The TurnAround Project- Phase 4
Dr Carly Wood, Rachel Bragg and Dr Jo Barton
School of Biological Sciences
University of Essex
June 2013
Report for the Wilderness Foundation
University of Essex, 2013
The TurnAround Project – Phase 4 (2012/13)
Report for the Wilderness Foundation UK
Dr Carly Wood*, Rachel Bragg and Dr Jo Barton
Contents
Executive Summary
5
1. Introduction
8
2. Aims of TurnAround 4
10
3. Structure of TurnAround 4
3.1 Recruitment and selection of participants
3.2 Mentor selection and training
3.3 Wilderness trail in Scotland
3.4 Monthly workshops
3.5 One-to-one mentoring
3.6 Sailing trip on the Morning Star
11
11
12
12
12
15
15
4. Methodology
4.1 Hope questionnaire
4.2 The Nature relatedness scale- Nature Experience
4.3 Well-being
4.4 Self-esteem
4.5 Behavioural Strengths and Difficulties
4.6 Qualitative Narrative
4.7 Statistical analysis
17
17
18
19
19
20
20
20
5. Generic Results- Hackney Group
5.1 TA4 Participants
5.2 Hackney analysis overview
5.3 Changes over the duration of the project
5.3.1 Participant perspectives at the start of the project
5.3.2 Hope
5.3.3 Nature experience
5.3.4 Well-being
5.3.5 Self-esteem
5.3.6 Strengths and Difficulties
5.3.7 Feedback about the project after wild camping
5.3.8 Feedback at the end of the project
5.4 Wilderness Trail to Scotland
5.4.1 Qualitative narrative prior to the trail
5.4.2 Hope
22
22
22
22
22
23
25
26
27
27
29
29
30
30
31
2
University of Essex, 2013
5.4.3 Nature Experience
5.4.4 Self-esteem
5.4.5 Qualitative Feedback
5.5 Hackney Key findings
32
33
34
35
6. Individual Case Studies- Hackney Group
6.1 Case of ‘John’
6.2 Case of ‘Sam’
6.3 Case of ‘Jodie’
6.4 Case of ‘Shane’
6.5 Case of ‘Liam’
6.6 Case of ‘Charlie’
6.7 Case Study Key Findings
36
36
40
43
48
49
52
56
7. Generic Results- Essex Group
7.1 TA4 Participants
7.2 Essex analysis overview
7.3 Changes over the duration of the project
7.3.1 Participant perspectives at the start of the project
7.3.2 Hope
7.3.3 Nature experience
7.3.4 Well-being
7.3.5 Self-esteem
7.3.6 Strengths and Difficulties
7.3.7 Feedback about the project after wild camping and cinema trip workshops
7.3.8 Feedback at the end of the project
7.4 Wilderness Trail to Scotland
7.4.1 Qualitative narrative prior to the trail
7.4.2 Hope
7.4.3 Nature Experience
7.4.4 Self-esteem
7.4.5 Qualitative narrative after the trail
7.5 Sailing on the Morning Star
7.5.1 Qualitative narrative prior to the trail
7.5.2 Hope
7.5.3 Nature Experience
7.5.4 Self-esteem
7.5.5 Qualitative narrative after the trail
7.6 Emotional Spectrum Weekend
7.6.1 Qualitative narrative prior to the emotional coaching
7.6.2 Hope
7.6.3 Nature Experience
7.6.4 Well-being
7.6.5 Self-esteem
7.6.6 Strengths and Difficulties
7.6.7 Feedback after the emotional coaching
7.7 Essex Key Findings
57
57
57
57
57
58
61
62
63
63
66
68
68
68
69
71
71
72
74
74
75
76
77
78
80
80
80
82
82
83
84
85
86
8. Individual Case Studies- Essex Group
8.1 Case of ‘Tom’
8.2 Case of ‘Richard’
88
88
93
3
University of Essex, 2013
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
Case of ‘Louise’
Case of ‘Rachel’
Case of ‘Andrew’
Case of ‘Nicola’
Case of ‘Danielle’
Case Study Key Findings
98
103
109
114
120
125
9. Comparing Outcomes from the Four Phases of TurnAround
127
10. Overall Key Findings
129
11. Conclusions
131
12. References
133
The research for this study was supported by the Wilderness Foundation UK who is indebted to all of
their funders for their donations. Without these donations this research would not have been
possible. Thanks also go to all Wilderness Foundation staff, young people and volunteer mentors
who committed their time and energy to the project.
*Correspondence contact: Dr Carly Wood, Research Officer, School of Biological Sciences, University
of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester CO4 3SQ. [email protected]
4
University of Essex, 2013
Executive summary
This report is a follow-on from three
preceding TurnAround (TA) reports and
should be read in conjunction with
previous information. UK Youth crime and
anti-social behaviour is a continuing
problem; approximately one quarter of all
crime in the UK is committed by young
people, a figure which is disproportionate
given that young people account for 1 in
10 of the population above the age of
criminal responsibility. In the UK, the cost
of youth crime is estimated at £4 billion
per year. The annual cost of a place in a
secure children’s home is approximately
£120,000 per year, whilst the costs of a
place in a secure training centre and
young offender’s institution are £160,000
and £60,000 per year respectively.
Due to the high costs associated with
youth imprisonment, and the high
reoffending rates of up to 38%, much
attention has been placed on the use of
alternative methods of tackling crime,
reoffending and anti-social behaviour.
Evidence suggests that therapeutic
interventions
providing
skills
and
mentoring are effective at changing
behaviour and protecting against risk
factors such as low self-esteem and selfconfidence, mental illness and alcohol and
substance abuse. Wilderness therapy
programmes are also effective at reducing
recidivism.
Wilderness
therapy
programmes
provide
counselling,
education, leadership training and
primitive living conditions which aim to
foster community and group working,
honesty, awareness, openness and the
ability of individuals to take responsibility
for their actions. The TurnAround
programme
therefore
uses
skills
workshops, mentoring and group
activities combined with a number of
wilderness trails, to target youth crime
and anti-social behaviour.
The aim of TA4 was to enable vulnerable
young people to make positive changes in
their lives through engagement in nature
based activities. Two projects ran
simultaneously, one in Essex and Hackney.
The Hackney project ran from April 2012January 2013, whilst the Essex trail ran
from April 2012- March 2013. Both
programmes
comprised
of
skills
workshops and outdoor activity days,
weekly one-to-one mentoring and two
wilderness trails. The main objective of
the programme was to intervene early
preventing further criminal convictions,
school exclusion and escalation of
negative behaviour. The programme used
outdoor
activities
and
wilderness
experiences to i) break down the physical
and emotional barriers that inhibited
social competence; ii) improve selfesteem,
self-confidence,
emotional
regulation, communication and problem
solving abilities; iii) instil a sense of
accountability to themselves and others;
iv) build trust and team-working skills; v)
educate young people to make positive
life choices; vi) generate employment and
training opportunities and/or further
education prospects.
Each programme began with a 5-day
wilderness trail to Scotland. The initial
trail was central to the programme
triggering an important internal selfdiscovery process and setting the
foundation for work to follow. The sailing
trip at the final stages of the programme
was designed to re-affirm relationships,
set goals and look towards the future and
possible employment and education
opportunities. In between the two trails
were various activity days and skills
5
University of Essex, 2013
Six young people took part in the Hackney
programme and seven young people took
part in the Essex programme. Due to
unforeseen circumstances questionnaires
were only distributed at baseline, wild
camping, pre and post wilderness trail and
project end in the Hackney programme. In
the Essex programme questionnaires
were completed at baseline, wild
camping, pre-post trail and sailing, at the
cinema trip and the project end. The
average age of the six young people from
Hackney was 16.3±1.1 years, whilst the
average age of the Essex participants was
17.3±1.5 years. 54% of participants were
male and 46% were female.
Due to low attendance at the Hackney
project is was not possible to track
changes in scores over the course of the
project. However, several participants
completed the questionnaires pre and
post the wilderness trail, the scores were
therefore compared across these two
time points. Essex participants’ scores
were tracked over time, involving project
baseline and endpoint comparisons in
addition to pre and post trail data.
As a result of the wilderness trail, both the
Essex and Hackney groups experienced
improvements in all assessed parameters.
In the Hackney group the total hope score
increased by 8%, representing an
improvement in the participants’ hope
that goals could be met. Self-esteem also
improved by 20% and a 2% increase in
participants desire to be out in nature was
reported. Similarly in the Essex group the
total hope score increased by 7% and selfesteem improved by 14%. However
increases in nature experience were larger
in the Essex group, with a 12% increase in
their desire to be out in nature.
The Essex group also improved their
scores throughout the course of the
project. From project baseline to end
hope scores increased by 28% (Figure A).
Well-being scores significantly increased
from project baseline to end (Z=-2.0;
P<0.05), representing an improvement of
43% (Figure B). 60% of participants
experienced changes so significant that
they altered their well-being category.
40% of participants well-being moved
from ‘low’ to ‘high’ and 20% moved from
‘low’ to ‘average’.
35
Figure A: Hope scores at project
baseline and end in Essex
participants
30
Hope score
workshops and one-to-one mentoring
sessions. A mixed methods approach was
used to assess changes in hope, nature
experience, self-esteem, well-being and
behavioural strengths and difficulties
throughout the duration of the project.
Internationally standardised instruments
were used to capture key evidence
alongside qualitative feedback providing
rich narrative.
25
20
15
10
Baseline
End
A high score=greater hope that goals can be met.
The self-esteem score also improved from
project baseline to end by 10%. Emotional
symptoms decreased by 17%, peer
problems by 19% and hyperactivity by
16%. Pro-social behaviour improved by
10% and overall behavioural difficulties
saw a reduction of 10% from project
baseline to end (Figure C).
6
University of Essex, 2013
Figure B: Well-being scores at
project baseline and end in Essex
70
participants
*
65
Well-being Score
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
Baseline
End
High scores=better well-being. * indicates an
improvement in well-being at project end (P<0.05)
28
Strengths and difficultie score
excluded. Furthermore the improvements
in self-esteem experienced could help
participants to place more value on
themselves and thus not want to engage
in behaviours which will jeopardise their
future and potentially cause them to be
imprisoned.
26
Figure C: Strengths and difficutlies
scores at project baseline and end in
Essex participants
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
Baseline
As well as improving well-being, selfesteem, hope, behaviour and increasing
participants desire to be in nature, the
project helped participants’ to develop
new skills through engaging in new
activities, work as a team, communicate
effectively with others, develop coping
mechanisms, become self-aware and
confident and develop a willingness to
change.
Participants
enjoyed
the
experience and liked “interacting with
new people”. They “became more open,
confident and trusting” and learnt to
“never give up”. Participants felt that
participating in the project would help
them to “try harder to achieve what they
want in life” and “be more positive, set
goals and talk to and give people a chance
more”.
End
A high score=more difficulties.
Whilst the mean scores in the assessed
parameters showed a general trend for
improvement, individual experiences of
the project varied. Some participants
responded more positively and enjoyed
the experience more than others; this was
to be expected given that everyone had a
differing relationship with nature.
However, overall the project was
successful at targeting youth at risk of
developing further behavioural problems,
being excluded from school, partaking in
criminal activity or anti-social behaviour.
For example, the reductions in
behavioural difficulties identified could
stop the young people from being
disruptive at school and therefore being
The findings of this report suggest that
projects like TA4 should be used as a tool
to prevent the increasing trend for youth
anti-social
behaviour
and
crime.
Therapeutic and wilderness projects
should be considered as an alternative to
discipline, deterrence and imprisonment
in the battle against youth crime. The
TurnAround project is a scheme which is
successful at targeting the risk factors and
causes of youth crime.
Correspondence contact: Dr Carly Wood,
Research Officer, School of Biological
Sciences, University of Essex, Wivenhoe
Park, Colchester, CO43SQ.
[email protected]
7
1. Introduction
This report is a follow on from three preceding TurnAround reports [1-3] and should be read in
conjunction with previous information. Youth crime and anti-social behaviour is an increasing
problem in the UK. Approximately one quarter of all recorded crime is committed by young
people aged 10-17 years; with young men being responsible for 20% of all recorded crime and
young women being responsible for approximately 4% [4]. Furthermore approximately 375 antisocial behaviour orders were given to young people in 2011/12 and 16% of all people arrested
were aged 10-17 years. [5]. Whilst a minority of all crimes in the UK are committed by young
people, the figures are disproportionate given that young people only account for 1 in 10 of the
population above the criminal age of responsibility (aged 10 years) [4,5]. Risk factors for youth
crime and antisocial behaviour include a low IQ, hyperactivity, family conflict, low academic
achievement or self-esteem, substance addictions, poor mental health, domestic violence and
low income or poor social circumstance [6, 7].
The cost of youth crime is approximately £4 billion per year, with 70% of this figure being spent
on policing, 17% on punishment and 13% on trials [8, 9]. For young people who are imprisoned
for the crimes they commit, the annual cost of a place in a secure children’s home is
approximately £120,000 per year, whilst the costs of a place in a secure training centre and
young offender’s institution are £160,000 and £60,000 per year respectively [6].
In addition to increasing crime rates, a high number of young people are excluded from school
each year. In 2010/11, 5080 young people were permanently excluded from school and 324,110
young people were excluded for a fixed period [10]. Over one third of permanent exclusions and
one quarter of fixed period exclusions were due to persistent disruptive behaviour and young
men were more likely to be excluded than young women [10]. Furthermore, young people who
are excluded from school are more likely to be involved in criminal activity or anti-social
behaviour [7].
Due to the high costs associated with imprisonment of young people and the high reoffending
rates of 38% [5], much attention has been placed on the use of alternative methods of tackling
crime, reoffending and anti-social behaviour. Interventions that embody therapeutic
philosophies have been demonstrated to be more effective than control or coercion strategies
such as discipline, deterrence and surveillance, all of which may lead to increased criminal
behaviour [7]. The aim of therapeutic interventions is to bring about behavioural change by
University of Essex, 2013
facilitating personal development through improved skills, relationships’ and insight [11].
Programmes therefore tend to include opportunities for restoration and reflection, skill building
and counselling or mentoring [11].
Mentoring alone has been demonstrated to reduce
recidivism rates by 20% [7].
Wilderness therapy, a programme that takes place in a wilderness or remote outdoor
environment, is also used to tackle youth crime and anti-social behaviour [12, 13]. Wilderness
therapy programmes provide counselling, education, leadership training and primitive living
conditions which aim to foster community and group working, honesty, awareness, openness
and the ability of individuals to take responsibility for their actions [12]. Wilderness therapy
programmes have been demonstrated to reduce recidivism by as much as 29% and are thus a
successful programme for targeting antisocial behaviour and crime in young
people [13]. The TurnAround programme
uses skills workshops, mentoring and
group activities combined with a number
of wilderness trails, to target youth crime
and anti-social behaviour. The cost of
running the programme is £7,000 per
participant. This report provides evidence
for
the
effects
of
the
TurnAround
programme in a group of youth at risk of
crime and anti-social behaviour.
9
University of Essex, 2013
2. Aims of TurnAround 4
The aim of TA4 was to enable vulnerable young people to make positive changes in their lives
through engagement in nature based activities. The project was designed to use the power of nature
as a catalyst for change. Natural outdoor settings were used as therapeutic places to facilitate
discussion and reflection amongst the young people and to create a safe environment whereby they
could make connections with each other, their mentors, nature and others involved in the
programme. It also provided the young people with an opportunity to reflect on their life choices
and the current destructive pathway many of them were heading down.
The main objective of the programme was to intervene early preventing further criminal convictions,
school exclusion and escalation of negative behaviour. The aim of the outdoor activities and
wilderness experiences were to:
1. Break down the physical and emotional barriers that inhibited social competence;
2. Improve self-esteem, self-confidence, emotional regulation, communication and problem
solving abilities;
3. Instil a sense of accountability to themselves and others;
4. Build trust and team-working skills;
5. Educate young people to make positive life choices;
6. Generate employment and training opportunities and/or further education prospects.
Two projects ran simultaneously, one in Essex and one in Hackney, each of which targeted young
people aged 15-20 years who share a variety of social and personal problems including alcohol and
drug abuse, family breakdown, criminal offences, school exclusion and low self-esteem and selfconfidence. The Hackney project ran from April 2012 - January 2013, whilst the Essex trail ran from
April 2012 - March 2013. Both projects included one-to-one mentoring, skills workshops and
outdoor activity days and two wilderness trails (camping and sailing). Mentoring was conducted by
community volunteers, who were asked to engage in weekly face-to-face meetings with their
mentee, and contact via telephone and email throughout the project if required.
10
University of Essex, 2013
3. Structure of TurnAround 4
The structure of the TurnAround 4 project for Hackney and Essex participants is displayed in Table 1.
The timetable of activities varied slightly for both Essex and Hackney participants, the activities are
therefore separated for each subset of participants.
Table 1. Phases of the TurnAround 4 project for Essex and Hackney participants.
Activity type
Activity description
Recruitment
Selection
Participant and mentor recruitment
Young people interviewed for programme,
invited to an introductory day and places on the
programme confirmed
Wild camping, sailing, trail preparation, personal
development sessions and transition and
graduation planning*
Art therapy, horse riding and stable
management, , theatre trip**
First aid training, cinema, trail celebration, tree
planting, open fire cooking***
7 day trail to Scotland
Activity days
Wilderness
trail
Sailing trip
Graduation
Hackney
Essex
Month (2012)
Jan - Mar
Mar
Apr
Apr - Dec
Apr- Jan
Jul
Aug
5 day Sailing on the Morning Star
Oct
Celebration event
Jan 2013
*All groups; **Hackney group only; ***Essex group only
Nov
Mar 2013
3.1 Recruitment and Selection of Participants
Information on TurnAround procedures for recruitment and selection of participants can be located
in the ‘Standard Information for TurnAround’ document. For the current cohort of participants
outreach and engagement with referral agencies took place in January/February 2012 with all
referrals required by the end of February 2012. Following interviews with referred young people,
seven young people were selected to take part in the Essex programme and six young people were
selected to take part in the Hackney programme. On entry all young people were required to sign a
‘contract of entry’ and complete a number of different tasks. A description of these can also be
found in the standard information document.
11
University of Essex, 2013
3.2 Mentor Selection and Training
Information about mentor selection and training can be located in the ‘Standard Information for
TurnAround’ document. A total of 13 mentors were recruited for the TurnAround 4 project, six for
the Hackney group and seven for the Essex group. Each participant was therefore allocated one
mentor.
3.3 Wilderness Trail to Scotland
General information about the purpose of the first wilderness trail can be found in the standard
information document. For TurnAround 4 the Hackney and Essex groups took part in separate
wilderness trails, both of which were in Scotland. The Hackney group trail took place from 27th July
to 2nd of August 2012, whilst the Essex trail took place from the 08th-15th of August 2012. The area
was remote and uninhabited, providing an escape from the young people’s everyday urban settings.
The young people were accompanied on the trail by
Wilderness Foundation staff and trained mountain leaders.
Throughout the wilderness trail the young people were
involved in a number of activities such as hiking, wild
camping, camp craft activities, wildlife observation, food
preparation, swimming and fire making and also solo time for
the young people to reflect on their lives and their wilderness
experience. Participants learnt basic camping skills and were exposed to simple living in tune with
all elements of nature, such as the weather, terrain and lack of home comforts.
The young people on TurnAround 4 also completed the John Muir Award environmental award. In
order to receive the award the young people had to complete four challenges: i) discover a wild
place; ii) explore its wilderness; iii) conserve- take personal responsibility for the place and; iv) share
their experiences with others. The young people also had to complete daily journals documenting
their thoughts and feelings and the activities which had taken place each day.
3.4 Monthly Workshops
Each of the Turnaround 4 workshops was based on the four disciplines of the Circle of Courage, as
described in the ‘Standard Information for TurnAround’ document. Workshops for the Essex and
Hackney groups were run separately and varied slightly in content and timing. The workshop
outlines are displayed in Table 2 (Hackney) and 3 (Essex).
12
University of Essex, 2013
Table 2. Description of Hackney monthly workshops and associated disciplines of circle of courage
Month
Workshop
Activities
May
Wild
camping
weekend
(midpoint 1 )
Meeting of young people
and mentors, to develop
skills and familiarity with
camping such as tent and
shelter construction and
cooking on a fire. Leave no
trace training
June
Art Therapy
July
Trial
preparation
September
/October
Sailing
November
Orienteering
Personal development
session to help
participants to express
themselves through
painting or drawing
Planning and distribution
of equipment list,
reaffirmation of rules,
Description of trail,
explanation of “leave no
trace” and WF ethics
Development of sailing
skills to prepare for future
sailing trip. Team work.
Knowledge and skill
development, preparation
for sailing trip.
Development of
orienteering skills and
teamwork
December
Horse Riding
December
Circle of Courage Focus
B
M


I
G








Physical/ outdoor activity.
To experience something
new.


Theatre Trip
Trip to theatre to see
Chariots of Fire

January
Graduation
and
transition
planning
Prepare for graduation
ceremony and future after
TurnAround

January
Graduation
ceremony
Celebration of programme
completion


Outcomes

To develop connections
with the mentors and
bond with the group,
improve self-confidence
and self-esteem, develop
camping and
communication skills,
begin journey to selfawareness.
Self-expression,
development of new
skills.
Developments of skills
e.g. map reading,
orienteering, using
camping equipment.
Skills development,
improving self-esteem
and self-confidence.

New skills and
knowledge, teamwork,
attended to safety of self
and colleagues.
Learning of new skill,
confidence and team
building, knowledge
development, improved
self-esteem
Cultural development,
group bonding




Young people working as
a team to plan
graduation ceremony,
looking to the futureplanning for after
TurnAround.
To celebrate the success
and achievements with
family and friends,
award certificates,
reflect on what has been
achieved.
13
University of Essex, 2013
Table 3. Description of Essex monthly workshops and associated disciplines of circle of courage
Month
Workshop
Activities
Circle of Courage Focus
B
M
June
Wild
camping
weekend
(midpoint 1 )
Meeting of young people
and mentors, to develop
skills and familiarity with
camping such as tent and
shelter construction and
cooking on a fire. Leave no
trace training


July
Sailing


July
First aid
training
Development of sailing
skills to prepare for future
sailing trip. Team work.
Knowledge and skill
development, preparation
for sailing trip.
To learn basic first aid
skills.
August
Trial
preparation

September
Cinema and
dinner
Planning and distribution
of equipment list,
reaffirmation of rules,
Description of trail,
explanation of “leave no
trace” and WF ethics
Trip to the cinema and out
for dinner
December
Tree
planting
Physical/ outdoor activity.
To learn about
gardening/horticultural
activities

January
Cinema trip
(midpoint 2)
Trip to cinema to see Les
Miserable

March
Open fire
cooking
Learning how to cook on
an open fire


March
Graduation
and
transition
planning
Prepare for graduation
ceremony and future after
TurnAround


March
Graduation
ceremony
Celebration of programme
completion

I
G



Outcomes
To develop connections
with the mentors and
bond with the group,
improve self-confidence
and self-esteem, develop
camping and
communication skills,
begin journey to selfawareness.
Skills development,
improving self-esteem
and self-confidence.
Developments of skills.

Developments of skills
e.g. map reading,
orienteering, using
camping equipment.

Reflection, group
boding,

Learning of new skill,
confidence and team
building, knowledge
development, improved
self-esteem
Cultural and personal
development, group
bonding
Skill development and
teamwork.




Young people working as
a team to plan
graduation ceremony,
looking to the futureplanning for after
TurnAround.
To celebrate the success
and achievements with
family and friends,
award certificates,
reflect on what has been
achieved.
14
University of Essex, 2013
3.5 One-to-One Mentoring
In order for mentoring to work effectively, successful pairing of an adult and young person was
required. This pairing was performed at the Wild Camping weekend for both the Essex and Hackney
groups. Pairing was based upon personalities and geographical location. All Hackney participants
were paired with a mentor from the Hackney region, whilst all Essex participants were paired with a
mentor from the Essex region. An outline of mentoring strategies and aims can be found in the
standard information document.
Due to unforeseen programme circumstances, mismatching of personalities and a lack of
engagement in mentoring from some participants, the mentoring on the whole was largely
unsuccessful when compared to the previous TurnAround phases. Very few mentors and young
people had regular weekly meetings and some mentors found it very challenging to agree a time and
location for the meeting or to even establish contact. In some cases, particularly where personalities
clashed or the young people were experiencing additional needs, Wilderness Foundation staff took
over the mentoring role. However, in many cases mentors persisted in trying to meet with mentees.
Indeed, some mentoring partnerships were successful, however there were some young people who
had very little, if any mentoring throughout the programme.
During the project there were also problems experienced with staffing, whereby a key member of
project staff had to suddenly leave the Wilderness Foundation. This was outside of the control of
the Wilderness Foundation but appeared to have a significant impact on participants, particularly
those in the Essex group, as the participants had developed strong relationships with the member of
staff. The departure occurred after the initial wilderness trail, reductions in parameters immediately
after this point could therefore be attributed to this unfortunate event. However, Wilderness
Foundation staff did put procedures in place to support the young people and help them to deal
with any emotional difficulties they were experiencing after this event.
3.6 Sailing Trip on the Morning Star
For their second wilderness trail the young people also took part in a sailing trip. The sailing trip
lasted for five days, with the Essex group sailing from the 24th-28th October 2012 and the Hackney
group sailing from the 29th October – 2nd of November 2013. The aims and purpose of the final trail
can be found in the standard information document.
15
University of Essex, 2013
Throughout the sailing the young people were
taught how to sail, building on skills they had
previously learnt from attending day sailing
activities. Each young person took on a role within
the
boat,
such
roles
included
radio
communication, cooking and pulling on the ropes.
The young people also developed navigational
skills, explored and observed natural areas from
the water and worked as a team to ensure that
safety standards were adhered to. The young
people also had to adhere to the rules of the
boat, which were to: i) abide by the skippers
decisions and to carry out the duties assigned on board the boat; ii) be involved in all tasks that need
to be carried out on board; iii) smoke only on the deck; iv) not drink alcohol or consume illegal drugs;
v) inform the skipper of any prescription medication which is being taken; vi) follow mobile phone
usage rules; vii) only listen to music on personal stereos and viii) not leave the boat without the
skippers permission.
16
University of Essex, 2013
4. Methodology
The Green Exercise Research Team at the University of Essex provided an independent evaluation of
the outcomes of the Wilderness Foundations TurnAround 4 project. A mixed methods approach was
used to assess participant changes in self-esteem, well-being, relatedness to nature, behavioural
strengths and difficulties and hope. A composite questionnaire was developed incorporating
internationally standardised questionnaires alongside qualitative narrative, in order to capture the
key outcomes of the project. The questionnaires were distributed at set time points throughout the
project in order to determine changes in participants’ scores, over time. However, these time points
varied for the Hackney (Table 4) and Essex (Table 5) groups due to differences in scheduled sessions
and the extension of the Essex group programme.
Project outcomes and information were also obtained via participant documentation, including
shield drawings, and other artwork. The self-esteem scale has been used in all three previous
TurnAround phases, allowing comparisons between the TurnAround phases to be made.
Table 4: Timetable of Data Collection for Hackney Group
Baseline
Hope
Nature
Relatedness
Well-being
Self-esteem
Strengths and
Difficulties
Qualitative
Narrative
April


Wild
Camping
Weekend
May


Pre Wilderness
Trail
Post Wilderness
Trail
End
July


August


January


















*Questionnaires were unfortunately not completed by the Hackney group on the sailing trip or final workshop.
At the wild camping weekend (midpoint 1) questionnaires were completed at the end of the first day of
camping.
4.1 Hope Questionnaire
Hope is as “an overall perception that one’s goals can be met” and consists of two interrelated subscale components: agency and pathway [14]. The agency sub-scale is concerned with an individual’s
perceived capacity for commencing and maintaining the actions required to meet a goal, whilst the
17
University of Essex, 2013
pathway sub-scale focuses on the ability of the individual to generate routes to their goals [14].
Hope is related to coping ability, where a state measure of ‘hope’ provides a snap-shot of a person’s
goal directed thinking.
The Children’s Hope Scale is designed for children and young people aged 8-16 years [15]. The scale
consists of six items, three for the agency sub-scale and three for the pathway sub-scale. Each item is
responded to on a six point likert scale from one (none of the time) to six (all of the time) and a total
scale score ranging from six to 36 is derived by summing the items. Scores for the two sub-scales are
also generated, ranging from three to 18. A higher score represents a greater perception that goals
can be met. The Children’s hope scale was used in the current study despite participants having a
mean age of above 16 years, as many of the young people were illiterate. The mean hope score on
the child questionnaire is 25.89.
Table 5: Timetable of Data Collection for Essex Group
Baseline
Hope
Nature
Relatedness
Well-being
Self-esteem
Strengths and
Difficulties
Qualitative
Narrative
April


Wild
Camping
Weekend
(midpoint 1 )
June


Pre and
post
Wilderness
Trail
August












Pre and
post
sailing
Cinema Trip
(midpoint 2)
End
October


January


March












*The Essex group programme was extended by 3 months due to unforeseen delays. At the wild camping
weekend (midpoint 1) questionnaires were completed at the end of the first day of camping.
4.2 The Nature Relatedness Scale- Nature Experience
Nature relatedness describes an individual’s level of connectedness with the natural world and
comprises the cognitive, affective and physical connection with nature [16, 17]. The Nature
Relatedness Scale consists of three sub-scales; self, perspective and experience. The experience subscale measures “physical familiarity with the natural world and the level of comfort with and desire
to be out in nature”. As experience of nature is a key aspect of the TurnAround project, the subscale was incorporated into the composite questionnaire. The scale consists of 6 items, responded to
18
University of Essex, 2013
on a five point likert scale from one (disagree strongly) to five (agree strongly). Two of the items are
reverse scored and a total sub-scale score is generated by totalling the scores for the six items and
dividing by six. A high score indicates a high level of experience, comfort and desire to be in nature.
4.3 Well-being
Well-being is an important contributor to health and is defined as “a positive physical, social and
mental state and not just the absence of pain, discomfort or incapacity” [18]. Well-being was
assessed using the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS). The scale comprises a
global well-being measure including affective-emotional aspects, cognitive-evaluative dimensions
and psychological functioning and is short enough to be used in population-level surveys [19]. The
scale is validated for use in adults and adolescents in the UK [19-21] and consists of 14 items, all of
which are worded positively and
address positive aspects of positive
mental health [20, 22]. The scale is
scored by summing responses to
each item which are scored on a
five point likert scale from one
(none of the time) to five (all of the
time). The minimum score is 14
whilst the maximum score is 70. A
higher score represents a better
well-being.
The well-being scale is not designed to identify individuals who have especially high or low levels of
well-being; therefore no cut points have been developed (23). However, other research tends to
classify well-being as either ‘low’, ‘average’ or ‘high’ using the mean and standard deviation (SD) of
the data (24). A ‘low’ well-being is classed as more than one SD below the population mean score,
‘average’ within one SD of the population mean and ‘high’ as more than one SD above the
population mean. The mean and SD used to classify well-being scores in this study were national
averages from the recent Scottish health survey for 16-24 year olds (51.7±7.26) (25).
4.4 Self-esteem
Self-esteem is defined as “a person’s positive or negative attitude towards the self in totality”, with
low self-esteem being a common occurrence in many forms of mental ill health [26]. Self-esteem
19
University of Essex, 2013
was assessed using the one page 10-item Rosenberg’s Self-esteem Scale (RSE), which is considered
to be the most widely-used and popular self-esteem measure in health psychology and social science
research [27]. RSE provides a one-dimensional, global measure [28], each of the 10 items on the
scale are scored on a four point likert scale from one (strongly disagree) to four (strongly agree). An
overall self-esteem score between 10 and 40 is generated, with a high score representing a better
self-esteem. In previous TA reports a lower score has represented a better self-esteem; scores in the
current report should therefore be interpreted in the opposite direction.
4.5 Behavioural Strengths and Difficulties
Behavioural strengths and difficulties were assessed using the Strengths and Difficulties
Questionnaire (SDQ). The SDQ is a 25-item behavioural screening questionnaire that assesses both
positive and negative behaviours [29]. The items are equally divided into five scales addressing
varying aspects of behaviour and behavioural problems including conduct problems; hyperactivity;
emotional symptoms; peer problems and pro-social behaviour. Each item is scored on a three point
likert scale from zero (not true) to two (certainly true). Scores are generated for each of the five subscales, by summing the scores for the five items within that scale. Each sub-scale score ranges from
zero to ten, with a higher score representing greater conduct problems, hyperactivity, emotions or
peer problems and a more pro-social behaviour. An overall SDQ score is generated by summing the
items for each scale, except pro-social behaviour. The minimum SDQ score is zero whilst the
maximum score is 40; a higher score represents a greater number of behavioural difficulties [30].
The scores for each sub-scale and the overall SDQ can be placed into categories which represent
either ‘normal’, ‘borderline’ or ‘abnormal’ behaviour [29].
4.6 Qualitative Narrative
Qualitative narrative was collected to compliment quantitative data. Participants were asked openended questions to determine what they were hoping to gain from the programme; what they were
excited and nervous about; what they enjoyed most and least, what they learnt about themselves,
nature and other people and what they would do differently in the future as a result of the
programme.
4.7 Statistical Analysis
All questionnaire data was entered into SPSS (v18) statistical analysis software to assist in
manipulating data, detecting inconsistencies and statistically analysing results. Due to small sample
sizes statistical analysis was performed using non‐parametric tests. Where statistical analysis results
20
University of Essex, 2013
are not reported, no statistically
significant changes were identified.
Statistical analysis was generally
limited due to missing data and the
low
number
of
participants
completing the questionnaires at
all time points. Descriptive data is
reported in all cases to provide
insights into any trends or patterns
in results. Baseline data should be
interpreted with caution as participants often provide scores that they perceive to be socially
desirable at the start of the project as opposed to an honest reflection of their thoughts and feelings.
Deterioration in scores from baseline could therefore be attributed to unreliable baseline data.
21
University of Essex, 2013
5. Generic Results- Hackney Group
5.1 TA4 Participants
Six youth at-risk from Hackney were selected to take part in the project. Participants’ ages ranged
from 15-17 years, with an average age of 16.3±1.1 years. Four of the participants were male (67%)
and two of the participants were female (33%). The young people were experiencing a variety of
issues including low self-confidence and self-esteem, anger issues and a lack of trust in other people.
Many of the young people were living in foster care and had unstable family backgrounds, with a
need for security and belonging. Some participants also had criminal convictions.
Participant
attendance at the project varied, with some participants only completing two questionnaires and
one participant completing all five. All data was included in the analysis.
5.2 Hackney Analysis Overview
Hackney participants were evaluated at baseline, wild camping weekend (midpoint 1), pre and post
wilderness trail and the project end. Only one participant completed the questionnaires at all time
points, changes over time cannot therefore be tracked. However, several participants completed the
questionnaires pre and post the wilderness trail; so comparisons between these two time points
were analysed. Only descriptive data is reported for baseline, wild camping weekend and end of
project evaluation time points, statistical analysis will not be performed due to low participant
numbers. Within subjects statistical analysis will be performed on pre and post wilderness trail data
to determine any changes due to the trail.
5.3 Changes over the duration of the project
5.3.1 Participant Perspectives at the Start of the Project
At the start of the TA project participants were asked a number of questions about the programme,
including what they were hoping to get out of it and what they were nervous or excited about. The
responses to these questions are displayed in Box 1. Participants were hoping to learn how to camp
and live outdoors and to trust and communicate with other people. The most exciting aspects of the
project were identified as the activities, camping and seeing new places and making new friends.
22
University of Essex, 2013
Box 1: Hackney Participant hopes and aspirations for the TurnAround project.
Question
Comments from Young People
What do you
“Learn how to camp, wood cutting skills.... Make friends. How to cook in the
hope to get out
wilderness, outside the house, outdoors”
of this
“Hope to gain more trust from other people and to overcome my fear
programme?
(water)”
“Good communication skills, how to survive in the wild, god techniques”
“Confidence and to make my own choices. Also learning new things”.
What are you
“Nothing” (X2)
most nervous
“I am nervous about sailing because of my fear of water”
about?
“Sleeping in the dark”
What are most
“Achieving, seeing new people, making new friends, excited about coming
excited about?
from London to Colchester”
“I am most excited about going to Scotland and camping in the real
wilderness. Getting to know my mentor more”
“Camping outside”
“I am excited about the activities and trying new things”
5.3.2 Hope
Figure 1 displays changes in agency sub-scale scores over the course of the project for participants
who completed the scale at each of the time points. Scores increased from baseline to wild camping
by an index of 1.25, representing an 8% improvement in the perceived capacity for commencing and
maintaining the actions required to meet goals. Scores decreased from wild camping to the end of
the project; however the scores remained slightly elevated from baseline. From baseline to project
end scores increased by an index of 0.75, equivalent to a 5% improvement.
Figure 2 displays changes in pathway sub-scale scores for participants who completed the scale at
each of the time points. Scores increased from baseline to wild camping by an index of 2.5, equating
to a 16% improvement in perceived ability to generate routes to goals. Scores decreased from wild
camping to the end of the project, where they fell below baseline levels. Overall participants
perceived ability to generate routes to their goals decreased by approximately 8% (an index of 1.25).
23
University of Essex, 2013
18
Figure 1: Changes in Hackney group agency subscale scores over the course of the project
Agency Sub-scale Score
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
Baseline
Wild Camping
End
Note: A higher score= greater hope that goals can be met. Error bars represent ±1SD; N=4 at baseline and wild
camping and n=2 at the end.
Pathway Sub-scale Score
19
Figure 2: Changes in Hackney group pathway
sub-scale scores over the course of the project
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
Baseline
Wild Camping
End
Note: A higher score= greater hope that goals can be met. Error bars represent ±1SD; N=4 at baseline, and wild
camping; n=2 at the end.
The changes in total hope scores for participants who completed the scale at each time point are
displayed in Figure 3. The ‘Hope’ scores increased continuously from baseline to wild camping by an
index of 3.75, equivalent to a 13% improvement. This improvement represents an increase in the
perception that the participants can achieve their goals. The scores decreased from wild camping to
the end of the project, where scores fell slightly below those achieved at baseline. The index of
decrease from start to end was 0.5; scores therefore experienced a slight deterioration of 3%. At
24
University of Essex, 2013
baseline and project end scores were slightly below the average score of 25.89, whilst at wild
camping the score was greater than this average value. Hope scores might have reduced due to
unreliable baseline data. Given that the scores seemed to decline after the wilderness trail, the
reduction might also be a reflection of the staffing circumstances mentioned previously.
36
Figure 3: Changes in Hackney group Hope scores
over the course of the project
34
Hope Score
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
Baseline
Wild Camping
End
Note: A higher score= greater hope that goals can be met. Error bars represent ±1SD; N=4 at baseline, and
wild camping and n=2 at the end.
5.3.3 Nature Experience
The nature experience scores at each of the data collection time points can be found in Figure 4.
Scores declined from baseline to wild camping, but increased by an index of 0.5 from baseline to
project end, representing a 10% increase in the desire of the participants to be out in nature.
25
University of Essex, 2013
Nature ExperienceScore
5.5
Figure 4: Nature Experience scores in Hackney
participants over the course of the project
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
Baseline
Wild Camping
End
Note: A higher score= greater experience of nature. Error bars represent ±1SD; N=4 at baseline and wild
camping; n=3 at the end.
5.3.4 Well-being
Well-being scores decreased from baseline to wild camping, but increased from wild camping to the
end of the project (Figure 5). From baseline to the end scores increased by an index of 7.6,
representing an overall improvement in well-being of 14%. Well-being scores were above the
normative value of 51.7 at all time points. At baseline and wild camping scores were classified as
being ‘average’; by the end of the project the mean score was classified as ‘high’.
75
Figure 5: Well-being scores in Hackney
participants over the course of the project
Well-being Score
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
Baseline
Wild Camping
End
Note: A higher score= greater well-being. Error bars represent ±1SD; N=4 at baseline and wild camping;
n=3 at the end.
26
University of Essex, 2013
5.3.5 Self-esteem
Figure 6 displays self-esteem scores at each of the data collection time points. Scores decreased
from baseline to wild camping, but increased from wild camping to the end of the project by an
index of 12.1. The overall change from the start to the end of the project was 1.3, representing a
slight improvement in self-esteem of 4%.
40
Figure 6: Self-esteem scores in Hackney
participants over the course of the project
Self-esteem Score
35
30
25
20
15
10
Baseline
Wild Camping
End
Note: A higher score= greater self-esteem. Error bars represent ±1SD; N=4 at baseline and wild camping;
n=3 at project end.
5.3.6 Strengths and Difficulties
Table 6 displays the strengths and difficulties sub-scale scores at each of the three time points.
Emotional symptoms decreased from baseline to wild camping and from baseline to end, but
increased slightly from wild camping to end. From baseline to end scores decreased by an index of
0.3; representing a 3% reduction in emotional difficulties. For conduct problems, scores increased
from baseline to wild camping, but decreased from wild camping to end and baseline to end.
Conduct problems reduced by 5% overall.
Symptoms of hyperactivity also decreased from baseline to wild camping and baseline to end. From
baseline to end the index of decrease was 2.5, representing a 25% reduction in hyperactivity. Peer
problems increased from baseline to wild camping, but decreased from wild camping to the end of
the project. However scores at baseline and the end of the project were identical, meaning that peer
problems were similar at both the start and end of the project. Pro-social behaviour increased over
the course of the project, both from baseline to wild camping and wild camping to end. Pro-social
27
University of Essex, 2013
behaviour increased by an index of 0.4 or 4%. At baseline, wild camping and project end all mean
sub-scale scores were classified as normal. Participants were experiencing few behavioural issues at
the project baseline, proving little opportunity for changes in behavioural scores.
Table 6: Strengths and difficulties sub-scale scores in Hackney participants over the course of
the project
Baseline
Wild camping
End
Emotional Symptoms
Conduct Problems
Hyperactivity
Peer Problems
Pro-social behaviour
(n=4)
(n=4 for all except peer
problems (n=3))
(n=3)
2.3±0.5
2.8±2.2
4.8±2.6
2.3±0.5
7.3±1.0
1.8±1.5
3.3±1.3
2.0±1.8
3.3±3.2
7.5±1.9
2.0±2.0
2.3±1.5
2.3±2.5
2.3±0.6
7.7±2.1
Scores represent mean±SD, a higher score= greater conduct problems, hyperactivity, emotions or peer
problems and a more pro-social behaviour
The total SDQ score at the data collection time points is displayed in Figure 7. The score decreased
over the course of the project. The end of project score was lower than the baseline score by 3.1
representing an 8% reduction in behavioural difficulties. At all three time points total scores were
classified as normal.
Total Strengths and Difficulties Score
18
16
Figure 7: Total Strengths and Difficulties score in
Hackney participants over the course of the
project
14
12
10
8
6
Start
Wild Camping
End
Note: A higher score= greater behavioural difficulties. Error bars represent ±1SD; N=4 at baseline and; n=3
at the wild camping and project end.
28
University of Essex, 2013
5.3.7 Feedback about the project after Wild Camping
At the end of the wild camping participants were asked to give feedback about their experience of
the project so far. Participants were asked to reveal what they were enjoying most and least and
what they were learning about themselves through involvement in TurnAround. Participants were
most enjoying making friends and cooking, whilst one participant said that they liked “everything”
about the programme. Participants learnt that they can do things like sleep outside and that they
can “make up their own mind” about things (Box 2).
Box 2: Young people’s feedback about the project after Wild Camping (Hackney).
Question
Comments from Young People
What are you
“ Meeting new people and making new friends”
enjoying most
“Meeting new people and playing games”
about being on
“I like everything in this programme”
the programme?
“Going out and cooking with.....because me and him would cook using our
hands in the kitchen….”
“I am enjoying the food and the fact that I can take pictures with the staff so
that one day I would remember.......”
What are you
“Stinging nettles”
enjoying least?
“Waking up early in the morning and sleeping outside”
What are you
“The wildlife and things to do with the world”
learning about
“That I can sleep outside, I am good at saying no and I can make up my own
yourself?
mind”
“Everything”
“I have learned that life is not as hard as its seems because the wilderness
project is meant to help me build a tent to survive elsewhere”
5.3.8 Feedback at the end of the project
At the end of the project participants were asked to identify what they felt they had got out of the
TurnAround project, what they had learnt about themselves and what they thought they would do
differently in future. The responses to these questions are displayed in Box 3.
29
University of Essex, 2013
Box 3: Young people’s feedback at the end of the project (Hackney)
Question
Comments from Young People
What have you got out
“ I am a nice person sometimes”
of the TurnAround
“I have learnt many things about myself and I feel good what I am
programme and what
doing. I would like to come again next year”
have you learnt about
“I learnt about myself that I can do a lot of new things and to never
yourself?
give up”
What do you think you
“I will try to meet more people. I have enjoyed making lots of new
will do differently after
friends”
taking part in this
“I will use everything that I learnt from this programme”
programme?
“I think I am not going to do anything differently”
5.4 Wilderness Trail to Scotland
Five Hackney participants completed the composite questionnaire pre- and post the Wilderness trail,
however not all five participants completed all aspects of the questionnaire. For each of the assessed
measures between three and five participants completed the relevant scales. Changes in group
means between the two time points can therefore be generated and compared.
5.4.1 Qualitative Narrative prior to the trail
Participants completed questionnaires at the start and end of the wilderness trail. At the start of the
trail they were asked what they were nervous and excited about and what they hoped to get out of
the trip. The responses are displayed in Box 4. Young people were most nervous about sleeping
outside and not having their home comforts such as mobile phones. However, they were excited
about camping, seeing new things and taking part in activities and were hoping to make friends and
develop communication skills.
30
University of Essex, 2013
Box 4: Young people’s hopes and concerns about the Wilderness Trail (Hackney)
Question
Comments from Young People
What do you hope
“ I hope to get good communication skills”
to get out of this
“Friends”
trip?
“I want to learn more about camping and to learn English communication
with the people”
“A good experience
What are you most
“Well I was nervous about getting on the plane, but now I ain’t nervous
nervous about?
about anything”
“Sleeping outside in the middle of nowhere and going to the toilet outside”
“Nothing”
“I need my phone”
What are you most
“Camping for the week”
excited about?
“Doing activities with everyone”
“I am happy. For camping, for my friends and here in Scotland”
“I want to see something that I have never saw before”
5.4.2 Hope
Four Hackney participants completed the hope questionnaire pre and post the Wilderness Trail,
whilst four participants completed the pathway sub-scale questions and five completed the agency
sub-scale questions. For both the agency and pathway sub-scales, scores increased from pre to post
wilderness trail, meaning that overall hope also increased (Figures 8-9). Agency scores increased by
an index of 1.6 representing a 10% improvement; whilst pathway scores increased by an index of 0.5
or 3%. Of the five participants who completed the agency sub-scale, 40% increased their scores, of
the four who completed the pathway sub-scale 50% improved their scores.
Overall hope scores also increased. The scores increased by an index of 2.25, meaning that
participants’ hope of meeting their goals increased by 8% due to the wilderness experience. Scores
were above average at both time points and half of participants increased their hope scores.
31
University of Essex, 2013
19
Figure 8: Changes in Hope sub-scale scores from
pre to post Wilderness trail
18.5
Sub-scale Score
18
Agency
17.5
Pathway
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
Pre Trail
Post Trail
Note: A higher score= greater hope that goals can be met. Error bars represent ±1SD; N=4 for pathway; N=5
for agency
37
Figure 9: Changes in Hackney participants Hope
scores from pre to post wilderness trail
36
Hope Score
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
Pre Trail
Post Trail
Note: A higher score= greater hope that goals can be met. Error bars represent ±1SD; N=4.
5.4.3 Nature Experience
Four Hackney participants also completed the Nature Experience scale pre- and post- the wilderness
trail. Mean scores were similar at both time points, with only a slight increase in participants’ nature
experience occurring at the post trail time point (Figure 10). The score increased by an index of 0.1,
representing a small increase of 2%. Approximately 25% of participants increased their scores, whilst
50% of participants’ scores remained unchanged.
32
University of Essex, 2013
Nature Rexperience Score
4.8
Figure 10: Changes in Hackney participants
Nature Experience scores from pre to post
wilderness trail
4.6
4.4
4.2
4
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
3
Pre Trail
Post Trail
Note: A higher score= greater relatedness to nature. Error bars represent ±1SD; N=4.
5.4.4 Self-esteem
Three Hackney participants completed the self-esteem scale before and after the wilderness trail.
Participants mean scores increased by an index of 6.0, representing a 20% improvement in selfesteem as a result of the wilderness trail (Figure 11). All participants (100%) improved their selfesteem.
41
Figure 11: Changes in Hackney participants selfesteem from pre- to post wilderness trail
Self-esteem Score
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
Pre Trail
Post Trail
Note: A higher score= better self-esteem. Error bars represent ±1SD; N=3.
33
University of Essex, 2013
5.4.5 Qualitative Feedback
At the end of the Wilderness trail participants were asked a number of questions about their
experience, including what they enjoyed most and least, what they would change and what the trail
had taught them about themselves; nature and other people. Participants’ responses to these
questions can be found in Box 5. Participants enjoyed the camping, learning new things and making
friends, but didn’t like aspects of the trip such as the long walks and poor weather. Participants
learnt that they could make friends, that there are good people out there and that nature is a
beautiful thing.
Box 5: Young people’s feedback about the Wilderness Trail (Hackney)
Question
Comments from Young People
What do you
“ I enjoyed camping in the wilderness because it was fun and I was able to meet
enjoy most about
new friends”
your experience?
“Getting to know the guys a bit more and learning the good and bad stuff about
people because it is good to know the good and bad cos then you know what
they don’t like and like”
“I enjoyed meeting new people and becoming friends with everyone. Also
looking at the animals and the rivers, sitting around the fire with everyone”
“I enjoyed meeting new friends, learning new things, walking, nature, sheep,
river, jumping salmon and fire”.
“The Fire, nature and new friends”
What didn’t you
”I didn’t enjoy the fitness level in some of the people, they could improve”
enjoy?
“The walking”
“I didn’t enjoy walking long distances with a heavy bag on my back. I didn’t
enjoy the cold rain and the weather. I didn’t enjoy the mosquitoes and midges
because they left spots on my face”
“Nothing”
“Food”
What would you
“The people that came on the trip”
have changed?
“My fitness level”
“I would change the walking to riding a bike instead. I would change the weight
of the bag and make it less heavy”
“More nights out camping”
“More food, more young people. To be allowed my phone”.
34
University of Essex, 2013
What has this
“It has taught me that I can make friends quickly and how much I like the
trip taught you
wilderness”
about yourself?
“I am normal”
“Nothing”
“I am a strong person working in a group”
What has this
“That some people ain’t got the fitness level I have”
trip taught you
“They are good people, they are funny people, for me they are my best friends”
about other
“Funny people, I had a good time. Responsible, good friends”
people?
What has this
“That it is beautiful and how much I can learn and like nature”
trip taught you
“Everything”
about nature?
“Green, amazing mountain”
5.4 Hackney Key Findings
The key findings of the analysis of Hackney data revealed that over the course of the project:
Agency hope scores increased by 6%;
Well-being scores increased by 13%, with the average well-being score moving from a
classification of ‘average’ to ‘high’;
Self-esteem improved by 4%;
Emotional symptoms, conduct problems and hyperactivity reduced by 13%, 18% and 52%
respectively;
Pro-social behaviour increased by 56%;
Total strengths and difficulties reduced by 26%.
As a result of the wilderness trail:
Agency hope scores increased by 11%, pathway by 3% and total hope scores by 7%;
50% of participants increased their hope that they could meet their goals;
Nature experience increased by 3%, with 25% of participants increasing their familiarity and
desire to be out in nature;
Self-esteem scores increased by 21%;
100% of participants improved their self-esteem.
35
University of Essex, 2013
6. Individual Case studies- Hackney Group
This section uses a case study approach to provide individual overviews for each person. It plots
changes in individual parameters over the course of the programme and uses a combination of
qualitative and quantitative data. Pseudo names are used at all times and any missing data is due to
absence. Provision of background information for each individual case study helps to build the
participants profile.
6.1 Case of ‘John’
John was 17 ¼ years old at the start of the TurnAround project. He spoke very little English and had
no self-confidence. He lacked a strong family unit and was just leaving care. He had a need for
belonging and security and had received little education. John attended all but one (baseline) of the
data collection sessions.
John’s sub-scale hope scores for the sessions he attended are displayed in Figure 12. The agency
score remained stable from wild camping to pre-trail, but decreased after the trail and at the project
end. The pathway score decreased at wild camping, but increased post trail. The score increased by
an index of 3.0, equivalent to a 19% improvement in John’s perceived ability to generate routes to
his goals, following the wilderness experience. Both subscale scores decreased by the end of the
project; however, John’s lack of attendance after the trail in July until the end of the project in
December is likely to have contributed to this decline.
Figure 12: John's hope sub-scale scores over the
course of the project
19
18
Hope sub-scale score
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
Wild Camping
Pre trail
Post trail
End
Note: Blue= Agency; Green= Pathway; A higher score= greater hope that goals can be met
36
University of Essex, 2013
The total hope score from wild camping to post trail remained relatively stable, with a decline at pretrail but increase after (Figure 13). The score increased by 7% after the wilderness event. The score
then decreased at the project end, perhaps as a result of low levels of engagement. This score was
below the baseline level. At all time points except the project end, hope scores were above the
normative value of 25.89.
38
36
Figure 13: John's hope score over the course of
the project
Hope score
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
Wild Camping
Pre trail
Post trail
End
Note: A higher score= greater hope that goals can be met
John’s nature experience scores are displayed in Figure 14. Scores increased from wild camping to
the end of the project, remaining stable before and after the wilderness trail. The index of increase
from wild camping to project end was 1.33, representing a 27% increase in nature experience. At the
end of TurnAround John’s score was the maximum that could be achieved on the nature experience
scale.
37
University of Essex, 2013
Figure 14: John's nature experience scores over
the course of the project
5.1
Nature Experience score
4.9
4.7
4.5
4.3
4.1
3.9
3.7
3.5
Wild Camping
Pre trail
Post trail
End
Note: A higher score= greater nature experience
The well-being scale was not completed pre- and post- the wilderness trail. Scores after wild
camping and at the project end are therefore displayed. The score increased by an index of 6.0
between the two time points, representing an 11% increase in well-being (Figure 15). The score
reached the maximum possible score at the end of the project and was above the normative value at
both time points. Overall John had a ‘high’ perceived level of well-being.
71 Figure 15: John's well-being score at workshop 1
70
and project end
69
Well-being score
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
61
Wild Camping
End
Note: A higher score= greater nature experience
38
University of Essex, 2013
John’s self-esteem consistently improved over the course of the project. The increase as a result of
the wilderness trail was 17%, whilst from wild camping to the end of the project the score increased
by an index of 22, representing a 73% improvement in self-esteem over the course of the project
(Figure 16). However, the level of self-esteem reported on John’s initial questionnaire (wild camping)
was very low, perhaps questioning the reliability of either the WB or self-esteem data.
40
Figure 16: John's self-esteem scores over the
course of the project
Self-esteem score
35
30
25
20
15
10
Wild Camping
Pre trail
Post trail
End
Note: A higher score= better self-esteem
The changes in John’s strengths and difficulties’ sub-scale scores are displayed in Table 7. Like with
well-being, strengths and difficulties questionnaires were not completed at the wilderness trail.
Emotional symptoms worsened slightly from wild camping to project end, as did hyperactivity.
However, conduct problems declined by 10% and peer problems and social behaviour remained
stable. All scores were classed as ‘normal’.
Table 7: John’s Strengths and difficulties sub-scale scores over the course of the programme
Emotional Symptoms
Conduct Problems
Hyperactivity
Peer Problems
Pro-social behaviour
Wild
camping
3
3
0
1
10
End
4
2
2
1
10
Note: a higher score= greater conduct problems, hyperactivity, emotions or peer problems and an improved
pro-social behaviour. A decrease in sub-scale score= improvement (except pro-social behaviour)
39
University of Essex, 2013
John’s total strengths and difficulties score increased from a score of 7.0 at wild camping to a score
of 11 by the end of the project, representing an increase by an index of 4.0. John’s behavioural
difficulties therefore worsened. However, due to the large time interval between the two
questionnaires being completed it is not possible to decipher what might have caused the changes in
behavioural difficulties.
By the end of the TurnAround project John felt that he had learnt a lot from the project and was
feeling good about himself. He felt that he would use all that he had learnt to help him in the future.
6.2 Case of ‘Sam’
Sam was 15 years old at the start of the TurnAround project. She was in foster care and lacked selfesteem and self-confidence. She
was very shy and had a number of
anger issues. By taking part in the
project she was hoping to develop
confidence,
independence
and
ability to make her own choices and
learn new skills. Sam attended the
baseline, wild camping and trail
data collection sessions, but was
not present at the project end.
Sam’s sub-scale hope scores are displayed in Figure 17. The agency sub-scale score remained stable
until wild camping, but then continued to increase. The index of increase from baseline to post trail
was 3.0, equivalent to a 19% improvement. The pathway score increased at wild camping, but
remained stable and decreased thereafter. Overall the pathway score decreased by an index of 1.0.
The total hope score increased up until the post trail time point, where the score decreased (Figure
18). However the score did improve from baseline to post wilderness trail by an index of 2.0,
representing a 13% increase in Sam’s hope that she could meet her goals. At baseline Sam’s score
was similar to the average value; throughout the rest of the project scores exceeded 25.89.
40
University of Essex, 2013
15.5
Figure 17: Sam's hope sub-scale scores over the
course of the project
15
Hope sub-scale score
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
Baseline
Wild Camping
Pre trail
Post trail
Note: Blue= Agency; Green= Pathway; A higher score= greater hope that goals can be met
29.5
Figure 18: Sam's hope scores over the course of
the project
29
28.5
Hope score
28
27.5
27
26.5
26
25.5
25
Baseline
Wild Camping
Pre trail
Post trail
Note: A higher score= greater hope that goals can be met
Sam’s nature experience scores increased at the wild camping weekend. However, the scores
returned to baseline values pre- and post-trail. The scores at baseline and post wilderness trail were
identical, meaning that Sam’s desire to be out in nature did not change over the course of the
project (Figure 19).
41
University of Essex, 2013
2.9
Figure 19: Sam's nature experience scores over
the course of the project
Nature experience score
2.85
2.8
2.75
2.7
2.65
2.6
2.55
2.5
2.45
2.4
Baseline
Wild Camping
Pre trail
Post trail
Note: A higher score= greater nature experience
The well-being questionnaire was not completed at the wilderness trail. Between baseline and wild
camping the well-being score decreased from 52 to 50, representing a reduction in well-being.
However both scores were close to the normative value of 51.7 and classified as ‘average’.
Sam’s self-esteem score decreased from baseline up until pre-wilderness trail, but improved
following the trail. The index of increase due to the trail was 3.0, representing a 10% improvement in
self-esteem. From baseline to the end of the trail the score improved by an index of 1.0,
representing an overall improvement in self-esteem of 3% (Figure 20).
33.5
Figure 20: Sam's self-esteem score over the
course of the project
33
Self-esteem score
32.5
32
31.5
31
30.5
30
29.5
29
Baseline
Wild Camping
Pre trail
Post trail
Note: A higher score= better self-esteem
42
University of Essex, 2013
Similarly to well-being, the strengths and difficulties questionnaire was only completed at baseline
and wild camping. The changes in the sub-scale and total score can be found in Table 8. Emotional
symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity and the total score all improved by an index of 1.0,
representing improvements of 7%. Peer problems increased slightly and pro-social behaviour
reduced. At baseline all scores were ‘normal’ except conduct problems which were ‘borderline’. At
the end of the project the conduct problems score had become ‘normal’.
Table 8: Sam’s Strengths and difficulties sub-scale scores over the course of the programme
Emotional Symptoms
Conduct Problems
Hyperactivity
Peer Problems
Pro-social behaviour
Total Score
Baseline
Wild camping
2
4
5
2
7
13
1
3
4
4
6
12
Note: a higher score= greater conduct problems, hyperactivity, emotions or peer problems and an improved
pro-social behaviour. A decrease in sub-scale score= improvement (except pro-social behaviour)
At the start of the project Sam completed a shield. She said that she viewed herself as shy, kind and
talented, but sometimes stupid and felt that other people felt she was shy, kind, helpful, but perhaps
rude. In the future she wanted to be seen as a kind, talented girl, teach dancing and working as a
hair dresser. During her time on the project Sam made friends and interacted with others, whilst also
developing team work and communication skills, as well as activity specific skills such as sailing and
camping.
6.3 Case of ‘Jodie’
Jodie was 15 years old at the start of the TurnAround project. She was in foster care and struggling
with education. She needed security, was lacking independence and had very little self-confidence.
From engaging in the project Jodie was hoping to develop communication skills, survival skills and
good camping techniques. Jodie engaged with the project well, attending all time points where data
was collected.
Jodie’s sub-scale hope scores are displayed in Figure 21. Agency sub-scale scores increased from
baseline to post wilderness trail, but decreased slightly at the project end. However, the overall
score increased from baseline to end by an index of 13%. The pathway sub-scale score increased
43
University of Essex, 2013
from baseline to post wilderness and decreased at the project end. The baseline and end score were
the same, representing no overall change.
18
Figure 21: Jodie's sub-scale hope scores over the
course of the project
17
Sub-scale hope score
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
Baseline
Wild Camping
Post trail
End
Note: Blue= Agency; Green= Pathway; A higher score= greater hope that goals can be met
The total hope score again increased up to the post trail time point but decreased at the project end.
The overall change from baseline to end was 2.0, representing an improvement in Jodie’s hope that
her goals can be met by 7% (Figure 22). The score at baseline was below average (25.89), but above
average at wild camping and post trail. At the end of the project the score fell slightly below the
normative value.
36
Figure 22: Jodie's hope score over the course of
the project
34
Hope score
32
30
28
26
24
22
Baseline
Wild Camping
Post trail
End
Note: A higher score= greater hope that goals can be met
44
University of Essex, 2013
Jodie’s nature experience score remained stable from baseline to pre-wilderness trail. The score
however decreased after trail. There was a slight increase from post trail to the project end, but the
score at the end remained below that at baseline (Figure 23).
Figure 23: Jodie's nature experience score over
the course of the project
4.4
Nature experience score
4.3
4.2
4.1
4
3.9
3.8
3.7
Baseline
Wild
Camping
Pre trail
Post trail
End
Note: A higher score= greater experience of nature
Jodie’s well-being consistently improved over the course of the project, with scores at all points
being above the normative value of 51.7 (Figure 24). The index of increase from baseline to end was
9.0, representing an improvement in well-being of 16%. The start of project score was classified as
‘average’, whilst the score at wild camping and project end was classified as ‘high’.
67
Figure 24: Jodie's well-being scores over the
course of the project
Well-being score
65
63
61
59
57
55
Baseline
Wild Camping
End
Note: A higher score= greater well-being
45
University of Essex, 2013
Jodie’s self-esteem declined from baseline to wild camping, but increased post wilderness (Figure
25). The score also increased at the end of the project but did not reach the baseline level at any
time. Overall self-esteem therefore worsened.
40
Figure 25: Jodie's self-esteem score over the
course of the project
Self-esteem score
35
30
25
20
15
Baseline
Wild Camping
Post trail
End
Note: A higher score= better self-esteem
The changes in Jodie’s strengths and difficulties’ sub-scale scores are displayed in Table 9. Emotional
symptoms and hyperactivity improved by an index of 2.0, representing improvements of 20%, whilst
conduct problems improved by an index of 1.0 (10%). However, peer problems remained stable
from start to end and pro-social behaviour declined. At the start of the project hyperactivity and
conduct problems were classified as ‘abnormal’. By the end conduct problems were ‘borderline’ and
hyperactivity ‘normal’.
Table 9: Jodie’s Strengths and difficulties sub-scale scores over the course of the programme
Baseline
Emotional Symptoms
Conduct Problems
Hyperactivity
Peer Problems
Pro-social behaviour
2
5
7
2
8
Wild
camping
3
5
1
2
8
End
0
4
5
2
6
Note: a higher score= greater conduct problems, hyperactivity, emotions or peer problems and an improved
pro-social behaviour. A decrease in sub-scale score= improvement (except pro-social behaviour)
46
University of Essex, 2013
Jodie’s total strengths and difficulties score decreased from baseline to wild camping and remained
stable from wild camping to the end of the project. The index of decrease was 5.0, representing a
13% reduction in behavioural problems (See Figure 26).
Strengths and difficulties score
17
Figure 26: Jodie's strengths and difficulties score
over the course of the project
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
Baseline
Wild Camping
End
Note: A higher score= more difficulties
At the start of TurnAround Jodie completed a shield detailing how she saw herself, how others saw
her, what she would like in her future and how she would like others to see her. She viewed herself
as normal, caring and unemotional, and thought that others viewed her in a similar way. She
wanted people to see her as normal and helpful and hoped to go to university and start her own
business. During her time on the project she met new people, made friends and developed some
key skills such as communication, camping and sailing skills.
47
University of Essex, 2013
6.4 Case of ‘Shane’
Shane was almost 17 when he joined the programme. He was in a residential placement and had no
family unit. He spoke little English and lacked trust in other people. He was vulnerable to negative
influences and needed to learn how to work in a team. Shane only completed questionnaires pre
and post the wilderness trail and at the project end. His engagement with the project was therefore
relatively poor. Since well-being and strengths and difficulties questionnaires were not completed
pre and post trail, these questionnaires were only completed at the project end. Furthermore, the
nature experience scale was not completed by Shane at any time point and the self-esteem scale
was only completed at the project end.
Shane’s sub-scale hope scores are displayed in Figure 27. The scale was not fully completed at the
project end; the data is therefore not included. The agency score remained identical pre- and posttrail and the pathway score declined. The overall hope score also decreased from pre trail (34) to
post trail (32), but was above average at both time points.
Figure 27: Shane's hope sub-scale scores pre
and post the wilderness trail
17.5
Hope sub-scale score
17
16.5
16
Agency
Pathway
15.5
15
14.5
14
Pre Trail
Post Trail
Note: Blue= Agency; Green= Pathway; A higher score= greater hope that goals can be met
Shane’s well-being, self-esteem and nature experience scores at the end of the project were 60, 36
and 3.83 respectively. The nature experience and self-esteem scores were relatively high in relation
to the maximum score that can be achieved on each scale, however changes in these parameters
over the course of the project cannot be determined. The well-being score was above the normative
value of 51.7 and classified as ‘high’. Shane’s strengths and difficulties scores at the end of the
48
University of Essex, 2013
project are displayed in Table 10. Scores on all sub-scales and the total score were classified as being
‘normal’.
Table 10: Shane’s strengths and difficulties scores at the end of the programme
End
Emotional Symptoms
Conduct Problems
Hyperactivity
Peer Problems
Pro-social behaviour
Total Strengths and Difficulties
2
1
0
2
7
5
Note: a higher score= greater conduct problems, hyperactivity, emotions or peer problems and an improved
pro-social behaviour. A decrease in sub-scale score= improvement (except pro-social behaviour)
6.5 Case of ‘Liam’
Liam was 17 ½ years old at the start of the TurnAround project. He lived in a residential unit, had
anger problems, low self-esteem and a lack of key life skills. He suffered from Asperger’s syndrome
and mild autism and had a history of criminal convictions. During his time on the project he was
hoping to develop new skills, such as camping and cooking, and also make new friends. However,
Liam was only present at baseline and wild camping time points, after which time he was arrested
and unfortunately imprisoned. Liam therefore only attended the project for 2 months.
The changes in Liam’s sub-scale hope scores between baseline and wild camping are displayed in
Figure 28. The agency score remained stable, whilst the pathway score decreased by an index of
one. This equated to an overall decline in the total hope score of 1.0 (Figure 29), representing a
slight reduction in Liam’s hope that he can meet his goals. At both time points Liam’s total hope
score was below average.
49
University of Essex, 2013
14
Figure 28: Liam's sub-scale hope scores at
project baseline and midpoint 1.
Hope sub-scale score
13
12
11
10
9
8
Baseline
Wild Camping
Note: Blue= Agency; Green= Pathway; A higher score= greater hope that goals can be met
22.5
Figure 29: Liams hope scores at project baseline
and midpoint1
22
Hope score
21.5
21
20.5
20
Baseline
Wild Camping
Note: A higher score= greater hope that goals can be met
Liam’s nature experience, self-esteem and well-being scores at baseline and wild camping are
displayed in Table 11. The nature experience score decreased between baseline and wild camping by
an index of 1.34, representing a 27% reduction in nature experience. Well-being and self-esteem
scores also decreased between baseline and wild camping by indexes of 12.0 and 2.0 respectively.
The well-being score at the start of the project was slightly above the normative value of 51.7, and
classified as ‘average’. However, at the end of his involvement in the project (wild camping) the
score was below the normative value and classified as ‘low’.
50
University of Essex, 2013
Table 11: Liam’s nature experience, self-esteem and well-being sores at baseline and wild
camping
Nature Experience
Self-esteem
Well-being
Baseline
Wild camping
3.67
28
52
2.33
26
40
Note: a higher score= greater nature experience, better self-esteem and well-being
Liam’s strengths and difficulties sub-scale scores are displayed in Table 12. Emotional symptoms and
hyperactivity reduced by indexes of 3.0, representing improvements of 30%. Conduct problems and
peer problems increased slightly, whilst pro-social behaviour remained stable. At the start of the
project all sub-scale scores were ‘normal’, except from hyperactivity which was ‘borderline’. By the
wild camping the hyperactivity score improved to reach a classification of ‘normal’.
Table 12: Liam’s strengths and difficulties scores at baseline and the end of his involvement in
the programme (wild camping)
Emotional Symptoms
Conduct Problems
Hyperactivity
Peer problems
Pro-social behaviour
Baseline
Wild camping
3
0
6
3
6
0
2
3
7
6
Note: a higher score= greater conduct problems, hyperactivity, emotions or peer problems and an improved
pro-social behaviour. A decrease in sub-scale score= improvement (except pro-social behaviour)
The total strengths and difficulties score remained unchanged between baseline and wild camping,
with scores of 12.0 being achieved at both time points. Behavioural difficulties therefore remained
constant. However, at both time points the score was classified as ‘normal’.
At the start of the project Liam completed a shield. He said that he saw himself as normal, kind and
helpful. However, he felt that some people might see him as bad. He wanted to be viewed as a nice
person and go to university, have a family and act responsibly. A shield was not completed later in
the project due to Liam’s departure. The general trend for deterioration in Liam’s results may be
directly related to his eventual imprisonment, as poor mental well-being is a risk factor for antisocial behaviour. Participants who attended the project for the duration improved their mental wellbeing.
51
University of Essex, 2013
6.6 Case of ‘Charlie’
Charlie was just over 15 ½ years old when he joined the TurnAround project. He was living in foster
care and had very low self-esteem and anger management issues. He had an unstable family
background and experienced strong feelings of rejection. From participating in the TurnAround
project Charlie was hoping to gain trust in other people and overcome his fear of water. Charlie did
not engage in all aspects of the project, only completing questionnaires at baseline and pre and post
the wilderness trail. Participants were not asked to complete strengths and difficulties and wellbeing data before or after the trail, therefore this information was only collected at baseline.
Charlie’s sub-scale hope scores are displayed in Figure 30. The agency sub-scale score decreased
from baseline to pre wilderness trail, but increased after the wilderness trail. The index of increase
due to the wilderness trail was 7.0, representing a 44% improvement. The increase from baseline to
post wilderness was 2.0, representing an overall increase in the agency sub-scale score of 13%. The
pathway sub-scale score increased at all points. The increase due to the wilderness trail was by an
index of 3.0 (19%), whilst the change from baseline to after the trail was 5.0, representing a 31%
increase in the pathway sub-scale score.
52
University of Essex, 2013
19
Figure 30: Charlie's sub-scale hope scores over
the course of the project
18
Hope sub-scale score
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
Baseline
Pre Trail
Post Trail
Note: Blue= Agency; Green= Pathway; A higher score= greater hope that goals can be met
The total hope score increased from baseline to pre- trail, but remained stable thereafter. The index
of increase over the course of Charlie’s participation in the project was 7.0, representing a 23%
increase in hope that goals could be met (Figure 31). At all time points at which Charlie completed a
questionnaire, his hope score was above the average value of 25.89.
Figure 31: Charlie's hope score over the course
of the project
37
36
35
Hope score
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
Baseline
Pre Trail
Post Trail
Note: A higher score= greater hope that goals can be met
53
University of Essex, 2013
Charlie’s nature experience scores declined from baseline to pre-trail, but increased after the
wilderness trail. The wilderness trail led to a 0.83 increase in the nature experience score,
representing an increased desire to be in nature of 17%. However, from baseline to post trail the
overall score decreased by 0.33 (Figure 32).
Figure 32: Charlie's nature experience score
over the course of the project
5
Nature Experience score
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.2
4
3.8
3.6
3.4
Baseline
Pre Trail
Post Trail
Note: A higher score= greater experience of nature
Charlie’s self-esteem scores over the course of the project are displayed in Figure 33. The score
decreased from baseline to pre- trail, but increased after the wilderness trail. The index of increase
from pre- to post- trail was 10.0, representing a 33% improvement in self-esteem. Overall selfesteem improved by an index of 3.0, equivalent to a 10% improvement in self-esteem.
41
Figure 33: Charlie's self-esteem scores over the
course of the project
Self-esteem score
39
37
35
33
31
29
Baseline
Pre Trail
Post Trail
Note: A higher score= greater experience of nature
54
University of Essex, 2013
At baseline Charlie’s well-being score was 70. This was the maximum score that could be achieved
on the well-being scale and was above the normative value of 51.7. Charlie’s well-being was
classified as being ‘high’. The strengths and difficulties scores at baseline are displayed in Table 13.
All scores, including the total score, were classified as ‘normal’.
Table 13: Charlie’s strengths and difficulties scores at the end of the programme
End
Emotional Symptoms
Conduct Problems
Hyperactivity
Peer Problems
Pro-social behaviour
Total Strengths and Difficulties
2
2
1
2
8
7
Note: a higher score= greater conduct problems, hyperactivity, emotions or peer problems and an improved
pro-social behaviour. A decrease in sub-scale score= improvement (except pro-social behaviour)
At the start of the project Charlie completed a shield. He felt that he wanted to be able to complete
and achieve something and thought that other people saw him as brave and loyal and friendly. In
the future he wanted to be seen as a person that people can trust. He said that he wanted to be a
mechanic and also help people to choose the right path. A shield was not completed later in the
project, comparisons cannot therefore be made.
55
University of Essex, 2013
6.7 Case Study Key Findings
The case study findings indicate that there was much variation in the response of participants to the
TurnAround project. Overall:
John improved his nature experience, well-being and self-esteem scores from the start to
end of his involvement;
Sam improved her hope, self-esteem and behaviour, with the hope score being above
average by the end of her involvement in the project;
Jodie improved her hope and well-being and reduced her behavioural problems, with her
hope scores being above average by the end of her involvement and the well-being score
moving from a classification of ‘average’
to ‘high’. The total strengths and
difficulties score also moved from a
classification of ‘borderline’ to ‘normal’;
Shane failed to complete well-being,
self-esteem,
nature
experience
or
strengths and difficulties questionnaires
at more than one time point, however
hope decreased from pre to post
wilderness trail;
Charlie improved his hope and selfesteem scores over the duration of his
time on the project.
56
University of Essex, 2013
7. Generic Results- Essex Group
7.1 Participants
Seven youth at-risk from Essex were selected to take part in the project. Participants’ ages ranged
from 15-20 years, with an average age of 17.3±1.5. Four of the participants were male (50%) and
four of the participants were female (50%). The young people involved in the project were
experiencing a variety of problems including low self-esteem, anxiety and self-confidence, anger and
behavioural problems and a lack of motivation. Several of the participants had also been subjected
to abuse, bullying or traumatic events, and were living in foster care. Participants had a lack of trust
and ability to make friends and often abused alcohol or drugs.
7.2 Essex Analysis Overview
For hope and well-being there were two participants who completed the questionnaires at all data
collection time points. Furthermore, for all parameters there were at least four participants who
completed questionnaires at baseline and end. Changes in group means over time can therefore be
tracked and compared in these participants (Section 7.3). There were also several participants who
completed the questionnaires pre and post the wilderness trail and sailing events. Changes in means
scores between pre and post wilderness trail and sailing can therefore be tracked and compared in
these participants (Sections 7.4-7.5).
7.3 Changes over the course of the project
7.3.1 Participant Perspectives at the Start of the Project
At the start of the project participants were asked open-ended questions regarding what they were
hoping to get out of the project and what they were nervous and excited about. The responses to
these questions are displayed in Box 6. Participants were hoping to have new experiences, make
friends, gain confidence and qualifications and feel better about themselves. They were nervous
about not having their home comforts such as phones and hair accessories and sleeping in tents with
bugs, but were excited to meet new people and travel.
57
University of Essex, 2013
Box 6: Essex Participant hopes and aspirations for the TurnAround project.
Question
Comments from Young People
What do you
“For people to listen to what I want to get out of life”
hope to get out
“New experiences”
of this
“Fun, friends”
programme?
“Feel better in myself”
“More confidence, less hate. Different skills, more English experiences. Have
my love, attitude and faith revived”
“I want a qualification”
“I want to be a music photographer and help bands. I want to be smarter, I
am dumb. Develop skills and confidence”
What are you
“Not a lot, just not having my phone”
most nervous
“Not being able to have my hair strengtheners”
about?
“Nothing” (X2)
“Change and bad situations”
“About my future and myself. I feel not so good about my life or about my
opinion of myself and other people”
“Sleeping in a tent and there are creatures”
“Bugs. I feel good and I feel comfortable with people”
What are most
“Meeting new people”
excited about?-
“All of it”
“Everything”
“Home time”
“Leaving England, being alone and seeing my family”
“Going to Scotland”
“Seeing plans on the boat trip…..Travelling- I hate where I live. Wandering in
the woods, learning new things about people and what they are interested
in”
“Nothing”
7.3.2 Hope
Two Essex participants completed the hope questionnaire and sub-scales at all eight data collection
time points. The mean changes in the agency sub-scale scores can be found in Figure 34 and the
pathway sub-scale scores in Figure 35. Agency scores declined from baseline all the way through to
58
University of Essex, 2013
the pre-sailing time point, but increased post-sailing. Scores then declined again at the cinema trip in
January, but increased at the end of the project. The index of increase from baseline to end was 1.5,
representing a 10% improvement in participants’ perceived capacity for commencing and
maintaining the actions required to meet goals. Pathway sub-scale scores fluctuated over the
project, with increases following the wilderness trail, sailing and cinema trip. The score at the end of
the project was higher than baseline by an index of 1.5, representing a 10% increase in participants’
perceived ability to generate routes to their goals.
Agency Sub-scale score
15
Figure 34: Agency sub-scale scores in Essex
participants over the course of the project
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
End
Cinema Trip
Post Sailing
Pre Sailing
Post Trail
Pre Trail
Wild
Camping
Baseline
6
Note: A higher score= greater hope that goals can be met. Error bars represent ±1SD; N=2
Figure 35: Pathway sub-scale scores in Essex
participants over the course of the project
Pathway Sub-scale score
18
16
14
12
10
8
End
Cinema Trip
Post Sailing
Pre Sailing
Post Trail
Pre Trail
Wild
Camping
Baseline
6
Note: A higher score= greater hope that goals can be met. Error bars represent ±1SD; N=2
59
University of Essex, 2013
The total hope score in the two participants steadily decreased form baseline to pre sailing, but
increased at the post sailing time point and end of the project (Figure 36). Up until the end of the
project scores were consistently lower than at baseline. From baseline to project end scores
increased by an index of 3.0, representing a 10% increase in participants hope that they can meet
their goals. At all time points except the project end, the hope scores were below average. At the
project end the mean score exceeded the normative hope value.
32
Figure 36: Hope scores in Essex participants
over the course of the project
30
Hope Score
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
End
Cinema Trip
Post Sailing
Pre Sailing
Post Trail
Pre Trail
Wild Camping
Baseline
14
Note: A higher score= greater hope that goals can be met. Error bars represent ±1SD; N=2
Six Essex participants completed the hope questionnaire and sub-scales at project baseline and end.
Both the sub-scale scores and total hope scores increased from the start to the end of the project.
Agency sub-scale scores were 10.0±4.9 at baseline and 13.2±6 at the project end, representing a 3.2
increase, equivalent to a 21% improvement. Approximately 83% of participants increased their
agency sub-scale scores, whilst 17% decreased. Pathway sub-scale scores increased from 9.0±4.0 at
baseline to 14.0±1.8 at the project end, representing a 33% increase in participant’s perceived ability
to generate routes to their goals. 83% increased their scores and 17% of participants scores
decreased.
The total hope score increased from project baseline (19.3±8.3) to end (27.5±3.8) by an index of 8.5,
thus overall hope that participants could meet their goals increased by 28%. The score was below
average at project baseline but increased to be above average by the end of the project. Overall
67% of participants increased their total hope score, 17% remained constant and 17% decreased
(Figure 37).
60
University of Essex, 2013
35
Figure 37: Hope scores in Essex participants at
project baseline and end
Hope Score
30
25
20
15
10
Baseline
End
Note: A higher score= greater hope that goals can be met
7.3.3 Nature Experience
Two Essex participants completed the nature experience questionnaire at all eight data collection
time points. The mean changes in scores can be found in Figure 38. Scores decreased immediately
after baseline, but increased post wilderness trail and sailing. Scores at the end of the project were
slightly lower than at baseline (by an index of 0.8), representing a 16% decrease in experience of
nature. However, in the six participants who completed the scale at both the project baseline and
end, scores increased from 3.1±0.7 to 3.5±0.5. This represents an increase of 0.4, equivalent to an
8% increase in participants’ experience of nature by the end of the project.
4.5
4.3
Figure 38: Nature relatedness scores in Essex
participants over the course of the project
Nature Relatedness Score
4.1
3.9
3.7
3.5
3.3
3.1
2.9
2.7
End
Cinema Trip
Post Sailing
Pre Sailing
Post Trail
Pre Trail
Wild
Camping
Baseline
2.5
Note: A higher score= greater experience of nature. Error bars represent ±1SD; N=2
61
University of Essex, 2013
Six Essex participants completed the nature experience questionnaire at the project baseline and
end. The score increased from baseline to end by an index of 0.35, representing a 7% increase in
participants’ experience and desire to be out in nature. 83% of participants increased their
experience of nature score, whilst 17% of participants’ scores decreased.
7.3.4 Well-being
Well-being questionnaires were completed at baseline, wild camping, Cinema trip and project end.
Only one participant completed the scale at all four time points; this data can be located in the case
study section. However five participants completed the scale at baseline and end. A Wilcoxon
Signed Rank Test revealed a significant difference between the baseline and end point scores (Z=2.0; P<0.05), with well-being improving at the end of the project. The average well-being score at
baseline was 35.8±12.3, whilst the average score at the project end was 59.6±7.9. Well-being
increased by an index of 23.8, representing a 43% improvement in well-being. All participants
improved their well-being.
According to the Scottish population survey the average well-being score is 51.7±7.26. Prior to the
TA project scores were below this level, indicating a below average well-being score. However after
the project Essex participants’ scores had far exceeded this normative value. Figure 39 displays’ the
classification of scores at the start and end of the project. At the start of the project several
participants had low well-being, however by the end of the project no participants’ well-being was
classified as low. Three participants experienced changes in well-being so significant that they
changed their well-being category. Two participants (40% of those who completed baseline and end
questionnaires) moved from having low to high well-being and one participants (20%) well-being
moved from low to average.
62
University of Essex, 2013
Percentage of participants (%)
70
Figure 39: Essex participants well-being
classifications at project baseline and end
60
Baseline
50
End
40
30
20
10
0
Low well-being
Average well-being
High well-being
7.3.5 Self-esteem
No participants completed the self-esteem scale at all eight data collection time points; however
four participants completed the scale at project baseline and end. The mean score at project
baseline was 24.3±3.9, increasing to 27.3±2.5 at the end of the project. Scores increased by an index
of 3.0, representing a 10% improvement in self-esteem. 75% of participants increased their selfesteem score and 25% remained constant.
7.3.6 Strengths and Difficulties
The SDQ was completed at baseline, wild camping, cinema trip and the end of the project. Three
participants completed the questionnaire at each of the four data collection time points. Table 14
displays the five sub-scale scores at each of the time points in the three participants. Emotional
symptoms and peer problems decreased over the course of the programme. Emotional symptoms
decreased by an index of 1.7 (10%), whilst peer problems decreased by an index of 1.3 (13%).
Conduct problems increased form baseline to wild camping and cinema trip, but decreased from
cinema trip to the end. However, overall scores increased by an index of 0.3 (3%). Hyperactivity
increased from baseline to wild camping, but decreased thereafter, with a total decrease of 1.4
(14%) from baseline to end. Pro-social behaviour remained stable from baseline to wild camping,
increased to cinema trip, but decreased slightly at the end. There was an overall increase in prosocial behaviour of 0.7 (7%).
The changes in the total strengths and difficulties score over the programme are displayed in Figure
40. The score worsened from baseline to wild camping, but decreased at midpoint 2 and the project
63
University of Essex, 2013
end. Scores from baseline to end decreased by an index of 4.0, representing a 13% reduction in
behavioural difficulties.
Table 14: Strengths and difficulties sub-scale scores in Essex participants over the course of the
project
Emotional Symptoms
Conduct Problems
Hyperactivity
Peer Problems
Pro-social behaviour
Baseline
Wild camping
Cinema Trip
End
5.7±3.2
2.7±0.6
6.7±1.2
5.3±1.2
7.0±2.7
5.0±1.0
4.0±2.7
7.3±1.5
5.7±2.5
7.0±2.7
5.0±1.7
5.0±3.0
6.7±2.5
5.0±3.5
8.0±2.6
4.0±1.0
3.0±1.0
5.3±1.2
4.0±4.0
7.7±2.5
Scores represent mean±SD, a higher score= greater conduct problems, hyperactivity, emotions or peer
problems and a more pro-social behaviour
Strengths and Difficutlies Score
Figure 40: Strengths and Difficutlies score in
Essex participants over the course of the project
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
Baseline
Wild Camping Cinema Trip
End
Note: A higher score= greater behavioural difficulties. Error bars represent ±1SD; N=3
In addition to three participants who completed the strengths and difficulties questionnaire at all
four time points, six participants completed the questionnaire at baseline and end. The mean score
for each of the sub-scales at baseline and end are displayed in Table 15. By the end of the
programme participants had fewer emotional difficulties and peer problems and reduced levels of
hyperactivity.
Scores decreased by indexes of 1.7, 1.9 and 1.6 respectively, representing
improvements of 17%, 19% and 16%. Conduct problems increased from baseline to end by an index
of 1.4. However pro-social behaviour increased by an index of 1.0, equivalent to a 10%
64
University of Essex, 2013
improvement. The total strengths and difficulties score also decreased from a mean of 21.0±4.4 at
baseline to 17.2±8.3 at the project end. This represents a reduction in behavioural difficulties of
10%. Overall 50% of participants increased their total score and 50% decreased their total score.
Table 15: Strengths and difficulties sub-scale scores in Essex participants at project baseline
and end
Baseline
End
Score Change
Emotional Symptoms
5.7±2.7
4.0±2.0
Conduct Problems
3.3±0.8
4.7±3.6
Hyperactivity
6.8±0.8
5.2±2.9
Peer Problems
5.2±1.8
3.3±2.7
Pro-social behaviour
6.5±2.6
7.5±2.1
33% increase, 50%
decrease, 17% constant
67% increase, 33%
decrease
17% increase, 33%
decrease, 50% constant
17% increase, 50%
decrease, 33% constant
50% increase, 33%
decrease, 17% constant.
Scores represent mean±SD, a higher score= greater conduct problems, hyperactivity, emotions or peer
problems and a more pro-social behaviour. A decrease in sub-scale score= improvement.
The classification of strengths and difficulties scores also changed. At the start of the project mean
conduct problems and pro-social behaviour were classed as ‘normal’, whist mean emotional
symptoms and peer problems scores were ‘borderline’ and hyperactivity and the total score were
deemed to be ‘abnormal’. By the end of the project emotional symptoms, hyperactivity, peer
problem and pro-social behaviour scores were ‘normal’, whilst the total score was ‘borderline’ and
conduct problems ‘abnormal’. Changes in the percentage of participants in each category were
notable from the start to end of the project (See Table 16 and Figure 41), with a trend towards more
participants displaying ‘normal’ levels of behavioural difficulties.
65
University of Essex, 2013
Percentage of participants (%)
80
70
Figure 41: The classification of total strengths
and difficutlies scores in Essex participants
atthe start and end of the project
60
Baseline
50
End
40
30
20
10
0
Normal
Abnormal
Borderline
Table 16: Strengths and difficulties sub-scale classifications in Essex participants at project
baseline and end
Baseline
End
Normal
Borderline
Abnormal
Emotional symptoms
67%
0%
33%
Conduct problems
50%
50%
Hyperactivity
0%
Peer problems
Pro-social behaviour
Normal
Borderline
Abnormal
83%
0%
17%
0%
50%
17%
33%
33%
67%
33%
33%
33%
17%
17%
67%
50%
33%
17%
67%
17%
17%
67%
33%
0%
7.3.7 Feedback about the Project after Wild Camping and Cinema workshops
After the Wild Camping and Cinema workshops participants were asked to give feedback about their
experience of the project so far. Participants were asked to reveal what they were enjoying most
and least and what they were learning about themselves through involvement in TurnAround.
Participants were most enjoying making friends, getting together as a group and the trips and
outings, but did not enjoy the camping or being outside for too long. The participants learnt to
respect themselves that they can work well with others and are worthy (Box 7).
66
University of Essex, 2013
Box 7: Young people’s feedback about the project after the workshops (Essex).
Question
Comments from Young People
What are you
“ Everything”
enjoying most
“I enjoy the outings most and when people are nice to me. It also gives me
about being on
something useful to do, I generally feel very happy after meetings”
the programme?
“Getting together as a group”
“I get to go on a boat and see dolphins, I will meet new people and achieve
to be a better person and confident”
“Making new friends”
“All of it, the trips and support given”
“Activities and outings. Doing fun things and nice meetings”
What are you
“Nothing”
enjoying least?
“Meeting up with my mentor, I thoroughly dislike talking to and being
vulnerable in from of a male, to get welled up and start getting very upset
which then turns me to start thinking violent thoughts and getting very tense
and angry”
“Camping scares me in the wilderness”
“Being outside for too long”
“Not meeting up all the time”
“Train journey”
What are you
“Who I am”
learning about
“I am learning that I am evil and sadistic at heart, but the pain that I have
yourself?
received and the effects I have seen and the scars I have seen left on people,
helped me to be a better person. The experiences I have had have helped me
to mature early and I have a lack of trust….And when in a situation with men
I get myself tense and ready to fight”
“I can be who I want to be”
“I moan a lot about nothing….Also I need to respect myself”
“can work well with others”
“That I am a worthy person”
“I have learned to look after the people that matter to me most”
67
University of Essex, 2013
7.3.8 Feedback at the End of the Project
At the end of the project Essex participants were asked a number of questions about their
experience. The responses to these questions are displayed in Box 8. Participants felt that they had
developed confidence and a new outlook and would try harder to achieve what they wanted in life.
Box 8: Essex participants’ feedback at the end of the project
Question
Comments from Young People
What have you
“Outlook- interacting with new people who are in the same position as me.
got out of the
Know how to deal with different people with different characters”
TurnAround
“I have become more confident, open and trusting”
programme and
“Lots of fun. Learnt to be who I am and how to look after the people that
what have you
matter to me”
learnt about
“Learned that I love Star Wars, that I am an alright guy, I can accomplish
yourself?
goals, I have a future. I can make a difference”
“I’m more confident, like myself a lot more”
“Future, feel more confident in myself”
What do you
“Continue as I am”
think you will do
“Try harder to achieve what I want in life”
differently after
“Be more punctual , smoke less weed, be less self-conscious, tell truth more
taking part in this
often”
programme?
Be more positive, set goals, talk and give people a chance more. Come out of
my shell”
“Be more positive”
“Concentrate on my future and getting in to university”
7.4 Wilderness Trail to Scotland
Six Essex participants completed the composite questionnaire pre- and post the Wilderness trail,
however not all six participants completed all aspects of the questionnaire. For each of the assessed
measures between four and six participants completed the scales.
7.4.1 Qualitative Narrative prior to the trail
At the start of the trail Essex participants were asked what they were nervous and excited about and
what they hoped to get out of the trip. The responses are displayed in Box 9. Young people were
most nervous about sleeping outside and things not changing at home. However, they were excited
68
University of Essex, 2013
about the scenery, the wildlife, having time alone and experiencing the wilderness. From attending
the wilderness trail participants were hoping to get a new outlook on life and improve how they feel
about themselves.
Box 9: Essex participants’ hopes and concerns about the Wilderness Trail
Question
Comments from Young People
What do you hope
“ A new outlook on life”
to get out of this
“To feel more respect and take time out”
trip?
“Experience”
“Independence, mostly feeling happy”
“More self-confidence, more ability to be with other people”
“For my self-esteem, communication”
What are you most
“Sleeping out in the tent”
nervous about?
“Going home knowing things will be just the same”
“Nothing”
“Life, being alone, broken promises, how I feel”
“What people here think about me”
“Don’t like being outdoors, scared to camp, scared of failure”
What are you most
“The scenery”
excited about?
“Tasting food that I haven’t tried before and to experience the wilderness”
“Thinking and doing things alone and being alone in the wilderness”
“Going home, shopping in the airport, wildlife, owls”
7.4.2 Hope
Four Essex participants completed the entire hope questionnaire before and after the wilderness
trail, whilst four participants completed the agency sub-scale and six completed the pathway subscale pre and post the trail. Scores for both the agency and pathway sub-scale increased from pre to
post wilderness (Figure 42). The agency score increased by an index of 0.8, equating to a 5%
improvement in participants perception of their perceived capacity for commencing and maintaining
the actions required to meet goals. The pathway sub-scale score increased by an index of 0.6,
representing a 4% increase in participants’ belief that they can generate routes to their goals. Of the
four participants who completed the agency scale 75% increased their score, whilst 25% decreased
their score. For the pathway sub-scale 67% increased their score, whilst 17% of participants’ scores
69
University of Essex, 2013
both decreased and/or remained unchanged. Overall hope scores increased by an index of 2.0
(Figure 43), meaning that participants’ hope of meeting their goals increased by 7% due to the
wilderness experience. 75% of participants increased their hope that they could meet their goals,
whilst 25% of participants decreased their score. However, total hope scores were below the
normative value of 25.89 both pre and post trail.
12
Figure 42: Essex participants hope sub-scale
scores pre and post wilderness trail
11
Agency
Pathway
Sub-scale score
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
Pre trail
Post trail
Note: A higher score= greater hope that goals can be met. Error bars represent ±1SD; N=4 for agency and 6 for
pathway.
22
Figure 43: Hope score in Essex participants pre and
post wilderness trail
21
20
Hope score
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
Pre trail
Post trail
Note: A higher score= greater hope that goals can be met. Error bars represent ±1SD; N=4
70
University of Essex, 2013
7.4.3 Nature Experience
Six Essex participants completed the nature experience scale pre- and post- the wilderness trail. The
mean score increased by an index of 0.6, representing a 12% increase in participants desire to be out
in nature (Figure 44). 67% of participants increased their nature experience score, 17% remained
unchanged and/or decreased their score.
4.5
Figure 44: Nature experience scores in Essex
participants pre and post wilderness trail
Nature experience score
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
Pre trail
Post trail
Note: A higher score= greater relatedness to nature. Error bars represent ±1SD; N=6
7.4.4 Self-esteem
Five Essex participants completed the self-esteem scale at the start and end of the wilderness trail.
The mean self-esteem score increased from pre- to post- trail by an index 4.2, representing an
improvement in self-esteem of 14% (Figure 45). Overall 60% of participants improved their selfesteem, whilst 40% of participants’ self-esteem declined.
71
University of Essex, 2013
32
30
Figure 45: Self-esteem scores in Essex
participants pre and post wilderness trail
Self-esteem score
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
Pre trail
Post trail
Note: A higher score= greater self-esteem. Error bars represent ±1SD; N=5
7.4.5 Qualitative Narrative after the trail
At the end of the Wilderness trail participants were asked several questions about their wilderness
experience. The responses to these questions are displayed in Box 10. The participants enjoyed
meeting new people, the wildlife and working as a team, but did not enjoy sleeping outside, the rain
or the heavy bags that they were required to carry during the walks. However participants learnt
that they can work well with others, that other people are nice and that no two people are the
same. They also learnt that you do not have to go far to access lovely scenery.
Box 10: Essex participants’ feedback about the Wilderness Trail
Question
Comments from Young People
What did you
“ Meeting new people, living differently outside my comfort zone”
enjoy most?
“I enjoyed the wildlife, working as a team to prepare food and clean up. I
also enjoyed going for a swim in the waterfall….I liked the fact that when I
was feeling down I could talk to…..and they listened to me and helped me
realise that there are better things in life”
“Being outdoors away from civilisation”
“Making new friends and seeing sights in Scotland”
“Having a laugh with everyone and sitting in a waterfall a couple of
hundred metres above sea level. I enjoyed doing once in a lifetime things”
“The waterfalls and scenery were nice and I liked being in the waterfall”
72
University of Essex, 2013
What did you not
“Sleeping at night”
enjoy?
“Sometimes when people didn’t want to help that irritated me because we
are all a team”
“The walking”
“The rain and heavy bags”
“Being around so many people……Not being able to wash all the time and
keep everything clean. Sleeping just very uncomfortable …..”
“Staying in tents overnight”
What would you
“King-sized beds with en-suite”
have changed?
“Not sleeping under mole hills, to bring a portable toilet and my hair
straighteners were needed”
“Less walking”
“The river temperature”
“The midges”
“Would have stayed out in the cabin and gone out in the day to do things”
What has the trip
“Can work well with others and can pull my own weight”
taught you about
“That no countryside will ever judge me or look down at me”
yourself?
“To trust others and not to think that people judge me”
“I can cheer people up and feel good about helping others”
“I am a likeable person and that some of the things I have done in the past
have been forgiven and are justified”
“I am very lucky to have what I have and many people are going through
worse and I will appreciate what I have more…..
What has this trip
“When everyone became comfortable with each other people start coming
taught you about
out of their shells”
other people?
“That even people that are shy or not confident all chipped in”
“That they aren’t as bad as I thought”
“All their personalities are not the same”
“Can be nice and not all people are the same. The people don’t judge me
here”
“They have it harder than I do. People can be nice”
What has this trip
“Learned that you don’t have to go far to see lovely scenery, because its
taught you about
everywhere”
nature?
“That wildlife is beautiful and so peaceful, I can really think about life when
73
University of Essex, 2013
I am in the wilderness”
“To respect it”
“……the wilderness can make you feel all different emotions”
“Nature can be beneficial”
“It can be very different in different parts of the world…….”
7.5 Sailing on the Morning Star
Five Essex participants completed the composite questionnaire pre- and post the sailing trip,
however not all five participants completed all aspects of the questionnaire. For each of the assessed
measures between two and five participants completed the scales.
7.5.1 Qualitative Narrative prior to the trail
Prior to the sailing trip the Essex participants were asked the same questions as before the
wilderness trail to Scotland. The responses on this occasion are displayed in Box 11. Similarly, young
people were most nervous about sleeping and not getting on with everyone. However, they were
excited about getting away, having a good time and fixing their problems. After the sailing trip
participants were hoping to have a better outlook on life and get on better with people.
Box 11: Essex participants’ Hopes and Concerns about the Sailing Trip
Question
Comments from Young People
What do you hope
“Better outlook on life-scenery on water. Better understanding of sailing.
to get out of this
Socialising- getting on better with people”
trip?
“To prove to myself that I can handle being in small places with others and
that I can control myself in situations”
“New experience. Find something I want to do again and again. Get away
from Colchester and do something that is legal. Have a good time without
breaking the law”
“Confidence, be able to rely on myself”
“Self-confidence, self-respect, involvement with others, get out some of my
problems”
What are you most
“Sleeping in general- everything to do with sleep”
nervous about?
“Not being able to do what people want me to do”
“Not getting on with everyone. Don’t see myself as social/with friends”
74
University of Essex, 2013
“Always being let down, accidents”
“Other people, being out, not having my own space”
What are you most
“Concept of sailing on the water. Learning to sail”
excited about?
“To have a good, once in a lifetime experience”
“Getting away. Being out in the open. At one with myself”
“More trips and gaining experience. Cooking for everyone and liking it. New
experience on the boat”
“Fixing myself and my problems. The special trips and feeling better”
7.5.2 Hope
Five Essex participants completed the hope questionnaire before and after sailing. Agency sub-scale
scores increased by an index of 1.0 from the start to the end of the sailing trip (Figure 44),
representing a 7% improvement in participants perception that they have the capacity for
maintaining the actions required to meet their goals. 60% of participants improved their agency
score, whilst 40% of participants’ scores decreased. Pathway sub-scale scores also improved after
the sailing trip (Figure 46) by an index of 2.0, equivalent to 13% improvement in participants’ belief
that they can generate routes to their goals. 80% of participants increased their pathway score and
20% remained constant.
Figure 46: Essex participants hope sub-scale
scores pre and post sailing
13
Hope sub-scale score
Agency
12
Pathway
11
10
9
8
7
6
Pre sailing
Post sailing
Note: A higher score= greater hope that goals can be met. Error bars represent ±1SD; N=5
75
University of Essex, 2013
Overall hope scores increased from pre- to post sailing by an index of 3.0 (Figure 47), meaning that
participants’ hope of meeting their goals increased by 10% due to the sailing trip. Wilcoxon signed
rank tests revealed a significant increase in hope scores from pre to post sailing (Z=-2.03; P<0.05).
All participants increased their hope score, however scores were below average both pre- and postsailing.
24
Figure 47: Essex participants hope scores pre
and post sailing
*
22
Hope score
20
18
16
14
12
Pre sailing
Post sailing
Note: A higher score= greater hope that goals can be met. Error bars represent ±1SD; N=5. * indicates a
significant improvement in hope (P<0.05).
7.5.3 Nature Experience
Five Essex participants completed the nature experience scale pre- and post- the sailing trip. The
nature experience score decreased by an index of 0.13, representing a 3% reduction in participants
desire to be out in nature (Figure 48). 40% of participants increased their nature experience score
and 60% of participants scores decreased.
76
University of Essex, 2013
3.8
Figure 48: Nature experience scores in Essex
participants pre and post sailing
Nature experience score
3.6
3.4
3.2
3
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2
Pre sailing
Post sailing
Note: A higher score= greater experience of nature. Error bars represent ±1SD; N=5
7.5.4 Self-esteem
Only two Essex participants completed the self-esteem scale at the start and end of the sailing. The
mean self-esteem score decreased from pre- to post- sailing by an index of 1.0, representing a
reduction in self-esteem of 3% (Figure 49). One participants’ self-esteem remained constant and one
decreased.
24
Figure 49: Self-esteem scores in Essex
participants pre and post sailing
23.5
Self-esteem score
23
22.5
22
21.5
21
20.5
20
19.5
19
Pre sailing
Post sailing
Note: A higher score= greater self-esteem. Error bars represent ±1SD; N=2
77
University of Essex, 2013
7.5.5 Qualitative narrative after the trail
At the end of the sailing trip participants were asked about their experience. The responses to these
questions are displayed in Box 12. The participants enjoyed the sailing, cooking and being around
people, but not the weather, sea sickness or cold. Participants learned that they can do things that
they put their mind to, that everyone is different and the weather and elements can be a challenge.
Box 12: Essex participants’ feedback about the Sailing trip
Question
Comments from Young People
What did you
“Doing the sailing, not sitting about. Company, socialising”
enjoy most?
“Cooking food because I made the best banoffee pie and it made me feel
useful because others liked it”
“Steering the boat because it made me realise that I could be good at
something I have never done before”
“Escaping everything at home, ideal opportunity to get space, going to
London by boat, being part of a team, food”
“Being around nice people and cooking. Joking around with everyone.
Learned how to make new food. Having a break”
“Sleeping whilst sea bound, team had to sail in the rain and storm. Steering
the boat. Having a laugh and trying new things that I probably wouldn’t
have tried”
What did you not
“Weather, washing up, other people not pulling their weight”
enjoy?
“The weather because it put a downer on things. I struggled living with lots
of others in a small space as I get very claustrophobic”
“Too much noise at night from crew members”
“Feeling ill, weather being cold, knowing that I am going back because I
don’t like who I am. Sometimes when we go on a trip it makes it harder
because I want to keep going and not go back”
“Sea Sickness, super cold (actually didn’t bother me that much). Not
having my own space when I need it”.
What would you
“Doing trip insurance, warmer, more space, sleeping arrangements”
have changed?
“The time of year we left”
“Nothing”
“Not gone back. Bought more warm clothes. Shower and having a hot
water bottle”
78
University of Essex, 2013
“Own space. Having more fun things to do at night”
What has the trip
“Enjoy sailing”
taught you about
“If I put my mind to it I can do things. I can wake up early. I can get on with
yourself?
different types of people”
“Self-respect, better preparation, packing the correct stuff”
“Trying to change my attitude towards people because I don’t want them
to think I am horrible because I don’t actually mean it. Making up with
people who I despise has been the hardest thing for me, to be a stronger
person. Knowing who I want to tell about bad situations”
“Took more pictures this trip-far more than usual. My strength was needed
to do things others couldn’t. Stamina was important. Coped with OCD very
well and being in a confined space. Put my problems aside to help others
and kept a cool head”
What has this trip
“Sometimes people will not pull weight, disappointed”
taught you about
“Everyone is different but when you pull together you are a team”
other people?
“Respecting others”
“I thought I would argue with everyone and not like it but I tried to get on
with people. People are really nice when you get to know them. I don’t
usually get this because I push them away…….”
“Kept a cool head even when provoked. Worked together-mostly. More
considerate. Didn’t feel like I was a big part of the group, would have liked
to be. Didn’t feel needed. Felt left in the shadows”
What has this trip
“Saw effect of waves, wind and tides”
taught you about
“When at sea you feel more wind and coldness. Weather is a challenge
nature?
sometimes”
“Didn’t notice much wildlife- there wasn’t much about. Enjoyed the wavesdidn’t feel scared. Didn’t like the cold”
“Really cold, nothing easy, excited when it started to slow a little”
“Cold, sea sickness. Battling against the elements. Humans were not meant
to travel the waters. Beauty is everywhere in nature, at all times. Liked all
weather, whether it was good or not”
79
University of Essex, 2013
7.6 Emotional Spectrum Weekend
In addition to the set programme of activities on the TA4 project, some of the Essex participants also
attended an emotional spectrum weekend held in May 2013. Spectrum Emotional coaching is aimed
at working with people who are experiencing emotional problems, are stressed from the rigours of
life or have past issues which are holding them back from achieving in life. The origin of emotional
coaching lies within therapy and uses a talking approach. It helps the participant to revisit life
experiences and facilitates personal learning and lasting change before emotions take over. During
the spectrum emotional coaching weekend participants took part in one-to-one sessions with
coaches, working through emotional triggers and responses from their past and deciding how they
could move forward in a more positive light in the future. They also played team games designed to
enhance team work, cooperation and leadership, trust and listening skills.
Questionnaires were completed at the start and end of the weekend in order to determine if there
were any changes in the assessed measures as a result of the weekend. Four out of the five
participants who attended completed questionnaires at the start and end of the weekend, however
not all aspects were completed by all participants.
7.6.1 Qualitative narrative prior to the emotional coaching
Prior to the emotional coaching weekend participants were asked what they were hoping to get out
of the weekend, and what they were both nervous and excited about. Participants commented that
they were hoping to “spend time with other Turnaround participants” and “to be able to deal with
things that happened in the past” and “feel better about the past” after taking part in the weekend.
They were nervous about talking about their feelings, leaving home and “going home feeling
depressed”. However the participants said that they were excited about “meeting and getting to
know new people” and “gaining positive emotions”. One participant also commented that they were
excited to help other people.
7.6.2 Hope
Four Essex participants completed the agency hope sub-scale, whilst three completed the pathway
sub-scale and thus the complete questionnaire. Agency sub-scale scores increased by an index of
3.5, representing a 23% improvement in participants’ perceived capacity for commencing and
maintaining the actions required to meet their goals (Figure 48). 75% of participants increased their
scores and 25% of participants scores decreased. Pathway sub-scale scores also increased by an
80
University of Essex, 2013
index of 5.3, equivalent to a 35% improvement (Figure 50). All participants increased their pathway
score.
21
Figure 50: Hope sub-scale scores in Essex
participants pre and post the emotional coaching
weekend
Agency
Hope sub-scale score
19
Pathway
17
15
13
11
9
7
5
Pre emotional coaching
Post emotional coaching
Note: A higher score= greater hope that goals can be met. Error bars represent ±1SD; N=4 for agency, n=3 for
pathway.
Overall hope scores also improved. Scores increased by an index of 9.33, representing a 31%
improvement in participants’ perception that they can meet their goals. All participants increased
their hope that they could meet their goals (Figure 51). The mean score was below average and
project baseline, but increased to be above average at the project end.
37
Figure 51: Hope scores in Essex participants pre
and post the emotional coaching weekend
32
Hope score
27
22
17
12
7
Pre emotional coaching
Post emotional coaching
Note: A higher score= greater hope that goals can be met. Error bars represent ±1SD; N=3
81
University of Essex, 2013
7.6.3 Nature Experience
Two participants completed the nature experience scale pre- and post- the emotional coaching
weekend. As displayed in Figure 52 mean scores increased over the weekend by an index of 0.17.
This 0.17 increase is equivalent to a 3% improvement in nature experience. One participant
increased their scores, whilst one remained constant.
Figure 52: Nature experience scores in Essex
participants pre and post the emotional coaching
weekend
4
Nature experience score
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
Pre emotional coaching
Post emotional coaching
Note: A higher score= greater experience of nature. Error bars represent ±1SD; N=3
7.6.4 Well-being
Three participants completed the well-being scale pre and post the emotional coaching weekend.
Scores increased by an index of 18.7 from the start to the end of the weekend, representing a 33%
improvement in well-being (Figure 53). All participants increased their well-being scores. At the start
of the weekend the mean score was below the national average (51.7±7.26). However by the end of
the weekend scores were notably greater than this value, representing an above average well-being.
Well-being classifications also shifted (Figure 54). At the start of the weekend the majority of
participants’ well-being was classified as ‘low’. However, by the end of the weekend this had altered
with the majority of participants having ‘high’ well-being. One participants score moved from ‘low’
to ‘high’, one from ‘average’ to ‘high’ and one from ‘low’ to ‘average’.
82
University of Essex, 2013
Figure 53: Well-being scores in Essex participants
pre and post emotional coaching weekend
80
Well-being score
70
60
50
40
30
20
Pre emotional coaching
Post emotional coaching
Note: A higher score= greater well-being. Error bars represent ±1SD; N=3
80
Percentage of participanrs (%)
70
Figure 54: Percentage of Essex participants in
each well-being category pre and post the
emotional spectrum weekend
60
Pre emotional
coaching
50
Post emotional
coaching
40
30
20
10
0
Low well-being
Average well-being
High well-being
7.6.5 Self-esteem
Two young people from the Essex group completed the self-esteem scale pre and post the
emotional coaching weekend. The mean self-esteem score increased by an index of 9.5, equivalent
to a 32% improvement in self-esteem (Figure 55). Both participants improved their self-esteem over
the course of the weekend.
83
University of Essex, 2013
45
Figure 55: Self-esteem scores in Essex
participants pre and post emotional spectrum
weekend
Self-esteem score
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
Pre emotional coaching
Post emotional coaching
Note: A higher score= better self-esteem. Error bars represent ±1SD; N=2
7.6.6 Strengths and Difficulties
Three participants completed the strengths and difficulties questionnaire pre and post the emotional
coaching weekend. The mean score for each of the sub-scales at the start and end of the weekend
are displayed in Table 17. By the end of the programme participants had fewer emotional
difficulties, conduct and peer problems. Hyperactivity remained stable and pro-social behaviour
decreased slightly. Emotional difficulties, conduct and peer problems reduced by indexes of 2.0, 1.3
and 0.6 respectively, representing reductions of 20%, 13% and 6%. Pro-social behaviour reduced by
an index of 0.7, representing a 7% reduction in pro-social behaviour.
Table 17: Strengths and difficulties sub-scale scores in Essex participants at baseline and end
Baseline
End
Score Change
Emotional Symptoms
5.0±3.6
3.0±1.7
Conduct Problems
2.0±1.0
0.7±0.6
Hyperactivity
4.7±4.2
4.7±4.2
Peer Problems
4.3±3.2
3.7±3.1
Pro-social behaviour
10±0.0
9.3±1.2
67% decrease, 33%
constant
67% decrease, 33%
constant
33% increase, 33%
decrease, 33% constant
33% increase, 67%
decrease
33% decrease, 67%
constant.
Scores represent mean±SD, a higher score= greater conduct problems, hyperactivity, emotions or peer
problems and improved pro-social behaviour. A decrease in sub-scale score= improvement.
84
University of Essex, 2013
The overall strengths and difficulties score reduced by an index of 4.0 over the emotional coaching
weekend, representing a 25% reduction in behavioural difficulties (figure 56). 67% of participants
reduced their total score and one participant increased their score.
Strengths and difficulties score
30
Figure 56: Strengths and difficulties scores in
Essex participants pre and post emotional
coaching weekend
25
20
15
10
5
0
Pre emotional coaching
Post emotional coaching
Note: A lower score= fewer behavioural difficulties. Error bars represent ±1SD; N=3
Emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity and pro-social scores were ‘normal’ at both
the start and end of the weekend, and peer problem scores were classified as ‘borderline’. The total
score moved from ‘borderline’ at the start of the weekend to a classification of ‘normal’ at the end.
Changes in the percentage of participants in each category were notable for hyperactivity and the
total score. At the start of the weekend 33% of participants had ‘normal’, ‘borderline’ and
‘abnormal’ hyperactivity scores, whilst at the end of the weekend 67% had normal scores and only
33% abnormal. For the total score 67% had ‘abnormal’ scores at the start and 33% ‘normal’, this
trend was reversed by the end of the weekend.
7.6.7 Feedback after the emotional coaching weekend
At the end of the weekend participants were asked to provide feedback about their experience of
the emotional coaching. The responses to the questions asked to participants can be found in Box
13. Participants learnt to respect other people’s feelings and felt that they would be considerate of
other people’s feelings and react to situations better in the future.
85
University of Essex, 2013
Box 13: Essex Participants’ Feedback about Emotional Coaching Weekend
Question
Comments from Young People
What have you learned
“That I am not as ugly as I think and that I need to respect other
from participating in the
people’s feelings more”
emotional coaching
“That I am in control of me”
weekend?
What did you think you
“React to situations better”
will do differently after
“Look how my actions are affecting others”
attending this weekend?
“Put myself first and love myself”
What did you enjoy
“The nice weather and all the wilderness”
most?
“Spectrum” [the coaching]
“Getting away from home”
What didn’t you enjoy?
“Being cold”
“Getting upset and feeling vulnerable”
“I enjoyed it all”
How do you think the
“Check how we are doing more often”
weekend could be
“More outdoor activities”
improved?
“Not to camp”
7.7 Essex Key Findings
Overall the analysis of Essex data revealed that over the course of the project:
Agency and pathway hope scores increased by 32% and 56% respectively;
83% of participants improved their hope sub-scale scores;
Total hope scores increased by 45%, with 67% of participants increasing the hope that they
could meet their goals;
Nature experience increased by 11%;
83% of participants increased their familiarity and desire to be out in nature;
There were statistically significant improvements in well-being, with indices improving by
67%;
60% of participants experienced improvements in well-being so significant that they
changed their well-being classification;
Self-esteem improved by 12%, with 75% of participants increasing their self-esteem score
86
University of Essex, 2013
Emotional symptoms, peer problems and hyperactivity reduced by 30%, 37% and 24%
respectively;
Pro-social behaviour improved by 15%
Overall behavioural difficulties reduced by 18%, with 50% of participants improving their
behaviour.
Furthermore:
Agency, pathway and total hope scores increased by 10%, 7% and 12% respectively after the
wilderness trail
Agency and pathway scores increased by 12% and 23% after the sailing, with a significant
improvement in the total hope score (18% increase).
75% of participants increased their hope scores after the wilderness trail and 100% after
sailing;
Nature experience increased by 25% after the wilderness trail, with 67% of participants
making improvements;
Self-esteem improved by 21% after the wilderness trail;
60% of participants improved their self-esteem as a result of the wilderness trail.
As a result of the emotional coaching weekend:
Participants experienced improvements in agency and pathway hope scores by 36% and 47%
respectively;
Total hope scores increased by 49%, with 100% of participants being more hopeful that they
can meet their goals;
Nature experience improved by 5%, with 50% feeling more desire to be in nature;
Self-esteem improved by 32%, with all participants improving their self-esteem;
Well-being improved by 46%, with a trend for well-being being classified as ‘high’ as
opposed to ‘low’;
Emotional symptoms, conduct problems and peer problems decreased by 40%, 65% and
14% respectively
Total behavioural difficulties reduced by 25%.
87
University of Essex, 2013
8. Individual Case Studies- Essex Group
The following section uses a case study
approach to provide an overview of the
TurnAround experience for each participant.
It plots individual changes in parameters
over the course of the project using both
quantitative and qualitative data. Pseudo
names are used at all times and any missing
data
is
due
to
absence.
Background
information is provided for each individual to
build on participant profiles.
8.1 Case of ‘Tom’
Tom was almost 17 years old at the start of the project and moving between living with his mother
and father. He had drug problems, anger issues and displayed erratic behaviour that his parents
found increasingly difficult to deal with. Tom also suffered from low self-esteem and self-confidence
and was traumatised after witnessing the murder of his step- father.
During his time on
TurnAround, Tom wanted to make new friends and get a better outlook on life.
Tom engaged well with the programme and was in attendance at all but one of the data collection
time points. Tom seemed to engage relatively well with his mentor, who helped him to obtain some
work experience at a record store. Tom seemed to learn how to effectively deal with his anger issues
over the course of the project. Figure 57 plots the changes in Tom’s sub-scale hope scores over the
course of the programme, whilst Figure 58 plots the changes in the total scores. Both sub-scale and
total scores fluctuated over the course of the programme, with the agency sub-scale scores
increasing from project baseline to end by an index of 5.0, representing a 33% improvement. Both
the pathway and total scores were slightly reduced from baseline at the end of the project. At all
points Tom’s total hope score was below average.
88
University of Essex, 2013
18
Figure 57: Tom's Hope scores over the course of
the programme
16
14
Hope Score
12
10
8
6
4
2
Baseline Pre Trail
Post
Trail
Pre
Sailing
Post Cinema
Sailing
Trip
End
Note: Blue= Agency; Green= Pathway; A higher score= greater hope that goals can be met
30
Figure 58: Tom's hope scores over the course of
the programme
Hope Score
25
20
15
10
5
Baseline Pre Trail Post Trail Pre SailingPost SailingCinema Trip
End
A higher score= greater hope that goals can be met
Tom’s nature experience scores also fluctuated over the course of the programme (Figure 59).
Scores peaked after the wilderness trail, increasing by 79% over the course of the trail itself. Scores
increased from the start to the end of the project, with the end score being higher by 0.83,
equivalent to a 17% improvement.
89
University of Essex, 2013
Figure 59: Toms nature experience scores over
the course of the programme
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
Baseline Pre Trail
Post
Trail
Pre
Post Cinema
Sailing Sailing
Trip
End
Note: A higher score= greater experience of nature
Figure 60 displays well-being scores over the programme. Tom’s well-being consistently increased
over the course of the programme. Scores increased by an index of 27 from the start to the end of
the project, equivalent to a 48% improvement in well-being. At the start and wild camping Tom’s
well-being was below the national average of 51.7, however at the end of the programme Tom’s
score was above this average score. At baseline Tom’s scores was classified as ‘low’, at wild camping
this improved to ‘average’ and at the end of the programme his score was classed as being ‘high’.
70
Figure 60: Tom's well-being scores over the
course of the programme
Well-being score
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
Baseline
Cinema Trip
End
Note: A higher score= better well-being
90
University of Essex, 2013
Tom’s self-esteem scores peaked after the wilderness trail, where they increased by an index of 7.0,
equivalent to a 23% improvement (Figure 61). Scores decreased from pre- to post- sailing, but
increased at the cinema trip and project end, where they were above the baseline score. From
project baseline to end scores increased by an index of 2.0; equivalent to a 7% improvement in selfesteem. Tom’s background information indicated that he suffered from low self-esteem. However, a
self-esteem score of 24 is not particularly low; thus the reliability of this baseline score might be
questioned.
29
Figure 61: Tom's Self-esteem scores over the
course of the programme
28
Self-esteem Score
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
Baseline Pre Trail Post Trail
Pre
Sailing
Post
Sailing
Cinema
Trip
End
Note: A higher score= better self-esteem
The changes in Toms’ strengths and difficulties sub-scale scores can be found in Table 18. Emotional
symptoms remained stable, whilst conduct problems and hyperactivity showed an increasing trend.
Peer problems decreased from baseline to end, by an index of 4.0, representing a 40% reduction in
peer problems.
Pro-social behaviour improved by an index of 2.0, equivalent to a 20%
improvement. Peer problem scores moved from being ‘abnormal’ at the start of the project, to
‘borderline’ at the cinema trip and ‘normal’ at the project end.
Table 18: Tom’s Strengths and difficulties sub-scale scores over the course of the programme
Emotional Symptoms
Conduct Problems
Hyperactivity
Peer Problems
Pro-social behaviour
Baseline
Cinema Trip
End
4
4
7
6
6
4
7
9
5
6
4
8
8
2
8
Note: a higher score= greater conduct problems, hyperactivity, emotions or peer problems and improved
pro-social behaviour. A decrease in sub-scale score= improvement.
91
University of Essex, 2013
The total strengths and difficulties’ score increased from baseline to cinema trip and decreased from
cinema trip to end (Figure 62). However the score at the end of the project was higher than at
baseline by an index of 1.0, meaning that behavioural difficulties worsened slightly by the end of the
project.
Figure 62: Tom's total strengths and difficulties
scores over the course of the programme
Strengths and difficulties score
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
Baseline
Cinema Trip
End
Note: A higher score= greater behavioural difficulties’
At the start of the project Tom completed a shield drawing detailing how he viewed himself, how he
thought others viewed him and how he would like to be seen and what he wants for himself in the
future. Tom commented that in the future he wanted to build up his DJ job, build relationships with
others and ‘mix’ in different countries. He wanted to be seen as funny, generous and kind. During
his time on the project Tom gained work experience directly relevant to his hope of being a DJ and
built relationships with Wilderness Foundation staff and participants.
92
University of Essex, 2013
8.2 Case of ‘Richard’
Richard was 15 and ½ years old at the start of the project. He had been living in the UK for 12
months after moving here from South Africa and was living with his mother, as his father was
deceased. Richard had spent time living in a women’s refuge and suffered from Obsessive
Compulsive Disorder (OCD), low self-esteem and difficutly being around others. His school
attendance was poor and he suffered abuse and truama whilst living in South Africa. During his time
on the programme Richard was hoping to develop confidence, hate people less, gain a variety of
different skills and English experieces and have his “love, attitude and faith revived”.
Richards attendance at the programme was the highest of all participants, with Richard being
present on all data collection time points and also at the additional emotional spectrum weekend
offered to Essex participants. For Richard, who rarely attended school, this was a positive
achievement. However, Richard did not regularly attend mentoring and did not develop a
relationship with his mentor. Richard did however develop a strong relationship with Wilderness
Foundation staff and they therefore carried out his mentoring. Throughout the programme Richard
went through a great degree of emotional upheaval and had a difficult time dealing with things that
had happened in the past.
Figure 63 plots the changes in Richard’s sub-scale hope scores over the course of the programme,
whilst Figure 64 plots the changes in total scores. Both sub-scale scores fluctuated over the course
of the programme, but peaked at the project end. Agency and pathway scores increased by an index
of 2.0 from start to end, representing a 13% improvement. Scores dropped at the start of the
emotional coaching, but increased at the end. The agency sub-scale score at the end of the coaching
matched that at the end of the project.
The total hope score also fluctuated over the course of the programme. Scores increased after both
the wilderness trail and sailing, but peaked at the end of the programme, representing an increase of
6.0, equivalent to 20%. Scores decreased pre- emotional coaching but increased thereafter, to just
slightly below the end of project score, but above the score at baseline. At both the project end and
post emotional coaching, Richard’s hope scores were above average.
93
University of Essex, 2013
15
Figure 63: Richard's sub-scale hope scores over
the course of the programme
Hope sub-scale score
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
Post coaching
Pre coaching
End
Cinema Trip
Post Sailing
Pre Sailing
Post Trail
Pre Trail
Wild Camping
Baseline
6
Note: Blue= Agency; Green= Pathway; A higher score= greater hope that goals can be met
29
Figure 64: Richard's hope scores over the course
of the programme
27
Hope score
25
23
21
19
17
Post coaching
Pre coaching
End
Cinema Trip
Post Sailing
Pre Sailing
Post Trail
Pre Trail
Wild
Camping
Baseline
15
Note: A higher score= greater hope that goals can be met
Richard’s nature experience scores also fluctuated over the programme (Figure 65). Scores
decreased from baseline to wild camping, but increased due to the wilderness trail and sailing.
Scores peaked at the end of the project, with an increase of 0.34 or 7%. Scores declined slightly at
the pre emotional coaching time point, but increased after to slightly below the end point score.
94
University of Essex, 2013
Nature Experience score
4.3
Figure 65: Richard's nature experience scores
over the course of the programme
4.1
3.9
3.7
3.5
3.3
3.1
2.9
2.7
Post coaching
Pre coaching
End
Cinema Trip
Post Sailing
Pre Sailing
Post Trail
Pre Trail
Wild Camping
Baseline
2.5
Note: A higher score= greater nature experience
Figure 66 shows the changes in Richard’s well-being scores over time. Richard did not complete the
entire well-being questionnaire at baseline and this is therefore not included in the analysis. Scores
decreased from wild camping to the cinema trip, but increased at the end of the project. From the
wild camping to the project end scores increased by an index of 20, representing a 36%
improvement in well-being. At the pre- emotional coaching time point scores were slightly
decreased from project end, but increased by the end of the weekend. At all time points Richards
well-being was below the average score (51.7); however at the project end the score was
approaching one which is deemed to be ‘normal’.
Figure 66: Richard's well-being scores over the
course of the programme
50
Well-being score
45
40
35
30
25
20
Wild Camping Cinema Trip
End
Pre coaching Post coaching
Note: A higher score= greater well-being
95
University of Essex, 2013
Richard did not complete the self-esteem scale at baseline, or at the emotional spectrum weekend.
Figure 67 displays the changes in self-esteem scores at the time points the questionnaire was
completed. Self-esteem was relatively stable from wild camping to pre sailing, decreased at the
cinema trip, but increased at the end of the programme. From wild camping (when the first selfesteem questionnaire was completed) to the project end self-esteem increased by an index of 11,
representing a 37% improvement in self-esteem.
30
28
Figure 67: Richard's self-esteem scores over the
course of the programme
Self-esteem score
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
Wild
Camping
Pre Trail
Pre Sailing Cinema Trip
End
Note: A higher score= better self-esteem
Table 19 displays the changes in strengths and difficutlies sub-scale scores over the duration of the
programme. Emotional symptoms and hyperactivity decreased from baseline to end by 30% and
40% respectively. Conduct problems and peer problems increased slightly, whilst pro-social
behaviour remained constant. Emotional symptoms decreased further at the end of the coaching
weekend and conduct problems decreased from baseline (by 10%). By the end of the project
emotional symptoms and hyperactivity had moved from ‘abnormal’ to ‘normal’. Conduct problems
and pro-social behaviour were ‘normal’ throughout the programme and peer problems were
‘abnormal’.
The total strengths and diffuclties scores over the programme are displayed in Figure 68. The total
score decreased from baseline to end by an index of 4.0, equivalent to a 10% reduction in
behavioural difficulties. The score increased slightly pre-coaching but increased thereafter to just
above the end of the project score.
96
University of Essex, 2013
Table 19: Richard’s Strengths and difficulties sub-scale scores over the course of the
programme
Baseline
Wild
Cinema Trip
End
Pre
Post
camping
Coaching
Coaching
Emotional Symptoms
8
5
6
5
6
4
Conduct Problems
2
1
2
3
3
1
Hyperactivity
8
6
4
4
6
9
Peer Problems
6
8
9
8
8
7
Pro-social behaviour
10
10
9
10
10
10
Note: a higher score= greater conduct problems, hyperactivity, emotions or peer problems and an
improved pro-social behaviour. A decrease in sub-scale score= improvement (except pro-social behaviour)
Strengths and difficulties score
25
Figure 68: Richard's strengths and difficutlies
score over the course of the programme.
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
Baseline
Wild
Camping
Cinema
Trip
End
Pre
Post
coaching coaching
Note: A higher score= more difficulties
At the start of the project Richard completed a shield drawing detailing how he viewed himself, how
he thought others viewed him and how he would like to be seen and what he wants for himself in
the future. Richard commented that in the future he wanted to feel better about himself, speak to
people and trust people. He wanted to be seen as funny, kind, respectful and warm hearted. During
his time on the project Richard learnt that he is a nice guy and that he can make a difference and
have a future. He made friends and worked with other people and felt better about himself in
general.
97
University of Essex, 2013
8.3 Case of ‘Louise’
Louise was almost 16 years old at the start of the project. She was living with her mum but not
attending school. She suffered from low self-esteem, anxiety and confidence and was bullied at
school. She was fearful of different places and often had depressive thoughts. During her time on
the programme she was hoping to gain skills and confidence, feel smarter and feel comfortable
around people.
Louise’s attendance to the programme was relatively good, however she did not attend the sailing
trip. Louise engaged relatively well with her mentor at the start of the project, but meetings and
conversations tended to reduce as the programme progressed. However, Louise’s mentor did help
to get her enrolled on a college course.
Changes in hope scores are displayed in Figure 69. Louise did not complete the hope questionnaire
at the pre trail time point. Both agency and pathway scores increased from baseline to wild camping
and decreased slightly post trail. Scores increased at the end of the programme by indexes of 12 and
14 respectively. These increases are equivalent to 80% and 93% improvements. The total hope
scores are displayed in Figure 70. Total hope scores increased by an index of 26, representing an
increase in Louise’s hope that she can meet her goals by 87%. By the end of the project Louise’s
hope score was above the average value of 25.89.
98
University of Essex, 2013
18
Figure 69: Louise's hope sub-scale scores over
the course of the programme
16
Hope sub-scale score
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
Baseline Wild Camping Post trail
Cinema Trip
End
Note: Blue= Agency; Green= Pathway; A higher score= greater hope that goals can be met
35
Figure 70: Louise's hope scores over the course
of the programme
30
Hope score
25
20
15
10
5
Baseline
Wild
Camping
Post trail
Cinema Trip
End
Note: A higher score= greater hope that goals can be met
Louise’s nature experience scores increased from baseline to wild camping, but decreased at pre
trail and remained stable at the end of the trail (Figure 71). Scores then increased at the cinema trip
and the project end, where they peaked. The index of increase from baseline to end was 0.66,
representing a 13% increase in nature experience.
99
University of Essex, 2013
Figure 71: Louise's nature experience scores
over the course of the programme
2.9
Nature Experience Score
2.7
2.5
2.3
2.1
1.9
1.7
1.5
Baseline
Wild
Camping
Pre trail
Post trail
Cinema
Trip
End
Note: A higher score= greater nature experience
Louise’s well-being was very low at the start of the programme (Figure 72). Her score increased at
wild camping but fell back to baseline levels at the cinema trip. However by the end of the project
well-being had increased to its highest level. From start to end of the project her score increased by
an index of 50, representing an 89% improvement in well-being. Scores at baseline, wild camping
and cinema trip were below the normative value and classified as ‘low’. By the end of the project the
score was above the average value of 51.7 and was classified as high.
80
70
Figure 72: Louise's well-being scores over the
course of the programme
Well-being score
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Baseline
Wild Camping
Cinema Trip
End
Note: A higher score= greater well-being
100
University of Essex, 2013
The self-esteem questionnaire was not fully completed at the end of the programme and a score
could therefore not be generated. However scores increased from baseline to wild camping, where
they peaked, but decreased from there onwards. The score at the last point of completion was
higher than baseline by an index of 1.0, or a 3% improvement in self-esteem. From baseline to wild
camping self-esteem scores increased by 14, equivalent to 47% (Figure 73).
26
Figure 73: Louise's self-esteem scores over the
course of the programme
24
Self-esteem score
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
Baseline Wild Camping Pre trail
Post trail
Cinema Trip
Note: A higher score= better self-esteem
The changes in Louise’s strengths and difficulties’ sub-scale scores are displayed in Table 20. Scores
for emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity and peer problems and pro-social
behaviour all improved by the end of the project. The scores improved by indexes of 7, 3, 7, 5 and 6
respectively, representing improvements in behaviour of 70%, 30%, 70%, 50% and 60% respectively.
At the start of the project emotional symptoms, hyperactivity, peer problems and pro-social
behaviour were all classified as ‘abnormal’. By the end of the project all scores had altered to a
classification of ‘normal’.
Changes in Louise’s total strengths and difficulties score are displayed in Figure 74. Scores decreased
continuously throughout the project. The change from baseline to end was by an index of 23,
representing a 58% reduction in behavioural problems. Scores at baseline and wild camping were
‘abnormal’. At the end of the project scores were classified as ‘normal’.
101
University of Essex, 2013
Table 20: Louise’s Strengths and difficulties sub-scale scores over the course of the programme
Baseline
Emotional Symptoms
Conduct Problems
Hyperactivity
Peer Problems
Pro-social behaviour
9
4
7
7
3
Wild
camping
9
3
5
8
8
End
1
1
0
2
9
Note: a higher score= greater conduct problems, hyperactivity, emotions or peer problems and an improved
pro-social behaviour. A decrease in sub-scale score= improvement (except pro-social behaviour
Figure 74: Louise's strengths and difficulties
score over the course of the programme
Strengths and difficulties score
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Baseline
Wild Camping
End
Note: A higher score= greater behavioural difficulties’
Louise completed shields at two time points throughout the project. On the first shield Louise said
that she saw herself as being low in confidence, awkward and felt that she didn’t fit in. She thought
that other people saw her as being different and said that she would like people to see her as being
friendly. When she completed the second shield she felt that she was a good communicator and
listener and that other people thought she was fun, witty and trustworthy. She felt that the project
had helped her to feel more confident and focus on her future.
102
University of Essex, 2013
Louise’s first shield
Louise’s second shield
8.4 Case of ‘Rachel’
Rachel was just over 18 years old when she joined the TurnAround project. She had been a victim of
domestic abuse, was suffering from low self-esteem and drug and alcohol problems. She had a lack
of motivation, was not in education or employment. She was just leaving care and on probation.
During her time in the project Rachel was hoping for people to listen to what she wants to get out of
life.
103
University of Essex, 2013
Rachel’s attendance was high, with all data collection time points being attended. However Rachel
did not engage well with her mentor and requested that Wilderness Foundation staff mentor her
instead. Rachel was also offered some councelling (with the help of her mentor and wilderness
foundation staff) to address the feelings of depression that she was expeirencing.
Rachel’s sub-scale hope scores over the course of the programme are displayed in Figure 75. Both
agency and pathway scores fluctuated over the course of the programme, increasing as a result of
the wilderness trail and pathway scores increasing due to the sailing. Both agency and pathway
scores increased from baseline to end by an index of 2.0 and 4.0 respectively, representing 13% and
27% improvements.
16
Hope sub-scale score
15
Figure 75: Rachel's hope sub-scale scores over the
course of the programme
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
End
Cinema
Trip
Post Sailing
Pre Sailing
Post-trail
Pre-trail
Baseline
6
Note: Blue= Agency; Green= Pathway; A higher score= greater hope that goals can be met
Overall hope scores also tended to fluctuate over the course of the programme (Figure 76). However
scores increased as a result of both the wilderness trail and sailing trip and also increased from the
project start to end. The overall index of improvement was 6.0, equivalent to 20% and by the end of
the project the score was above average.
104
University of Essex, 2013
35
Figure 76: Rachel's hope scores over the course
of the programme
Hope score
30
25
20
15
10
Baseline Pre-trail Post-trail
Pre
Sailing
Post
Sailing
Cinema
Trip
End
Note: A higher score= greater hope that goals can be met
Figure 77 displays Rachel’s nature experience scores over the course of the programme. Her nature
experience score peaked following the wilderness trail, but decreased thereafter up until the cinema
trip and project end where scores increased. The index of increase from pre to post wilderness trail
was 0.83 (17%), whilst the increase from start to end was 0.2 (4%).
Figure 77: Rachel's nature experience scores
over the course of the programme
3.9
Nature experience score
3.7
3.5
3.3
3.1
2.9
2.7
2.5
Baseline Pre-trail Post-trail
Pre
Sailing
Post Cinema
Sailing
Trip
End
Note: A higher score= greater nature experience
105
University of Essex, 2013
Rachel’s well-being scores are displayed in Figure 78. Scores decreased from baseline to the cinema
trip, but increased at the programme end. The index of increase from baseline to end was 12,
representing a 21% improvement in well-being. At baseline and cinema trip scores were below the
normative value of 51.7 and classified as ‘low’. At the project end scores were above the national
average score and classified as ‘average’.
60
Figure 78: Rachel's well-being score over the
course of the programme
Well-being score
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
Baseline
Cinema Trip
End
Note: A higher score= better well-being
Rachel’s self-esteem fluctuated over the course of the programme, decreasing post wilderness trail.
The scores at baseline and end were identical, representing no overall change in self-esteem (Figure
79). However, Rachel’s initial self-esteem value was relatively good for someone who suffers from
low self-esteem; the accuracy of this value could therefore be questioned.
106
University of Essex, 2013
Figure 79: Rachel's self-esteem scores over the
course of the programme
28
27
Self-esteem score
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
Baseline
Pre-trail
Post-trail
Pre Sailing
End
Note: A higher score= better self-esteem
The changes in Rachel’s strengths and difficulties’ sub-scale scores are displayed in Table 21. Scores
for conduct problems improved from the start to the end of the project, whilst emotional symptoms
increased, pro-social behaviour reduced and hyperactivity and peer problems remained stable.
Conduct problems reduced by 10%. At the start of the project hyperactivity and peer problems were
classified as ‘borderline’ and emotional, conduct problems and pro-social behaviour ‘normal’. By the
end of the project all sub-scale scores remained the same.
Changes in Rachel’s total strengths and difficulties score are displayed in Figure 80. Scores increased
continuously throughout the project, until the end where they decreased. However the end score
was higher than baseline by 1.0, representing an overall increase in behavioural difficulties.
Table 21: Rachel’s Strengths and difficulties sub-scale scores over the course of the programme
Baseline
Emotional Symptoms
Conduct Problems
Hyperactivity
Peer Problems
Pro-social behaviour
2
3
6
4
6
Wild
camping
6
5
7
3
5
Cinema Trip
End
6
5
7
3
5
4
2
6
4
5
Note: a higher score= greater conduct problems, hyperactivity, emotions or peer problems and an improved
pro-social behaviour. A decrease in sub-scale score= improvement (except pro-social behaviour
107
University of Essex, 2013
Figure 80: Rachel's strengths and difficutlies
score over the course of the programme
Strengths and difficulties score
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
Baseline
Wild Camping
Cinema Trip
End
Note: A higher score= more behavioural difficulties
Rachel completed several shields during her time on the TurnAround project. Initially Rachel felt that
she was easily led and didn’t let people in and that other people viewed her as ‘trouble’. In her
future she wanted a better life for her, to help others and get a career. In her second shield she still
held some negative opinions about herself but also felt that she was caring, talkative, fun and helpful
and that other people viewed her as fun, unique and loving.
Rachel’s shield at the end of the project
108
University of Essex, 2013
8.5 Case of ‘Andrew’
Andrew was 16 ¾ years old at the start of the TurnAround project. He was in trouble with the police,
experiencing drug and alcohol problems and low self-confidence and esteem. He was in foster care
due to the breakdown of his relationship with his adoptive parents. During his time on the project
Andrew was hoping to gain a variety of new experiences.
Andrew’s attendance was high, with all data collection time points being attended. He also attended
the emotional coaching weekend and completed a questionnaire at the end of the weekend.
However, Andrew did not engage well with his mentor and had very little contact with them
throughout the project. This lack of engagement is likely to have been due to a clash of personalities
and also because Andrew secured a weekend job which therefore made it more difficult for him to
meet with his mentor.
Andrew’s sub-scale hope scores are displayed in Figure 81. The agency sub-scale score fluctuated
over the project but peaked at the project end point, where it had increased by an index of 1.0 (7%)
from baseline. The pathway score also fluctuated, increasing at wild camping, decreasing over the
trails and sailing and increasing again at the cinema trip. The score decreased from baseline to end
(and post coaching) by an index of 1.0, representing an overall reduction in hope.
Hope sub-scale score
Figure 81: Andrews sub-scale hope scores over
the course of the project
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
Post coaching
End
Cinema Trip
Post sailing
Pre sailing
Post trail
Pre trail
Wild Camping
Baseline
0
Note: Blue= Agency; Green= Pathway; A higher score= greater hope that goals can be met
109
University of Essex, 2013
The total hope score also fluctuated, decreasing from wild camping to pre sailing and increasing
thereafter. The score at the end of the project was identical to that at baseline, representing no
overall change in Andrew’s hope that he can meet his goals. The score decreased slightly from end
to post coaching (Figure 82). Scores were above average from baseline to wild camping, but below
average thereafter.
29
Figure 82: Andrew's hope scores over the
course of the project
27
Hope score
25
23
21
19
17
Post coaching
End
Cinema Trip
Post sailing
Pre sailing
Post trail
Pre trail
Wild Camping
Baseline
15
Note: A higher score= greater hope that goals can be met
Andrew’s nature experience score was highest at baseline and decreased and fluctuated thereafter.
The sailing trip increased Andrew’s nature experience score by an index of 0.47 (1%), however from
the start to end of the project there was a decline in Andrew’s desire to be out in nature (Figure 83).
Figure 83: Andrew's nature experience scores
over the course of the project
3.9
3.5
3.3
3.1
2.9
2.7
Post coaching
End
Cinema Trip
Post sailing
Pre sailing
Post trail
Pre trail
Wild Camping
2.5
Baseline
Nature Experience score
3.7
Note: A higher score= greater nature experience
110
University of Essex, 2013
Andrew’s well-being scores are displayed in Figure 84. Andrew did not complete the entire
questionnaire at wild camping; the data is therefore not included. The well-being score remained
stable from baseline to the cinema trip, but increased at the project end. The index of increase was
3.0, representing a 5% improvement in well-being. The score decreased slightly at the end of the
emotional coaching weekend. At baseline and cinema trip the score was close to the average value
of 51.7 and classified as ‘average. At the end of the project the score was above the national average
for Scotland.
54
Figure 84: Andrew's well-being scores over the
course of the project
53
52
Well-being scorw
51
50
49
48
47
46
45
44
Baseline
Cinema Trip
End
Post coaching
Note: A higher score= greater well-being
Andrew did not complete the self-esteem scale at wild camping. His score decreased from baseline
to pre- trail, but increased to its highest level post trail (Figure 85). The scores then fluctuated up
until the end of the project, where they returned to their post trail value. The index of increase from
start to end was 3.0, representing a 10% improvement in self-esteem. The score decreased slightly
from end to post coaching, but remained above the baseline value. Andrew’s baseline self-esteem
value was relatively high, given that he suffers from low self-esteem. The reliability of this data might
therefore be questioned in terms of its reliability.
111
University of Essex, 2013
33
Figure 85: Andrew's self-esteem scores over the
course of the project
Self-esteem score
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
Post
coaching
End
Cinema
Trip
Post
sailing
Pre
sailing
Post trail
Pre trail
Baseline
15
Note: A higher score= better self-esteem
The changes in Andrew’s strengths and difficulties’ sub-scale scores are displayed in Table 22. Scores
for emotional symptoms, peer problems and pro-social behaviour improved from that start to the
end of the project (and post coaching), whilst hyperactivity remained stable and conduct problems
increased. However both of these improved from baseline to post coaching. The total indexes of
change from baseline to post coaching are 50% (emotional symptoms), 30% (conduct problems),
10% (hyperactivity), 10% (peer problems) and 10% (pro-social behaviour). At the start of the project
emotional symptoms and peer problems scores were ‘abnormal’; hyperactivity and pro-social
behaviour ‘borderline’ and conduct problems ‘normal’. By the end of the coaching all sub-scales
were normal, except peer problems which had moved from ‘abnormal’ to ‘borderline’.
Table 22: Andrew’s Strengths and difficulties sub-scale scores over the course of the
programme
Baseline
Emotional Symptoms
Conduct Problems
Hyperactivity
Peer Problems
Pro-social behaviour
7
3
6
6
5
Wild
camping
4
6
9
6
6
Cinema Trip
End
Post coaching
3
8
9
3
10
3
4
6
0
8
2
0
5
4
6
Note: a higher score= greater conduct problems, hyperactivity, emotions or peer problems and an improved
pro-social behaviour. A decrease in sub-scale score= improvement (except pro-social behaviour)
112
University of Essex, 2013
Changes in Andrew’s total strengths and difficulties score are displayed in Figure 86. Scores
increased continuously from baseline to wild camping, but decreased thereafter right up until the
last data collection point. The index of decrease from start to end was 9.0, representing a 23%
reduction in behavioural difficulties. Overall, from project baseline to end of the coaching weekend
Andrew’s behavioural difficulties decreased by 50%.
Strengths and difficulties score
26
Figure 86: Andrew's strengths and difficutlies
score over the course of the project
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
Baseline
Wild
Camping
Cinema Trip
End
Post
coaching
Note: A higher score= greater behavioural difficulties
During his time on TurnAround Andrew completed two shields. On his first shield Andrew said that
he felt he was not good at socialising, not always reliable, but fun, loving and confident. He felt that
other people saw him as lazy and daring and that some people didn’t like him. In the future he
wanted a career, family and mortgage and wanted to be seen as trustworthy and hard working. On
his second shield Andrew thought he was helpful and active and that other people saw him as
friendly.
113
University of Essex, 2013
Andrew’s first shield
Andrew’s second shield
8.6 Case of ‘Nicola’
Nicola was almost 18 years old at the start of the TurnAround project. She was lacking self-esteem
and self-confidence and was lacking the ability to make friends and form relationships. She was living
in foster care and had been subjected to abuse. Nicola was also in the early stages of pregnancy. By
taking part in the project she was hoping to feel better about herself and develop some
independence.
114
University of Essex, 2013
Nicola engaged relatively well with the project and was present at all data collection time points
except the end. However, Nicola did complete an end point questionnaire a little after the other
participants. She also attended the emotional coaching weekend and completed a questionnaire at
the end. Throughout the project Nicola had a good relationship with her mentor and often went to
her for advice and support. Nicola’s mentor supported her through a variety of situations and
offered help and guidance where necessary.
Nicola’s sub-scale hope scores over the duration of the project are displayed in Figure 87. Nicola did
not complete all questions pre trail; this data is therefore not included. Both agency and sub-scale
scores increased over the course of the project, with fluctuations throughout. The end of project
agency and pathway scores increased by indexes 2.0 and 4.0 respectively, representing 20% and 40%
improvements in hope. Scores further increased after the emotional coaching. From baseline to post
coaching agency scores improved by 4.0 (40%) and pathway scores increased by 8.0 (80%).
14
13
Figure 87: Nicola's sub-scale hope scores over
the course of the project
Hope sub-scale score
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
Post
Coaching
end
cinema
trip
Post
Sailing
Pre Sailing
Post Trail
Wild
Camping
Baseline
4
Note: Blue= Agency; Green= Pathway; A higher score= greater hope that goals can be met
The total hope score also showed a general trend for increasing over the course of the programme,
with fluctuations over time. Like with the sub-scales the score peaked after the emotional coaching
weekend, but also increased from baseline to project end (Figure 88). The index of increase from
baseline to end was 6.0, representing a 20% improvement in Nicola’s hope that she can meet her
goals. The index of increase from baseline to post emotional coaching was 12, representing an
115
University of Essex, 2013
increase in hope of 40%. However, Nicola’s hope score was below average for the duration of the
project.
23
Figure 88: Nicola's hope scores over the course
of the project
21
Hope score
19
17
15
13
11
Post Coaching
end
cinema trip
Post Sailing
Pre Sailing
Post Trail
Wild Camping
Baseline
9
Note: A higher score= greater hope that goals can be met
Nicola’s nature relatedness scores remained relatively stable, with increases following the
wilderness trail and at the project end (Figure 89). Her score peaked at the end of the TurnAround,
with an index of increase 1.0 from start to end, representing a 20% increase in her desire to be in
nature. Nicola’s score decreased slightly after the emotional coaching, but remained elevated from
baseline.
3.4
Figure 89: Nicola's nature experience scores
over the course of the project
3
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
Post
Coaching
end
cinema
trip
Post
Sailing
Pre
Sailing
Post Trail
Pre Trail
Wild
Camping
2
Baseline
Nature Experience score
3.2
Note: A higher score= greater experience of nature
116
University of Essex, 2013
Nicola’s well-being scores are displayed in Figure 90. Her score increased immediately from baseline
to wild camping, and fluctuated thereafter. However scores never returned to baseline level and by
the end of the project her well-being had improved by 16%. From baseline to after the emotional
coaching weekend, well-being improved by 27%. Nicola’s well-being was below the national average
of 51.7 at all time points; and was classified as ‘low’. However her end of project scores was
approaching normative values.
50
Figure 90: Nicola's well-being scores over the
course of the project
Well-being score
45
40
35
30
25
Baseline Wild Camping Cinema Trip
End
Post coaching
Note: A higher score= better well-being
Nicola did not complete the entire self-esteem questionnaire at wild camping, or emotional coaching
time points, the data is therefore not included. Nicola’s self-esteem decreased from baseline to pretrail, but increased after the wilderness trail and at the cinema trip, where the score peaked. From
baseline to end there was a slight (index of 1.0) decrease in self-esteem of 3%. However from
baseline to the cinema trip scores increased by 10% (Figure 91). Like several participants, Nicola’s
self-esteem score at baseline was high given that she had admitted to suffering from low selfesteem indicating that the baseline data may not be totally reliable.
117
University of Essex, 2013
Figure 91: Nicola's self-esteem scores over the
course of the project
28
30
Self-esteem score
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
Baseline
Pre trail
Post trail
Post
sailing
Cinema
Trip
End
Note: A higher score= better self-esteem
The changes in Nicola’s strengths and difficulties’ sub-scale scores are displayed in Table 23. Scores
for conduct problems improved from the start to the end of the project, whilst emotional problems
and pro-social behaviour remained stable and hyperactivity and peer problems increased slightly.
The conduct problem score reduced by an index of 2.0, equivalent to a 20% reduction. At the start of
the project emotional symptoms, hyperactivity and peer problems were classed as ‘borderline’,
conduct problems ‘abnormal’ and pro-social behaviour ‘normal’. At the end of the project the
conduct problem score had moved to ‘normal’.
Table 23: Nicola’s Strengths and difficulties sub-scale scores over the course of the programme
Baseline
Emotional Symptoms
Conduct Problems
Hyperactivity
Peer Problems
Pro-social behaviour
6
5
6
5
7
Wild
camping
8
1
10
5
10
Cinema Trip
End
7
6
7
5
6
6
3
7
6
7
Note: a higher score= greater conduct problems, hyperactivity, emotions or peer problems and an improved
pro-social behaviour. A decrease in sub-scale score= improvement (except pro-social behaviour)
Changes in Nicola’s total strengths and difficulties score are displayed in Figure 92. Scores increased
continuously until cinema trip, but decreased at the end of the project. There was no overall change
in the strengths and difficulties score from the start of the project to the end.
118
University of Essex, 2013
25.5
Figure 92: Nicola's total strengths and
difficulties scores over the course of the project
Strengths and difficutlies score
25
24.5
24
23.5
23
22.5
22
21.5
21
Baseline
Wild Camping
Cinema Trip
End
Note: A higher score= greater behavioural difficulties
Nicola completed a shield at the start of the project. She highlighted that she saw herself as
confused, anxious and someone who does stupid things, and that in the future she wants to be
happy and not to feel scared or labelled. She said that she wants other people to see her as
confident, happy and a nice person. At the end of the project Nicola said that she had gained
confidence, made friends and developed “a second family”. She felt that she was going to be happy
and “live happily”.
119
University of Essex, 2013
8.7 Case of ‘Danielle’
Danielle was almost 20 years old at the start of the TurnAround project. She had a chaotic lifestyle
and lacked stability and direction in life. She was living in hostels and had been the victim of many
different forms of abuse. Danielle also had drug problems and suffered from mental ill health. By
taking part in the project she was hoping to gain a qualification that would help her to progress in
life.
Danielle’s attendance at the project was relatively low, so data was only collected at baseline, wild
camping and the end point. However Danielle did also attend the emotional coaching weekend. Her
low attendance might have been due to mental health problems and other issues which prevented
her from attending.
Danielle’s sub-scale hope scores are displayed in Figure 93. Both agency and pathway scores
increased from baseline to end by 7.0, representing improvements of 70%. Scores decreased prior to
the coaching weekend but increased after the weekend to a similar level to the project end.
14
Figure 93: Danielle's sub-scale hope scores over
the course of the project
Hope sub-scale score
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Baseline
Wild
Camping
End
Pre
coaching
Post
coaching
Note: Blue= Agency; Green= Pathway; A higher score= greater hope that goals can be met
Danielle’s total hope score also increased from baseline to end by an index of 14.0, representing a
47% increase in hope. The score decreased prior to the coaching but increased to a similar level post
coaching as at the project end (Figure 94). The total hope score was below the average value of
25.89 throughout the project.
120
University of Essex, 2013
25
Figure 94: Danielle's hope scores over the
course of the project
23
Hope Score
21
19
17
15
13
11
9
7
5
Baseline Wild Camping
End
Pre coachingPost coaching
Note: A higher score= greater hope that goals can be met
Danielle’s nature experience increased and peaked after the wild camping. The score decreased at
the project end, but remained elevated above baseline (Figure 95). The change from baseline to end
was 0.5, equivalent to a 10% improvement. The score after the coaching weekend was higher than
the project end by 0.33, representing an improvement from baseline to post coaching of 7%.
4.4
Figure 95: Danielle's nature experience scores
over the course of the project
Nature Experience Score
4.2
4
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
3
2.8
Baseline Wild Camping
End
Pre coaching Post coaching
Note: A higher score= greater nature experience
121
University of Essex, 2013
Danielle’s well-being scores increased continuously from the project baseline to end (Figure 96). The
index of increase from baseline to end was 29, representing a 46% improvement in well-being. Prior
to the emotional coaching the well-being score decreased from baseline. However post- coaching
the score increased to a higher level than the project end. The change from baseline to after the
emotional coaching was 40; this represents a 71% increase in well-being. At all-time points except
the project end and after the coaching, well-being scores were below the normative value of 51.7.
The baseline score was classified as ‘low’, as was the score at wild camping and pre coaching. The
end of project score was classed as ‘average, whilst the score after the coaching weekend was ‘high’.
70
Figure 96: Danielle's well-being scores over the
course of the project
65
Well-being score
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
Baseline
Wild
Camping
End
Pre
coaching
Post
coaching
Note: A higher score= better well-being
Self-esteem scores over the project are displayed in Figure 97. Scores increased from baseline to the
project end by an index of 7.0 (23%). Scores decreased before the coaching weekend but improved
thereafter to be above the end of project level. The self-esteem score was doubled after the
coaching and the change from baseline to the end of the coaching was an improvement in wellbeing of 30%.
122
University of Essex, 2013
35
Figure 97: Danielle's self-esteem scores over the
course of the project
33
Self-esteem score
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
Baseline Wild Camping
End
Pre coachingPost coaching
Note: A higher score= better self-esteem
The changes in Danielle’s strengths and difficulties’ sub-scale scores are displayed in Table 24.
Emotional symptoms conduct problems and peer problems worsened by the end of the project,
whilst pro-social behaviour reduced and hyperactivity remained constant. However, from baseline to
post coaching scores on all sub-scales improved, except hyperactivity which remained constant.
Conduct problems improved by 40%, hyperactivity by 20%, peer problems by 10% and pro-social
behaviour by 10%. At the start of the project the conduct problem score was ‘borderline’,
hyperactivity score ‘abnormal’ and the remainder ‘normal’. After the coaching weekend all scores
were classified as ‘normal’.
Table 24: Danielle’s Strengths and difficulties sub-scale scores over the course of the
programme
Baseline
Emotional Symptoms
Conduct Problems
Hyperactivity
Peer Problems
Pro-social behaviour
4
4
7
2
9
Wild
camping
6
4
10
4
9
End
Pre Coaching
Post Coaching
7
10
7
4
5
8
2
8
3
10
4
0
5
1
10
Note: a higher score= greater conduct problems, hyperactivity, emotions or peer problems and an improved
pro-social behaviour. A decrease in sub-scale score= improvement (except pro-social behaviour)
123
University of Essex, 2013
Changes in Danielle’s total strengths and difficulties score are displayed in Figure 98. Scores were
elevated from baseline at all data collection points except after the emotional coaching weekend.
The improvement from baseline to after the coaching weekend was an index of 7.0, representing an
18% reduction in behavioural difficulties. The coaching weekend alone reduced behavioural
difficulties by 28%. The score at baseline was classified as ‘borderline’ but worsened to become
‘abnormal’, except after the coaching when the score was ‘normal’.
Strengths and difficulties score
39
Figure 98: Danielle's strengths and difficulties
score over the course of the project
34
29
24
19
14
9
Baseline Wild Camping
End
Pre coachingPost coaching
Note: A higher score= more behavioural difficulties
Danielle created a shield at the start and end of her time on the project. At the start of the project
she was not positive, cared for other people rather than herself and felt pretty low. She also felt that
people took advantage of her, which she did not want. In the future she hoped to perform, see her
family and get a house. On her second shield Danielle had a much more positive view of herself,
writing that she felt she was loving; funny and bubbly and that other people also felt so. She learned
to put herself before others and have a more positive outlook on life.
124
University of Essex, 2013
Danielle’s first shield
Danielle’s second shield
8.8 Case Study Key Findings
The Essex participants responded to the TurnAround project in a number of different ways. Overall:
Tom increased his nature experience score and also improved his self-esteem and well-being,
with well-being moving from ‘low’ to ‘high’ over the course of his involvement in the project;
125
University of Essex, 2013
Richard improved his hope, well-being and self-esteem scores, with the hope score moving to
above the average value by the end of his time on the project;
Louise improved her hope, nature experience and well-being scores over her time in the project,
with the hope score increasing to above the average score by the end of her involvement and
well-being moving from ‘low’ to ‘high’. Louise also improved her self-esteem and reduced her
behavioural difficulties, with the score moving from ‘abnormal’ to ‘normal’;
Rachel improved her nature experience, self-esteem, well-being and hope scores with the hope
score being above the average at the end of her involvement in the project and the well-being
score moving from ‘low’ to ‘average’;
Andrew improved his well-being and self-esteem and also reduced his behavioural difficulties
with the score moving from ‘abnormal’ at the start of his involvement to ‘normal’ at the end;
Nicola improved her hope, nature experience and well-being scores over the course of her
involvement in the project;
Danielle increased her hope and nature experience score and also improved her self-esteem and
well-being. The well-being score moved from ‘low’ to ‘high’. Danielle’s behavioural difficulties
score also reduced, with the score moving from ‘borderline’ to ‘normal’ by the end of her
involvement in the project.
126
University of Essex, 2013
9. Comparing Outcomes from the Four TurnAround Phases
Self-esteem has been consistently assessed in all four phases of TurnAround, as low self-esteem has
been strongly linked to anti-social behaviour. A comparative analysis has therefore been performed
on this data. For the purposes of this comparison the Essex and Hackney group data is combined.
Self-esteem was assessed pre- and post- the first wilderness trail in all four phases. Self-esteem was
also assessed 3 months after the wilderness trial in all four phases. However for TA4 only half of the
participants (Essex group) completed the questionnaire three months after the trail; two analyses
have therefore been performed. One analysis was done on pre- and post- trail data and one on preand post-trail data with the 3 month follow-up.
A mixed ANOVA was used to compare self-esteem scores before and after the wilderness trail in the
four TurnAround phases. The ANOVA revealed a significant main effect for pre- to post- the
wilderness trail (F(1,19)= 6.388; P<0.05), meaning that irrespective of which TurnAround phase
participants were in, their self-esteem improved (Figure 99). There was no significant difference
between the four phases of TurnAround (P>0.05) and no interaction effect (P>0.05), indicating that
changes in self-esteem were similar across all TurnAround phases.
40
Figure 99: Pre and post wilderness trail selfesteem scores over the four TurnAround phases
Pre trail
35
*
Self-esteem score
Post Trail
30
25
20
15
TA1
TA2
TA3
TA4
Note: A higher score= better self-esteem, * indicates a significant difference between pre and post self-esteem
scores (P<0.05).
To analyse changes over the three time points and between the four TurnAround phases, a mixed
ANOVA was also performed. Analysis revealed a significant effect for time (F(2,22)= 5.50; P<0.05),
with scores increasing over the course of the project irrespective of which TurnAround group
127
University of Essex, 2013
participants were in (Figure 100). There was no significant difference between the four phases of TA
(P>0.05), indicating similar changes over time in all phases. Over four years the TurnAround project
has consistently improved participants’ self-esteem. Very few studies compare self-esteem over a
long term period or between projects; the data presented therefore provides novel information in
relation to interventions aimed at improving self-esteem.
31
Figure 100: Changes in Self-esteem in the Four
Phases of TurnAround
Self-esteem score
29
27
TA1
25
TA2
TA3
23
TA4
21
19
17
Pre Trail
Post Trail
Month 3
Note: A higher score= better self-esteem
128
University of Essex, 2013
10. Overall Key Findings
Group Key Findings
In the Hackney group there were 14% improvements in well-being, 4% improvements in selfesteem and 4% increases in pro-social behaviour over the course of the project;
There were also 3% reductions in emotional symptoms, a 5% reduction in conduct problems,
hyperactivity problems reduced by 25% and overall behavioural difficulties reduced by 8%;
The wilderness trail increased Hackney participants’ hope that they could meet their goals by
8%, experience and desire to be out in nature by 2% and self-esteem by 20%;
In the Essex group there were 28% improvements in participants hope that they could meet
their goals, 7% increases in participants’ desire to be in nature and 10% improvements in selfesteem. There were also significant improvements in well-being by 43% over the course of the
project.
Emotional symptoms , peer problems and hyperactivity reduced by 17%, 19% and 16%
respectively, whilst pro-social behaviour increased by 10% and overall behavioural difficulties
reduced by 10%.
The wilderness trail to Scotland improved Essex participants’ hope that they could meet their
goals by 7%, nature experience by 12% and self-esteem by 14%;
The emotional coaching weekend also improved Essex participants’ hope that they could meet
their goals by 31% and desire to be in nature by 3%, whilst also leading to 33% improvements in
well-being and reducing emotional symptoms, conduction problems, peer problems and total
behavioural difficulties by 20%, 13%, 16% and 25% respectively.
Individual Key Findings
Individual experiences of the project varied between participants;
Over the time that they were involved in the project, improvements in hope were experienced
by Sam, Jodie and Charlie from the Hackney group;
Sam, John and Charlie from the Hackney group also improved their self-esteem during their
time on the project, whilst John increased his desire to be in nature;
John and Jodie also enhanced their well-being, whilst Sam and Jodie saw a reduction in the
number of behavioural difficulties they were experiencing;
Both Danielle and Louise from the Essex group experienced improvements in all assessed
parameters over their time in the project;
All Essex participants improved their well-being over their time on the TurnAround project;
129
University of Essex, 2013
Additionally Richard, Rachel, Danielle, Louise and Nicola improved their hope that they could
meet their goals;
Desire to be out in nature increased in Tom, Rachel and Nicola, whilst Andrew, Louise and
Danielle reduced their behavioural difficulties.
Self-esteem improved in Tom, Rachel, Louise, Richard, Andrew and Danielle.
130
University of Essex, 2013
11. Conclusions
The aim of the TurnAround 4 project was to enable vulnerable young people to make positive
changes in their lives through engagement in nature based activities. The project successfully
engaged young people at ‘risk’ of anti-social behaviour, crime or school exclusion who were suffering
from issues such as low self-esteem and self-confidence, a lack of trust, drug and alcohol abuse and
were in need of a strong support network.
The wilderness trail at the start of the programme was a fundamental part of the programme,
designed to encourage the young people to start making changes to their previously destructive
behaviour. It set the foundation for all the work to come and separated the young people from the
negative influences in their lives. For the Hackney group, the trail led to an 8% improvement in hope,
a 20% improvement in self-esteem and 2% increase in nature experience. In the Essex group the trail
improved hope by 7%, nature experience by 12% and self-esteem by 14%. Participants enjoyed the
experience of the trail and commented that they liked meeting new people, camping, seeing sights
and making new friends. It also gave the participants’ time to reflect on their lives and behaviour and
think about what they would like to change when they returned home.
Due to low participant numbers for the Hackney group it was not possible to track changes in the
measured parameters over time. However as can be seen in the case study section, individual scores
tended to fluctuate over the programme, with improvements occurring at different time points
depending on participants individual project attendance levels. In the Essex group scores could
however be compared over the course of the project. Improvements in all parameters took place,
with hope improving by 28%, nature experience by 17%, well-being by 43%, self-esteem by 10% and
behavioural problems by 10% from the start to end of the project. The biggest improvements
occurred for well-being, where scores significantly improved and 60% of participants experienced
improvements so significant that they completely altered their well-being classification.
Several of the Essex participants also attended an additional weekend, two months after the end of
the project. This weekend was designed to help young people more effectively deal with their
emotions and in particular past issues that are holding them back in life. This weekend was a new
addition to the TurnAround programme of activities and successfully led to improvements in hope,
nature experience, well-being and behaviour. The most significant improvement occurred for wellbeing, whereby more participants’ well-being was classified as ‘high’ as opposed to ‘low’.
Participants commented that the emotional coaching weekend helped them to realise how to “deal
131
University of Essex, 2013
better with situations” and think about how their actions are affecting other people. At both the
wilderness trail and emotional coaching weekend questionnaires for hope, self-esteem and nature
experience were completed. The results indicate that the emotional coaching weekend was actually
more effective than the wilderness trail at improving both self-esteem and hope. Thus, the
emotional coaching weekend seemed to be an effective addition to TurnAround which participants
found useful and received great benefit from. It would be beneficial for the emotional coaching to
be incorporated into future TurnAround phases.
In addition to promoting improvements in wellbeing, self-esteem, behaviour, nature experience
and hope of meeting goals, the TurnAround project
also helped participants’ to make new friends,
develop a variety of new skills and develop
communication, confidence, social skills and the
ability to adapt their behaviour and make positive
changes
in
their
lives.
Through
mentoring
participants could seek advice and support on a
variety of issues and develop potential routes for
employment and education. In fact, several mentors
successfully helped their mentee to get enrolled on a course or secure employment. Through their
time on the project participants learnt to communicate with others and developed a sense of
achievement from successfully engaging in a variety of activities. The findings of this programme
indicate that wilderness programmes may be a successful tool for addressing the growing number of
young people at ‘risk’ of crime and anti-social behaviour and should therefore be considered as an
alternative option to strategies such as discipline, deterrence, surveillance or imprisonment. In fact,
compared to imprisonment costs which vary from £60,000-£120,000 per person per year, the
TurnAround project which only costs £7,000 per participant, represents a significant saving to the UK
economy.
132
University of Essex, 2013
11. References
1. Peacock J, Hine R and Pretty J. (2008). The TurnAround 2007 Project. Report for the Wilderness
Foundation by University of Essex.
2. Barton J, Hine R and Pretty J. (2010). The TurnAround Project- Phase 2. Follow on from the
TurnAround 2007 Project- Phase 1. Report for the Wilderness Foundation by University of Essex.
3. Wood C, Bragg R, Pretty J and Barton J. (2012). The TurnAround Project- Phase 3. Report for the
Wilderness Foundation by the University of Essex.
4. Home Office (2012). An estimate of youth crime in England and Wales. Police recorded crime
committed by young people in 2009/2010. Report by the Home Office.
5. Home Office (2013). Youth Justice Statistics 2011/12. England and Wales. Report by the Home
Office.
6. The Princes Trust (2010). The cost of exclusion: Counting the cost of Youth disadvantage in the
UK.
7. Department for Education (2010). Prevention and reduction: A review of strategies for
intervening early to prevent or reduce youth crime and anti-social behaviour. Centre for
Analysis of Youth Transitions.
8. Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Anti-social Behaviour (2010). Time for a fresh
start: The report of the Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Antisocial Behaviour.
9. Institute for the Study of Civil Society (2010). Youth Crime in England and Wales. Website:
http://www.civitas.org.uk/crime/factsheet-youthoffending.pdf. Last accessed 27/03/13.
10. Department for Education (2012). Permanent and fixed period exclusions from schools and
exclusion appeals in England, 2010/2011. National Statistics.
11. Centre for Juvenile Justice Reform (2010). Improving the effectiveness of Juvenile Justice
Reforms: A new perspective on evidence based practice. Centre for Juvenile Justice Reform.
12. Conner
M.
(2009).
What
is
Wilderness
Therapy?
Princeton
Online
Article:
http://www.princetonol.com/summercamps/polArticles.cfm?doc_id=1175
13. Wilson, J. and Lipsey, M. (2009). Wilderness challenge programs for delinquent youth: a metaanalysis of outcome evaluations. Evaluation and Program Planning, 23(1): 1-12.
14. Snyder C, Sympson S, Ybasco F, Borders T, Babyak M and Higgins R (1996). Development and
Validation of the State Hope Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(2): 321-335
15. Snyder C, Hoza B, Pelham W, Rapoff M, Ware L, Danovsky M, Highberger L, Rubinstein H and
Stahl K. (1997). The Development and Validation of the Children’s Hope Scale. Journal of
Paediatric Psychology, 22(3): 399-421.
133
University of Essex, 2013
16. Nisbet E, Zelenski J and Murphy S. (2009). The Nature Relatedness Scale: Linking individual’s
connection with nature to environmental concern and behaviour. Environment and Behaviour,
41: 715-740
17. Nisbet E and Zelenski J. (2011). Happiness in in our nature: Exploring Nature Relatedness as a
contributor to subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12: 303-322.
18. DEFRA (2007). Sustainable development indicators in your pocket: An update of the UK
government strategy indicators. London: DEFRA.
19. Tennant R, Hiller L, Fishwick H, Platt S, Joseph S and Weich S. (2007). The Warwick Edinburgh
Mental Well-being Scale: Development and UK validation. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes,
5:63
20. Stewart-Brown S and Janmohamed K (2008). Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale. User
guide. Version 1.
21. Clarke A, Friede T, Putz R, Ashdown J, Martin S, Blake A, Adi Y, Parkinson J, Flynn P, Platt S and
Stewart-Brown S (2011). Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale: Validated for teenage
students in England and Scotland. A mixed methods assessment. BMC Public Health, 11:487.
22. Parkinson J (2006). Measuring positive health: developing a new scale. In: Scottish executives
National Programme for Improving Mental Health and Well-being. NHS Scotland Briefing Paper.
23. Health Scotland. (2009). FAQ document. Available at:
http://www.healthscotland.com/uploads/documents/10172WEMWBS%20FAQ%20july%202009.pdf
24. Braunholtz S, Davidson S, Myant R and O’Connor R. (2007). Well? What do you think? (2006):
The third national Scottish survey of public attitudes to mental health, mental well-being and
mental
health
problems.
Scottish
Government,
Edinburgh.
Available
at:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/publications/2007/09/11092351/0
25. Rutherford L, Sharp C and Bromley C (Eds). (2012). The Scottish health survey 2011: Volume 1. A
national statistics publication for Scotland. Available at:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/09/27084018/0
26. Bagley, C. (2001). Normative data and mental health constuct validity for the Rosenberg selfesteem scale in British adolescents. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 9: 117-126.
27. Rosenberg M. (1965). Society and the Adolescent Self-image. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
University Press.
28. Rosenberg M. (1989). Society and the Adolescent Self-image. Revised Edition. Middleton, Cape
Town: Wesleyan University Press.
134
University of Essex, 2013
29. Goodman R, Meltzer H and Bailey V. (1998). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A pilot
study on the validity of the self-report version. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 7: 125130.
135