Understanding the evaluation of access and participation outreach interventions for under 16 year olds.

The project team was asked to address the following six research questions and these were used to guide the project: 1. What are the intended outcomes for current outreach interventions directed at under 16 year olds from disadvantaged backgrounds where the long-term aim is to widen access to higher education (HE)? 2. What types of outreach intervention activity or activities are institutions using in relation to intended outcomes? 3. What evaluation tools, methods and metrics are being used to measure the intended outcomes? 4. What are the perceived and actual challenges and barriers for different stakeholders to effective evaluation of long-term outreach? 5. What do different stakeholders consider most effective evaluation practice and why? 6. How valid and suitable are the evaluation tools, methods and metrics (identified through the research) that are commonly used? The project was constructed around six interlinked work packages: 1. A quantitative analysis of what higher education providers (HEPs) say about their pre-16 outreach activities (and their evaluation) in their 2017-18 access agreements (as the most recent available). 2. An online survey of HEPs to gather information about the pre-16 outreach activities delivered during the 2016-17 academic year and their evaluation, as well as the structure of their evaluation resources and challenges faced. 3. Case studies of four HEPs identified as demonstrating elements of good practice through their access agreements and the online survey, derived from telephone interviews with key staff and documentary analysis. 4. Telephone interviews with 11 third sector organisations (TSOs) to explore their practices and the evaluation of their activities, providing a counterpoint to the data collected from higher education institutions (HEIs). 5. A synthesis of the four preceding work packages to explore elements of good practice, determine a basis for assessing the quality of evaluations and highlight challenges for the sector and OFFA. 6. An invited participatory workshop for evaluators from HEPs and TSOs identified as demonstrating elements of good practice through the online survey and telephone interviews, to act as a sounding board for the emerging conclusions and recommendations.

The project team was asked to address the following six research questions and these were
used to guide the project:
1. What are the intended outcomes for current outreach interventions directed at under
16 year olds from disadvantaged backgrounds where the long-term aim is to widen
access to higher education (HE)?
2. What types of outreach intervention activity or activities are institutions using in
relation to intended outcomes?
3. What evaluation tools, methods and metrics are being used to measure the intended
outcomes?
4. What are the perceived and actual challenges and barriers for different stakeholders
to effective evaluation of long-term outreach?
5. What do different stakeholders consider most effective evaluation practice and why?
6. How valid and suitable are the evaluation tools, methods and metrics (identified
through the research) that are commonly used?
The project was constructed around six interlinked work packages:
1. A quantitative analysis of what higher education providers (HEPs) say about their
pre-16 outreach activities (and their evaluation) in their 2017-18 access agreements
(as the most recent available).
2. An online survey of HEPs to gather information about the pre-16 outreach activities
delivered during the 2016-17 academic year and their evaluation, as well as the
structure of their evaluation resources and challenges faced.
3. Case studies of four HEPs identified as demonstrating elements of good practice
through their access agreements and the online survey, derived from telephone
interviews with key staff and documentary analysis.
4. Telephone interviews with 11 third sector organisations (TSOs) to explore their
practices and the evaluation of their activities, providing a counterpoint to the data
collected from higher education institutions (HEIs).
5. A synthesis of the four preceding work packages to explore elements of good
practice, determine a basis for assessing the quality of evaluations and highlight
challenges for the sector and OFFA.
6. An invited participatory workshop for evaluators from HEPs and TSOs identified as
demonstrating elements of good practice through the online survey and telephone interviews, to act as a sounding board for the emerging conclusions and recommendations.