Evaluation Report. Work package 3. HEROES Health and Road Safety volunteering HEROES. Grant agreement No

Transcription

1 Evaluation Report Work package HEROES Health and Road Safety volunteering HEROES Grant agreement No. 007 September, 008 to August, 0 Berlin/Magdeburg September, 0 Prof. Dr. Michael Kraus Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Heckmann Thomas Stegelitz M.A.

2 Outline Executive Summary... 4 Introduction... 6 Short Outline of the Project HEROES Contents and Implementation of the Evaluation Design of Evaluation Indicators and instruments of Evaluation Results of Quantitative Evaluation Existing organisations and volunteers in the network Newly recruited organisations and volunteers Socio-demographic data of the volunteers Age of the volunteers Sex of the volunteers Status of the volunteers Mobility of the volunteers Statements of the volunteers Routes of recruitment for participation Motivation of the volunteers Experiences of the volunteers Satisfaction of the Volunteers Training of the Volunteers Areas of Training Content and Quality of Training Duration of Training Conclusions Results of Qualitative Evaluation Conclusions/Recommendations... 6

3 Annexes Evaluation Plan Documentation of available organisations and volunteers (EVA) Documentation of attracting and recruiting high quality new participants (EVA). 68 Training of the volunteers/peers/heroes (EVA) Statements of the volunteers after recruitment (EVA4)... 7 Statements of the volunteers after the pilot(s) (EVA5) Interview guidelines for site visits... 76

4 Executive Summary The executive summary aims to summarize the most important objectives and results mentioned in the work plan of the project and assessed by evaluating the project. It is aimed to the lucidity of the Evaluation Report in order to have a clear picture of the results reached or may be not reached during the project. The objectives mentioned in the work plan are: To promote positive peer-to-peer-communication different peer-to-peer schemes have been established by the partners (pilots) To create a forum for exchange of good practices between the partners The website was set up to exchange the chosen 0 examples of good practices as well as the 47 examples of best practices chosen during the Interim meeting and as fundament for the cross-fertilised campaigns implemented by the partners To attract 50 new volunteers through dissemination of effective information 57 new volunteers have been attracted to work in the project HEROES or have been newly attracted during the project and were available to be trained for the implementation of the pilot(s). To train at least 500 volunteers, peer educators and students during the project Finally 4 (available and newly attracted) volunteers, peer educators and students have been trained to implement the pilots. Out of these 4 (T) trained volunteers 76 (T) volunteers implemented the pilot(s). The satisfaction of the volunteers with the implementation of the project add up to around 89% (Target = 85%) when summarizing all relevant questions with regard to the satisfaction of the volunteers. To inform at least.000 volunteers, peer educators and students about good practices Not every partner counted the number of reached young people during their pilots and/or dissemination events, but the counting ones reached.700 young people during the pilot activities and around.500 young people during dissemination events. 4

5 To assess the benefit of cross fertilisation with different subjects and targets of prevention All partners have been involved in prevention (road safety, drug prevention, HIV/Aids prevention) before the start of the project. Most of the partners have been experienced in voluntary work and peer education. The quality of the process and the outcome demonstrates impressively the development of every project through interdisciplinary and intersectoral exchange, the personal benefit of both project coordinators and volunteers/peers on base of new challenges and perspectives and the effects among the target group. 5

6 Introduction For projects funded by the European Commission the evaluation of these projects is an important part of the Grant Agreement as it is one main instrument to judge the success as well as the cost effectiveness in relation to the benefits of the funded projects. Project evaluation has to consider, whether the feasible intervention method is capable to ameliorate a problem, whether the target group for the intervention is appropriate / was well defined whether the intervention method reaches the target group, whether the intervention is implemented well, whether the intervention achieved its aims and objectives and whether the intervention is cost effective. The evaluation of the HEROES-project was an important part of the project to measure the success of the entire project as well as to evaluate, whether the mentioned targets, being stated in the project s work plan, were reached by all partners of the project. All partners of the project accepted the evaluation plan during the start-up meeting in Paris. For all questions with regard to the project s evaluation, members of MISTEL/SPI Forschung have been staying at the partner s disposal. As external evaluator Prof. Dr. Michael Kraus has been appointed to develop suitable quantitative evaluation instruments, to support the development of a data mask as well as to supervise the entire evaluation progress. In addition, qualitative data on project development, acceptance, etc. was collected based on interview guidelines during on-site visits to all project regions; participant observation by an outsider generated an added value. The evaluation is focussed on baseline, process and outcome and comprehends a quantitative (evaluation sheets) and a qualitative part (site visits, partner interviews) to outline the good practices identified during the project, the number of peer-to-peer schemes used during the project, Rossi, Peter H.; Lipsey, Mark W.; Freeman, Howard E.: Evaluation. A systematic approach. 7th Edition. Sage Publications, Inc. Thousand Oaks, London p. 6

7 the judgement by the project managers about the added value of the good practice exchange, the satisfaction of the volunteers, students and peer educators regarding motivation and experiences throughout the project, the number of new partners involved, the number of volunteers, students and peer educators informed about good practices, trained and/or newly recruited during the project, and the quality of the training materials. 7

8 Short Outline of the Project HEROES Road traffic injuries are one of the leading causes for disability adjusted life-years. Alcohol and drug consumption are leading risk factors. Communicable diseases like HIV/AIDS also become a threat to health of young adults. HEROES aimed to bring together youth volunteer organisations in preventive health care and health promotion - particularly HIV/AIDS prevention, and alcohol and drug prevention - road safety organisations, universities and other institutions working with young adult students and peer educators. They envisaged to exchange methods and to share good practices regarding awareness-raising for adolescents and young adults and addressed risk and protective factors having impact on lifestyles and behaviours. The project s partners, 50% of them working in preventive health care or health promotion, and the other 50% in road safety promotion, developed integrated best practice campaign materials, linking approaches from preventive health care and health promotion to road safety and integrated approaches across several health determinants. An internet-based network of volunteers, students and peer educators was developed, to inform about organised campaigns in other countries and in other domains. The volunteers were trained to apply top quality activities cross-sectorally. The use of the campaign materials developed in the project provided for the volunteer s activities, students and peer educators a high visibility and added to their cost effectiveness (as volunteers worked for free). Attention was also drawn to consider socio-economic aspects as well as to reduce existing health inequalities. Synergies with other activities co-funded by the European Commission and other institutions conveying risk and protective factors with an impact on lifestyles and behaviours were taken into account. 8

9 4 Contents and Implementation of the Evaluation 4. Design of Evaluation The evaluation design comprises the baseline evaluation as well as the process evaluation basing on the indicators of the several objectives. As for the process evaluation the following topics are considered: contact strategies, coverage, contact strategies, time frame, sustainability and contents of the training, routes of recruitment, background, motivation, experiences of the volunteers and satisfaction / recommendation of the volunteers. The baseline and outcome evaluation considers the available number of the partners in the network and the available number of volunteers before the start of the project, number of new partners and the number of new volunteers, number and quality of trainings, statements of the volunteers after recruitment (T) and statements of the volunteers after the pilot(s) (T). The survey respectively the questionnaires had to be filled in by the volunteers, and was conducted at two points of times. T indicates the time immediately after the recruitment and straight before the training of the volunteers; T indicates the time immediately after the implementation of the pilot(s). The data gained during the evaluation process also allow for differentiating between the number of available volunteers and newly recruited volunteers thus addressing a core objective of HEROES. The quantitative data mainly were collected by evaluation sheets, which had to be filled in by the person of charge of every participating organisation (EVA, EVA, EVA) or by the volunteers themselves (EVA4, EVA5). These data have been 9

10 collected by the work package leader, inserted into the data mask and finally analysed and summarised in this evaluation report. The qualitative data were collected during the meetings (start-up meeting in Paris, interim meeting in Nicosia and final Evaluation meeting in Barcelona) and during site visits to the partners from February to May Indicators and instruments of Evaluation As a part of the work plan the evaluation indicators were assessed and the evaluation instruments were designed to measure them. The table shows the indicators and the related evaluation instruments to assess, whether the targets of the project have been reached. Specific Objective Process Indicator Outcome Indicator Target Evaluation Instrument To establish an European network for national action to exchange information, working methods and share good practices Number of volunteers, peer educators and students contacted Number of different sectors contacted Size of the network Number of different sectors represented in the network EVA, EVA To create a forum for exchange of good practices between project partners To promote positive peerto-peer communication To inform at least 000 volunteers, peer educators and students about good practices To train at least 500 volunteers, peer educators and students during the project To attract at least 50 high quality new volunteers, peer educators and students through the dissemination of effective information Number of good practices identified Number of good practices exchanged Number of different peerto-peer schemes used during the project Number of information events at national or European level Number of volunteers, peer educators and students informed about good practices Number of volunteers, peer educators and students trained in good practices Satisfaction of the volunteers, peer educators and students Number of new volunteers, students and peer educators reached Increase of knowledge of good practices by members of the network Support readiness of volunteers and other stakeholders to help in campaigns linking health and road safety Knowledge of good practice among volunteers, peer educators and students reached 000 Intention of the volunteers, peer educators and students to apply good practice 0 Interim meeting, website Website % Counting during pilots or dissemination events EVA, EVA4 EVA, EVA5 50 EVA, EVA 0

11 The indicators stated in the project s work plan were picked up and specified in the project s evaluation plan whilst further relevant evaluation points were added (see Annex). Examples of good practices exchanged during the project are published on the Website of the project. Indicators for good practices are SWOT analyses (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) of chosen good practices. Number of organisations and volunteers available (see Annex) aims to assess the existing partner and volunteer network of each organisation relevant for their work within HEROES and allows for comparisons Number of NEW partners and volunteers (see Annex) in the network in order to evaluate the enlargement and the quality of the partner and volunteer network during HEROES as an added value for future work. Training of the volunteers (see Annex) was designed in order to evaluate the number and quality of the training (contents, internal/external experts, time frame, duration, sustainability). Statements of the volunteers after recruitment (see Annex) aims to evaluate demographical data (sex, age, status etc.), motivation for participation, ways of recruitment, experiences in the mentioned prevention areas as well as the number of recruited volunteers these data allows for comparisons with Statements of the volunteers after the pilot/s (see Annex) according to their motivation, status, ways of recruitment and experiences and furthermore the number and the satisfaction of the volunteers within their participation in the pilots as one of the most important outcomes of the project.

12 5 Results of Quantitative Evaluation The results of the Quantitative Evaluation are the summary and the analysis of the statements of the partners (EVA, ). Its focus is to judge the baseline before the start of HEROES and the changes within the process during HEROES. Therefore partners were asked to appoint the available organisations and volunteers before HEROES had been starting and to outline new attracted and recruited organisations and volunteers as a result of HEROES. Moreover it will be possible to judge the project s benefit against the objectives and measured by the indicators of the project. Therefore mainly the statements of the volunteers will be used (EVA 4,5) to be capable to assess the number of (newly) recruited and trained volunteers as well as their satisfaction with the training and the implemented pilot campaign(s). Furthermore it will be possible to assess the training of the volunteers (EVA) concerning its quality, duration and sustainability. 5. Existing organisations and volunteers in the network The next table shows the available organisations relevant for the work of every partner. It was asked (EVA) for statements of existing contacts to other institutions/organisations, who might be relevant for the work of every partner and also for the HEROES project. It was also asked for the time frame to build up these networks as well as for the contact strategies and for the number of available contacts. Most of the partners also added the domains of the existing network. Most of the partners stated their existing network; other partners such as Open Youth, RYD Belgium or RSI Panos Mylonas didn t state their existing network, because it wasn t relevant for the implementation of HEROES. For example, Open Youth implemented a totally new created campaign in new regions, where they never implemented actions before. Relevant for their work were two ministries, with whom they had already been working before, but the main task was to find new partners in the regions. In total the partner network of HEROES partners comprehended 477 organisations/institutions/partners to help implementing local, regional or national activities.

13 The statements of the following table allow for conclusion and comparison regarding the next chapter about the quality and the enlargement of the network due to HEROES. Name of the Partner Time frame Contact No. Domain VAD, Belgium Existing network, Mail, Phone RYD, Belgium /009 Mail, phone, meeting 7 Prevention Network, Peer-Support Road safety, student organisation Avenir, Santé, France Meeting, phone 80 School, university, student organisation Universiy of Nicosia, UNic, Cyprus RSI Panos Mylonas, Greece Phone, letters, Mails, Meetings 009 Phone, letters, rress reports Police University, business company RYD, the Netherlands Existing network, mail, phone, face-to-face LASER Europe, France Existing network, phone, letter, meeting GARE, Portugal Phone, mail, meeting 7 Road safety, leisure time, place 8 Public institution, association, business company 5 n/a Open Youth, Bulgaria 0/008 Phone, mail, letter Ministry KRZYS, Poland Phone, mail, meeting MISTEL/SPI, Germany Phone, mail, meeting, letter SIDA STUDI, Spain Phone, mail, meeting Ministry, road safety, police, driving school 4 Ministry, road safety, driving school 00 n/a RYD, Luxembourg n/a n/a Available Organisations relevant for implementation of HEROES The next table indicates the available number of volunteers of each partner, which might be relevant for the implementation of HEROES. Most of the partners already worked on voluntary base with young people in order to implement awareness campaigns in different fields, but for some partners HEROES marked the start of working with young people as volunteers. It becomes obvious that for same partners like VAD and LASER Europe the project marked the start of voluntary work in order

14 to implement awareness campaigns. For Open Youth HEROES was an opportunity to build up a volunteer network in new regions, where they never worked before. UNic had a network of around 50 students as potential volunteers, as in the university exists a student volunteers club, but they had not taken part in road safety actions until HEROES started the road safety awareness (campaign). Name of the Partner Time frame Contact No. VAD, Belgium n/a n/a n/a RYD, Belgium Mail, newsletter, meeting 600 Avenir, Santé, France Mail, leaflet, meeting 90 p.a. Universiy of Nicosia, UNic, Cyprus 9/008 Existing network at university 50 RSI Panos Mylonas, Greece 009 Mail, phone, letter, press reports, newsletter RYD, the Netherlands Existing network, mail, phone, face-to-face 50 0 LASER Europe, France n/a n/a n/a GARE, Portugal Letter, face-to-face, meeting 6 Open Youth, Bulgaria n/a n/a n/a KRZYS, Poland Phone, mail, leaflet 0 p.a. MISTEL/SPI, Germany Leaflet, press release, face-to-face 0 p.a. SIDA STUDI, Spain Existing network, internet 40 RYD, Luxembourg 8/008 Existing network 8 Available Volunteers relevant for implementation of HEROES In total around 00 volunteers were available to be asked to work within the project HEROES. Some partners built up a volunteers network since their foundation such as RYD, Belgium (around 600) or RSI Panos Mylonas (around 50). Other partners recruited volunteers isochronous in the framework of university activities such as MISTEL/SPI or Avenir Sante. To contact young people to do voluntary work, mails are mainly used to address young people to ask for help. Direct contacts such as meetings or face-to-face communication (i.e. during awareness campaigns) or newsletters are other commonly used ways to attract new volunteers. Some partners can use the existing network (i.e. of other voluntary organisations) to attract young volunteers. To reach a broader public, some partners also used press releases to gain the interest of young people for their work. Partners, who work often with young people during their awareness campaigns (RYD, Belgium, RSI Panos Mylonas ), have a strong and permanent network of volunteers, other partners, who 4

15 already worked with young volunteers - but not on regular basis - mainly have a small network of young volunteers (GARE). Most of the partners, working with volunteers already before the start of HEROES, began to build up a volunteers network since the foundation of the organisation. UNic, respectively the implementing faculty, for example did not work with volunteers before, but the university already had a good network of young people with the student volunteers club. For them it was easy to use the existing structure of the university in order to implement the HEROES campaign. There is also a difference between the scopes to implement awareness campaigns between the partners. Some partners are used to work on national level (RYD, Belgium), other partners on regional or even just on local level (GARE). That might be a reason, why some partners have a broad network of available volunteers, but other partners only have a small volunteers network. For some partners HEROES marked the start of voluntary work. For them it was an added value of the project implementation to build up a volunteers network. 5. Newly recruited organisations and volunteers The next table indicates the number of new recruited organisations/partners in order to implement their pilot campaigns. These numbers include organisation, which might be important for technical (i.e. training of the volunteers) or financial support as well as partners or places in order to implement the action. In total 0 organisations/institutions/partners could be gained in order to help to implement HEROES. Before the start of HEROES the total network of partners comprehended 477 partners, built up within over 0 years at maximum (SIDA STUDI). Within the start of HEROES in years at maximum the partners network grew up to 0 partners. Some partners only had a need to find places for implementing the pilot action (RYD, Belgium), because they cross-fertilised an already existing campaign (ROSYPE) with the subject alcohol. As RYD, Belgium is very experienced in road safety activities, also in combination with alcohol or drug use (PEER-Drive Clean!), there was no urgent need to gain new partnerships (except one university becoming involved) for implementing the training and action, within the HEROES Campus Tour. 5

16 Name of the Partner Time frame Contact No. Domain VAD, Belgium /009 Existing network, Mail RYD, Belgium 06/00 Existing network, mail Avenir, Santé, France /009-/00 Existing network, phone Road safety University University Universiy of Nicosia, UNic, Cyprus RSI Panos Mylonas, Greece 09/008- Phone, mail, meeting /009-0/00 Existing Network, Phone, Press Report 4 Ministry, magazine, other NGOs, road safety mail, school, police, municipality, exhibition RYD, the Netherlands 09/009-07/0 Existing network, phone, face-to-face LASER Europe, France /009-05/00 Existing network, phone, meeting GARE, Portugal 09/00 Existing network, phone, mail, meeting Leisure time, place 4 Public Institution, association, business company, municipality AIDS prevention, municipality, youth organisation Open Youth, Bulgaria 0/00 Phone, mail, letter 5 Municipality KRZYS, Poland 09/008-0/009 Phone, mail, meeting MISTEL/SPI, Germany 05/009-/009 Phone, mail, meeting, letter 7 Ministry, road safety, police, driving schools 7 AIDS prevention, addiction prevention, school, movie, theatre SIDA STUDI, Spain 0/00-04/00 Mail, meeting University, AIDS prevention RYD, Luxembourg 09/009-09/00 Existing network AIDS Newly attracted organisations relevant for implementation of HEROES Other partners (Open Youth) were focussed on attracting new partners in other regions, where they never worked before, so the main focus was to get the allowance of municipalities and the support of schools to implement the action. For UNic HEROES marked the start of road safety activities and as they intend to unfold their 6

17 activities in this domain and on the other side considering that there is an urgent need for awareness raising in road safety in Cyprus, HEROES provided the opportunity, to gain many new partners in this new domain, especially for future cooperation. Other partners cross-fertilised an existing campaign with a totally new domain. MISTEL/SPI added the subject HIV/AIDS into their existing prevention project with regard to drink-drug-driving problems. Thus it was important to address especially new partners from the HIV/AIDS domain in order to prepare and qualify the volunteers professionally for the field work. The next table shows the amount of newly recruited volunteers through the dissemination of effective information. Name of the Partner Time frame Contact No. VAD, Belgium 0/00-08/00 Press Release, Mail, Newsletter, Social Media, Leaflet, RYD, Belgium 06/00-08/00 Mail, Letter, Radio Spot, Press Release 54 0 Avenir, Santé, France 0/00 Mail 4 Universiy of Nicosia, UNic, Cyprus 9/008-0/00 Existing Network, Meeting 5 RSI Panos Mylonas, Greece 0/00 Mail, Newsletter, Press Release RYD, the Netherlands 09/009-07/0 Existing Network, Mail, Leaflet, Phone, Face-to-Face LASER Europe, France 0/009-0/0 Existing Network, Letter, Mail, Meeting 6 50 GARE, Portugal 09/00 Existing Network, Mail, Phone, 0 Open Youth, Bulgaria 0/00-04/00 New Network 0 KRZYS, Poland 0/009 Phone, Mail, Leaflet 7 MISTEL/SPI, Germany 05/009-09/00 Leaflet, Press Release, Face-to- Face SIDA STUDI, Spain 0/00-04/00 Existing network, Mail, Leaflet 8 RYD, Luxembourg 0/009-/00 Existing network Newly attracted volunteers relevant for implementation of HEROES 57 new volunteers were attracted to work in the project. One main target of the project, to recruit at least 50 high quality new volunteers, students and peer educators through the dissemination of effective information were reached. Some partners attracted more volunteers than they finally have trained. LASER EUROPE 7

18 gained the interest of 50 young people to work in HEROES; VAD also attracted more volunteers (54) than they finally have trained. Other partners trained every newly attracted volunteer, for example MISTEL/SPI or Avenir Sante. Especially LASER EUROPE had to make a pre-selection, because it was impossible to involve all 50 volunteers interested into training schemes and in the pilots. 5. Socio-demographic data of the volunteers Chapter 5. aims to summarize the socio-demographic date of the volunteers such as age, sex and current status of the volunteers. As HEROES uses the peer-to-peer approach it is important that the volunteers are in the same age and have the same underlying experiences according to road safety, alcohol and drugs and sexuality, the prevention domains of HEROES. A gender balance would be preferable in order to address sexes in a good way. Especially the mobility and experiences of volunteers in motorised road traffic are preferable with regard to domain road safety, because it was the main domain of HEROES to be cross-fertilised with other domains of prevention. 5.. Age of the volunteers HEROES aimed to use the peer-to-peer approach in order to reach the target group of 8 up to 5 years old youngsters. Therefore it was important to attract and train young people as volunteers, who are in this age group themselves. As the next figure shows, both age groups 8 up to and up to 5 amount to 6,5% in T, the time of survey after the recruitment and before the training.,4% of the volunteers were younger than 8 years at this point of time. They were mainly volunteers of Open Youth and mainly in the age of 6 or 7 years (cf. table T, Mean and Medium). % of the volunteers to the time T were 6 or older. At the time T the time of survey after the pilot(s) 69,5% were in the age between 8 years and 5 years, 7% more than in T. The explanation is simple: As many partners ran more than one pilot during the project, the volunteers became older. Only 7,8% are younger than 8 years and % older than 5 years. 8

19 For the common project it can be stated that the age group of the volunteers for implementing pilots with the peer-to-peer approach is well defined, even in Bulgaria, where the volunteers being mostly 6 or 7 years old, are not too young in order to implement road safety activities, because it is the age close to allow for obtaining the driving licence. AGE GROUPS OF THE VOLUNTEERS ,9% 5,6% 00 6,9% 80 60,4% 7,8% 4,6% T (N=4) T (N=76) 40 8,0% 9,8% 0 0 under 8 years 8 years to years years to 5 years 6 years to 0 years,0%,% 0 years and older,7% n/a 0,7% The next two tables show the differences in the volunteer s age groups at both times the survey was conducted. Among the involved partners of HEROES the youngest volunteer came from GARE, Portugal (), and the oldest from Fundacja KRZYS, Poland (8) at T. On average the youngest volunteers came from Open Youth, Bulgaria (Mean = 7,40, Median = 7,00) and the oldest volunteers came from Fundacja KRZYS, Poland (Mean = 5,50, Median = 4,00). The lower Median in comparison to the Mean indicates that an age higher than 8 is an outlier from the average age. The contrary can be stated for Open Youth, the trend descending from the average age of 7,40 years, as the Median is 7,00. The average age for the whole project is 0,89 years, the median is 0,00 years, but on the other side a wide range of 5 years ( years to 8 years) can be determined. But as higher ages of volunteers are outliers, it can finally conclude that the age of the volunteers in HEROES perfectly fits the perspective to implement peer-to-peer activities into prevention work in order to reach the age group of 8 up to 5 years old youngsters. 9

20 Organisation N Minimum Maximum Range Mean Median Avenir Santé 4,5,00 Fundacja KRZYS GARE LASER Europe MISTEL/SPI Open Youth RSI Panos Mylonas RYD Belgium RYD Luxembourg RYD The Netherlands SIDA STUDI Universiy of Nicosia VAD Total Age of the volunteers, T (N=4, 9 missing) ,50 4, ,5 9, ,, ,96, ,40 7, ,56, , 5, ,9, ,4 0, ,40 6, ,4 0, ,44, ,89 0,00 At the second time of survey conducting T (see next page) after the pilot s implementation, the median was still the same (0,00), the mean rose (0,9). The youngest volunteer at this point of time was 5 years (Open Youth), the oldest volunteer was 5 years (GARE, Open Youth). The youngest volunteer from T did not take part in the pilot and left the project, also the oldest from T. The volunteers have an average age of 0 years up to 5 years (). The average age of SIDA STUDI is 5,88 years and the average age of Open Youth is 7,98 years. Both tables shows that within the project HEROES the average age of the volunteers was perfect to implement peer-to-peer schemes in order to reach the target group of young people, even in some organisations the range of the age is large. It shows at the same time that young people can be attracted for awareness raising in different prevention areas and that these young people take the responsibility for other people in their age group. 0

21 Organisation N Minimum Maximum Range Mean Median Avenir Santé 4 5 4,5,50 Fundacja KRZYS 0 8 0,60 4,00 GARE ,74 9,00 LASER Europe 9 8 9,8,00 MISTEL/SPI 0 0,55,50 Open Youth ,98 7,00 RSI Panos Mylonas ,8,50 RYD Belgium ,50,00 RYD Luxembourg 8 8 0,9,00 RYD The Netherlands ,50 0,00 SIDA STUDI ,88 6,00 Universiy of Nicosia 8 5 0, 0,00 VAD ,5,00 Total ,9 0,00 Age of the volunteers, T (N=76, missing) 5.. Sex of the volunteers The sex of the volunteers was well gender balanced at both times of the survey conducting, when examining the results for the entire project HEROES. SEX OF THE VOLUNTEERS 00 56,% ,8% 58,0% 0 4,0% 00 T (N=4) T (N=76) ,9% male female n/a

22 A slight majority of female volunteers becomes obvious, but with respect to the fact that women are normally more engaged in social work, the results are quite balanced. In total 4 male and 88 female volunteers were recruited and trained in the framework of HEROES, 9 volunteers did not give any statement about their sex. But by examining the result by partner, the figures become highly differentiated. An almost gender balanced network of volunteers is to observe at RYD, The Netherlands, Open Youth and Laser Europe. A broad majority of female volunteers can be constituted at UNic, SIDA STUDI, MISTEL/SPI and GARE. Avenir Santé only recruited female volunteers. A majority of male volunteers can be constituted at RYD, Belgium and Fundacja KRZYS. SEX OF THE VOLUNTEERS BY PARTNER - T (N=4) VAD (8),% 66,7% University of Nicosia (4) SIDA STUDI (0),4% 7,% 78,6% 6,7% RYD The Netherlands (4) 4,9% 57,% RYD Luxembourg () 8,5% 6,5% RYD Belgium (8) RSI Panos Mylonas() Open Youth (0) 6,4% 50,% 6,% 6,4% 8,9 7,% 49.9% male female n/a MISTEL/SPI (4) 6,7% 8,% LASER Europe (7) 46,6% 5,4% GARE (0) 0,0% 80,0% Fundacja KRZYS () Avenir Santé (4) 9,7% 8,% 0% 0% 40% 60% 80% 00% At the second point of time of conducting the survey, some changes become obvious with regard to the volunteer s sex. In total 6 male volunteers and 60 female volunteers took part in the pilots, respectively in the survey. VAD had more male volunteers after the pilots (T) than in T and at the same time the total number of volunteers at VAD raised from 8 (T) to 5 (T), even if the number in T (76) dropped down for the entire project in comparison to T (4). 5 partners had an almost gender balanced amount of volunteers at T (T=). RYD, Belgium had more male volunteers after the recruitment and training than at the second time of survey. 6,% () male volunteers gave statements at the first time of the survey; only 0% () gave statements at the second time of the survey. There are almost no

23 changes or no changes at all at MISTEL/SPI, GARE, LASER Europe, Open Youth and Avenir Santé. At RSI Panos Mylonas there is only a change in the percentage, because at T volunteers did not give any statement about their sex, but in T all volunteers answered the question about the sex. SEX OF THE VOLUNTEERS BY PARTNER - T (N=76) VAD (5) 56,0% 44,0% University of Nicosia () SIDA STUDI (9) 5,4%,% 84,6% 88,9% RYD The Netherlands (5) RYD Luxembourg () 8,5% 46,7% 6,5% 5,% RYD Belgium (0) RSI Panos Mylonas(8) Open Youth (9) 0,0% 50,0% 50,5% 70,0% 50,0% 49,5% male female MISTEL/SPI (0) 0,0% 80,0% LASER Europe (9) 4,6% 56,4 GARE (9),% 78,9% Fundacja KRZYS (0) Avenir Santé (4) 90,0% 0,0% 0% 0% 40% 60% 80% 00% 5.. Status of the volunteers By examining the entire project results with regard to the status of the volunteers, it becomes evident that most of the volunteers were school pupils and students. At T 07 from 4 volunteers were school pupils or students (6,9%). 56 volunteers (6,8%) had another status than the possible answer options given in the questionnaire. 6 volunteers (8,%) performed an activity as trainee or employee, only 6 volunteers (,8%) were soldiers or did their civilian service. But, because at this point of survey most of the 0 volunteers from Open Youth were school pupils - it is already mentioned that the average age of the volunteers in Open Youth is lower than the average age of the overall project - a view at the graphs classified by partner shows a differentiated chart.

24 STATUS OF THE VOLUNTEERS - T (N=4) 0 09 (,6%) (9,%) (6,8%) 46 (,8%) (4,5%) 5 (,5%) (0,%) 4 (,) School pupil Student Trainee Employee Soldier Civilian service Other n/a By viewing the results classified by partner it becomes evident that school pupils are in other institutions a minority. Only GARE (0 pupils, 50%) and VAD ( pupil, 5,6%) also recruited and trained pupils in order to prime them for the field work. On the other hand every partner institution worked with students: for example MISTEL/SPI (4, ) and Avenir Santé (4, ); UNic (, 85,7%), RYD, the Netherlands (0, 7,4%), SIDA STUDI (6, 54,5%). STATUS OF THE VOLUNTEERS BY PARTNERS - T (N=4) VAD (8) 5 0 University of Nicosia (4) 0 SIDA STUDI () 6 0 RYD The Netherlands (4) RYD Luxembourg () RYD Belgium (8) RSI Panos Mylonas () Open Youth (0) School pupil Student Trainee Employee Soldier Civilian service Other n/a MISTEL/SPI (4) 4 LASER Europe (7) 44 GARE (0) Fundacja KRZYS () 7 0 Avenir Santé (4) 4 0% 0% 40% 60% 80% 00% 4

25 There are not many changes in T in comparison to T. From 76 volunteers in total almost 70% (0) volunteers were pupils or students, 5,9% (44) were trainees or employees, 0 (0,9%) have another status than the mentioned possibilities and only a less number of volunteers were soldier or did their civilian service 6 (,%). STATUS OF THE VOLUNTEERS - T (N=76) (5,5%) 95 (4,4%) (,4%) 0 (0,9%) 0 0 7(,5%) 5 (,8%) (0,4%) (,%) School pupil Student Trainee Employee Soldier Civilian service Other n/a Especially for the status school pupils the classified figure by partner shows another image, because Open Youth with a high number of pupils working as volunteers provide one-third of all HEROES-volunteers. Viewing the results classified by partners, also in T like in T, the first time of the survey conducting there is a different picture of the status of the volunteers. Five partners worked with school pupils, four of them being a minority (Fundacja KRZYS, RYD, Belgium and VAD), at GARE 8 volunteers (40%) were school pupils, at Open Youth an absolute majority were pupils (85, 9,4%). At T only MISTEL/SPI worked exclusively with students and at UNic almost all volunteers were students, only didn t state the current status. Also at RSI Panos Mylonas most of the volunteers were students (80%). Noticeable is also the fact that in LASER Europe (5, 64,%) a majority held a status, being not covered in the questionnaire. Finally it is to state that the volunteers at the time of recruitment and training, and at the time of implementation of the pilot(s) come from different professional categories. This is also an important aspect regarding to the implementation of peer-to-peer schemes as stated in the work plan of HEROES that not only one professional group addresses the target group. 5

26 STATUS OF THE VOLUNTEERS BY PARTNER - T (N=76) VAD (5) 7 6 University of Nicosia () SIDA STUDI (9) 5 RYD The Netherlands (5) 4 RYD Luxembourg () RYD Belgium (0) RSI Panos Mylonas (8) Open Youth (9) MISTEL/SPI (0) School pupil Student Trainee Employee Soldier Civilian service Other n/a LASER Europe (9) 7 5 GARE (9) 8 0 Fundacja KRZYS (0) 5 Avenir Santé (4) 0% 0% 40% 60% 80% 00% 5..4 Mobility of the volunteers The mobility of the volunteers is of course an important aspect with regard to their voluntary work, because all partners cross-fertilised the subject road safety, with other types of action. Therefore it can be important to have already experiences to handle and drive a car and maybe to have already experiences with drink-drug-drive conflicts a main subject of all cross-fertilized road safety campaigns. This question was asked only once at T. Half of the volunteers owned a driving licence (49,7%), half of them did not have a permission to drive a vehicle (47,0%). volunteers did not state, whether they had a driving licence or not. In that regard it is to expect that - according to the average age of the volunteers - more volunteers would have already obtained a driving licence, a view at the figure classified by partner is necessary. 6

27 DO YOU HAVE A DRIVING LICENCE? (N=4) (49,7%) 57 (47,0%) (,%) yes no n/a A majority of almost all partners of the HEROES network already obtained a driving licence; but because Open Youth provided one-third of all volunteers and the average age of the volunteers in Open Youth was under 8, the overall statistic is not sufficiently precise. At RYD Belgium, RYD Luxembourg, MISTEL/SPI and Avenir Santé all involved volunteers already had a driving licence. At 6 other partners VAD, UNic, SIDA STUDI, RYD the Netherlands, RSI Panos Mylonas and Fundacja KRZYS a majority of the volunteers had the permission to drive a vehicle. Only in Open Youth and LASER Europe a minority of the volunteers already gained a driving licence. The half of the volunteers from GARE have a driving licence, the other half didn t have it. By excluding the volunteers of Open Youth, a majority of young people, being all engaged in the field of road safety, had already experienced to drive a vehicle. They shared the target group s experiences. That is an important factor of peer-to-peer work. 7

28 DO YOU HAVE A DRIVING LICENCE? - T - BY PARTNER (N=4) VAD (8) 5 University of Nicosia (4) SIDA STUDI () 8 RYD The Netherlands (4) 0 RYD Luxembourg () RYD Belgium (8) RSI Panos Mylonas () Open Youth (0) yes no n/a MISTEL/SPI (4) 4 LASER Europe (7) 4 8 GARE (0) 0 0 Fundacja KRZYS () 0 Avenir Santé (4) 4 0% 0% 40% 60% 80% 00% In order to complete the statistical data according to the availability of a driving licence, it was originally asked, what kind of driving licence the volunteers had in case the answer was yes. The majority held a car driving licence (88,5%) only a minority had a driving licence for a moped/motorbike (4,%) or for a car and a motorbike (7,4%). TYPE OF DRIVING LICENCE BY PARTNER Car and Moped/Motorbike Car Moped/Motorbike Avenir Santé Funacja KRZYS GARE LASER Europe MISTEL/SPI Open Youth RSI Panos Mylonas RYD Belgium RYD Luxembourg RYD The Netherlands SIDA STUDI University of Nicosia VAD 8

29 5.4 Statements of the volunteers The volunteers were asked, how they come to know about HEROES, what were the motives to work in HEROES on voluntary basis and whether they already had experiences in the field of road safety, alcohol and drug prevention or HIV/AIDS prevention, before working in the project Routes of recruitment for participation Regarding the recruitment routes asking the volunteers how they came to know about HEROES a majority answered that they heard about it from a teacher or within a seminar (90 in T, 7 in T). Because most of the volunteers were school pupils or students, hence these answers were to expect. There are not many changes in the answers between T and T, considering the lower number of volunteers to the time T. HOW DID YOU COME TO KNOW ABOUT HEROES? (multiple answers allowed) T (N=4) T (N=76) 0 0 From a teacher Within a seminar From friends/acquaintances In a newspaper/magazine By mail/flyer/poster By other ways It is positive to note that many volunteers came to know about HEROES through friends or acquaintances (86 in T, 58 in T) or mail, flyer or poster (7 in T, 40 in T). This is an indicator that volunteers, being already active in the field of prevention, are also important as multipliers in order to raise the interest of other young people for these prevention fields. On the other side public relation or the use of virtual networks of young people being virtually interested in prevention work, can also be an important route for recruiting young people for prevention work. 9

30 Many volunteers also stated that they came to know about HEROES by other ways. As it was not clear (no further statement options in the questionnaire) by which routes they came to know, the evaluation tool could be improved with regard to the next survey. The next figure classifies the answers of the volunteers by partner at T. It allows to get a more differentiated picture of the answers with regard to the routes of recruitment. HOW DID YOU COME TO KNOW ABOUT HEROES? - ANSWERS BY PARTNER - T (multiple answers allowed, N=4) VAD (8) University of Nicosia (4) SIDA STUDI () 0 6 RYD The Netherlands (4) RYD Luxembourg () RYD Belgium (8) RSI Panos Mylonas () Open Youth (0) MISTEL/SPI 4) From a teacher Within a seminar By friends/acquaintances In a newspaper/magazine By mails/flyer/poster By other ways LASER Europe (7) 40 4 GARE (0) 4 4 Fundacja KRZYS () 0 Avenir Santé (4) 4 0% 0% 40% 60% 80% 00% It becomes obvious that institutions with an academical background (MISTEL/SPI, UNic) or being mainly active in schools classes (Open Youth) recruited their volunteers in the framework of the university or school. The volunteers of these institutions answered mainly that they came to know about HEROES through a teacher or within a seminar. There are two institutions (RYD Luxembourg, LASER Europe), were non-governmental organisations without a university background, who principally recruited their volunteers also by teachers or in seminars. For almost all partners an important way of attracting and recruiting young people were volunteers, being already active in these organisations and talk about their activities within their circle of friends or acquaintances. For Fundacja KRZYS it was the most important route of recruitment. As regards RYD Belgium an attractive route of recruitment of future and potential volunteers goes via mail, flyer or poster. For other partners such as VAD or RSI Panos Mylonas it is at least an additional way to attract volunteers to work in the respective institution. 0

31 Many volunteers came to know about the HEROES network and the opportunity to do voluntary work by further ways. Avenir Santé only recruited young volunteers by further ways. For RSI Panos Mylonas and GARE it was the most important route of recruitment and half of the volunteers of SIDA STUDI were attracted in this way. After implementation of the pilots the volunteers were asked again, how they came to know about HEROES. HOW DID YOU COME TO KNOW ABOUT HEROES? - T (multiple answers allowed N=76) VAD (5) University of Nicosia () SIDA STUDI (9) 0 4 RYD The Netherlands (5) RYD Luxembourg () RYD Belgium (0) RSI Panos Mylonas (8) Open Youth (9) MISTEL/SPI (9) By a teacher Within a seminar From friends/acquaintances In a newspaper/magazine By mails/flyer/poster By other ways LASER Europe (9) 0 6 GARE (9) Fundacja KRZYS (0) 9 Avenir Santé (4) 4 0% 0% 40% 60% 80% 00% The tendency is the same as in T; partners with a university background mainly attracted their volunteers by a teacher or within a seminar. A majority of the volunteers of RYD Belgium stated in T that they became informed about HEROES through a magazine or a newspaper. In T the majority stated that they came to know about the project by mail, flyer or poster. Insofar some volunteers changed their answers regarding the routes of recruitment. However, as both routes are strongly connected to public relations, it can be assessed that in Belgium volunteers are recruited mainly by this way Motivation of the volunteers There is indeed a discernable motive of young people to work as volunteer and therefore it was asked, why they want to participate in the project HEROES. Multiple answers were possible. A majority of the volunteers stated, that the interest in the subject is the main motive to be involved in HEROES. Other important motives for

32 participation are to learn something for the future career and linked with that to try out in the field of prevention. The answers of T (669 answers) and T (59 answers) are not very different from each other. There is an evidence that young people are interested in prevention projects, because they already had negative experiences themselves or came to know about tragic incidents within their circle of friends or acquaintances. 78 volunteers out of 669 given answers or,6% (multiple answers) in T replied that a motive for a participation in HEROES is a negative experience or the experience of tragic incidents. In T 6 volunteers (0,4%) justified their participation in HEROES with this motive. In HEROES about every tenth volunteer already had negative experiences or experienced already a tragic incident among their circle of friends or acquaintances. WHY DO YOU WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE NETWORK? (multiple answers allowed) T (N=4) T (N=76) Learn for future career Negative experiences on risk behaviour Interested in the subject Tragic incidences among my friends Earn money/get contacts Get credit points Try out in prevention Already involved in comparable activities 5 7 Other reasons 5 The results structured and classified by partner in T reflect almost the common results. The interest in the subject and to learn something for the future career is for almost all institutions the dominant motive for the volunteers to be engaged in the project, except RYD, the Netherlands and SIDA STUDI. In the Netherlands the results are splitted.

33 WHY DO YOU WANT TO TAKE PART IN THE NETWORK - T (multiple answers allowed N=4) VAD (8) University of Nicosia (4) 5 7 SIDA STUDI () RYD The Netherlands (4) 5 RYD Luxembourg () RYD Belgium (8) RSI Panos Mylonas () Open Youth (0) MISTEL/SPI (4) LASER Europe (7) Learn for future career Negative experiences on risk behaviour Interested in the subject Tragic incidences among my friends Earn money/get contacts Get credit points Try out in prevention Already involved in comparable activities Other reasons GARE (0) Fundacja KRZYS () 6 4 Avenir Santé (4) 0 0% 0% 40% 60% 80% 00% Some outlier can be identified, for example in RSI Panos Mylonas 6,% of all answers deal with tragic incidences among friends, but the results with regard to this answer option for the entire project is only 7,%. To get credit points is for most of the volunteers not the main motive and is irrelevant for many institutions (5,% for the entire project), but for volunteers of MISTEL/SPI (,%) and Open Youth (8,6%) it is a relevant motive for participation. WHY DO YOU WANT TO TAKE PART IN THE NETWORK? - T (multiple answers allowed N=76) VAD (5) University of Nicosia () 7 6 SIDA STUDI (9) 4 4 RYD The Netherlands (0) 5 RYD Luxembourg () RYD Belgium (0) RSI Panos Mylonas (8) Open Youth (9) MISTEL/SPI (9) Learn for future career Negative experiences on risk behaviour Interested in the subject Tragic incidences among my friends Earn money/get contacts Get credit points Try out in prevention Already involved in comparable activities Other reasons LASER Europe (9) GARE (9) 9 9 Fundacja KRZYS (0) 5 4 Avenir Santé (4) 0% 0% 40% 60% 80% 00%