Standard 4: Undertaking comprehensive project development and delivery ACT-2 Respectful Relationships Project used a universal approach whereby entire Year 9 school cohorts were recruited to participate in the project. The one-day project was conducted across multiple days at a school with an intake of approximately 50 students per day. A ‘whole community’ approach enabled wide delivery and avoided the stigmatisation of targeted delivery to selected high-risk students. Estimates, based on the original target number of 5,600 students, suggest that 50% of young people aged 14-16 years in the selected areas received the project. The project had only a single session whole day duration which may not be adequate to allow for real and enduring change to occur, however targeting entire year 9 cohorts within the selected regions represented both whole-of-school and community level intervention. A whole-of-school approach is highly effective in facilitating a cultural shift at multiple levels of the school community and encourages ownership of the project by the school community itself. In addition, it is an ethical approach as young people cannot be expected to change in isolation, or opposition, to their environment. Standard 5: Using effective evaluation strategies An external evaluation was commissioned by the project however, due to the methodological, interpretational, and reporting inadequacies; the external evaluation did not inform our current evaluation of the project. It is understood that some organisations may contract out the evaluation component of their project due a lack of expertise in this area. In these instances, it is evident that projects may require additional supporting in engaging a suitably skilled external evaluator. Standard 6: Supporting thorough training and professional development of educators Few details are available relating to staff training and professional development. From the interview with the project representative it was ascertained that most of the facilitators were previously employed LifeCare counsellors with at least university level community services education and experience. In addition, facilitators were trained on the content and presentation of the project and also participated in a brief domestic violence information session and a session relating to mandatory reporting requirements. For these experienced staff, it appears that this level of training was adequate for facilitators involved in the ACT-2 Project.
Standard 4: Undertaking comprehensive project development and delivery ACT-2 Respectful Relationships Project used a universal approach whereby entire Year 9 school cohorts were recruited to participate in the project. The one-day project was conducted across multiple days at a school with an intake of approximately 50 students per day. A ‘whole community’ approach enabled wide delivery and avoided the stigmatisation of targeted delivery to selected high-risk students. Estimates, based on the original target number of 5,600 students, suggest that 50% of young people aged 14-16 years in the selected areas received the project. The project had only a single session whole day duration which may not be adequate to allow for real and enduring change to occur, however targeting entire year 9 cohorts within the selected regions represented both whole-of-school and community level intervention. A whole-of-school approach is highly effective in facilitating a cultural shift at multiple levels of the school community and encourages ownership of the project by the school community itself. In addition, it is an ethical approach as young people cannot be expected to change in isolation, or opposition, to their environment. Standard 5: Using effective evaluation strategies An external evaluation was commissioned by the project however, due to the methodological, interpretational, and reporting inadequacies; the external evaluation did not inform our current evaluation of the project. It is understood that some organisations may contract out the evaluation component of their project due a lack of expertise in this area. In these instances, it is evident that projects may require additional supporting in engaging a suitably skilled external evaluator. Standard 6: Supporting thorough training and professional development of educators Few details are available relating to staff training and professional development. From the interview with the project representative it was ascertained that most of the facilitators were previously employed LifeCare counsellors with at least university level community services education and experience. In addition, facilitators were trained on the content and presentation of the project and also participated in a brief domestic violence information session and a session relating to mandatory reporting requirements. For these experienced staff, it appears that this level of training was adequate for facilitators involved in the ACT-2 Project.