2 Findings and recommendations
Understanding the remit and delivery of outreach hubs
Partnerships ’ understanding of the remit of outreach hubs and their approaches to delivery varied significantly . Some level of variation was to be expected due to the intention to allow partnerships flexibility in their approach , enable room for innovation and align hub activities to regional needs . However , variation was found to be mainly due to differing interpretations of what constitutes hub activities .
The intentionally broad definition of what hubs were expected to achieve created challenges for partnerships in clearly articulating the purpose , aims and objectives of the hubs . This was due to the perceived :
▪ wider focus of the hubs , which were covering regions rather than supporting specific schools / colleges or cohorts of young people ( as per targeted outreach )
▪ lack of a clear and comprehensive view of the expected scale of hub activities and approach to the three hub activities ( signposting , proactive support and strategic engagement )
▪ lack of measurable outputs and outcomes combined with some monitoring and evaluation requirements that partnerships perceived as not meaningful and / or burdensome .
Collectively , these issues created challenges for partnerships in developing a clear “ narrative ” about the purpose of the hubs which made it difficult to secure buy-in from some partnerships , governing boards and wider stakeholders . It also contributed to some governing boards and steering groups being less likely to challenge approaches to hub activities proposed by partnership leads .
The evaluation explored differences in hubs ’ implementation in relation to context and partnership characteristics , including region , geographical classification of the schools / colleges served , size of partnerships defined by their funding levels and , in a lighter touch way , staffing structures . This analysis found no strong patterns in terms of implementation , except for some differences in the practices applied by large partnerships . However , there were indications that approaches to implementation could be influenced , by size 3 , the number of schools / colleges they served and stage of progress .
To improve their own understanding and implementation of hubs , partnership leads have initiated monthly meetings during which they exchange practice and learn from each other . The creation of a ‘ community of practice ’ by leads is highly commendable given work and time pressures ; they are passionate about their work and keen to improve their practice through peer-to-peer support . Unsurprisingly then , leads valued these meetings highly and indicated a desire for more peer-to-peer practical support , which could improve the effectiveness of the hubs and encourage greater consistency . Partnerships also reported that monitoring and evaluation data collected by the OfS could form a key part of continuous improvement processes , but were unclear on how the data currently being collected was being used or what lessons were being learned from it .
3
Size was calculated based on the level of funding partnerships received .
4