In the coming months we will see record levels of youth unemployment in the United Kingdom – levels higher than the periods following the 2008 financial crises or the 1980s recession. We know that unemployment has scarring effects which can last lifetimes – and the longer the period or periods of unemployment the more significant these are on both lifetime income and wellbeing. The long-term costs of not urgently addressing this coming crisis far outweigh the costs of properly funding a response now.

The National Lottery Community Fund’s £108 million programme was a response to the youth unemployment crisis which followed the financial crisis. From 2014-2018 Talent Match supported over 25,000 young people in 21 parts of England – from London to Newcastle and from Hull to Cornwall. £108 million sounds a lot of money but over 5 years and 25,000 young people it works at around £4,000 per person supported – an amount less than previous employment initiatives.

The 21 local voluntary sector partnerships which delivered Talent Match focused their support on those young people facing the greatest barriers in securing employment. The barriers were wide-ranging and many young people faced multiple barriers: from the legacy of adverse childhood experiences, homelessness, substance misuse and addiction, disability, low levels mental health, limited or no prior employment experience, to no or low qualifications. But what was also evident was that most of the 25,000 young people had individual career and life aspirations and they had talents.

Talent Match was a radical experiment in youth employment policy. Rather than generalise as to the barriers young people faced and offer a one size fits all response, the programme took an approach which was focused on the needs, talents and aspirations of each individual young person. How did it do this? It started by asking young people what they wanted; whether in the design of the programme by the National Lottery Community Fund or by the 21 partnerships. The partnerships then engaged young people in the delivery of the programme: whether in understanding barriers, ensuring employers consulted young people or developing young people as peer mentors.

Here are some of the key findings from the evaluation of Talent Match which is published at the same time as this blog:

• A total of 25,885 young people were supported by Talent Match. Of these, 11,940 (46 per cent) secured some form of job, including 4,479 (17 per cent) who secured sustained employment or self-employment.
• Talent Match participants moving into work reported high levels of job satisfaction.
• Talent Match helped support participants to improve their wellbeing: 70 per cent of those who gained a job reported improved life satisfaction; and 60 per cent for those who did not gain a job.
• At least £3.08 of public value has been generated for every £1 spent on Talent Match programme delivery. This means that there is a positive social benefit associated with Talent Match.
• Lead voluntary and community sector (VCS) partner organisations effectively engaged other organisations from across sectors, including employers.
• The involvement of young people was the key feature of programme innovation and lessons on successful co-production can be drawn from Talent Match for future practice.

But Talent Match alone is not a panacea: young people, especially those facing multiple barriers (including low skills, limited employment experience, homelessness and low levels of wellbeing) will continue to need support regardless of the state of the national economy and the level of unemployment. They will need support in entering and in sustaining employment. Payment-by-results approaches to delivering employment programmes often mean there can be few incentives for providers to help these groups.

There are nearly seven million 16-24 year olds in the UK; around 1 in 10 of the national population. The last recession led to youth unemployment peaking at 1.4 million in 2011. During the period of the great recession (2008-2012) perhaps double that number experienced unemployment at some point. The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the national economy is already greater than the financial crisis. What can be done to prevent between a third and a half of today’s 16-24 year olds experiencing unemployment?

As evaluators with long standing experience of employment programmes and drawing on the experience of Talent Match we believe that the following are now needed:

• Youth involvement: the crisis faced by young people today differs markedly from the challenges they faced in previous periods of high unemployment. A different approach is required which recognises that work first solutions alone are not enough. Engagement with the diversity of young people in the design and delivery of the response is essential; tomorrow’s economy and the nature of work is likely to look very different from those of the past.
• Person-centred approaches and key working: the value of high-quality relationships between participant and employment support provider were found to be crucial to initial and ongoing engagement. This was especially the case for young people furthest from the labour market.
• Partnership and local employment support ecosystems: Devolution may offer the opportunity to build local employment support ecosystems. These can overcome some of the challenges of short-lived programmes interventions which have constrained employment support for a long time.
• Support for those who need most help: at a time of huge unemployment there is an obvious tendency to focus on those closest to getting jobs. A risk of this approach is that those furthest from work, facing multiple barriers, are not given any priority. This is wrong and runs the risk of permanently excluding a group from employment and opportunities to live fulfilling lives. The response should start with the offer of a job guarantee to all those young people out of work for more than six months or who face multiple barriers in obtaining and securing employment.
• Scale of investment required: The last major national government programmes were the New Deal for Young People which ran from 1998-2003 and cost £1.5billion and the Future Jobs Fund which ran from 2009-2011 and cost £1billion. Both had significant effects proportionate to those of Talent Match. We would advocate the development of a programme of similar ambition but designed to the challenges of today’s economy. Any new programme should ring fence at least a quarter of its budget to support those furthest from the labour market. Whilst the newly launched Youth Futures Foundation is an important start, its £90 million endowment may simply not be big enough for the challenges we face.

Finally, addressing youth unemployment cannot be left to project-based funding models. It requires investment in organisations and partnerships at a local level committed to changing the fortunes of nearly 7 million young people in the UK.

Acknowledgements

We are extremely grateful to all those who have helped in the course of the evaluation. We are particularly grateful to the staff, young people and board members of the 21 Talent Match partnerships who have given their time freely to support the evaluation. A mention should be made of partnership leads and those involved in setting up the Common Data Framework (CDF). We trust that in time the considerable benefits of the CDF will be seen in terms of contributing to a robust evidence base on which to design future policies and programmes.

A wide range of staff and committee members at The National Lottery Community Fund have helped, supported and advised upon the evaluation. Their time has been invaluable. We are particularly grateful to Jolanta Astle, Sarah Cheshire, James Godsal, Scott Hignett, Scott Hyland and Roger Winhall. We are also grateful to former National Lottery Community Fund colleagues Matt Poole, Linzi Cooke and Scott Greenhalgh who provided invaluable assistance at the start of the Talent Match Evaluation.

Lastly, we would like to thank the evaluation team at Sheffield Hallam University, the University of Birmingham, the University of Warwick and Cambridge Economic Associates: Duncan Adam, Gaby Atfield, Dr Sally-Anne Barnes, Nadia Bashir, Dr Richard Crisp, Dr Chris Damm, Dr Maria de Hoyos, Dr Will Eadson, Professor Del Roy Fletcher, Dr Tony Gore, Professor Anne Green, David Leather, Elizabeth Sanderson, Emma Smith, Louise South, Professor Pete Tyler, Sarah Ward and Ian Wilson. We would also like to thank our former colleague Ryan Powell who supported the original evaluation design and engagement with all the partnerships.

Peter Wells (Evaluation Director) and Sarah Pearson (Evaluation Project Manager)

There are ongoing debates about how policies impact on different generations. The main message is that position of younger generations is worsening. An Intergenerational Fairness Index shows a 10% deterioration in the prospects of younger generations relative to older generations between 2010 and 2015 – although the rate of deterioration is slowing. The House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee is sufficiently concerned about the plight of the younger generation relative to those now approaching retirement to have launched an Intergenerational fairness inquiry to examine questions concerning the collective impact of trends in welfare, public expenditure and the wider economy.

Despite recent falls, unemployment remains higher for younger than for older people. And younger people saw greater than average reductions in real wages following the recession. These labour market trends set the context in which Talent Match (TM) partnerships operate.

A recent review as part of the TM evaluation highlights current developments and directions in youth employment policy in England. These have implications for the work of TM partnerships going forward.

From April 2017 young people seeking to claim Universal Credit and those finishing school must either ‘earn or learn’. Within the first three weeks of claiming out-of-work benefits claimants will take up an ‘Intensive Activity Programme’ involving training in interview techniques, practising job applications and job search.

One means of setting young people on a trajectory to sustainable employment is via the expansion of apprenticeships. For young people with little or no work experience and lower qualifications, traineeships are seen as a route to employment or apprenticeships through provision of work preparation and work experience. While apprenticeships and traineeships may be positive routes for some young people they remain unaffordable for others.

Young people aged under 25 are excluded from the new National Living Wage to be introduced from April 2016. It remains to be seen what impact this will have on young people as employers adjust to the new legislation, but it will mean that young people struggling to live independently will not benefit automatically from this ‘raising of the wage floor’. Some young people aged 18-21 years will also be disadvantaged by withdrawal of automatic entitlement to Housing Benefit. To some commentators these policy changes may be viewed as indicative of intergenerational inequity.

The challenge for TM partnerships is to navigate a course through these national policy changes, alongside local developments, to support young people furthest from the labour market.

Professor Anne Green, Institute for Employment Studies, University of Warwick

A suite of new reports have been published from the Talent Match Evaluation. These latest reports are available here https://blogs.shu.ac.uk/talentmatch/

We have presented the main findings in the infographics attached to this blog.

At the end of June 2015 Talent Match had engaged 6,910 young people of whom 643 had secured employment. Those engaged are likely to be white males (Figure 1). Nearly three fifths live with their parents/guardian and around half will have at least A*-C GCSEs (Figure 3). Although a small proportion of total beneficiaries, significant numbers (compared to the general population) will have experienced homelessness, have a criminal record or been in local authority care (Figure 4).  Of those on the Programme: 23% have a disability; 14% have a disability which limits their activities; and 18% have experienced mental ill health. Although most report common labour market barriers (lack of work experience, lack of jobs or lack of qualifications), significant proportions face barriers which require far more intensive and wrap-around support (such as childcare, gaining basic skills and addressing having a criminal record) (Figure 5). 

Although it is too early to determine the overall impact of the programme it is possible to reflect on where the main challenges lie for the programme. The following are the key issues the programme faces:

• Targeting of those furthest from the labour market: the new evidence from the evaluation shows that on the whole these groups are being targeted. However, there is significant variation between the groups supported by the 21 partnerships.
• Sustaining the involvement of young people: this remains a key part of the programmes as well as for most partnerships. We found that there is variation between partnerships as to the extent of involvement in project delivery.
• The local coordination, capacity and capability to deliver the programme: the likelihood of further devolution to city-regions in England will bring different challenges to the programmes, especially those inside and outside the initial plans for devolution and city-deals. A key challenge will be how to ‘coordinate the local system’ to avoid duplication with local and national system.
• Innovation: in the mental health theme report we have published provides an example of genuine innovation in the configuration and delivery of youth mental health services. A key point here is the extent to which a local partnership can reshape the local system of support to disadvantaged young people.

We will be returning to these themes in future reports and blogs.

Professor Peter Wells, Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research (CRESR), Sheffield Hallam University

TM Infographic

On November 18^th former London Mayor Ken Livingstone responded to criticisms from Labour MP Kevan Jones by publicly stating that he was “obviously very depressed and disturbed” and “should see a GP”.  Jones has a history of mental ill health.  Sadly, such incidents and damaging attitudes are still very common in UK society, and not just in the often disconnected and childish world of politics.  Such views and behaviours discourage open and honest conversations about mental health and feed stigma.

Livingstone’s initial refusal to apologise highlights the way that mental health still lags behind other areas in terms of social attitudes.   This is perhaps surprising given that mental ill health is on the rise in the UK.  Every year, one in four of us will experience a mental health problem. Each experience is different as is the nature of support needed.  Mental health and well-being is a complex issue which often requires specialist support.  Unfortunately, as mental health concerns grow mental health services have been cut in recent years as part of the Government’s austerity drive (although £600m of additional funding was announced by George Osborne in Wednesday’s statement on the UK economy – a ray of light in these dark times for public services).

Youth mental health issues in particular are a growing concern.  This is especially the case for the longer-term unemployed.  Since the start of the Talent Match (TM) programme a very large number of those working with beneficiaries have reported mental health issues as a key barrier to work.  But, poor mental health and well-being can impact on all aspects of everyday life, not just work.  Many TM key workers have seen a much higher than anticipated number of young people facing some form of mental health or well-being issue.

The rate is difficult to pinpoint as some people find it difficult to talk about openly (for one reason, see Livingstone comments above).  Data from Talent Match beneficiaries show that 18 per cent have experienced mental ill health, but this undoubtedly an underestimate.

Recent case study research as part of the TM evaluation focuses on mental health and well-being in response to these concerns.  It took place in three TM partnerships: Leeds City-Region; Liverpool City-Region; and New Anglia.  The research draws on interviews with TM beneficiaries, delivery partners and other TM folk in trying to aid understanding.  It focuses on the experiences of TM beneficiaries facing mental health issues, support services available through TM and how partnerships are responding. One surprising aspect of the research was the way that many young people spoke so openly about mental health.  Perhaps attitudes are changing through the generations?

The report highlights the difficulties partnerships face in accessing mental health services such as counselling.  But it also details the invaluable support of TM key workers in helping people through very difficult circumstances.

Ultimately though, big changes are needed, requiring changes in social attitudes as well as systems.  Mental health services strike me as one area where less funding would certainly not produce better services, given current waiting times for accessing support.  However, the novel and “big-thinking” approach of TM Liverpool outlined in the report offers a positive example that could perhaps be copied elsewhere. It could also alter the way we think about “youth” mental health, and for the better.

Ryan Powell, CRESR
26 November 2015

Introduction

A principle of the Talent Match programme is ‘test and learn’: the programme seeks to support young people into employment but also inform policy and practice locally and nationally.

Two tools partnerships can use to help do this are logic models and theories of change. Both are similar, use much of the same terminology but have some key differences.

Logic Models

Logic models are very much tools to understand the linear relationships between the costs or inputs of a programme and its outputs, outcomes and impacts (these terms are defined at the end of this note to help with consistency in interpretation). The use of logic models can help partnerships, Big Lottery Fund and the evaluation around the efficiency of programmes (what is directly achieved as result of a certain investment) and effectiveness of programmes (the extent to which the programme achieves its objectives).

The diagram below provides a very simple logic model for the Talent Match programme. Something the evaluation team is working on at the moment will be to better understand the activities of partnerships and how these lead to different outputs and outcomes. As we collect more data and have evidence from our comparator study the evaluation will be able to able to estimate what impact Talent Match has made, and what its value for money has been.

Theories of Change

Of course programmes such as Talent Match are difficult to fit into linear logic model type analysis. For this reason the Big Lottery Fund are keen to answer various ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions. In particular how particular projects work and what makes them work in practice in specific local contexts. This is at the heart of the ‘test and learn’ approach. This is where theories of change can be very useful. Although they use some of the terminology to logic models (activities, outputs, outcomes, impact etc), they are very much about Partnerships setting out what are the key things which they believe make a difference.

The diagram below shows an example of a Theory of Change approach. It draws on some of the types of projects many Partnerships are funding although it is not based on any particular Partnership. We built this around five projects and worked  to establish  why those projects were chosen and then worked forward to highlight possible outputs, outcomes and impact.

We could have added much more detail to the theory of change. What appears of most importance is identifying some of the key assumptions, rationales and evidence which lie behind the activities and projects. Examples here might include the training and skills of staff, using a particular approach to working with employers, or continuing to support vulnerable young people once they enter employment.

Further Resources

There are lots of resources available on theories of change and logic models. We found the work by New Philanthropy Capital (www.thinknpc.org/publications/theory-of-change/) and Nesta (www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/theory_of_change_guidance_for_applicants_.pdf) to be good starting points. We also think that NPC’s Journey to Employment framework (www.thinknpc.org/publications/the-journey-to-employment/) can help partnerships understand more around possible interventions. The government’s main guide to evaluation is The Magenta Book (www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-magenta-book) which contains extensive guidance on logic models (pp.21-24) theories of change (pp. 55-60).

If you would like further information please get in touch.

There is a growing consensus that wellbeing and other so-called intrinsic factors are important in determining positive employment outcomes for young people. The Young Foundation (http://youngfoundation.org/publications/framework-of-outcomes-for-young-people) points to a growing evidence base linking social and emotional capabilities, such as determination, self-control, persistence and self-motivation, to positive outcomes for young people.

Talent Match aims to develop interventions which are holistic, person-centred and take a long term approach. If a young person has not yet gained employment but their social and emotional capabilities have developed they may be closer to achieving employment than previously, whilst also improving their life in other ways.

In the Talent Match evaluation the UK official measures (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/user-guidance/well-being/index.html) of wellbeing are used to understand how intrinsic factors may be important to securing job outcomes. At each stage of data collection young people are asked four subjective questions regarding their well-being:

• Overall, how satisfied are you with your life nowadays?
• Overall, to what extent do you feel the things you do in your life are worthwhile?
• Overall, how happy did you feel yesterday?
• Overall, how anxious did you feel yesterday?

An initial inspection of the Talent Match CDF data suggests that individuals who remain on Talent Match for at least six months improve their wellbeing. This is shown in the following figure.

Figure 1: Changes in the Self-Reported Wellbeing of Programme Beneficiaries

Source: Talent Match Evaluation, 2015

Figure 2 below largely supports this picture: the largest proportion of Talent Match beneficiaries report improvements in wellbeing. However, this is not the same for all. For just under a third of beneficiaries, their experience on each of the wellbeing measures gets worse.   Indeed, engagement in the programme may surface an individual’s previously hidden vulnerability.

Figure 2: Self-Reported Well-being – individual change

Source: Talent Match Evaluation, 2015

We should note some health warnings with these data. They are intended to reveal a possible issue rather than to explore the extent to which the Talent Match programme affects these wellbeing measures. This issue will come later.

The evaluation team are currently undertaking a thematic study on mental health and young people and are aiming to report in October. We would welcome comments on mental health and the programme and more broadly around interventions to support the wellbeing of young people being supported.

Elizabeth Sanderson and Peter Wells

It is often taken for granted that partnership is essential for the delivery of programmes to tackle worklessness. Partnership is seen to offer wide-ranging support for clients with multiple needs as well as the possibility of permanently influencing the way mainstream partners work. It seems self-evident that no single organisation can do this alone.

Yet the evidence base shows that it is tricky to do partnership well and effectiveness varies by sector. A review of evidence from past programmes undertaken by CRESR for the Talent Match Programme last year(http://www.shu.ac.uk/research/cresr/sites/shu.ac.uk/files/tm-evidence-review-partnerships.pdf) showed that partnership with public agencies such as Jobcentre Plus is not necessarily straightforward. They do not always provide the anticipated support and referrals or, where they do, sometimes refer clients mandatorily onto voluntary employment programmes. This does not work well if clients feel they are being forced to participate. Effective partnership with Jobcentre Plus depends on clear communication of aims, ethos and agreed referral terms.

The voluntary and community sector is a core part of Talent Match partnerships. Evidence from other programmes cited in the review shows that organisations with local roots and established relationships with target groups make them natural partners. However, smaller organisations can be ‘squeezed out’ if faced with hurdles such as complex and lengthy bidding processes or ‘end-loaded’ payment structures. One clear implication is that smaller, niche organisations may need capacity-building support to become partners in Talent Match.

Involving the private sector is critical for Talent Match to provide clients with opportunities among local employers. Previous evidence shows employer engagement initiatives have had mixed levels of success. Employers are not so keen to get involved if they have not had a say in the design of programmes, are unclear about objectives or do not feel like their needs are understood. However, they can prove willing partners where projects undertake early outreach work using specialist employer engagement staff, particularly if working through established employer networks. Past evidence also shows it is better to engage well with a small number of employers well than take a wider less targeted approach.

All this only matters, of course, if partnership actually makes a difference. There is little evidence to show it does but this may reflect the difficulty in evidencing this rather than a lack of positive change per se. Looking at one exception, the evaluation of the New for Deal for Communities (NDC) regeneration programme found that partnerships involving more agencies experienced better neighbourhood outcomes.

The exception of NDC suggests partnership is essential to making Talent Match work. Partnerships are already well under way and some of this may be old news. But it is likely that some of the lessons from the past will still have value in forging new links. Here, good practice around developing shared objectives, creating partnership structures and building relationships is likely to resonate. Plus Talent Match can also leave its own legacy by offering up further insights for future programmes. The benefits of partnership should never be taken for granted. But this only makes it all the more important to continually reflect on what makes partnerships tick and how they can be strengthened to better support young people into work.

The involvement of young people is a central principle of the Talent Match Programme: the programme seeks to encourage young people to design provision themselves, to give them control over this provision, and to promote new approaches.  Some Talent Match partnerships committed resources to involving young people before the project launch; whilst others have provided more support since the programme went live.

CRESR led an evidence review on the involvement of young people in partnerships. Whilst much is known about youth involvement, relatively little is known about the involvement of 18-24 year olds.  Three forms of involvement were identified: consultation with young people; co-production, where young people and staff work together; or mostly/entirely young- people-led projects.

In-depth case study work with three partnerships followed the evidence review, highlighting these key points:

• there is a lot of good practice in terms of involving young people
• the extent of involvement varies within, and across partnerships – there is no one size fits all
• some approaches are more effective than others, particularly at engaging the hard-to-reach. These include: utilising staff with experience of engagement, outreach and youth work; building in resources for additional support; peer-to-peer approaches to recruitment etc.

However, there are various barriers and opportunities to involvement. These include: a lack of buy-in from staff for a youth-led approach; low levels of confidence among young people; the capacity of the organisations involved; training opportunities etc.

The evidence review raises the following questions for partnerships to assess how effective their approaches are:

• What approach is being used: what facilitates involvement e.g. training, incentives, flexibility?
• Is involvement meaningful?
• What are the outcomes for those directly involved and wider beneficiaries?
• How inclusive are the approaches to involvement?
• Is the scale and scope of opportunities for involvement appropriate?

Underpinning these considerations, is honesty and clarity about the extent of, and limits to, young peoples’ involvement.  A major challenge for the programme will be about the management of expectations.

The evidence review can be found here: http://www.shu.ac.uk/research/cresr/sites/shu.ac.uk/files/tm-evidence-review-young-people.pdf

The literature on involving 18-24 year olds, and specifically NEET groups, is sparse. It is therefore even more important that evidence of good practice and lessons are systematically collected and shared.

Programmes to support young people gain in employment are not new. Many have been subject to extensive research and evaluation.  The main finding is that there are no simple or common solutions to youth unemployment. A range of interventions are required, some work better in certain localities than others, some work better with those closest to the labour market than others, and some may only bring benefits in the very long term. A key consideration in designing interventions is to take account of the local labour market contexts and the prevailing strength of the economy – whether it is in recession or close to recession with little job growth, or whether there is a strong upturn with job growth.

This opening paragraph may suggest that there are too many imponderables. However, there is consistent evidence around three areas:

• the importance of high quality information, advice and guidance
• effective and locally tailored outreach (to engage those furthest from the labour market) and
• high quality engagement with employers, including the offering of some form of short term wage subsidy.

What there is here is a mix of supply-side (young people) and demand-side (employer) interventions coming together at a local level.

These issues are explored in more detail in an evidence review we prepared at the design stage of the Talent Match programme. More details can be found here:  http://www.shu.ac.uk/research/cresr/sites/shu.ac.uk/files/tm-evidence-review.pdf Much of this evidence informed the partnership’s delivery plans.

The evidence also points to some agendas which are best addressed nationally or at least at the level of regions or city-regions. Examples here would include the design of high quality progression routes into vocational education and training or initiatives to generate more jobs, such as from the European Structural and Investment Funds or the Regional Growth Fund.

However, there are also gaps in the evidence and this presents an important opportunity to inform future policies. A case in point is the engagement and involvement of young people aged 18-24 in the design and delivery of programmes. My colleague Nadia Bashir undertook an evidence of this area and whilst she found some evidence of good practice principles, often drawing on the literature on youth work, relatively little is known about what works effectively for engaging 18-24 year olds. This will be the subject of a later evidence review.

Talent Match is an ambitious programme.  This includes the ambition of the Big Lottery Fund to collect detailed data systematically on all the young people supported by the programme. With this in mind BIG asked us to set up a Common Data Framework (CDF) as a requirement of the evaluation. Alongside other research undertaken by the Evaluation Team at CRESR (Sheffield Hallam University) and IER (University of Warwick) this will provide us and you with one of the most comprehensive insights into what works in supporting young people furthest from the labour market gain employment.

Talent Match is also an innovative programme. Each of the 21 partnerships designing interventions which are appropriate to the local context and to what young people asked for. As the Common Data Framework reflects this: partnerships are working with different groups of young people, in different ways and at this early stage with some different outcomes.

In future Blogs I will write more about these early lessons from the Common Data Framework data and also provide guidance to analysing the data further at a local level.

However, we recognise that the CDF is challenging and at times onerous for the staff and young people involved in the Programme. A particular challenge is the follow-ups after the baseline questionnaire is complete. We know that young people may engage in the programme at the start and then may no longer need the support or may return to the programme after several months. Whilst the ideal would be to have responses at every time point we know that this is not always possible. What is important is that attempts are made to follow up young people. Only through this will we be able to gain an overall insight into the journey to employment. As you will see from the latest versions of the follow-up questions there are now options for where young people are not contactable.

And finally, the following links are to the key documents you need to understand the CDF: the manual and quick guide; and the baseline and follow-up questionnaires.

Talent Match Common Data Framework
http://www.shu.ac.uk/research/cresr/sites/shu.ac.uk/files/tm-cdf-manual1.pdf

Talent Match Common Data Framework: Quick Guide
http://www.shu.ac.uk/research/cresr/sites/shu.ac.uk/files/tm-cdf-quick-guide.pdf

Talent Match Questionnaire – Baseline
http://www.shu.ac.uk/research/cresr/sites/shu.ac.uk/files/tm-baseline-questionnaire.pdf

Talent Match Questionnaire – Follow-up
http://www.shu.ac.uk/research/cresr/sites/shu.ac.uk/files/tm-followup-questionnaire.pdf

We welcome your continued feedback.

Elizabeth Sanderson and Peter Wells