Upload
english-pen
View
193
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
An independent report by Melita Armitage, assessing the work of English PEN's learning and participation programme, Readers & Writers.
Citation preview
7/15/2019 Evaluation: English PEN Readers & Writers Programme 2012-13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-english-pen-readers-writers-programme-2012-13 1/40
EVALUATION
OF
THE
ENGLISH
PEN’S
READERS
&
WRITERS
PROGRAMME 2012/13
DR MELITA ARMITAGE
JUNE 2013
Image 1: europolyglot workshop, Wapping Jesuit Refugee Service (photo: George Torode)
Melita Armitage Ltd
℡ 07976 066 740
www.melitaarmitage.com
7/15/2019 Evaluation: English PEN Readers & Writers Programme 2012-13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-english-pen-readers-writers-programme-2012-13 2/40
Melita Armitage, June 2013
i Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................................ i
List of figures & Tables ....................................................................................................................................... ii
List of images ..................................................................................................................................................... iii
Headlines ........................................................................................................................................................... 1
Achievements ................................................................................................................................................ 1
Opportunities ................................................................................................................................................ 2
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 3
Background .................................................................................................................................................... 3
Evaluation methodology ............................................................................................................................... 4
Project summaries ............................................................................................................................................. 5
2012/13 Readers
and
Writers
Programme
.......................................................................................................
5
Reach of the 2012/13 programme ................................................................................................................ 5
Shape of the programme............................................................................................................................... 6
Rating the workshops .................................................................................................................................... 7
Impact of the learning opportunities ................................................................................................................ 8
The workshop environment .......................................................................................................................... 9
Learning outcomes: skills, qualities and knowledge ................................................................................... 11
“Freedom to write, freedom to read” ............................................................................................................. 18
Future interests
‐meeting
ongoing
aspirations
..........................................................................................
20
Investing in writers .......................................................................................................................................... 21
Employment of writers ................................................................................................................................ 21
training & developing practice .................................................................................................................... 22
Developing relationships ................................................................................................................................. 25
Project partners ........................................................................................................................................... 25
Beneficiaries – audiences & participants .................................................................................................... 27
Conclusion & Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 29
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................
29
Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................... 30
Appendix 1: R&WP Aims & Objectives ............................................................................................................ 31
Appendix 2: Writers working with English PEN on the R&WP 2012/13 ......................................................... 32
Appendix 3: Examples of the Head, Heart & Feet exercise ............................................................................. 35
7/15/2019 Evaluation: English PEN Readers & Writers Programme 2012-13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-english-pen-readers-writers-programme-2012-13 3/40
Melita Armitage, June 2013
ii List of figures & Tables
LIST OF FIGURES & TABLES
FIGURES
Figure 1: Beneficiaries’ rating of the quality of their workshops (Base: 46) ..................................................... 7
Figure 2:
How
beneficiaries
felt
during
the
workshops
(Base:
44)
....................................................................
9
Figure 3: Wordle of words chosen by beneficiaries to show how they felt at end of workshops (Base: 36) ... 9
Figure 4: How beneficiaries felt about their creative experience (Base: 43) .................................................. 10
Figure 5: Wordle illustrating what prisoners liked best & least about workshops (Base: 123) ...................... 11
Figure 6: Beneficiaries’ ability to fully engage in their learning (Base: 39) ..................................................... 12
Figure 7: Impact of workshops on beneficiaries ............................................................................................. 12
Figure 8:
2011/12
and
2012/13
beneficiaries'
knowledge
as
a result
of
the
workshops
...............................
13
Figure 9: Beneficiaries knowledge of English PEN's activities (Base: 36) ........................................................ 14
Figure 10: Partners’ knowledge of English PEN's activities (Base: 28) ............................................................ 15
Figure 11: Improvements to English as a result of workshops (Base: 40) ....................................................... 15
Figure 12: Future learning interests of beneficiaries ...................................................................................... 20
Figure 13: Writer's feedback on workshop delivery (Base: 14) ....................................................................... 23
Figure 14: Partner feedback on impact of events (Base: 26) .......................................................................... 27
TABLES
Table 1: R&WP projects 2012/13 ...................................................................................................................... 3
Table 2: Reach of the R&WP 2012/13 ............................................................................................................... 5
7/15/2019 Evaluation: English PEN Readers & Writers Programme 2012-13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-english-pen-readers-writers-programme-2012-13 4/40
Melita Armitage, June 2013
iii List of images
LIST OF IMAGES
Image 1: europolyglot workshop, Wapping Jesuit Refugee Service (photo: George Torode) .......................... 1
Image 2: europolyglot and Speak for yourself! event (Photo: Jackie Di Stefano) ............................................. 1
Image 3: Make my Day workshops at Tricycle Theatre (Photo: George Torode) ............................................. 2
Image 4: europolyglot workshops at Wapping Jesuit Refugee Service (Photo: George Torode) ..................... 6
Image 5: europolyglot and Speak for yourself! event (Photo: Jackie Di stefano) ............................................. 8
Image 6: Brave New Voices workshop at MRC forum (Photo: George Torode) ............................................. 16
Image 7: Brave New Voices at MRC Forum (Photo: George Torode) .............................................................. 21
Image 8: europolyglot and Speak for yourself! event (Photo: Jackie Di Stefano) ........................................... 28
7/15/2019 Evaluation: English PEN Readers & Writers Programme 2012-13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-english-pen-readers-writers-programme-2012-13 5/40
Melita Armitage, June 2013
1 Headlines
Image 2: europolyglot and Speak for yourself! event (Photo: Jackie Di Stefano) HEADLINES
ACHIEVEMENTS
• 12 projects delivered with 50 partners and 11 funding partners.
• 242 workshops were delivered by 50 writers.
• The programme reached 3,412 participants and 1,525 audiences; a total of 4,937 beneficiaries.
• 60 young people that had recently arrived in the UK linked their learning on the programme to a Bronze
Arts Award.
• The workshops instilled feelings of confidence, enjoyment and creativity in beneficiaries.
• Beneficiaries reported the acquisition of skills, new knowledge and qualities such as self directed
learning, understanding of the different stages of writing, confidence linked to reading, writing,
listening and speaking English.
• Beneficiaries and partners demonstrated an appetite to learn more about English PEN’s activities.
• Half of the writers that wrote a report documented how the programme had helped to develop their
practice.
• Majority of partners’ aspirations for the programme were met.
• Celebration events
were
strongly
endorsed
by
partners.
7/15/2019 Evaluation: English PEN Readers & Writers Programme 2012-13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-english-pen-readers-writers-programme-2012-13 6/40
Melita Armitage, June 2013
2 Headlines
OPPORTUNITIES
• Respond to an appetite for ongoing learning, consolidating what was learnt at the workshops.
•
Link with
partners’
accreditation
activity
in
order
to
add
strategic
value
and
further
cement
relationships.
• Broaden the pool of writers working with English PEN through an open selection process.
Image 3: Make my Day workshops at Tricycle Theatre (Photo: George Torode)
7/15/2019 Evaluation: English PEN Readers & Writers Programme 2012-13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-english-pen-readers-writers-programme-2012-13 7/40
Melita Armitage, June 2013
3 Introduction
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
English PEN's Readers and Writers Programme (R&WP) is the name give to the organisation's community
activity. Its purpose is:
To give socially excluded people in England the capability to enjoy their right to freedom of expression.
During 2012/2013, the programme comprised 12 projects each involving different host partners, writers,
beneficiaries and funding partners. It had three strands, each with a specific focus: Prisoners & Detainees,
Young People & Older People and Refugees & Soldiers.
The list of projects was as follows:
Strand
Project name
Funder
Prisoners & Detainees PEN in prisons Monument Trust
Poetry Parnassus in Detention Speaking Volumes (Arts Council England award)
Young People & Older
People
Speak for Yourself! Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
Faith in Free Speech MB Reckitt Trust
PEN in Wigan Orwell Prize
Wish you were here Islington Council
PEN in Mildmay European Commission Representation in UK
Refugees & Soldiers europolyglot European Commission Representation in UK
Brave New Voices Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation
Make My Day! John Lyon’s Charity
PEN mentors English PEN core funds
Writing Heroes English PEN core funds
Table 1: R&WP projects 2012/13 Three aims underpin the R&WP:
• To deliver high quality lifelong learning opportunities to disadvantaged groups of beneficiaries,
currently identified
as
refugees,
asylum
seekers,
migrants,
prisoners,
detainees,
young
offenders,
young people and older people from disadvantaged backgrounds, in order that they can explore,
develop and maintain – and be empowered through – their Freedom to Write, Freedom to Read.
• To offer training and professional development opportunities to English PEN’s greatest resource –
the writers we work with – and to accompany, encourage and support our writers, and associate
freelancers, to build long‐lasting relationships with English PEN and our partner organisations.
• To encourage and maintain a culture where English PEN’s community programme is continually
improving its working practices as well as its relationships with beneficiaries, funders, partner
organisations and other stakeholders.
7/15/2019 Evaluation: English PEN Readers & Writers Programme 2012-13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-english-pen-readers-writers-programme-2012-13 8/40
Melita Armitage, June 2013
4 Introduction
These are the new aims for the programme that were refined by the Head of Programmes in July 2012.
Initially, 17 objectives were drafted to accompany these aims and part of the early evaluation work was to
help balance the breadth of what could be captured through the evaluation with capacity and resources.
Consequently, the 17 objectives were rationalized to eight objectives which are presented in Appendix 1.
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
In 2012, an independent evaluation was commissioned to help English PEN understand the value of the
programme for its three main stakeholders: beneficiaries, writers and partners. As this is the first time that
English PEN have attempted to use a single evaluation methodology for all its education projects, there
were inevitably some teething problems. This was unsurprising given the breadth of partners,
beneficiaries’ access to technology and the possibility of equalities monitoring in certain circumstances (for
example, schools or prisons).
The Readers & Writers Programme works in contexts which limit access to beneficiaries (for example,
prisons) and where limits feel important given the premium the project necessarily places on trust between
writer and each beneficiary cohort. Consequently, there was an agreed limit to how much access the
evaluator could have with beneficiaries. We agreed, therefore, that either the writers or PEN’s Head of
Programmes would circulate the evaluation and monitoring tools. In addition, the writers, we had hoped,
would be supported to implement the evaluation through the newly appointed writer mentors. However,
it was not possible for the writer mentors to take part in the management of the evaluation this year.
Unfortunately, not every beneficiary group received the evaluation and monitoring tools and so the data
from beneficiaries
was
much
lower
than
we
had
hoped.
This
is
a key
learning
point
for
the
first
year
of
evaluation and we are working to develop processes that will support the writers and to reduce the
demands on the Head of Programmes. However, each type of project (prisoners & detainees, young
people & older people, refugees & soldiers) is represented in the data that informed this report.
The evidence used in this report includes:
‐ Surveymonkey questionnaire for 2012/13 beneficiaries (46 responses)
‐ Surveymonkey questionnaire for past beneficiaries from one course in 2011/12 (11 responses)
‐ Equal Opportunities monitoring forms (77 respondents: 63 beneficiaries & 14 writers)
‐ Surveymonkey questionnaire for 2012/13 partners (30 responses)
‐ Feedback forms for 2012/13 prison beneficiaries (134 responses)
‐ Writer reports (15 writers)
‐ Correspondence from Philip Cowell and Irene Garrow
In addition, we tested a further evaluation tool asking students to use a Head (to express something learnt),
Heart (to express something felt), Feet (to express something they would take with them), Thought Bubble
(to express their ideas of how to improve the workshop). Originally, this was to be a facilitated tool that
would capture the group’s response in order to keep the analysis manageable. This year, however, it was
tested on
a single
project
and
every
beneficiary
was
invited
to
create
a picture.
7/15/2019 Evaluation: English PEN Readers & Writers Programme 2012-13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-english-pen-readers-writers-programme-2012-13 9/40
Melita Armitage, June 2013
5 Project summaries
PROJECT SUMMARIES
PEN IN P RISONS English PEN was funded by
the Monument
Trust
to
programme at least 15 writer
workshops in 10 prisons
across the country.
PEN IN DETENTION English PEN ran a week long
project with Speaking
Volumes as part of Southbank
Centre’s Poetry Parnassus
festival. Poets ran workshops
for detainees at Colnbrook
Immigration Removal Centre.
SPEAK FOR Y OURSELF English PEN was funded by
the Esmée Fairbairn
Foundation to train 45, 16‐21
year olds in free speech over a
six month period. The
training culminated in free
speech projects created by
young people
F AITH IN F REE SPEECH English PEN was funded by
the M B Reckitt Trust to
consult with young people on
free speech and faith issues,
leading up to the creation of
learning resources that would
help many more young people
explore these
issues.
PEN IN W IGAN English PEN partnered the
Orwell Prize
to
run
a day
of
workshops in Wigan, near to
where George Orwell stayed
when he researched his
famous book.
W ISH YOU WERE HERE ! English PEN partnered
Islington Word (funded by
Islington Council) to run four
workshops in an Islington
school. The project linked
pupils with young people in a
school in Sierra Leone.
PEN IN MILDMAY English PEN, in partnership
with the European
Commission Representation in
the UK, created a two month
residency in a care home for
older people with dementia
EUROPOLYGLOT English PEN, in partnership
with the European
Commission Representation in
the UK, created a six month
festival that celebrated
multilingualism, inclusivity
and intergenerational work in
the UK.
BRAVE N EW V OICES English PEN was funded by
the Calouste
Gulbenkian
Foundation to create a project
that celebrated creative
translation, bringing
translators into PEN’s
education work.
M AKE MY D AY ! English PEN was funded by
John Lyon’s Charity to work
with 60 recently arrived young
people from Wembley. The
young people worked with
writers on their creative
writing. The project resulted
in a book that was launched at
an event at Tricycle Theatre.
PEN MENTORS English PEN piloted a new
programme of activity – one‐
to‐one work bringing together
a PEN writer and a PEN
beneficiary for ongoing one‐
to‐one support.
W RITING H EROES English PEN piloted new work
with returning and wounded
soldiers in partnership with
Help for Heroes at Tedworth
House, the personnel
recovery centre.
7/15/2019 Evaluation: English PEN Readers & Writers Programme 2012-13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-english-pen-readers-writers-programme-2012-13 10/40
Melita Armitage, June 2013
5 2012/13 Readers and Writers Programme
2012/13 READERS AND WRITERS PROGRAMME
REACH OF THE 2012/13 PROGRAMME
NUMBER OF BENEFICIARIES
In 2012/13 English PEN aimed to reach 3,000 beneficiaries. The definition of beneficiaries is both
participants and audiences, although the emphasis of the programme is very much on participants. The
hope was that the 3,000 would be reached through equal numbers of participants from the three strands
of the programme: Prisoners & Detainees, Young People & Older People and Refugees & Soldiers.
The actual number of participants was 3,400, reached through the delivery of 242 workshops. Additionally,
there were events such as providing dictionaries to over 1,000 prisoners, circulating 1,000 copies of a novel
to book groups and creating DVDs to extend the reach of projects to over 240 young people. These and
other events reached audiences amounting to an additional 1,500 people.
In total, English PEN’s Readers & Writers Programme (R&WP) reached just under 5,000 beneficiaries.
The breakdown of the 2012/13 R&WP was as follows:
Workshops Writers Participants Audiences Beneficiaries
Prisoners & Detainees 30 26 1,075 1,065 2,140
Young People & Older People 98 17 560 340 900
Refugees & Soldiers 114 19 1,777 120 1,897
Total 242 501 3,412 1,525 4,937
Table 2:
Reach
of
the
R&WP
2012/13
Overall, the programme reached well over its 3,000 target for participants in 2012/13 and was successful in
attracting new partnerships that extended the reach of projects. (Although it was 100 people short of its
1,000 target of young people and older people.)
PROFILE OF BENEFICIARIES
Equalities data was collected from 62 beneficiaries in 2012/13 suggesting that the process of monitoring is
not
yet
embedded
in
the
programme.
In
part,
there
are
some
difficulties
in
collecting
equalities
data
directly from participants, particularly in secure settings
Data was only collected from young participants and only collected by the Head of Programmes. Within
this cohort of young people:
‐ 26 were female and 36 were male
‐ 1 person identified as disabled (only 40 answered the question)
1 Note that some writers delivered more than one project so the total here is less than the number of writers in each
strand.
7/15/2019 Evaluation: English PEN Readers & Writers Programme 2012-13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-english-pen-readers-writers-programme-2012-13 11/40
Melita Armitage, June 2013
6 2012/13 Readers and Writers Programme
‐ There were no white beneficiaries; all 62 selected either multiple identities or a BAME group: 12
people ‐ Mixed/multiple ethnic groups, 21 people ‐ Asian/Asian British, 11 people ‐ Black/Black
British, 18 people ‐ Other ethnic group.
SHAPE OF
THE
PROGRAMME
The range of learning opportunities was in part informed by the diverse nature of the beneficiaries.
Learning opportunities needed to meet the needs of each group, whether that adaptation needed to
address language, literacy or dementia. The style of workshops was informal, with very few sessions
accredited (the exception being where workshops could be integrated to an existing learning module at the
host partner’s organisation). English PEN briefs every writer before their workshops in a meeting with the
Head of Programmes or Programme Officer to give an overview of English PEN’s mission, the R&WP and
the beneficiary group. Within the workshops, the emphasis is placed on the here and now, rather than on
the
past.
During
these
induction
meetings,
it
is
stressed
that
the
writers
are
not
counselors
and
that
they
need to be very clear about the boundaries of their role: they are there to focus on writing, using objects or
other non contentious stimuli to help steer discussions to the here and now. Additional advice is given to
writers that go into prisons and other secure settings and a two page document containing guidelines on
behaviour, what to wear and how to work with offenders is also given to writers. The writers then tailor a
workshop to suit the group and environment and they are welcome to discuss their plans with PEN staff.
Image 4: europolyglot workshops at Wapping Jesuit Refugee Service (Photo: George Torode)
7/15/2019 Evaluation: English PEN Readers & Writers Programme 2012-13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-english-pen-readers-writers-programme-2012-13 12/40
Melita Armitage, June 2013
7 2012/13 Readers and Writers Programme
During 2012/13, English PEN piloted a new tier of support commissioning three writers to become mentors
for other writers on the programme. In total, 48 writers took part in the programme in 2012/13 and were
drawn from a variety of disciplines, including: novelists, poets, journalist, philosophers, academics and
political writers. In the majority of instances, the writers delivered a single workshop or series of
workshops. Ten writers delivered two or three workshops or series of workshops.
RATING THE WORKSHOPS
Beneficiaries were asked to rate the style and delivery of the workshops in their feedback surveys. The
feedback was all positive with few disagreements (fewer than three against each statement).
The beneficiaries were asked to indicate their agreement with seven statements and had the option of
ticking “Strongly agree”, “Agree”, “Disagree” and “Strongly disagree”.
In the
following
figure,
these
ratings
were
given
a numeric
value
and
the
average
is
presented
here.
“Strongly agree” was given a numeric value of 4 and “Strongly disagree” a numeric value of 1.
Figure 1: Beneficiaries’ rating of the quality of their workshops (Base: 46) These ratings were corroborated by the partners in their surveys, with all ratings between 3.5 and 3.6.
Comments from participants included:
“It was an excellent opportunity to meet wonderful people and be able to express myself. It was a
window of hope.”
(Beneficiary survey response)
“This programme of English PEN was very, very useful for me. I really enjoyed the 10 weeks and I
would like to request this programme should be continued.”
(Beneficiary survey response)
Where criticisms were made, they were about the amount of food provided during the workshop (this
person
felt
that
constant
eating
was
distracting)
and
one
beneficiary
did
not
rate
the
writers
in
the
middle
of their series of workshops.
3.6
3.7
3.6
3.6
3.5
3.5
3.5
1 2 3 4
I enjoyed
the
workshops
Our tutor was excellent
The workshops were interesting
I felt safe learning in this environment
Tutor got the pitch just right (not too easy, not too hard)
Language wasn't a problem in our workshop
There was enough support for me
Strongly
disagreeStrongly
agree
AgreeDisagree
7/15/2019 Evaluation: English PEN Readers & Writers Programme 2012-13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-english-pen-readers-writers-programme-2012-13 13/40
Melita Armitage, June 2013
8 Impact of the learning opportunities
IMPACT OF THE LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES
The purpose of the learning opportunities was:
“To provide beneficiaries with the means to explore their creative self ‐expression and free speech
in a safe environment and to develop specific skills, knowledge and qualities linked to the vision for
the programme.”
This objective expresses three important themes the Head of Programmes wished to see result from the
programme: acquisition of skills, knowledge and qualities. These themes were broken down into a series
of indicators that included:
• Skills: engaged learning (self directed learning, critical skills), language acquisition, active listening
and co‐construction.
• Knowledge: stages of writing, literary forms, role of English PEN and (for longer series of
workshops) learning linked to human rights and free speech legislation.
• Qualities: confidence
linked
to
reading,
writing,
listening
and
speaking,
heightened
sense
of
empathy, understanding of writing as an act of empowerment.
A further aspiration for the programme was that it would enable beneficiaries to accredit their learning.
Image 5: europolyglot and Speak for yourself! event (Photo: Jackie Di stefano)
7/15/2019 Evaluation: English PEN Readers & Writers Programme 2012-13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-english-pen-readers-writers-programme-2012-13 14/40
Melita Armitage, June 2013
9 Impact of the learning opportunities
THE WORKSHOP ENVIRONMENT
Establishing a safe environment to learn was fundamental to the success of each learning opportunity.
Beneficiaries were asked to tick a series of words that they felt expressed how they felt during their
workshops. The majority selected the words “Welcome”, “Supported” and “Respected”:
Figure 2: How beneficiaries felt during the workshops (Base: 44) In a separate question, beneficiaries were asked to choose their own three words to express how they felt
at the end of their workshop or series of workshops. The following wordle illustrates their choice of words.
The more frequent a word was used the larger the size of the font. As is very clear from the following
figure, the words “confident” and “happy” were most often used by the beneficiaries to describe their
feelings at the end of the workshops.
Figure 3: Wordle of words chosen by beneficiaries to show how they felt at end of workshops (Base: 36) Both of the preceding figures illustrate that within this sample of beneficiaries, the R&WP experience was a
positive one for the participants.
The writers also picked up on this positivity in their reports, often quoting individual beneficiaries’
responses
to
their
teaching.
For
example:
2623
2730
3632
1 1 2 1 505
10152025303540
7/15/2019 Evaluation: English PEN Readers & Writers Programme 2012-13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-english-pen-readers-writers-programme-2012-13 15/40
Melita Armitage, June 2013
10 Impact of the learning opportunities
“‘Really enjoyed the lesson. I’ve learnt I can do anything if I put my mind to it and that’s down to
you.’ Danni”
(From a writer’s report)
In a series of workshops with older people with dementia, the writer reported how the workshops enabled
participants to find their voice, again quoting an individual’s response:
“In particular one person grasps my function and both one on one and in group speaks about what
her internal experience is – saying ‘I’ve got to get it out, people don’t understand, think I’m
stupid.’”
(From a writer’s report)
This last quotation illustrates the value of the R&WP as a means to encourage self expression.
Turning to creativity, beneficiaries were also asked to choose the words that best expressed their creative
experience on the workshops. Again, within the sample of respondents, the majority of words chosen were
positive. “Stimulated”, “Motivated” and “Inspired” were most frequently selected:
Figure 4: How beneficiaries felt about their creative experience (Base: 43)
The 600 prison beneficiaries were not given the new evaluation forms in 2012/13. Instead, they were given
forms that English PEN has used in the past and around 125 were completed. The questions included a
rating scale that focused on enjoyment (of the book, workshop and recommendation to other prisoners),
usefulness for reading and writing and how memorable the event was in prison life, to which responses
were largely positive. The open question at the end asked prisoners to document the best and worst thing
about the workshops.
In many instances the feedback from prisoners was that they had found the workshops enjoyable (24
prisoners), stimulating or interesting (22 prisoners), or that they had identified with the writer (19
22
2731
18
29
15 14
20
7 2 1 2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
7/15/2019 Evaluation: English PEN Readers & Writers Programme 2012-13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-english-pen-readers-writers-programme-2012-13 16/40
Melita Armitage, June 2013
11 Impact of the learning opportunities
prisoners). For some prisoners in particular, it was inspiring to hear that the writer had experienced
difficulty, got into trouble and then turned their life around. Other feedback included enjoying the writer’s
facilitation or reading their book, having space to reflect, discuss and listen to others, developing their
literary skills and having space to write.
The following wordle illustrates the frequency of words the prisoners used to describe their likes and
dislikes.
Figure 5: Wordle illustrating what prisoners liked best & least about workshops (Base: 123)
LEARNING OUTCOMES: SKILLS, QUALITIES AND KNOWLEDGE
SKILLS
As described above, an aspiration for the R&WP was that beneficiaries would acquire and develop their
skills as a result of taking part in the workshops. In order to find out how far they felt that their ability to
work independently and their critical skills had developed during their workshops, beneficiaries were given
a series of statements to consider.
As in previous questions, they were invited to agree or disagree with these statements. Their responses
were then given a numeric value where “Strongly agree” was given a numeric value of 4 and “Strongly
disagree”
a
numeric
value
of
1.
The
average
ratings
for
each
statement
is
presented
in
the
following
figure:
7/15/2019 Evaluation: English PEN Readers & Writers Programme 2012-13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-english-pen-readers-writers-programme-2012-13 17/40
Melita Armitage, June 2013
12 Impact of the learning opportunities
Figure 6: Beneficiaries’ ability to fully engage in their learning (Base: 39) In a further question, beneficiaries were asked to indicate their level of agreement with four other statements. This time the purpose of the question was to test the impact of the workshops on their ability to apply their learning and work independently. A similar scale of agreement was used compared to other questions. Additionally, the question was posed to two other groups: past beneficiaries of the R&WP and project partners. The past beneficiaries were derived from a project run during 2011/12 that was funded by the London Development Agency. The 2012/13 project partners were asked to comment on their impressions of the beneficiaries that they brought to the R&W programme.
Figure 7: Impact of workshops on beneficiaries
3.3
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.4
1 2 3 4
... support and encourage people in …
... take part in group activities
... share my work with other people …
... ask the tutor questions
... present my ideas and opinions
... hear others' ideas and opinions
... try something new
... take work away to work on alone
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
agree
3.4
3.4
3.2
3.2
3.4
3.5
2.9
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.1
3.2
1 2 3 4
Use skills developed at the
workshops
Express themselves better to
others
Find people to help develop
their
writing
Deal with setbacks in writing
project partners 2011/12 beneficiaries 2012/13 beneficiaries
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
agree
7/15/2019 Evaluation: English PEN Readers & Writers Programme 2012-13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-english-pen-readers-writers-programme-2012-13 18/40
Melita Armitage, June 2013
13 Impact of the learning opportunities What is interesting about the preceding figure is the similarity between the average ratings for each of the three groups. The biggest discrepancy was in the statement about whether beneficiaries had found people to help develop their writing. However, it is difficult to draw any firm conclusions about why this may have been the case, for example, it could be that the lead writers didn’t include progression advice or information about literature organisations as part of their teaching. It will be useful to see how the 2012/13 rate this question next year to assess whether English PEN has a role in connecting beneficiaries to writers and writers organisations that can support beneficiaries in the future.
KNOWLEDGE Both the current cohort of beneficiaries and past beneficiaries were asked to rate their agreement with statements linked to the knowledge that they had acquired as a result of the workshops. Specifically they were given seven statements linked to different stages of writing and literary forms. A similar scale of agreement was used to the other questions in the survey and the average ratings are presented in the following table. The responses to this question show more marked differences between the two cohorts of beneficiaries compared to other questions, suggesting that the content of the workshops in the R&WP have changed quite significantly between the two years.
Figure 8: 2011/12 and 2012/13 beneficiaries' knowledge as a result of the workshops The figure shows clearly that the emphasis for the R&WP workshops is on the first stages of writing as opposed to the later stages (revision, editing and publishing).
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
3.1
2.8
3.7
3.8
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
1 2 3 4
... developing my ideas
... a style of writing (for …
... different types of writing
... different writers
... how to revise my work
... editing my work
... how to publish my work
2011/12 beneficiaries 2012/13 beneficiaries
Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly
7/15/2019 Evaluation: English PEN Readers & Writers Programme 2012-13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-english-pen-readers-writers-programme-2012-13 19/40
Melita Armitage, June 2013
14 Impact of the learning opportunities
Alongside knowledge linked to literary and creativity, the R&WP seeks to develop beneficiaries’ knowledge
of human rights and free speech. Some projects, such as Speak for Yourself! and Faith in Free Speech had a
direct focus on free speech, whereas others had more of a focus on self expression and finding a voice.
At the start of the evaluation, English PEN was interested in understanding how information about its work
was being shared with beneficiaries and whether there was work to be done to brief writers more fully or
develop a resource
pack.
Each of English PEN’s activities were presented to the beneficiaries in their survey and they were asked to
comment if they already knew about them, had learnt about them during the workshop or if they would
like to find out more.
Figure 9: Beneficiaries knowledge of English PEN's activities (Base: 36)
While the number of respondents represented in the preceding figure is only a snapshot of the total
beneficiaries, it suggests that there is scope for English PEN to think about the role writers should play in
informing beneficiaries about the organisation’s activities. This is particularly important given that an
aspiration of the R&WP is that beneficiaries will transition from participants to members and then onto
other roles (such as volunteers or committee members). The Head of Programmes was not aware of any
of the 2012/13 beneficiaries transitioning to members after taking part in the projects.
Project partners, by contrast, were more aware of English PEN’s work before the R&WP 2012/13 than
beneficiaries. However, there was still interest from a number of them in finding out more about some
elements of English PEN’s work, particularly the magazine, prizes and campaigning.
9
9
9
9
8
6
5
4
13
10
15
13
21
15
13
15
13
14
11
14
8
15
18
16
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
...
Campaigned
for
the
release
of
imprisoned
writers
... Provided moral support for persecuted writers
across the world
... Led campaigns in the UK
... Promoted translated fiction
... Run creative writing and reading workshops
... Presented prizes to writers of extraordinary books
... Held events to showcase writers and writing
... A magazine
I knew about this already I learnt about this at the workshops I'd like to find out more
7/15/2019 Evaluation: English PEN Readers & Writers Programme 2012-13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-english-pen-readers-writers-programme-2012-13 20/40
Melita Armitage, June 2013
15 Impact of the learning opportunities
Figure 10: Partners’ knowledge of English PEN's activities (Base: 28)
Q UALITIES Improving English was identified by the Head of Programmes as important aspect of the R&WP. As one writer commented:
“From the many conversations that we have had, it’s my impression that most of the participants are really ambitious about what they want to do in the future. I think that they know that learning to speak, listen to, read and write English will go a very long way into helping them achieve their aims and empower them to move forward in life.” (From a writer’s report)
Beneficiaries were asked to rate their agreement with four statements linked to whether they felt their reading, speaking, writing and understanding of English had improved as a result of the programme. Their average rating against each statement is presented in the following figure:
Figure 11: Improvements to English as a result of workshops (Base: 40)
20
18
17
16
19
15
18
6
3
6
7
9
7
4
4
9
6
4
3
1
3
8
4
10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
... Campaigned for the release of imprisoned writers
... Provided moral support for persecuted writers …
... Led campaigns in the UK
... Promoted translated fiction
... Run
creative
writing
and
reading
workshops
... Presented prizes to writers of extraordinary books
... Held events to showcase writers and writing
... A magazine
I
knew
about
this
already I
learnt
about
this
through
the
workshops I'd
like
to
find
out
more
3.4
3.3
3.1
3.3
1 2 3 4
... write better English
... understand spoken …
... speak English better
... read English better
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree
7/15/2019 Evaluation: English PEN Readers & Writers Programme 2012-13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-english-pen-readers-writers-programme-2012-13 21/40
Melita Armitage, June 2013
16 Impact of the learning opportunities
The impact of the workshops on some beneficiaries is profound and goes beyond these four areas of
language attainment. One writer captured this wider impact in the following quote:
“[One person] grew in confidence most in Speaking. He was so pleased when he was able to read in
front of a group of strangers – and they understood him! He walked and talked differently after
that, participated more in subsequent course he was on. He grew before my eyes.”
(From a writer’s
report)
Image 6: Brave New Voices workshop at MRC forum (Photo: George Torode)
A further quality that it is hoped that the R&WP will develop in beneficiaries is the sense of theirs and
others’ writing
as
an
act
of
empowerment.
Figure
6 (above)
gives
some
examples
of
how
strongly
beneficiaries agreed that their voices had been heard in the group and how they had been able to hear the
voices of their peers. Indeed, one writer was impressed by the support that they observed between
participants in a prison:
“[The prisoners] were noticeably supportive of each others’ work. The guards and helpers on the
day commented on how supportive the offenders were of each other by the end of the sessions
and one said, ‘I’ve never seen them that quiet and all working.’”
(From a writer’s report)
7/15/2019 Evaluation: English PEN Readers & Writers Programme 2012-13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-english-pen-readers-writers-programme-2012-13 22/40
Melita Armitage, June 2013
17 Impact of the learning opportunities
However, as one writer attests, the message of writing as an act of empowerment is not always the focus
of teaching in the R&WP workshops:
“I think they understood the concept in a sub‐conscious way. Although, every single one of them
recognised that they had been on a positive journey that each one had grown in confidence in a
different way. This ranged from writing a single sentence independently to speaking in front of a
100 strong
audience.
Every
single
one
of
them
recognises
that
writing
is
power,
it
is
only
now
that
some of them are beginning to believe that they have this power in their hands.”
(From a writer’s report)
This change of emphasis for each project is both an asset in terms of partnership development and a
challenge in terms of evidencing the value of the programme in relation to writing as an act of
empowerment. At the moment, from the evidence collected through the evaluation, it seems that the
emphasis on the empowerment message is very much in the hands of each individual writer and their
judgment of how readily a group of beneficiaries might be able to hear it.
All partners
and
beneficiaries
were
asked
to
comment
on
what
the
expression
“Freedom
to
read,
freedom
to write” meant to them and some of these comments are captured overleaf.
7/15/2019 Evaluation: English PEN Readers & Writers Programme 2012-13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-english-pen-readers-writers-programme-2012-13 23/40
Melita Armitage, June 2013
18 “Freedom to write, freedom to read”
“FREEDOM TO WRITE, FREEDOM TO READ”
“Freedom with words is an internal 'allowing' that
goes beyond environment and often allows
people who
access
such
a freedom
to
also
transcend their environment, even if for a short
time. The barriers to this in prison are not held
behind bars but are tied up in educational and
emotional injuries. We need to help people
stretch past the memories of those scars in order
to free them from the restrictions and discover
their own freedom with words.”
(R&WP partner)
“Having a voice. Being heard. Providing
access to the tools and skills needed to
express yourself.
Overcoming
barriers.”
(R&WP partner)
“To me, the expression is about
removing potential barriers that may
stand in the way. Inspiring, enabling and
equipping individuals to express
themselves and benefit from the
expression of others.”
(R&WP partner)
“Often asylum seekers have experienced and
experience in their every day life huge restrictions
to their freedom[.] ... Reading and writing is a
unique space for them to dream, think and feel
alive and free.” (R&WP partner)
“Freedom of expression is a fundamental
human right. It is a very powerful tool.
Freedom to
write
and
read
gives
people
the opportunity to tell a 'different story'.
It also allows us to discuss and challenge
information and opinions. It allows
people to breathe and thrive (and be
heard).” (R&WP partner)
“The ability to write what you want and read what
you want, where you want and when you want
without being persecuted or harmed or even
judged. FREEDOM!!!!” (R&WP beneficiary)
“It is a basic right, nothing in the world can avoid
this right.” (R&WP beneficiary)
“Releasing yourself from any assumed
state of ‘I'm not smart enough or good
enough’ and just reading and doing
exactly as your mind wants.” (R&WP beneficiary)
7/15/2019 Evaluation: English PEN Readers & Writers Programme 2012-13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-english-pen-readers-writers-programme-2012-13 24/40
Melita Armitage, June 2013
19 “Freedom to write, freedom to read”
ACCREDITATION
Although one of the objectives for the R&WP was to offer beneficiaries the opportunity to accredit their
learning, in reality the offer was to contribute to the existing accreditation activities of partners. The
‘Make my Day!’ project which worked with 60 recently arrived young people now living in Wembley, aims
to contribute to each young person’s Bronze Arts Award.
There are other opportunities to link to participants’ accredited learning through other routes. As one
partner commented, the R&WP could have more strategic impact for them if the programme were to link
to their students’ existing learning modules:
“Could be linked to our ESOL programme or Entry Pathways programme without much more work
so that students could complete some of their Personal and Social Development units at the same
time.”
(Partner survey response)
Other accreditation
routes
that
English
PEN
could
explore
with
its
partners
could
be
ASDAN,
CoPE
and
other certificates of higher education. In the pre‐evaluation research, it was suggested that there could be
some mileage in linking both librarians and education teams within secure settings in order to embed the
strategic value of the R&WP and expand the reach of the programme.
Further, in previous years, English PEN has provided participants with its own certificate. While not a
formal piece of accreditation, this certificate has been valued by participants because it is an English
document and because English PEN is held in high regard by participants.
Running counter to the value placed on accreditation by some partners and participants, is the argument
that the
programme
is
also
an
opportunity
for
people
that
are
not
interested
in
accreditation
to
explore
their creativity and human rights issue. As one writer commented:
“Given my primary engagement in academic teaching, it has been heartening and empowering to
engage with later‐life learners who are less directed towards measurable achievement, and more
towards self ‐improvement – and towards nurturing group dynamics.”
(From a writer’s report).
At this juncture English PEN has an opportunity to look more closely at building relationships with
education teams within its partner organisations, particularly in secure settings. Moreover, if the 2013/14
– 15/16 programme wishes to work with other groups of disadvantaged young people, such as, for
example, homeless young people,2 then qualifications like the ASDAN could make a partnership with
English PEN more attractive.
2 An example of a charity that sees education as fundamental to enabling young people to transition to independent
living is the Foyer Federation. http://foyer.net/what‐we‐do/projects‐initiatives/
7/15/2019 Evaluation: English PEN Readers & Writers Programme 2012-13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-english-pen-readers-writers-programme-2012-13 25/40
Melita Armitage, June 2013
20 “Freedom to write, freedom to read”
FUTURE INTERESTS ‐ MEETING ONGOING ASPIRATIONS
Much of the feedback from the beneficiaries of the R&WP was that they wanted more courses, longer
courses or follow up courses. When asked how the programme could be improved in the future, the
responses included:
“There are
always
chances
to
improve
and
develop
more
better
by
holding
this
programme
twice
a
week regularly.”
(Beneficiary survey response)
“They were beautifully arranged and done. I hope to see them regularly scheduled.”
(Beneficiary survey response)
“If the courses continue I am eager to be a good student.”
(Beneficiary survey response)
While it may not be part of the vision for the R&WP to provide on‐going workshops for existing
beneficiaries, there is certainly scope for signposting them to other learning opportunities, reading groups
or to provide resources so that groups and individuals can keep working after the workshops.
When asked about the elements of writing that beneficiaries would be interested to learn about in the
future, the responses were as follows:
Figure 12: Future learning interests of beneficiaries Within the current and past cohort of beneficiaries (again, please note the size of the sample) there was
some consensus
on
which
stage
of
writing
they
would
most
like
to
work
on
in
the
future.
Most
of
the
beneficiaries seemed interested to consolidate the learning they had experienced at the R&WP workshops:
developing ideas and learning writing techniques.
There is also an indication that beneficiaries were interested in the later stages of writing and it appears
there is an appetite for publishing work.
27
27
1722
25
26
9
9
64
5
5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Developing my ideas
Writing styles (techniques)
Different writersRevising
my
work
Editing my work
Publishing my work
2012/13 beneficiaries 2011/12 beneficiaries
7/15/2019 Evaluation: English PEN Readers & Writers Programme 2012-13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-english-pen-readers-writers-programme-2012-13 26/40
Melita Armitage, June 2013
21 Investing in writers
INVESTING IN WRITERS
English PEN is very clear that its greatest resource is the writers that it works with and is committed to
“accompany, encourage and support” its writers. In the R&WP objectives, there was a target of at least 40
writers from diverse backgrounds. In addition, the Head of Programmes hoped to attract new writers to
English PEN.
Image 7: Brave New Voices at MRC Forum (Photo: George Torode)
EMPLOYMENT OF WRITERS
RECRUITMENT & SELECTION
The recruitment
of
writers
to
the
R&WP
in
2012/13
tended
to
be
through
recommendation,
either
through
the contacts of the Programmes team or through a member of the team’s experience of a writers’ teaching.
The programme does not currently openly recruit writers.
In 2012/13, 48 writers were employed by English PEN to deliver their R&WP workshops and in addition,
both the Head of Programmes and Programmes Officer also delivered workshops.
Of the 15 writers that completed a report at the end of their workshop or series of workshops, eight said
that they had existing relationships with English PEN and six said that this was the first time they had
worked with English PEN. Two people did not respond. This gives a suggestion that the pool of writers that
7/15/2019 Evaluation: English PEN Readers & Writers Programme 2012-13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-english-pen-readers-writers-programme-2012-13 27/40
Melita Armitage, June 2013
22 Investing in writers
English PEN is expanding, but given the dearth of reports from writers it is not possible to give a more
accurate number.
For one writer, the attraction of working with English PEN is clear:
“English PEN has been one of my biggest sources of support and validation, and I wouldn’t be the
writer I am
without
them.”
(From a writer’s report)
A number of writers documented their appreciation of the support they had received from the team at
English PEN.
PROFILE OF WRITERS
There were also 15 equalities forms collected from writers in 2012/13. The diversity of this group was as
follows:
• Age – 9 people aged 25‐34, 4 people aged 35‐44 and 2 people aged 55‐64
• Gender – 12 people female and 3 people male
• Disabled – 1 person identified as disabled
• Ethnic background – 6 people White, 1 person Mixed/multiple ethnic groups, 2 people Asian/Asian
British, 5 people Black/Black British, 1 person other ethnic.
The mix of ethnicities does suggest that English PEN is working with a diverse group of writers. However,
the gender balance appears from this sample to be skewed towards women and only 1 person identified as
disabled.
TRAINING & DEVELOPING PRACTICE
INDUCTION
As discussed above, the induction of writers was on a one to one basis with a member of the Programmes
team at English PEN.
TRAINING
Although there is an objective to provide two days training for each writer, in reality the only writers that
had formal training were the three mentors. These mentors have been trained to deliver Bronze and Silver
Arts Awards.
In their reports, writers were asked to indicate their agreement with six statements linked to the
operational management and support they received from English PEN. Their responses show that in the
vast majority of instances there was strong agreement illustrating that the information provided to writers
7/15/2019 Evaluation: English PEN Readers & Writers Programme 2012-13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-english-pen-readers-writers-programme-2012-13 28/40
Melita Armitage, June 2013
23 Investing in writers
was sufficient for them to plan their workshops.
Figure 13: Writer's feedback on workshop delivery (Base: 14) Interestingly, there wasn’t a strong agreement linked to the purpose of the R&WP, suggesting that there
might be scope to orient each project in the broader context of the programme.
One writer, however, felt that the group of beneficiaries that they worked with was very different from the
one discussed with them. Instead of working with young people capable of working in English and their
mother tongue, the writer found a very different group, several of whom could not write in English.
“The fact of my being a poet and translator sometimes felt irrelevant – despite me mentioning it
several times, I think most of the class still finished the course with the impression I was an English
teacher! And indeed, I spent a lot of time on the internet looking for exercises to teach English as a
foreign language.”
(From a writer’s report)
Same writer reflected:
“Although it is great that PEN puts real writers into communities, it can be quite difficult sometimes
as
we
are
not
necessarily
trained
to
deal
with
such
situations,
and
I
wonder
whether
the
MRCF
might have provided more guidance on this before I began.”
(From a writer’s report)
In some contexts, creating a group for the project can be more of a numbers exercise than a selection
process. Individuals self select and have an expectation that the writer will be able to support them. While
the feedback from the sample of beneficiaries suggests that language was not a barrier to participation, it is
clear from this writer’s report that it was and that the group didn’t just require differentiated teaching, they
required a new teaching plan.
This writer’s
comment
corroborates
the
finding
(see
below)
that
some
partners
would
benefit
from
advice
on forming groups for the project.
6
11
6
12
13
10
4
1
5
1
1
3
1
1
1
0 5 10 15
I understand the purpose of the R&W
programme
I knew what was expected of me as a
teacher/facilitator
I developed the workshop with English PEN
It was
easy
to
communicate
with
English
PEN
I felt supported by English PEN during course
It was clear how the workshop(s) would
operate at the venue
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
7/15/2019 Evaluation: English PEN Readers & Writers Programme 2012-13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-english-pen-readers-writers-programme-2012-13 29/40
Melita Armitage, June 2013
24
DEVELOPING PRACTICE
Writers were also asked to comment in their reports on whether they felt that their work with English PEN
had helped them to develop their practice. Eight writers made specific reference to elements of their
practice that they had extended as a result of the programme. Skills referenced included: adjusting
teaching for different groups, developing new skills in mentoring and transitioning from formal to informal
teaching settings.
Comments included:
“I have never worked before with a group of people who have all had traumatic experiences in
their life. It meant that I had to be conscious of what certain exercises might trigger, ensure that
the writing environment was a safe and supportive one. The experience has made me more
sensitive to the unspoken issues my participants might [have] and has made me more curious
about the issue of writing and well‐being.”
(From a writer’s
report)
“Teaching at [prison] was challenging, fascinating and informative. It taught me how to be a more
sensitive, courageous and flexible teaching: listening to what students want, encouraging those
who were less forthcoming, engaging those who were less on‐board and creating an environment.”
(From a writer’s report)
“I found the majority of the men to be confident in their use of language and their understanding of
texts. Indeed, some salient points were made about my own work that I had never previously
considered.”
(From a writer’s
report)
These comments attest to the potential for the teaching experience to add to the professional
development of writers.
Finally, it was clear from the partners survey that the programme created new connections with
professional writers. 13 partners said that they had made these connections, again illustrating that the
programme is developing writers’ opportunities for new markets.
7/15/2019 Evaluation: English PEN Readers & Writers Programme 2012-13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-english-pen-readers-writers-programme-2012-13 30/40
Melita Armitage, June 2013
25 Developing relationships
DEVELOPING RELATIONSHIPS
PROJECT PARTNERS
When asked what they hoped that the project would deliver, the 30 respondents to the Partner Survey
described a variety of aspirations, ranging from:
• A creative writing experience to enhance communication, writing and creative skills (12 partners)
• Increasing participants’ self efficacy (described as confidence, self expression, self belief) (8
partners)
• A route to meeting writers to inspire participants (particularly the prison partners) (6 partners)
• Engaging hard to reach groups (5 partners)
Other reasons cited included connecting the workshops to existing schemes of work, providing new
connections and experiences for participants, enhancing the partnership with English PEN and broadening
horizons.
Of 30 partners that responded, 28 felt that their hopes for the project had been met, one wasn’t sure and
one partner said their hopes had not been met. The reason given for the hope not being met was the
partner felt that although the creative writing aspect of the project had achieved its goals, the free speech
element was not given sufficient time. Comments included:
“An unexpected benefit proved to be the enthusiasm and enhanced feelings of worth that spread
from the participants on the programme to others coming to the centre; it turned out to be
contagious.”
(Partner survey
response)
“Writers' visits have served to boost interest in the library and reading. We have been able to use
these events as launch pads for more sustained in‐house readership development.”
(Partner survey response)
“Poetry especially with those with dementia‐ made us appreciate that much of what is said can
make sense if we only allow extra time to listen.”
(Partner survey response)
When asked
how
the
programme
could
be
improved
in
the
future,
many
partners
simply
endorsed
the
Readers and Writers programme:
“I don't think anything different needs to happen. Just continue to deliver the high standard of
visitors in to custodial settings!”
(Partner survey response)
However, there were some suggestions that could inform how the programme develops in the future. For
those in formal education settings, there were requests that the workshops be more structured or more
explicit about the aims of the session. This point was made by four partners:
7/15/2019 Evaluation: English PEN Readers & Writers Programme 2012-13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-english-pen-readers-writers-programme-2012-13 31/40
Melita Armitage, June 2013
26 Developing relationships
“Project manager to have more presence on the project ‐ always difficult with a large workload.
More forward planning in terms of booking Arts Awards etc.”
(Partner survey response)
“Make the objectives of the project clear so that there is no ambiguity as to where the programme
is leading the participants.”
(Partner survey
response)
Others simply requested more sessions, either over a longer period of time or so that they could reach
more people (4 partners).
One partner reflected that they could have formed a group differently. This particular group was also
mentioned by the writer that led the session as a group that took time to gel and that was very fluid in
terms of its membership. Because of the high levels of trust that are typically required in the Readers and
Writers workshops, in part because of the backgrounds of participants and in part because of their life
experiences, continuity has been identified as important (see also the pre‐evaluation research paper).
Along similar lines a writer commented that a constantly changing group was difficult to manage and made
fostering a sense of trust a challenge:
“… building an environment of trust in this group was harder as the group was so disrupted. Every
week there would be a new person, others would turn up in the middle of a session and needed to be
filled in, many couldn't make a few weeks and so the group was constantly changing. This meant that
the group lacked the kind of stability needed to feel comfortable to open up.”
(From a writer’s report)
A short
guidance
note,
or
pre
‐project
meeting
could
include
reference
to
the
pros
and
cons
of
loosely
formed groups to help project partners to decide how and if they will select participants or leave
membership of groups entirely open.
Tackling trauma was another issue that was raised by one of the partners. This person was concerned that
writers were not necessarily being coached prior to the workshops on how to deal with beneficiaries
suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. While writers are advised not to delve into beneficiaries’
traumatic pasts, focusing very much on the present, in many of the writers’ feedback reports it is obvious
that past experience is referenced in the workshops. This was noted by the partners, as this comment
illustrates:
“I learned new things about our students and their background, e.g. that one of them had travelled
for two months from Afghanistan, on foot, by boat, lorry etc and mostly in the dark, hiding in the
forests. In normal classroom environment they feel it's too distressing to talk about and think it's
irrelevant.”
(Partner survey response)
There may be some mileage in developing an induction session for new writers that includes a section on
risk and safety.
7/15/2019 Evaluation: English PEN Readers & Writers Programme 2012-13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-english-pen-readers-writers-programme-2012-13 32/40
Melita Armitage, June 2013
27 Developing relationships BENEFICIARIES – AUDIENCES & PARTICIPANTS Project partners were asked to rate their agreements with four statements about the impact of events that were linked to the R&WP projects that they had hosted. The value of these events was strongly endorsed by those that responded to the question as can be seen in the following figure:
Figure 14: Partner feedback on impact of events (Base: 26) The impact went further than celebration in some instances, as one partner commented:
“At our sharing event one of the attendees from a church in Tamworth, wanted one of the books so that he could get all the writers from our group to sign their work. He was very moved by the stories and told us it had completely changed his view of asylum seekers.” (Partner survey response)
Other partners also commented on the value of the events to the confidence of participants: “One of the most hard to reach prisoners who struggles to interact and with reading and writing, wrote a review about an author visit which revealed he had been massively inspired. The prisoner began writing regularly about things he enjoys such as football and began to interact more and more with others and eventually took part in a staged performance. All inspired by the programme.” (Partner survey response)
“Seeing individuals that were scared to enter the room for fear of being asked to write not only pick up a pen and participate but, when their time was up, continue scribbling away was fantastic. Witnessing those who'd been reluctant at first to read out their work, develop the confidence throughout the session to read by the end was fantastic.” (Partner survey response)
3.8
3.6
3.5
3.6
1 2 3 4
... offered a positive experience
for our beneficiaries
... were well organised and
managed
... enabled friends and family to
celebrate their work
... enabled our organisation to
share in their success
Strongly
disagreeDisagree Agree Strongly
Agree
7/15/2019 Evaluation: English PEN Readers & Writers Programme 2012-13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-english-pen-readers-writers-programme-2012-13 33/40
Melita Armitage, June 2013
28 Developing relationships
These quotations exemplify the potential of the R&WP to positively impact on the lives of the beneficiaries
and on those that are invited to celebration events.
Image 8: europolyglot and Speak for yourself! event (Photo: Jackie Di Stefano)
7/15/2019 Evaluation: English PEN Readers & Writers Programme 2012-13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-english-pen-readers-writers-programme-2012-13 34/40
Melita Armitage, June 2013
29 Conclusion & Recommendations
CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSION
The Readers and Writers Programme 2012/13 exceeded the majority of its targets, reaching just under
5,000 beneficiaries during the year. There is clear evidence that the skills, knowledge and qualities of
beneficiaries were enhanced by the programme. Moreover, beneficiaries have enjoyed working with
professional writers and have in the majority of instances appreciated the design and delivery of the
workshops. There was also an indication that beneficiaries would welcome support and resources to
consolidate their learning, some requesting more regular and ongoing workshops. This last point is an
important one for English PEN to consider when thinking about the next phase of the R&WP: to what
extent should the Programme’s focus be on reaching new beneficiaries and to what extent does it have a
responsibility to support its existing beneficiaries?
The professional writers have also shown that they have benefitted from taking part in the projects, citing
the experience
as
positive,
with
over
half
of
those
that
wrote
a final
report
identifying
areas
of
their
practice that had developed as a result of their involvement. There were some points raised that will help
inform the future shape of the project, including creating guidance on: forming groups of beneficiaries,
differentiating learning (particularly where language is a barrier) and working with victims of trauma. There
is also scope to develop resources so that writers can share information about English PEN’s other areas of
work and better connect beneficiaries to the organisation.
Project partners reported that their aspirations for the programme had been met and provided some useful
suggestions linked to how English PEN might connect with their strategic objectives. In particular, points
were raised
by
two
types
of
organisation
(refugee
charities
and
secure
settings)
linked
to
accreditation.
This implies that partners can see the academic value of the R&WP workshops and the potential for the
workshops to deliver inter‐departmental objectives. Partners also documented the fact that writers
delivering in more formal education environments, particularly schools, needed to be more transparent
about the objectives of the workshops in order to fit better with curricula. Finally, there was strong
endorsement for the celebration events and publications that resulted from beneficiaries’ creative
endeavours. Partners welcomed these events as a way of showcasing their work, but also recognized the
importance for beneficiaries and audiences.
The evaluation this year has focused on developing a methodology that will work for English PEN and while
there have been some successes in the processes devised, the role writers will play in the evaluation still
needs to be developed. Moreover, the evaluation was introduced at a time of considerable change at
English PEN, both in terms of leadership and structure within the Programmes portfolio. That said there
was plenty of evidence collected by the Programmes team and this evidence provides a baseline for future
evaluations of the programme.
Much of the feedback for the evaluation has been extremely positive and there are many examples where
individuals have been emotionally touched by the projects. The bespoke approach to each partnership is
an important contributory factor to the success of the programme and is a testament to the time and
energy invested
by
the
Programmes
team.
7/15/2019 Evaluation: English PEN Readers & Writers Programme 2012-13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-english-pen-readers-writers-programme-2012-13 35/40
Melita Armitage, June 2013
30 Conclusion & Recommendations
RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATION 1
Develop a briefing note for partner organisations on how to form groups to take part in the project.
RECOMMENDATION 2
Review writer induction processes to look specifically at managing risk and safety (especially in
circumstances where whole groups have an experience of trauma) and differentiating learning where
language is a barrier.
RECOMMENDATION 3
Consider the part writers should play in providing information about English PEN to beneficiaries and
whether to develop a resource for their induction pack or for workshops.
RECOMMENDATION 4
Reintroduce the PEN certificate for all participants and look at opportunities to dovetail accreditation with
the learning programmes within partner organisations.
RECOMMENDATION 5
Consider introducing an open selection process for writers to join the R&WP in order to further diversify
the pool of writers.
RECOMMENDATION 6
Look at how English PEN can support the on‐going writing interests of its beneficiaries, including
signposting to other groups and providing on‐going resources to support individuals and groups that wish
to self ‐moderate.
RECOMMENDATION 7
Review the evaluation process in order to clarify the role of writers in distributing monitoring and
evaluation tools and to ensure that prison evaluation tools fits with the new evaluation strategy.
7/15/2019 Evaluation: English PEN Readers & Writers Programme 2012-13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-english-pen-readers-writers-programme-2012-13 36/40
Melita Armitage, June 2013
31 Appendix 1: R&WP Aims & Objectives
APPENDIX 1: R&WP AIMS & OBJECTIVES
Aim 1: To deliver high quality lifelong learning opportunities to disadvantaged groups of beneficiaries,
currently identified as refugees, asylum seekers, migrants, prisoners, detainees, young offenders and
young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, in order that they can explore, develop and maintain –
and be empowered through – their Freedom to Write, Freedom to Read.
Objective 1: To reach 3,000 beneficiaries (1,000 from New Communities, 1,000 from prisons and
1,000 young people) in each of the three years of the programme through a mixture of informal
lifelong learning formats Objective 2: Through a variety of learning opportunities, provide beneficiaries with the means to
explore their creative self ‐expression and free speech in a safe environment and to develop specific
skills, knowledge and qualities linked to the vision for the programme
Objective 3: To offer beneficiaries the opportunity to accredit and demonstrate their learning and
to support
those
that
wish
to
progress
onto
the
next
stage
of
their
creative
development
Objective 4: To bring beneficiaries into the heart of what English PEN does through strategic
volunteering roles, membership and attendance and participation in English PEN events
Aim 2: To offer training and professional development opportunities to English PEN’s greatest resource –
the writers we work with – and to accompany, encourage and support our writers, and associate
freelancers, to build long‐lasting relationships with English PEN and our partner organisations.
Objective 5: To work with at least 70 writers, freelance project managers and volunteers (of which
at least 40 are writers) from diverse backgrounds in order to increase the pool of regular writers
that English
PEN
has
trained
to
date
Objective 6: To provide a minimum of two days training & resources for each writer to equip them
to deliver high quality learning opportunities for project beneficiaries
Aim 3: To encourage and maintain a culture where English PEN’s education programme is continually
improving its working practices as well as its relationships with beneficiaries, funders, partner
organisations and other stakeholders.
Objective 7: To meet fundraising targets detailed in the English PEN business plan 2012‐15Objective 8: Foster authentic relationships with beneficiaries, funders, partner organisations,
writers, project managers and volunteers and audiences in order to extend the reach of the
programme.
7/15/2019 Evaluation: English PEN Readers & Writers Programme 2012-13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-english-pen-readers-writers-programme-2012-13 37/40
Melita Armitage, June 2013
Appendix 2: Writers w
APPENDIX 2: WRITERS WORKING WITH ENGLISH PEN ON THE R&WP 2012/13
Writers
P E N i n
P r i s o n s
P o e t r y
P a r n a s s u s i n
D e t e n t i o n
S p e a k f o r
Y o u r s e l f !
F a i t h i n F r e e
S p e e c h
P E N i n
W i g a n
W i s h y o u
w e r e h e r e
P E N i n
M i l d m a y
e u
o r p o l y g l o t
B
r a v e N e w
Abdullahi Botan X
Alex Wheatle X
Avaes Mohammad X X X
Bewketu Syoum X
Bharti Tailor X
Bidisha X
Clare Pollard
Cleo Soazandry
Courttia Newland
X
Dzifa Benson
Evlynn Sharp X
Faiza Guene
Fathieh Saudi X
Femi Martin X
Georgie Donati X
Gerry Ryan X
Ian Marchant
Irene Garrow
(PEN)
X
Jason Archie X
John Hegley X X
John Siddique X
7/15/2019 Evaluation: English PEN Readers & Writers Programme 2012-13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-english-pen-readers-writers-programme-2012-13 38/40
Melita Armitage, June 2013
Appendix 2: Writers w
Writers
P E N i n
P r i s o n s
P o e t r y
P a r n a s s u s i n
D e t e n t i o n
S p e a k f o r
Y o u r s e l f !
F a i t h i n F r e e
S p e e c h
P E N i n
W i g a n
W i s h y o u
w e r e h e r e
P E N i n
M i l d m a y
e u o r p o l y g l o t
B r a v e N e w
Johnathan Green
Karen McCarthy
Woolf
X
Kayo Chingonyi X X X
Kosal Khiev X
Maeve Clarke X
Malika Booker X
Mark Vernon X
Mavis Cheek X
Miriam Halahmy X
Mojisola Adebayo X
Niall Griffiths
X
Nii Ayikwei Parkes X
Olumide Popoola X
Philip Cowell (PEN) X
Russ Litten X
Saradha Soobrayen X X
Sarah Ardizzone
Shazea Quraishi X
Sheree Mack X
Simon Kernick
X
Simon Mole X
Sophie Mayer X
Susana Giner X
7/15/2019 Evaluation: English PEN Readers & Writers Programme 2012-13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-english-pen-readers-writers-programme-2012-13 39/40
Melita Armitage, June 2013
Appendix 2: Writers w
Writers
P E N i n
P r i s o n s
P o e t r y
P a r n a s s u s i n
D e t e n t i o n
S p e a k f o r
Y o u r s e l f !
F a i t h i n F r e e
S p e e c h
P E N i n
W i g a n
W i s h y o u
w e r e h e r e
P E N i n
M i l d m a y
e u o r p o l y g l o t
B r a v e N e w
Susannah Howard X X
Tehmina Kazi
X
Val Rutt X
Virginia Aharieva X
Warsan Shire X
Zoe Lambert
7/15/2019 Evaluation: English PEN Readers & Writers Programme 2012-13
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-english-pen-readers-writers-programme-2012-13 40/40
35 Appendix 3: Examples of the Head, Heart & Feet exercise
APPENDIX 3: EXAMPLES OF THE HEAD, HEART & FEET EXERCISE
THINGS YOU LEARNT
THINGS YOU FELT
THINGS YOU WILL TAKE AWAY WITH YOU