This report is a product of both the formative and process evaluation phases of the seven Youth Development Programmes. Following the perceived success of 14 original Police Youth at Risk programmes, the 2000/01 Police budget included funding for the establishment of five new Youth Development Programmes. In addition, the Police and the Crime Prevention Unit (CPU) jointly funded a further two programmes.
Firstly, a brief methodology describes the processes by which the information in this report was collected. The body of the report comprises of a programme description for each of the seven programmes describing the development of the programme and the consultation that took place in the formative phase, as well as describing programme operation for the first year of the process evaluation.
As indicated within each description, the information within the report is based on that provided by programme staff and in some cases, initial proposal documentation. These descriptions will form the basis for the aforementioned process evaluation analysis documents.
Please email us if you would like a copy of this document in a different format.
Date of last publication
As part of the process evaluation of the seven new programmes discussed in this document, qualitative information on each programme was collected from Programme Co-ordinators by the two processes discussed below:
- A questionnaire was devised by the Evaluation Unit and distributed to the Co-ordinator of each programme in approximately July 2001, asking general questions regarding programme design, delivery targets, consultation with Māori and Pacific groups, and community contacts. This information provided the basis for the interviews conducted with Programme Co-ordinators discussed below, and thus, the basis for the programme analysis discussions.
- Telephone interviews were conducted with the Programme Co-ordinator from each programme to obtain qualitative information about the development, implementation and operation of the programme, consultation with community and cultural groups, staffing, and the services provided by the programme. The programme descriptions that were written were sent to each programme for comment to ensure that all information was correct. Any corrections or suggestions made by Programme Co-ordinators were considered by the author and incorporated into these documents where appropriate.