Background and Methodology | Overview | Birmingham | Bradford | Bristol | Gateshead | Greenwich | Hackney | Leicester | Liverpool | Manchester | Norwich | Sheffield | Slough F: The Hackney Project Project context F1 Hackney has some of the worst economic problems of all the London Boroughs and the unemployment rate is one of the highest in the country. Two housing estates, Stamford Hill and Pembury, were selected as the base for the project, both of which have high unemployment levels and are in a poor state. Half the residents on the estates are from ethnic minorities and there are large numbers of residents who are either long-term unemployed or who have never worked. Whilst guidance and educational provision is currently available for residents within the borough as a whole, there are no agencies working specifically on the two estates. F2 The reasons for the selection of these estates were different for each. The Stamford Hill estate had received little or no funding from the ESF. However, the tenants and residents association is very active and, through the Crime Prevention Detached Youth Project (CPDYP), young people on the estate have already had the benefit of some extremely effective outreach work. Pembury is simply one of the most deprived estates in Europe. Project objectives F3 The project aimed to take advice and learning opportunities into the community, specifically to reach those who would not normally perceive the relevance of such opportunities. This was practically achieved by bringing staff and resources from Hackney Community College onto the estates to run courses under a separate identity. It also aimed to use local workers, recruited from the community, to assist in the promotion and running of the activities. This role was an experimental one and the project was to test whether the use of such a worker added value, as the model might be transferable to other community initiatives. Management arrangements F4 The London Borough of Hackney Education Department held the contract for the project and was involved in the day-to-day running of the project in conjunction with the following partners:- Enterprise Careers Hackney Community College Focus Central London. F5 These partners were all represented on the Steering Group in addition to a representative from DfEE and the CPDYP. Steering Group meetings were originally held every month but this was reduced to every two months as this was felt to be adequate. The education department has been responsible for all areas of management and steering. Focus have had very little involvement during the implementation stages of the project. Progress against objectives F6 Progress on both estates will be discussed under the following headings:- estate differences; recruiting local workers; promoting of activities; outcomes. Estate differences F7 The schedules for the two estates were different, with work on the Stamford Hill estate running well ahead of the work on Pembury, due to the need for the same college staff having to teach classes on both estates. The progress made on the two estates was also extremely different due in part to the lack of staff continuity on Pembury (see paragraph F11) but also due to the resistance from the tenants association on the estate (although the use of the community hall was eventually secured). There was little established provision on the estate and the lack of a community figure or venue was also felt to hamper progress. F8 On Stamford Hill the existence of the CPDYP made progress much easier as the groundwork had already begun some time earlier in engaging the trust of residents and in providing them with a safe community venue in the form of a 'community flat'. F9 The decision was therefore made to concentrate resources where it was felt they were most effective, running more courses on the Stamford Hill estate and less on Pembury. The progress outlined in the following sections therefore concentrates on the work carried out on Stamford Hill. Recruiting local workers F10 On the Stamford Hill estate there is a large Turkish community and the project was able to recruit a worker who was originally from Turkey. A qualified teacher in her own country, she was able to translate materials for Turkish residents. The job description for the post included the provision of a training and further education drop-in service on the estate in addition to the promotion and administration of the classes on offer. The worker was officially contracted to work ten hours a week although, in practice, the project consistently demanded more of her time. The project worker has been in place throughout the project and it is felt that this continuity has contributed to its success. F11 On the Pembury estate there were no problems in recruiting a local worker, but since the beginning of the project there have been three different holders of the post. The last of the three was extremely effective but having joined at a late stage encountered difficulties in coming up to speed and accessing local networks. F12 It has been difficult for the project to provide adequate payment to the local workers without affecting their benefits. For this kind of role it is effectively necessary for the worker to come off benefits or to have other part time work in order to receive the stated hourly rate. F13 It was originally intended to offer a qualification in guidance to the local workers. This would not have been possible for the worker on Pembury due to her short period in post. However, the Stamford Hill worker was disappointed to learn that the local college would be unable to provide her with the relevant training and qualification without her having to pay for it. Most of the training for both workers has therefore been on the job and involved advice from existing community workers. Promoting activities F14 The publicity for the project on Stamford Hill was produced by the community college, which also enlisted and manages the tutors involved. A launch day was held which included family entertainment (eg. face painting and a bouncy castle for children). Prior to the launch, the courses were publicised using a thousand high quality (glossy) leaflets, which were personally delivered by the local worker to every dwelling on the estate. Where possible, residents were spoken to and given more details about the courses and guidance on offer. The leaflets were also produced in Bengali and Turkish and would have been translated into other community languages, too, if the budget had allowed. F15 The recruitment of a local worker was designed to allow the courses to be offered informally. On Stamford Hill the post holder has been extremely active in promoting the courses with activities including:- talking to other mothers at the school attended by her child; knocking on doors to speak face-to-face with people, accompanied either by one of the college tutors or a CPDYP worker; distributing leaflets to local shops; contact with local hairdressers, so that they are sufficiently informed about the courses to pass on information to their clients. F16 The local worker also delivered leaflets to residents with information about the advice sessions which were available from the Careers Service, although this took place at a later date than the marketing for the courses. Outcomes F17 The courses ran from December onwards and people have been both satisfied and (pleasantly) surprised by the standard of teaching. The courses that have proved the most popular so far have been of a practical nature including First Aid and Food Hygiene, although ESOL and fitness classes have also been well subscribed. On Stamford Hill activities ran in a variety of community venues including the local community centre, the CPDYP community flat and the library on the estate. On the Pembury estate the tenants association allowed the project to use the facilities of their community hall. Courses were run across daytime and evening, with daytime courses proving particularly popular due in part to residents concerns about safety. F18 In an attempt to encourage residents to use the facilities of the library local to Stamford Hill, which is just on the boundaries of the estate, library staff ran 'story telling' sessions for residents and their children at the CPDYP's flat. The aim was to demonstrate the approachability of library workers and promote the library as a facility for all. F19 The lack of childcare provision, or the resources to provide it, has also been an issue for the project. Some mothers have been forced to bring their children with them to classes, which is not only distracting for other students, but also raises legal and safety issues. F20 Another difficulty for the local workers has been working with the local tenants association. Historically politically sensitive and mistrustful of council representatives, they can be very difficult to deal with. On Stamford Hill, when course tutors have failed to lock a cupboard or switch off lights when leaving the community centre, this has caused problems. The association was also unwilling to store equipment in the centre, with the local worker often having to move very heavy equipment from her flat to the centre on a regular basis (eg. the weights equipment for circuit training!). These problems were eased when the project agreed to pay an association representative £2.50 per class to unlock and then lock up the premises. They were also responsible for light cleaning after the classes and the rearrangement of furniture to the satisfaction of the association. F21 On the Pembury estate, response to the courses and guidance sessions was limited (see paragraph F6). However, on the Stamford Hill estate, with the knowledge and help of staff from the CPDYP, the local worker has been extremely successful in recruiting local residents onto the courses, most of the courses reaching their original targets of ten people on each course. One particular success has been in engaging the Turkish community on the estate, who represent a particularly hard to reach client group. By engaging those with poor language skills in ESOL classes, many of whom received certificates, it has also been possible to establish links with Turkish children. Constantly required to translate for their parents, these children often feel under pressure; it is hoped that this will have been lessened through the activities of the project. F22 The take up of guidance sessions however, has been less encouraging. There are a number of reasons for this, including a lower profile marketing campaign. However, it may be that residents simply do not perceive the relevance of formal guidance, or did not have the confidence to speak to someone in what they perceive as being a formal situation. Next steps F23 It is difficult to assess the impact of a project that has been running for a relatively short period of time; much of the evidence is therefore of an anecdotal nature. Overall, however, it is felt that there have been positive effects on both estates. Interest generated by the project is considered responsible for increased activity in the area. Examples of this include:- outside agencies coming to Stamford Hill, to work with the groups of Turkish women reached by the local worker, including a health advocacy worker; a community psychologist focussing her research on the Stamford Hill estate which includes offering training courses to the Turkish women; a music education workshop for disaffected young people was run on the Pembury estate sponsored by Safer Cities and supported by Kiss FM. F24 There is also a feeling that an increased sense of community has been established, especially on Stamford Hill. Previously isolated women have now formed tight groups and have a network of people in similar situations to turn to for help and social contact. One example of this was the attendance of a group of over fifteen Turkish residents, led by the local worker, at a meeting to discuss major changes in the running of the estate. Prior to the project it was extremely unusual for any Turkish residents to attend. F25 Based on these successes it has been decided to continue to supply the courses on the Stamford Hill estate. There is sufficient money left in the budget to run until December, during which time extra funding will be sought. Another project, very similar to the ones run on Pembury and Stamford Hill, has also been funded to run on another estate in the area. The experiences of the project have also been of assistance in drafting a bid for the University for Industry. F26 Another positive outcome has been in the progress of the local worker on the Stamford Hill estate. She is currently waiting for feedback from an application to become a part-time classroom assistant in her children's school. Before becoming involved in the project she had great difficulties in progressing with applications for part-time work. She is now finding it much easier to reach the interview stage. Principal learning points F27 There have been a number of specific learning points, around the running of courses in an outreach setting, but also some more general ones. Some examples of these are outlined below:- it is useful to have a cancellation system for tutors when they are unable to attend their classes, allowing residents to be informed of any changes in advance; tutors often need equipment which is not available in the premises being used. It is therefore helpful to find out in advance the facilities they require (and potentially for them to supply their own); when using venues which people may find intimidating it can be helpful to introduce the tutors and the venue in advance in a non-threatening way; informal, local provision offered by staff with an in-depth knowledge of the area is the best way to achieve success; a short-term project may find it difficult to meet its objectives and establish trust, unless it is supported by workers who already have some local standing.