the gradient of these differences increased between the 2 evaluative exercises. In April 2005 only one Pathfinder rated this as being 'high', but by March 2006 more than half (58%) rated it as either 'high' or 'very high'.

Figure 3.7 Training and development (self-estimates of psychological services)

3.23 The responses to the questions relating to work with individual young people were of interest. The model of PSPS service delivery proposed in the Interim Report (Boyle, Crichton & Hellier, 2003) and promoted with Pathfinders by the Strategic Officers was a systemic one that deliberately focused on consultation, training, action research and strategic work rather than working with individual young people. This reflected both the realistic nature of available resources and also the articulated advantages of this model for services to the post-school sector. While non-Pathfinders often stressed that their work at post-school level focused mainly on services to referred young people, it was expected that Pathfinder services would have a more systemic focus.

3.24 This, however, did not result in lower levels of services to individuals from the Pathfinders, as will be seen from Figure 3.8. The trend, if anything, was towards higher levels of individual service from the Pathfinders, although the figures did not reach significance levels either in April 2005 or in March 2006. Therefore, although the Pathfinders were focusing on a systemic rather than an individual model of service delivery, their relatively modest involvement with individuals in no respect fell short of the levels of non-Pathfinders.

Figure 3.8 Work with individuals (self-estimates of psychological services)

Current and anticipated PSPS developments

3.25 The most striking differences between Pathfinders and others were in response to the questions on current and anticipated PSPS developments. Services were asked first to name up to 3 significant developments in their PSPS service delivery since the same time in the previous year. This was done under each of the headings of consultation, assessment and intervention, training and development and action research. The most interesting feature of these responses was not so much the content itself but the simple number of developments that services stated. Whereas Pathfinders generated a large amount of examples both in April 2005 and in March 2006, very few by comparison were generated by non-Pathfinders. The results are shown in Figure 3.9.

Figure 3.9 Current developments in PSPS (psychological services)

3.26 Services were then asked to name up to 3 anticipated developments in their PSPS service delivery by the same time in the following year. A similar pattern emerged, as shown in Figure 3.10. These figures pointed to the expectation that over the course of one year the gradient of development in PSPS between Pathfinders and others would have increased still further. This has been validated in the results shown throughout this chapter.

Figure 3.10 Anticipated developments in PSPS (psychological services)

Barriers to and gaps in service delivery

3.27 Services were asked, 'What barriers do you face in the provision of PSPS?' The responses at both time points sharply divided Pathfinders and others. Overwhelmingly, non-Pathfinders stated that the key barrier was the lack of staffing resources to service this area. The Pathfinders, on the other hand, put the issue of staffing in a quite different context. Several Pathfinders did not mention staffing at all for this question. Those who did refer to it did so in the positive context of recognising the obvious limitations of a limited resource for a new and large area of work. They also tended to refer to it as only one of several barriers, most of which were professional challenges to do with the work itself.

3.28 This is reflected in the following responses, first from Pathfinders:

'Inevitably there is a limitation, rather than a barrier, on the provision which the service can make due to the limited amount of staff time which can be allocated to this area of work, relative to the potential demand.'

'High demand has been expressed by stakeholders for PSPS (appropriately at a strategic level) in comparison to service availability at this time.'

'Raising expectations of stakeholders and not being able to deliver if service limited to 0.5 FTE.'

As PSPS work developed in the Pathfinders it was clear that a valuable service could be rendered to a very wide range of agencies serving vulnerable young adults, and that the available service was touching only 'the tip of the iceberg'. In March 2006 one Pathfinder responded:

'We have created a great demand for the service - could offer a full-time post and there would still be more demand than we could meet.'

3.29 However, the extent to which services had already developed in the Pathfinders opened up a much wider range of 'barriers' or challenges than were mentioned by non-Pathfinders. These included: confidentiality and information-sharing issues; 'structure of services not lending to continuity of care'; 'new terminology, differing working practices and environments'; 'boundaries of agencies are not co-terminous with each other or us'; '[lack of] opportunities for delivering training and development work'; and the large range of post-school service providers, many of whom were operating in isolation from any network, leading to difficulties in economies of scale in service delivery. The challenge of dealing effectively with the most vulnerable populations was also noted:

'Inaccessibility of NEET population - just by their nature they can be unwilling to take up or engage with services.'

3.30 By contrast, almost every one of the 20 non-Pathfinders raised staffing as a barrier. All but one of these placed it first, and indeed almost half of the services mentioned only staffing and no other subject for this question. The following was a typical response:

'Because the remit is not statutory, it is likely that any input would depend on additional funding and staffing.'

3.31 Almost all services gave a response to the question, 'What do you consider are the main gaps in your psychological service delivery to the post-school sector?', and those who did not do so were non-Pathfinder services that indicated that they provided no service at all and therefore left much of the questionnaire blank. As with all other sections of the questionnaire, this question again showed clear differences between Pathfinders and others.

3.32 The gaps identified by Pathfinders were those that were apparent in the course of already making significant strides in the post-school field. For several services the key factor highlighted, especially in the first evaluative exercise, was the time required in a new arena to develop contextual knowledge of the field and to know how systems work:

'Still in early stages. Most of first year has been spent on making links with stakeholders, identifying priorities and developing contextual knowledge.'

'Knowledge of post-school systems and key people within organisations - this is being addressed in a systematic way.'

The responses of the Pathfinders were generally in the context of noting that some services had become established, but that others had still not been tackled:

'Service to [the] college is well developed and is now established as a regular input to all college provision. Input to other service providers is much less well developed.'

'Scope for development in all core functions. Our focus has been mainstream disengaged young people which dovetails with the authority's priority to raise attainment and improve destination statistics. A direct service to training providers and colleges has not been tackled yet.'

By the time of the second evaluative exercise in March 2006 several services were indicating in their questionnaires and on follow-up interview that post-school services were becoming embedded in routine practice in much the same way that extensions to school-age service delivery had become embedded in previous decades.

3.33 Almost all of the non-Pathfinders who responded here simply highlighted the fact that there were gaps 'across the board' or that there was no service provided: 'We do not have a PSPS - so there are gaps in all areas'. Specific gaps identified included lack of training input to Scotland's Colleges and the absence of action research and project work. There was also a sense of perhaps raising expectations and then failing to meet them:

'Without additional staffing resources it would be unacceptable to explore the provision of a service which cannot then be delivered.'

One non-Pathfinder highlighted staffing not just as a barrier to service provision but also as a barrier even to identifying where the gaps might be:

'Without the available staffing resources to carry out an audit of need I really cannot answer this question.'

Cluster working

3.34 The establishment of clusters of local services working together aimed to support development in a number of areas, including sharing service brochures (differentiated locally) and devising transition forms and training materials (Hellier & Crichton, 2005). Almost all services recognised the benefits or potential benefits of cluster working for PSPS delivery. These were defined mainly as follows:

• sharing good practice
• links with area-wide providers
• ease of transitions for young people crossing authority boundaries
• joint training opportunities
• support from colleagues
• avoidance of overlap and duplication
• benefits of working in a larger group
• economies of scale
• drawing on a wider skill base
• consistency and coherence in service delivery.

Only 2 areas saw limitations in the opportunities for cluster working, owing to their geographical location and remoteness from other authorities.

3.35 In addition to information provided on cluster working in questionnaires and individual interviews, meetings were held in June 2005 and again in March 2006 with the psychologists working on PSPS in the 3 services forming the Tayside cluster, Perth & Kinross, Dundee and Angus. The developments in this cluster are shown in Box 3.1 as an example of cluster working.

Box 3.1 Cluster working

Interviews with key personnel in the Tayside cluster

The psychologists specialising in PSPS for the Tayside cluster (Perth & Kinross, Dundee and Angus) gave an account of their experience of cluster working. Their account reflects also the discussions held in individual interviews in services associated with other clusters.

At the time of the first interview in June 2005 the focus was on auditing and identifying needs. At the second interview in March 2006 the focus had become service delivery and evaluation and feedback from stakeholders.

The cluster developed in a progressive way, starting with fortnightly meetings for the purpose of peer support, sharing interests and planning PSPS developments. From this, local initiatives were planned and carried out, and shared with the cluster. Finally, joint working developed throughout Tayside. By March 2006 this included a new Tayside-wide group facilitated by PSPS involving Scottish Enterprise, Careers Scotland, some Get Ready for Work providers and the psychological service. In addition, the cluster had promoted a context in which services supported each other for local initiatives. For example, the psychologist from one service helped with post-school training in one of the other services.

Some of the developments extended beyond the boundaries of the cluster. For example, there had been joint involvement of Tayside and Fife, and also discussions regarding the involvement of 2 non-Pathfinder services in the north-east.

Benefits experienced in cluster working included:

• peer support and promotion of good practice
• joint planning and service delivery of both cluster work and local work
• efficiency in service delivery
• promoting consistency in services provided
• spin-off benefits for other areas of psychological practice.

In relation to benefits for other areas of practice, examples were given of Person-Centred Planning, where the work done for PSPS in the cluster had raised implications for service delivery to other age groups also, and of collaborative working between psychologists, offering more creative models for service delivery to the school sector.

All of the specialist psychologists in the cluster provided feedback to their services on post-school developments, so that all staff could be informed of progress and the specialist work would be coherently integrated in the overall work of the service.

It was felt that prior to the cluster 'services have been insular at best, competitive at worst', and that clustering had promoted shared models of good post-school practice. They had provided 'a springboard to local developments to an extent that would not have been possible otherwise'.

Supporting transition

3.36 Supporting the transition process from secondary school to post-school provision was given a place of such centrality at both time points by Pathfinders and non-Pathfinders alike both in questionnaire returns and in follow-up interviews that it merits separate consideration. When services were asked to state the single most valuable service they were providing at post-school level by far the most common response related to transition. Of the 12 Pathfinders, 10 gave this a central place. Aspects of the transition process were selected by 7 as the most valuable service they were currently providing, and 3 others listed it as one of the 3 most important services that would be provided as part of ideal PSPS provision. The responses of non-Pathfinders were very similar, although more difficult to quantify because of the number of non-Pathfinders that were currently offering no post-school services. Of the 12 who completed the question on the most valuable service they were providing, 7 selected transition, with a further 3 referring to it in their list of 'ideal services'.

3.37 All of the Pathfinders had invested their PSPS resources extensively in improving the transition process, and in some cases it was the most central feature of their post-school activity. The projects undertaken in this field were wide ranging, and related to all of the core functions of consultation, assessment and intervention, training and development, and action research. For this reason it is difficult to suggest that any particular Pathfinders should be taken as an exemplar of good practice, but two illustrations are given in Boxes 3.2 and 3.3 of some of the transition work carried out in Edinburgh and in South Lanarkshire respectively.

3.38 Many other examples of good practice could be highlighted. These include the following. In one Pathfinder the psychological service was instrumental in leading to the appointment of a Transition Co-ordinator. This post is managed by the psychological service and has key functions of: identifying all young people who are deemed to have a disability and are thought likely to experience difficulty with the transition from school to adulthood; ensuring that all young people understand the process and are assisted to express their views; and acting as key worker until young people are settled into employment or adult provision.

3.39 In another Pathfinder the psychological service focused on transition as the main PSPS activity for the first year of the pilot project. They designed a transition form and 'transition passport' for the authority as part of a wider process of co-ordinating and enhancing the overall transition process. In addition they carried out an audit of transition in secondary schools, investigating all aspects of the process including identifying professional responsibilities, obtaining the views of young people, considering the issues affecting those likely to be in the NEET group and planning for improved structures and systems. The psychological service therefore became the key agency for developing the process in ways that would be of benefit to the lives of vulnerable young people throughout the authority.

Box 3.2 Transition from school to adulthood

PSPS and the transition process in Edinburgh

The development of PSPS in Edinburgh, where 1.5 FTE additional staffing is allocated to a team of 3, supported by the principal psychologist, has included a very wide range of initiatives to enhance the transition of young people from school to adulthood.

These include the following:

• a stakeholder event to disseminate transition activities
• a transition form piloted with a secondary school and a college
• entry of the transition form in the City of Edinburgh guidelines to the Code of Practice
• development of a combined transition form in collaboration with Health and Social Care
• 'tea and transition' meetings twice a term to which other colleagues in the post-school sector are invited
• setting up a library section of post-school transition materials for reference of psychologists and other colleagues
• a commission to draft a transition planning document for the authority
• evaluation of the Post S4 Transition Partnership
• a research project on the views of carers and young people with very high additional support needs at transition to post-school
• a literature review on post-school transition and Scottish legislation

Box 3.3 Transition from school to adulthood

Transition research in South Lanarkshire

The Transition Survey carried out by the Pathfinder Team constituted a major piece of research for session 2004-05. The aims were to gain a view of current transition practices and protocols within the authority for young people moving on from school, to evaluate good practice and to make recommendations regarding any identified gaps in provision. The research involved:

• development of a questionnaire/interview schedule that identified current transition arrangements in secondary schools across the authority
• reporting of common features and major differences
• identification of a core set of desirable features/best practice in transition
• consultation with key stakeholders on a transition protocol and a single authority approach to transitions.

The 3 members of the team conducted 53 interviews in all secondary schools including specialist provision, allowing a comprehensive picture to be developed of the transition process. Interview duration ranged from 45-90 minutes, and although time consuming was justified in that it achieved a 100% response rate from all 31 secondary schools. This provided valuable information regarding transition arrangements for all senior pupils generally and for those identified as having more individualised needs. The Council responded very positively to the research and it was agreed it could be pivotal in the development of a single authority approach to post-school transitions. The report has been circulated to key partner agencies and is already being used to influence the updated Future Needs operating procedures in the light of the Additional Support for Learning Act.

Ideal services and effectiveness

3.40 Services were asked to state what they felt were the 3 most important contributions for PSPS to make and then to rate how effectively they felt they were making each of these contributions. The scale used was 0-10 where 0 = contribution not currently being made at all, and 10 = the current contribution represents an 'ideal' service. The main purpose of this question was to allow services to assess their contribution in relation to their own agenda, rather than to ask them to assess themselves for services they might not have chosen to provide.

3.41 The different levels of Pathfinder and non-Pathfinder development were very evident here. Figures 3.11 and 3.12 show the average responses for each of the 3 contributions at each time point, together with a combined figure for all 3. These ratings confirm that the Pathfinders viewed themselves as still having a long way to go in PSPS service delivery but that they had nevertheless made considerable progress towards their goal. PSPS in non-Pathfinders was rated on average as being at a very low level.

3.42 As these three ratings related to the choices made by services themselves, and as the choices made by any one service were not always identical at each time point (although they were mostly the same or broadly similar), statistical comparisons of the change from April 2005 to March 2006 for each of the 3 items would not be appropriate. However, the general message of these results is clear, namely, that Pathfinder and non-Pathfinder services showed marked differences in the extent to which they viewed themselves as providing their chosen services effectively.

Figure 3.11 Delivery of 'ideal services': self-ratings (psychological services 1 April 2005)

Figure 3.12 Delivery of 'ideal services': self-ratings (psychological services 1 March 2006)

3.43 One further aspect of the difference between Pathfinders and non-Pathfinders in their choice of 'ideal services' was revealing. The responses of the Pathfinders on the whole were quite specific, such as:

'Support the development of a high quality transition planning process for all young people including encouraging joined-up working, the development of a shared framework for assessment and an improved flow of high quality information.'

The responses of non-Pathfinders were quite different in that they were very much more general on the whole. In many cases the answer to 'ideal services' constituted a mere entry of core functions of psychological services, such as 'consultation', 'training' or 'research'. This very much highlighted the different levels of PSPS development in Pathfinders and others. The one group was clearly much more knowledgeable and experienced in the issues arising in post-school work.

3.44 Finally, services were asked which of 5 statements best described the overall effectiveness of their service in regard to PSPS. These extended from 'no real effectiveness as yet', through 'little effectiveness', 'in between', 'moderately effective' and 'highly effective'. Figure 3.13 shows the results, and once more these place Pathfinders and non-Pathfinders in a very different position. For both time points the lowest rating selected by a Pathfinder service was in between 'little' and 'moderate' effectiveness, while this was the highest rating selected by any non-Pathfinder service, with around half of the non-Pathfinders selecting the lowest rating available on both occasions - 'no real effectiveness'.

Figure 3.13 Overall PSPS effectiveness: self-ratings (psychological services)

National Network meetings

3.45 The evaluation has been informed by visits to PSPS Network meetings in October 2004, February 2005, June 2005 and January 2006. These have provided detailed illustrations of the extent of PSPS activity in Pathfinder services, of the plans made for the extension of that activity and of the links established with Scotland's Colleges, Careers Scotland, Scottish Enterprise and a wide range of other training and service providers. They have also acted as a forum for peer support and for sharing good practice, and the extent to which they have been attended both by Pathfinders and by others has pointed to their key role in promoting PSPS developments throughout Scotland. The availability of the minutes of all meetings on the PSPS website, together with supporting materials such as presentations given at the meetings, has further identified the Network as a central forum for advancing PSPS. The contribution of the Network is considered further in Chapter 8 as part of the role of Strategic Officers.

Documentation

3.46 The evaluation process has been further informed by the documentation gathered from psychological services and from post-school services with which they have worked. This has been gathered both from Pathfinders and from non-Pathfinders. However, the overwhelming bulk of relevant documentation is understandably generated in relation to the 12 Pathfinders. This has constituted a vast corpus of evidence to which reference has constantly been made by the researchers in informing the comments made on all aspects of the evaluation. It has included the following categories of documents:

• the original bids and supporting documentation on the basis of which the Pathfinders planned their proposed services and were selected for the project
• the updates from Pathfinders of their progress, as available on the PSPS website
• service development plans
• examples of materials and resources prepared by services, including transition forms, a 'transition passport' and a 'School Leaver Passport', leaflets for young people, for parents, for schools and for other agencies on post-school services offered
• a wide range of audits of provision and of need
• outlines of training packages offered to colleges and other post-school providers
• seminar programmes and presentations
• evaluations of training and other activities
• evaluations conducted by psychological services of other post-school provisions
• research studies
• PSPS newsletters for psychological service staff and other professionals
• service level agreements with post-school agencies

Examples of a variety of all of these documents have been provided by all 12 Pathfinders. As well as providing a considerable volume of specific evidence to support the evaluation, the extent of the documentation has been self-defining as a strand of evidence in its own right. It has demonstrated comprehensively the full extent of the differences in levels of PSPS development between Pathfinders and others.

Implications for educational psychology

3.47 The extension of psychological services into the post-school sector has considerable implications for educational psychology as a profession. Although it is not within the scope of this report to explore this area in depth, it is nevertheless a topic to which reference may properly be made, since PSPS delivery will develop most effectively in a profession that has clear aims and a coherent rationale. The opportunity was therefore taken to invite principal psychologists to provide views on this subject.

3.48 For this purpose the questionnaire sent to psychological services for the second evaluative exercise included an additional section on 'implications for educational psychology practice'. This covered implications relating to the extension of practice into adult ages; to individual as opposed to systemic and strategic work; to educational psychology as a distinct discipline; to generic versus specialist working; to the scope of the profession as focusing on vulnerable young people or the whole population; to the provenance of educational psychology as an education authority service; and general implications for practice and for training. In addition to qualitative responses, each of these topics was rated on a 5-point scale where 1 = minor implications and 5 = major implications.

3.49 Principal psychologists were asked to complete these questions themselves but also to invite colleagues in their services to complete them if they wished to do so. Of the 32 psychological service questionnaires returned, 28 included responses to this section, although in 4 of these cases the rating scale was not used as it was felt difficult to provide a score. In addition, 9 other psychologists responded, making a total of 37 returns.

3.50 The purpose of this questionnaire was not to look for differences between Pathfinders and others but rather to obtain a range of views from the field regarding the wider implications of providing services to the post-school sector. All of the questionnaires were therefore treated as a single data set and it was clear from inspection of the results that they did not merit subdivision into groups. Responses were wide ranging from both Pathfinders and others, and from both principal psychologists and other staff. Nevertheless, despite the range of views expressed, some key themes emerged. Figure 3.14 summarises the results.

Figure 3.14 Implications for educational psychology

3.51 There was broad agreement that PSPS would have significant implications for the profession across every area identified in the questionnaire. The most significant implication in the view of respondents, however, was for the provenance of educational psychology as a profession currently embedded within local authority structures, and generally within departments responsible for education functions. It was recognised that key features of PSPS break new ground that is not only beyond the traditional scope of education departments but that also involves service delivery to establishments and organisations outwith local authority structures. It means providing services to bodies some of which are part of a national structure, such as Scotland's Colleges, and others of which are independent companies, such as some of the Get Ready for Work providers funded by Scottish Enterprise.

3.52 The next most important area was the implications of extending educational psychology practice into the adult age range. However, although this was viewed as a significant step for the profession, it was construed more in practical than in theoretical terms. It was not so much the fact that educational psychologists were moving outwith the realm of child and adolescent psychology but more the practical reality that they required to become familiar with a whole new range of structures, placements and settings of which they had little experience. Within that context it was not viewed by most respondents as crucial whether the practice of psychology related to young persons and young adults or to any other age range. The idea of providing services not only up to age 24 but also beyond that age was therefore seen as a natural progression of established practice.

3.53 Close in level of importance to the above areas was the implications of PSPS for educational psychology as a distinct discipline. It was generally felt that while the profession operates from a distinct body of knowledge and practice, this does not limit it to education functions. A recurrent theme was that educational psychologists are uniquely placed in bridging work with the individual and work at systemic or organisational level. Within an educational context they are the only professionals whose functions relate to direct work with the individual young person and family, to developmental work at the level of the organisation or establishment and to work at the education authority or council level, in relation both to the individual and to strategic and policy issues. This linked also with the next area seen to be of importance, namely, the scope of the profession and whether it should be dealing with the vulnerable sector of society or the whole population. It was widely felt that educational psychologists have the most extensive knowledge of young people with additional support needs, but that they have a much wider contribution to make through their knowledge of theories of learning and development in their application to the whole population.

3.54 Closely following the above areas in importance were the implications of PSPS for general practice and for training. To some extent the experience of PSPS had opened up new areas of partnership working that could inform practice at all other levels. There were also issues arising from the national dimension of PSPS and from cluster working that could have implications for how work is carried out in relation to children and young people of school age. At the same time some respondents felt that the question should be answered in reverse, and that models of practice developed for the earlier years should inform good practice for PSPS.

3.55 As to implications for training, it was recognised that the university courses must take account of the developing role of services in relation to post-school work. It was generally felt, however, that since the question of age was not in itself a crucial factor in determining educational psychology practice, so also the issue of adaptations to training programmes did not imply major conceptual change, but rather a broadening of practical experience of post-school placements, settings, networks and organisational structures.

3.56 Finally, the two areas that were rated lowest were the implications of PSPS for individual versus systemic or strategic working and for generic versus specialist work. It was generally recognised that systemic work arises from knowledge and practice in relation to working with individuals; that both individual and systemic working are required for every age group; and that good practice is a matter of balancing the efficient use of resources with the identified needs arising in any sector of work. In terms of viewing PSPS as a specialism, it was not seen as being any different from other areas of practice. It required a large amount of special knowledge of individuals, structures and settings, but so also did many other fields of work in relation to every age group. It was appropriate therefore to have a similar model in which all psychologists have generic experience of the whole field of practice, but with the opportunity for specialist expertise to be developed where appropriate.

3.57 In summary, it is concluded that PSPS has very significant implications for the practice of educational psychology. Nevertheless, the extension of the profession into this area has been widely welcomed, and has been viewed as a natural progression of educational psychology practice involving a range of new challenges which the profession is ready to embrace.

Further notes on psychological service interviews

3.58 In addition to the observations supported by psychological service individual interviews throughout this chapter, an extensive volume of further information was obtained in the course of carrying out these interviews. The most important message arising from the interviews was that they provided in sharp relief the detailed validating evidence of: the marked differences between Pathfinders and non-Pathfinders in developing a wide range of PSPS; the increasing divergence between Pathfinders and non-Pathfinders in extent of PSPS between April 2005 and March 2006; and the overwhelming lack of structured post-school developments in the vast majority of non-Pathfinders, other than existing commitments to individual young people at the stage of transition from secondary school.

3.59 All of the Pathfinders had PSPS developments to report in the interviews conducted in May and June 2005, and all had new developments to discuss in March 2006. All had provided detailed accounts of their initiatives in the updates made available on the PSPS website. The general impression was of services gradually becoming embedded as part of established service delivery, and systematically being extended across post-school services in Scotland's Colleges, Careers Scotland and other training and service providers.

3.60 By contrast, the interviews with non-Pathfinders, while highlighting their willingness to take forward PSPS, also highlighted the barriers they faced in doing so and the extent of the gaps in their service provision. In March 2006 several of the non-Pathfinders made it clear that there was nothing to form the basis for a second interview as there had been no change since the previous one. At the same time, it must be recognised that several non-Pathfinders were undertaking valuable PSPS work without additional resources. This included the following specific examples: training provided to college staff on a range of issues associated with additional support needs; structured links developed with colleges, Careers Scotland and other post-school providers to improve transition from secondary school; a cognitive behaviour therapy programme for a young person who had become housebound because of obsessive compulsive disorder to enable him to return to school for exams and then to proceed successfully to college. Box 3.4 illustrates the practice developed in one non-Pathfinder service that had allocated specific staffing resources to develop PSPS.

Box 3.4 PSPS in a non-Pathfinder service: the example of East Lothian

East Lothian Psychological Service did not make a bid for Pathfinder funding, having decided first to carry out some initial work to identify what they would expect from a post-school service and how it would be delivered. From their existing staffing resources, which in March 2006 were experiencing a 45% shortfall in terms of vacant posts, they had allocated a 0.3 FTE remit for post-school work to a senior psychologist.

The tasks include participation in the Council's 'Towards Independence Group', which is concerned with developing a multi-agency framework for supporting transition planning for vulnerable young people post-16. The psychologist has been in a sub-group looking at:

• creating an integrated framework for transition
• producing a transition directory of services for young people
• making a presentation at the Council's transition seminar.

Other PSPS tasks include:

• attendance at national PSPS network meetings
• attendance at Lothian cluster Pathfinder meetings
• regular meetings with an adjoining Pathfinder to identify shared needs and plan joint responses
• participation in the Lothian Learning Disability Strategy Review.

These post-school services had been developed despite lack of additional resources and current staffing exigencies. However, the service clearly faced significant issues regarding the sustainability of these initiatives and the resource issue was a crucial one.

3.61 In summary, Pathfinder interviews were characterised by:

• extensive PSPS initiatives
• illustrations of the benefits experienced in cluster working
• many exemplars of good practice
• heightened awareness of extent of PSPS need
• the challenge of changing expectations of service providers
• lessons in the challenge of embedding new practice in core service delivery

3.62 Non-Pathfinder interviews were characterised by:

• enthusiasm to develop PSPS
• PSPS largely restricted to existing 0-19 remits
• post-school services not generally becoming embedded in service delivery
• nevertheless, some exemplars of good practice
• the frustration of working with service providers that were not forward looking
• overwhelmingly, the barriers faced by lack of resources to develop new services.

Experience of educational psychologists in training

3.63 Two strands of evidence were gathered from educational psychologists in training. First, a meeting was held in May 2005 with all of the trainees at the University of Dundee. Since the trainees were placed in a variety of Pathfinder and non-Pathfinders for their practice placements their experience and perceptions represented a useful contribution to the available evidence regarding PSPS development. Second, a questionnaire was sent to all trainees at the Universities of Dundee and Strathclyde to obtain additional data on their views of PSPS developments in their main practice placements (Annex 3).

3.64 For the meeting at the University of Dundee the trainees were divided according to whether or not the principal field placement was in a Pathfinder service. Prominent differences were noted between the 2 groups, and these differences reflect the points arising from all of the other strands of evidence. Those in Pathfinders outlined a range of post-school services of which they had experience, either at the level of discussion and observation or of direct involvement:

• consultation meetings with Scotland's Colleges and workplace training environments
• contributions to college training
• evaluation of the way in which Co-ordinated Support Plans were anticipated to be used at the transition stage
• evaluation of a literacy programme operated by a post-school provider
• planning the transition to post-school in 3 schools in the authority
• a needs analysis with secondaries and a college to plan development of services
• the normal range of work with individual young people with additional support needs.

3.65 By contrast, those in non-Pathfinders cited only one example of post-school work other than meetings at transition for individual young people. This was a service where psychologists met with adult services to plan for those going into post-school provision, with particular reference to a new post-school unit for young people with severe and complex learning difficulties. Other non-Pathfinder comments regarding PSPS were:

'absolutely none - there are no educational psychologists working at post-school level'

'there is no way for the service to tackle PSPS with current staffing.'

3.66 The questionnaire sent to educational psychologists in training was an abridged version of the questionnaire sent to principal psychologists, and was designed to cover the trainees' experience of their placements in psychological services in a way that would parallel the returns from the services. The questions included rating scales for various aspects of post-school service delivery, the opportunity to note current PSPS developments under the headings of consultation, assessment and intervention, training and action research, ratings for three post-school services they viewed as being ideal services and an overall rating for effectiveness. These questionnaires were anonymous, and did not identify the service in which trainees were placed, but only whether or not it was in one of the 12 Pathfinders.

3.67 Questionnaire returns were received from 27 trainees. This constituted 53% of the available trainees attending the two universities, and may be taken as a representative sample of all educational psychologists who are currently training in Scotland. The returns were obtained from trainees placed in both Pathfinder services (16 returns) and non-Pathfinder services (11 returns). Although all trainees were encouraged to submit a return whether or not their service was engaged in post-school work, a number of those placed in non-Pathfinder services nevertheless did not complete the return, indicating to programme staff that they had nothing to contribute. It is therefore likely that the differences reported between Pathfinders and others would have been still more prominent if these returns had been submitted. The results are shown in Figures 3.16 to 3.23.

3.68 Figure 3.15 shows the significant differences between Pathfinders and others in ratings for the overall level of post-school psychological service delivery, using the 5-point scale previously described. Just under half of the Pathfinders rated service delivery as being 'high', with none in the 'very little' category, while none of the non-Pathfinders reached the 'high' rating and all but 3 of them chose 'very little'.

Figure 3.15 Overall level of PSPS delivery (trainees in placement)

3.69 The same pattern appeared in relation to structured arrangements for services to the post-school sector, such as negotiated service level agreements ( SLAs). None of the non-Pathfinders chose a rating higher than 'little', while none of the Pathfinders chose a rating as low as that. The results are shown in Figure 3.16.

Figure 3.16 Structured arrangements/ SLAs (trainees in placement)

3.70 The ratings for 'strategic involvement', combining the responses for general consultation, strategic planning, and research and project work, are shown in Figure 3.17. Again the differences are very prominent.

Figure 3.17 'Strategic involvement' (trainees in placement)

3.71 Figure 3.18 shows the pattern of responses for training and development. Almost half of the Pathfinders rated this as 'high' or 'very high', while all but one of the non-Pathfinders chose the lowest 'very little' category.

Figure 3.18 Training and development (trainees in placement)

3.72 It was only in relation to work with individuals that the differences between Pathfinders and non-Pathfinders showed no significant differences (Figure 3.19). This applied to consultation regarding individual young people and to individual educational assessment. Support for individual young people with additional support needs after leaving school was significantly higher for Pathfinders, again confirming the observations made regarding the questionnaires from services. The endorsement of a largely strategic and systemic approach to PSPS in the Pathfinders did not take away from a commitment to individual work where it was required.

Figure 3.19 Work with individuals (trainees in placement)

3.73 The striking differences already reported between Pathfinders and others regarding their views on current development of PSPS were also apparent in trainees' responses. When asked to name up to 3 significant developments in PSPS service delivery under each of the headings of consultation, assessment and intervention, training and development and action research, the Pathfinder trainees generated significantly higher numbers of responses. This applied to all headings, with the smallest difference being for assessment and intervention. The results are shown in Figure 3.20.

Figure 3.20 Current developments in PSPS (trainees in placement)

3.74 Trainees were asked to state what they felt were the 3 most important contributions for PSPS to make and then to rate how effectively they felt that the service in which they were placed was making each of these contributions. The scale was as for principal psychologists, where 0 = contribution not currently being made at all, and 10 = the current contribution represents an 'ideal' service. It is recognised that a question of this kind involves obvious limitations. It was not expected that trainees should match the experience of senior colleagues in their estimates of what constitutes ideal services in this or any other sector of work. Also, services were being rated on how effectively they were making a contribution chosen by the trainee rather than by themselves. Nevertheless, the same systematic differences between Pathfinders and others were again apparent, and the results once more mirrored the views held by services for this question. Figure 3.21 shows the average responses for each of the 3 contributions, together with a combined figure for all 3.

Figure 3.21 Delivery of 'ideal services' (trainees in placement)

3.75 Finally, trainees were asked which of 5 statements best described the overall effectiveness of their placement in regard to PSPS, from 'no real effectiveness as yet' through to 'highly effective'. Figure 3.22 shows the results, and once more these place Pathfinders and non-Pathfinders in a very different position. Over one third of Pathfinders rated their placements as 'moderately' or 'highly effective', while none of the non-Pathfinders chose a rating as high as that and all but 3 chose the lowest - 'no real effectiveness as yet'.

Figure 3.22 Overall PSPS effectiveness (trainees in placement)

3.76 The results of the data gathered from trainees are clear and consistent. They may be summarised by noting that the marked differences between Pathfinders and non-Pathfinders reported by psychological services themselves are mirrored almost exactly by the trainees placed in them. These results are important, as educational psychologists in training are in a unique position to provide commentary on the views of principal psychologists regarding the work of their services. They spend considerable periods of time in their main placement; they generally have experience of more than one service; they constantly calibrate their experiences in a range of formal and informal ways against the experiences of other trainees; they are trained to observe and engage in critical appraisal of all aspects of professional practice; and they may be expected to exercise considerable independence in expressing their viewpoint, especially in an anonymous questionnaire.

Summary

3.77 This chapter has summarised the evaluative exercises carried out in psychological services throughout Scotland under the headings of: staffing, service delivery, current and anticipated PSPS developments, barriers to and gaps in service, cluster working, supporting transition, ideal services and effectiveness, national network meetings, documentation, implications for educational psychology and experience of educational psychologists in training. It has provided an overview of the results obtained both from questionnaires and individual interviews in relation to the 32 psychological services in Scotland.

3.78 The conclusions are that extensive differences have developed between Pathfinder and other services during the course of this initiative, and that the gradient of these differences has increased between the first and second evaluative exercises. While PSPS in non-Pathfinders was very limited and in many cases almost non-existent, Pathfinders have used their additional resources to develop a wide range of post-school services. Their own assessment of these services was that while they still had a considerable way to go they were making an effective contribution to the post-school field, and they anticipated significant further developments in the coming period. Joint development was maximised in services benefiting from cluster arrangements, demonstrating the start of improved delivery to key partners across authority boundaries.

3.79 The assessment made by services of their own PSPS contribution was supported in the evidence gathered from educational psychologists in training. Far-reaching implications for the profession of educational psychology have been recognised. The support of the Strategic Officers (covered separately in Chapter 8) has been crucial. The key factor in promoting service development, and in presenting a barrier to PSPS in non-Pathfinders, is the issue of additional resources.

« Previous | Contents | Next »